Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:49, 14 November 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

Disruptive school project?

I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.

If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.

I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• How about fixing the problem for good for the Win of all? A Wikiproject "School Projects" with good ways to proceed, sandboxes, curricula for secondary and college courses, and teacher guides? I mean, it would provide (a) a good frame in which school projects can be made good for the school and not disruptive, (b) encouragement for educators to perceive WP as a valuable resource and (c) training for future editors!

  My training in education is minimal, but I'll give whatever help might be needed; I'm sure we can summon some enthusiasm and participation from educators for this. — Coren  15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • There is such a project at Misplaced Pages:School and university projects, but it only works if instructors know about it and follow the suggestions. In this case, it looks like guidance about WP was lacking and students are unfamiliar with WP policies and guidelines. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing this is a course in media studies. Some of the hardest hit articles are Broadcasting. Social aspects of television, Telegraphy, Social determinism, and Technological determinism if anyone wants to do some clean-up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Might it be a good idea to leave a message on each of these students' talk pages asking them to get their instructor to look at WP:SUP? Better if he does that late than never. JohnCD (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I hope jbmurray won't mind (especially as I don't think it's finished), but his essay at User:Jbmurray/Advice should be required reading for all educators who want to integrate Misplaced Pages into their teaching. EyeSerene 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this project arguably even more disrruptive that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Global Economics from Marshall University, which was discussed at length on ANI in May. This one involves multiple inappropriate edits in multiple exisiting articles with intervening proper edits by others which makes reversion and clean-up very messy. Several of them edit war as well. At least the Marshall project had a central page and identified themselves so we could get in touch with them. This lot are all anonymous and there are now literally dozens of them. I've left messages on the talk pages of quite a few of them asking them to let their instructor know about this thread and Misplaced Pages:School and university projects. I don't know how effective it will be. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The exact same thing happened with what looks like the same university last year, with similar amounts of less than ideal editing: see here. The instructor was contacted last time, but it doesn't seem to have helped. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Hopefully they will see it and get in touch. If the disruption gets out of hand, I reluctantly suggest that the alternative is to start issuing temporary blocks until someone talks to us. I hate to paint Misplaced Pages as an unwelcoming place, but we can't forever be doing damage control for these school assignments. EyeSerene 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of what they've done seems to have been tidied up. The article Hacker ethic has been considerably expanded with, to my mind, too much detail and too many explanations and references. I think the previous version of 23 October is a better article, but rather than just revert, I have made a proposal to do so on the talk page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Identification

The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.

Looking at the history of internet activism reveals that this is a problem that has been extant for more than 1 year. Around October 2007, a whole load of users whose names all ended in "MAS 214" edited that article. There are are more at around the same time in the revision history of broadcasting. There are yet more at around the same time in the revision history of photography. There are so many, in fact, that I've had to refactor them out of this text and put them in a table. MAS 214 was another of Dr Meikle's courses.

It appears that Dr Meikle is anually setting xyr students a task of editing Misplaced Pages. You can even read the instructions that the students were given for choosing their account names at User:Wumas214. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just an assignment where we edit three wikipedia entries that are relevant to issues discussed in MAS229 (it could just be a few sentences per entry). All entries would be correct, as they are coming from sources approved by the MAS229 course (hopefully they have been cited as needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapleymas229 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm really uncomfortable listing all these accounts in a table on the main page of WP:ANI. Many of those names appear to consist of first and last names; putting them in a table listing the specific class they are taking at a specific university essentially "outs" people that may have an expectation of privacy here. I've removed the table; it may or may not be appropriate to put that table somewhere else, I'm not quite sure, but I request a discussion take place before it is re-added here. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No trouble barneca, you're right to err on the side of caution. The table may be useful at some point, but it's probably best if it stays out of sight for now. The thought occurs that a discussion of privacy issues should have been part of these students' preparations for their assignment... EyeSerene 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'm taking it that "G. Meikle" doesn't have a Misplaced Pages account? (Against rule one of my, yes, unfinished little essay.) Ugh. Will try to help out with this tomorrow; I'm simply too busy today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps no account, but one of his students did create an article for Graham Meikle. Perhaps if we delete it, we will get his attention. Just joking... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

How about an AfD? (Seriously - he doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF). JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That (revised) table is really disheartening :( I think that unless we can get some productive communication going, we'll need to close this project down somehow while all those articles are reviewed. Perhaps first though we should allow some time for a response - Dr. Meikle, if you read this thread via Voceditenore's messages on your students' talk pages, could we please ask you to either post here or contact one of us via talk-page/email? EyeSerene 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Meikle alerting him to this discussion and the minor controversy around his students' editing. Avruch 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I checked back here first - I just had that same thought and was looking up his email address. Thanks Avruch ;) EyeSerene 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone heard anything yet? Actually, looking at the first three articles, maybe Delicious carbuncle wasn't far off the mark. I'm not seeing anything there that meets WP:PROF... EyeSerene 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to find out who is now running this course. It must have some kind of instructor! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Failing that, I suggest an email to the head of department. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've heard back from Dr. Meikle. He no longer works for the university hosting this class (and has not for at least two years apparently). He cc'd my e-mail and his response to the course instructors for this year and last, so I will let you know when I hear from either of them. Avruch 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Meikle also requests the deletion of Graham Meikle. I'm willing to take the article to AfD in a day or two if the article does not get deleted as part of the resolution of the larger issue. Avruch 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, no issues here. I'm not sure how far we normally take subject requests for deletion when the subject is clearly notable, but I don't think that consideration applies here anyway. Btw JohnCD, I didn't see your earlier WP:PROF comment when I posted mine, so apologies for the unnecessary duplication (but we're obviously thinking on the same lines!) EyeSerene 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with an A7 deletion as well, but someone placed the tag earlier and it was removed shortly thereafter by a non-admin (I believe). I've posted a prod just in case you (barneca) decide not to delete it A7. Avruch 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not freaking out, but can we take this to AFD? Despite the subject's off-hand request, they do seem to be notable. I know this will seem pointy, but why don't we have a policy for subject-requested deletions? That's not a rhetorical question, but this isn't the thread for an answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing my request for AFD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, a response is good news at least. If we can turn this around into a productive exercise, that would be great. However, I don't want to get too optimistic just yet. EyeSerene 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• He needs to get the University to fix its web site, then. Its 2008 course handbook (linked-to above) lists him explicitly as the staff contact for these courses, and he is still listed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Media staff listing (also linked-to above). Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • He noted that the university had not updated its website (which I can believe, looking at it). The signature on his e-mail states that he is a senior lecturer at the University of Stirling. Avruch 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • When people in the world at large are affected by actions resulting from one of its courses, it's not very helpful of Macquarie University to be publishing incorrect staff contact details. ☺ I've crossed off the relevant part of the table title. I've also asked for general editor assistance in the task of review. I'm sure, by the way, that I haven't listed all of the affected articles. I didn't find all of the accounts and what articles they had touched, and new students were still creating accounts yesterday. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• There's a more general email address for the Media dept. at Macquarie University here. Probably worth a try. Their blurb says it's "Australia's Innovative University". Ahem... Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  Maybe they'd better slow down the emphasis on being "innovative" and start teaching some of their students to write coherently. I cleaned up two of the articles so far, and the writing style was positively ghastly. Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm engaged in an interesting e-mail conversation with Dr. Meikle, but I have not yet heard back from the current course instructor. Perhaps we have an Australian editor who can call? Avruch 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I just wanted to introduce myself. I am John Scannell, and I am the convenor of the subject (MAS229) that has made life difficult for some of you. First of all, I do apologise for the inconvenience, and yes, if you have to correspond about this "incident" - then don't direct your correspondence to Graham Meikle, but to me. I am now the convenor of the course, and quite frankly had no idea that this project would be considered so disruptive. As someone who values Misplaced Pages, I did not realise that the actions of the students would have created such a controversy. Yes, I did take part in the project again this year, and yes, I was aware of the problems of last year. At the beginning of the semester, I proposed that we should create our own Wiki, so as not to raise the ire of Misplaced Pages again in 2008. However, after consultation with peers and open source advocates, I thought that what we were doing was entirely within the spirit of open collaboration? My predecessor, Dr. Meikle, and myself both did our best to advise the students to treat their editing with appropriate care and concision as to make valuable contributions to a valuable resource. With the problems of last year in mind, I told them to act responsibly, and to put "quality" over "quantity", don't go in and "slash and burn", make the most appopriate edits etc...I can assure you that, as best I could, I tried to steer them in the right way. Of course, given the fact that I have 100 odd students, its hard for me to do anything else but hope they act on my advice. That said, as someone who has a very strong interest in valourising the contributions to open source culture, via Linux, via Misplaced Pages et al, I am somewhat shocked that contributions made in good faith would attract such derision. Yes, I can understand that many students, will only contribute to Misplaced Pages for this subject and may never contribute again. One hopes, that some will have enjoyed this exercise to the extent that they might be valued contributors in the future. The success of the project is based on collaboration, no? Am I being too naive here? I know that doesn't mean that its a free for all...and if the students haven't acted appropriately, I will sort them out, personally. However, I think you know, as well as I, that open source can also have its element of "exclusivity", and that newcomers need to pay their dues etc, before getting their hands dirty...which is understandable in some respects, but on the other side of the coin, only a very small number of these students had ever contemplated contributing to an open source project and this project is undertaken with the hope that some of them will value the experience enough to contribute in the future... If some of the writing is "positively ghastly", then it is constructive peer review that can assist them in becoming better writers. I mean, come on, there is poor writing all over Misplaced Pages. Again, I'm not happy about this...but none of them were acting unethically, none of them were trying to do anything other than contribute to the project AS BEST THEY CAN. So basically, what do you want to do here, keep it egalitarian, or not? Chances are, that after two years of problems surrounding this assignment, that I, personally, WON'T attempt it again. So there you go, that's 100 potential contributors (even if only a small percentage will contribute again) that you've lost. The point is, that every potential contributor has to start somewhere. You did, right? --Scannell229 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I should also add that I am so very grateful to those who DO expend so much time and effort in contributing to Misplaced Pages. Your comments, for better or worse, are actually very instructive indeed, and I will be making use of them when MAS229 reconvenes in the next couple of days. FYI, The students won't be making any further entries. The assignment is now over. --Scannell229 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

One small comment: If you're going to conduct such a large scale "experiment" or "project" on Misplaced Pages, you should notify people on Misplaced Pages, if only out of common courtesy. Enigma 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to phrase this a bit more diplomatically, but frankly I don't believe there's a diplomatic way to make this point: It's not the job of the Misplaced Pages community to teach college students how to write. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Yes, there certainly is "bad writing all over Misplaced Pages"--and we generally deal with that when we find it--but those bad writers are here under their own steam; they weren't told by an authority figure that they HAD to edit Misplaced Pages. Since you are the one who told them to do that, it's incumbent upon you to make sure their writing quality is up to snuff. If, when I was a teacher, I had created an assignment like this, I would have copied the relevant articles into an offline space, had the students make their initial edits, and vetted those edits, both for prose style and for adherence to WP policy, BEFORE allowing them to add their desired content to live article-space. Yes, that would have been a lot of work to do with a group of 100 students; however, that work has now been handed over, in the form of cleanup on dozens of articles, to the larger community of Misplaced Pages editors. In theory, the task you assigned your students is laudable; however, I feel that neither the potential pitfalls, nor the means of avoiding them, were thought through completely. Your assignment considered the aims of your course and of the students taking it; however, it doesn't quite seem that anyone considered whether those aims meshed with the more-general aims of Misplaced Pages. Since the assignment is now over, the issues raised here are now moot, but please consider them while developing similar tasks in the future. Thank you. GJC You were saying? 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that puts it very well. As a community we are pretty obliging, and if we're forewarned about this sort of thing we're only too happy to help out. We've had some incredibly successful academic projects, (see WP:MMM, WP:NRG and WP:WAPB; latter two still ongoing) but they've only worked so well because they were designed to integrate with Misplaced Pages's editing and article policies, and the teachers and lecturers concerned ensured both they and their students were operating together with the Misplaced Pages community. Our purpose here, as GJC has said, is to build an encyclopedia; advocating an open-source philosophy is almost an incidental by-product. Misplaced Pages can be successfully used as a educational tool (as shown by the projects I've mentioned above) but only in very specific ways, and only as long as an improvement in article content - in line with Misplaced Pages policies - is the result. We have no wish to deter you from contributing in the future, but please consider following the advice on User:Jbmurray/Advice and some of the other links hereabouts, and giving us some warning next time ;) EyeSerene 23:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, consider me admonished. This was the first time that I took over this course project, so there are things that I would absolutely do differently if I had a chance to do it again. At least I now know who to liase with! Again, I apologise for any disruption to your work.--Scannell229 (talk) 11:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that while zealous moderation has its advantages, in this case it's perhaps a little too zealous. I've no doubt that the majority of the information added by MAS229 students was largely unnecessary - one of the problems with assigning students a compulsory editing task on a small range of subjects - but there may have been, in the spirit of Misplaced Pages, valuable additions made to subjects. While it's unfortunate the task of clean-up falls to Misplaced Pages's editors, is this not just a drop in the proverbial ocean of edits made per day? I don't know why this rated several pages of discussion - apart from the fact that all students had names ending in 214 or 229, there would be no way of knowing whether this was a class project or a series of independent edits. This doesn't sit particularly well with the collaborative, open-source nature of Misplaced Pages in my opinion.--CsimpsonMAS229 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• This isn't really zealous moderation. Some volunteers (That's all we are here) notices a trend in article editing and connected the dots. We normally welcome school projects but since the people editing in them are not able to learn how wikipedia works at their own pace we hope to catch large groups before they start down a particular path. The points made above about students being compelled to write something versus volunteers adding a note here and there is instrumental. I am not constrained by a course assignment in my editing. Consequently, I am not compelled to edit History of the Australian Army, a subject of which I know little, and add possibly unhelpful changes. Also, since there is only one of me, the volume of changes I can make is small. For a class of a dozen or more students, the volume of changes they may make is large. And since it the changes they make are in good faith, we can't just (and editors would never be expected to) revert the changes on sight. Each one has to be looked at and determine if it can be modified to improve the article. Again, these are volunteers doing this with limited time and varied interest. When faced with a project like this one, it can be hard to deal with the changes made without coming to a noticeboard like this one. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal?

I realise that a formal proposal should go elsewhere but it might be opportune to float it briefly here first:

Perhaps the Create account page could have one more field as follows:

Is this account being created as part of an organised study or training activity: Yes/No.

If No then there is no difference form now.

If Yes then a form is presented asking for such things as Name/identifier of course, organising institution, course supervisor's wiki account. A user page for the new account is template preloaded with the above wiki linked details, with a reading list of instructions, guidelines and essays on wikipedia as the subject of a course.

While this might not eliminate all such problems, it might stop the vast majority of them.

Peet Ern (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Will never fly, just FYI. Protonk (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  I am not holding my breath either, but it seems that wikipedia is becoming a learning subject itself more and more, people sometimes asking on the Help desk about such, etc. Such an "entry point" probably needs to be somewhere, perhaps on the left "menu contents bar" is another place. Do you have any particular reasons why no flying - my talk page is fine if you prefer. Peet Ern (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  It'd require a MediaWiki update to change the sign-up process, for one thing. For another, people could just simply skip it. Stifle (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• It needn't be as complicated as an extra step. Just adding some text to what's already on account creation page would help. e.g.

School and college projects

If you are creating an account as part of a school or university project, please read Misplaced Pages:School and university projects first.

Perhaps this is something for Village Pump proposals? Voceditenore (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, since a lack of awareness of the help available (and Misplaced Pages's editing protocols) seems to be the real issue. EyeSerene 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Split

This entire discussion needs to be split off onto a different page so that discussions, and work, can continue unhindered. Right now there's the possibility of archival.— Dædαlus /_Improve 22:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ACORN again. This needs to finally stop.

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

Overview

Several accounts that have repeatedly come up as likely socks, disruptive, and abusive, and have acquired histories of blocks for bad behavior, have descended upon the ACORN article again. The accounts in question are:

• WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kossack4Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (recently off a long-term topic ban, and immediately back on the topic he was banned from)
• 300wackerdrive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These accounts have long since drained all of their allotment of assumed good faith. They have been consistent, persistent, abusive single-purpose accounts, "vote" in a group together (whenever they're not blocked), attack other editors endlessly, and when their behavior finally provokes harsh responses from other editors, they immediately hide behind WP:CIVIL. This is all on a talk page for an article that is currently locked. They are abusive, and useful discussions of content have become impossible. And while proving sockpuppetry without a shadow of a doubt is impossible due to the use of proxy and dynamic IP addresses, there is strong circumstantial evidence of it.

Addendum (by LotLE×talk): Gooddamon's report is accurate and helpful. I would add that Curious bystander is also almost certainly a sockpuppet here, who shows up exactly when WorkerBee7/Kossack4Truth gets blocked (here and earlier on various Obama articles); Marx0728 is, I think, probably a distinct person, but one obviously in off-wiki correspondence with the other accounts and hence perhaps a meat puppet.

• Curious bystander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marx0728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evidence

First, the history. I would like to direct administrative attention to the long sequence of incident reports about each user.

1. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive488#Personal_attacks_and_disruption_by_WorkerBee74 - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked for 21 days. Note my comment near the end, with additional evidence of yet another sock.
2. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive486#SPAs_edit_warring_on_ACORN_article - Result: WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive blocked. 300wackerdrive was blocked for 24 hours, while WorkerBee74 was blocked for a week.
3. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 - Suspected sockpuppetry. Closing admin said: "Socking looks likely, but I'm not going to block anyone for month-old violations."
4. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 (2nd nomination) - Suspected sockpuppetry. While the results were inconclusive due to the aforementioned IP address issues, administrators suggested filing an incident report if abusive behavior persisted. This is that incident report.
5. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Once_again:_topic_ban_of_user:Kossack4Truth_from_Obama_pages_for_review - Result: Topic ban for Kossack4Truth, which may or may not have just expired (I'm honestly not sure).
6. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive454#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page_again - Result: WorkerBee74 basically told to cut it out.
7. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive445#User:Kossack4Truth_disruption_on_the_Barack_Obama_talk_page - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 72 hours, 4 month community ban initially brought up.
8. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive444#WorkerBee74_again - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked for a week.
9. Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/WorkerBee74 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kossack4Truth - Checkusers that were inconclusive, but contained evidence of use of similar IP addresses.
10. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#WorkerBee74_on_Obama_page.2C_yet_again - No result that I could see, but obvious report of edit warring.
11. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440#Repeated_incivility_by_User:WorkerBee74_.28also_a_SPA.29 - Incivility.
12. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 - Concerns of sockpuppetry
13. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive75#User:WorkerBee74_reported_by_User:Brothejr_.28Result:_72_hours.29 - Result: WorkerBee74 blocked 72 hours
14. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive74#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_71.130.194.163_.28talk.29_.28Result:_48_hour_block_.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 48 hours
15. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive81#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Grsz11_.28Result:_4_days.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 4 days
16. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive77#User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_reported_by_User:Kossack4Truth_.28Result:_No_violation_.29 - An example of one of many punitive incident reports filed by this group of editors against other editors in good standing.
17. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive73#User:Kossack4Truth_reported_by_User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters_.28Result:_blocked_24_hours.29 - Result: Kossack4Truth blocked 24 hours. I strongly suspect the bad report against Lulu of the Lotus Eaters resulted from this report.

In the last few days, all three accounts have descended upon the ACORN article, and prematurely declared consensus for a new version of a section of text. It started with Kossack4Truth's laughable re-entry to the article, followed immediately with an attack on other editors as "bogus" and "tendentious". Shortly thereafter, he "transcluded" WorkerBee74's vote of support for the text, as if the fact that WorkerBee74 is currently blocked makes no difference. Shortly thereafter, this editor just back from topic-ban decides consensus has been achieved, and requests the edit be incorporated into the article by an admin.

Now, along comes 300wackerdrive, fresh off a block, immediately vote-stacking. It degenerated from there.

These three editors are single-purpose, POV pushing accounts. They are probably socks, though possibly meatpuppets as well. They have long since passed the point where any one of them should have been banned for their behavior, regardless of the behavior of both other accounts. Together, they make editing an exhausting and unproductive endeavor. --GoodDamon 19:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional socks: Since Curious bystander and Marx0728 are now confirmed socks, I would like to formally add them to this report. --GoodDamon 18:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I'm just trying to learn from more experienced editors. When I saw Wikidemon closing discussion threads abruptly at Talk:Barack Obama, I did the same. When I saw other editors moving comments around at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, it occurred to me that an admin who previously had no experience with the page may respond to the {{editprotected}} notice. So I started moving comments to make it easier for an unfamiliar admin to determine whether consensus has been reached. It just made sense to me. I would like to see how I'm "vote stacking," or making personal attacks, or doing any of the other things that GoodDamon has accused me of doing. GoodDamon, please post diffs that support this accusation, or apologize. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, "Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?" GoodDamon has already made that suggestion on WB's User Talk page. I'm sure that some who read this are getting tired of seeing the same names on all of these incident reports. I encourage you to fight the urge to "just ban them all" and examine the evidence. Remember that WP:SSP says, "Meatpuppets are not regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other." The editors that LotLE and GoodDamon are complaining about are regular Wikipedians who happen to agree with each other. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The above comment by 209.221.240.193 is a confirmed sock of banned user BryanfromPalatine whose extensive career can be read about here ]. It may be of interest to people who know more than me about these matters. The sock notice on that IP userpage was recently removed. I put it back. Someone using that IP was very angry at me on that talk page for restoring it. This IP seems well versed with the goings on of the Acorn talk page despite never having edited there. regardsBali ultimate (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Very angry"? A little bit annoyed, perhaps. The sock notice is from December 2006, and this is an IP address shared by over 17,000 people, so it does seem inappropriate to me. A review of the many links above that GoodDamon has posted, and the recent editing history of the article Talk page and your User Talk pages, reveals that the people he complains about have been engaged in content disputes not only with him and with LotLE, but also with you. So my earlier remark about spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failing to mention mitigating evidence applies to you as well. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I had been wondering about these accounts' possible relationship to BryanFromPalatine. I wouldn't be too surprised if 300wacker, WorkerBee74, and K4T were all BryanFromPalatine socks; even if they aren't, each account has run afoul of many policies, including WP:BATTLE, and I see no reason to keep any of them around. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that 300wacker and K4T have recently returned from blocks, and WB is currently blocked. If any of you can post any diffs from any of them since returning from their blocks that violate Misplaced Pages policy, then I'd support indef blocks for those offenders. But when following K4T's contribs around, I happened to find this little gem at User talk:MastCell by an uninvolved admin, User:EdJohnston: "Nobody asked my opinion, but since ACORN is still full-protected until 15 November, I don't see any urgency. Though Kossack4Truth has shown up on the article's talk page, due to the protection he can't do anything to the article. My personal opinion is that further misbehavior by K4T should lead to an indef. Since returning from his block all he has done is express his curiously emphatic views at the ACORN talk page, and make a few innocuous edits here and there." With that unbiased and uninvolved admin's opinion in hand, let's insist on proof of real policy violations before we go off blocking people. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 22:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edjohnston made that comment on November 9th, the day K4T's block ended. Since, on the Acorn talk page, k4t has acted on behalf of banned user (and suspected related sock) workerbee; has moved around other editors comments in, to me at least, a confusing manner (he also doesn't leave edit summaries); he has declared consensus prematurely, and sought insertion of contested information into the article by admins despite being told there was in fact no consensus; refered to the arguments of those disagreeing as "being shot down in flames"; characterized the arguments of others in a content dispute as "bogus" and "tendentious;" called those who pointed out he may be in violation of his Obama-related article topic ban as "dicks;" said he was at the talk page to rescue the article from "its current fucked up condition;" characterizes wording prefered by other editors as "weaseling" and "parsing;" and described other editors efforts as "tendentious" at least 5 separate times in one talk page commentary alone. Again, that's in two days alone. He's been a busy boy.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to sit this one out so I'll just add this diff without comment for now. Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikidemon, I confess. I was advising people having disputes with you to "Be extremely polite and use Misplaced Pages policies against" you. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You were advising an editor on the verge of a block for edit warring, incivility, etc. - in a thread about his disruption of the Obama talk page - to "use Misplaced Pages policies against them" and contact you off-Wiki about it. Them, being "this group of editors", a cabal who you imagine to be conspiring by email "to file complaints and get us blocked and topic banned" --i.e. me. That looks like a violation of the Obama topic ban, and also canvassing someone to wikigame.Wikidemon (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite, and encouraging someone on the verge of a block to obey the rules and be polite. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By mucking about Barack Obama in violation of a topic ban to recruit an editor to do battle against me? Combined with your comments below, and directly to that editor, regarding my supposedly conspiring against you, I don't think so.Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I see that Kossack4truth has edited the Talk page of ACORN 22 times in the last two days, and is now trying to declare victory in a poll where the count of votes may influence the outcome of an {{editprotected}} request. He has been moving comments around on the Talk page. My opinion has changed, and I would now Support a topic ban of K4T from both the ACORN article and its Talk page. Since we are still not clear whether he is a sock, and he creates a large POV wake wherever he goes, an extremely careful participation on Talk would be excused. No way is this behavior acceptable. I assume that K4T's interest in ACORN is due to the Obama connection, but that would be tolerable if he stayed within limits. He has not. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now noticing that I had proposed any further misbehavior should result in an indef, and this is misbehavior, I now recommend an indef block for User:Kossack4Truth. (He is one of those 'last chance' guys, where people had proposed to offer him one more chance. I think he just used it up). EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I say something, Ed? Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(<--) There is really no single diff I can post regarding these 5 editors (or 1 editor, who knows!). All I can say is if anyone spends any amount of time on the articles talk page...a clear pattern becomes plainly visible: POV pushing, vote stacking, comment moving extravaganza and pretty much every one of the accounts has an extensive block history for abusiveness. I recommend introducing Blocky McBlockerson, 7 days minimum, on each one. That way, consensus will be allowed time to develop at the least. In the mean time, I have my own problems on the Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 page. These guys just come out of the woodwork somehow... Digital 00:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has already been allowed an enormous amount of time to develop for this proposed edit: 11 days. Wikidemon has !voted in favor of it. DigitalNinja !voted in favor of it. GoodDamon also !voted in favor of it at first. It had a 9-3 majority until GoodDamon changed his !vote. As I said on the article Talk page, I've never seen an edit that was more thoroughly discussed, vetted, masticated and ruminated. Three pages of archives have been created to accommodate this discussion of One. Freakin. Edit. What we have here is two editors, LotLE and Bali ultimate, who are obstructing the formation of consensus on the page. Constant baiting and provocation, in the form of false accusations of sockpuppetry, false charges of misrepresentation of sources, nitpicking about the tense of verbs in a quotation from a reliable source (for the love of Gaia), and generally mean-spirited and uncooperative behavior are their hallmark.

On the Talk page of a far more high-profile article with dozens of participants, Wikidemon has moved entire sections around, closing and archiving discussions prematurely. No repercussions for Wikidemon. I'm just trying to move the process along by following his example. Regarding the use of the word "dicks," I was directing these editors' attention to WP:DBAD, which is enshrined in Misplaced Pages lore. (Notice how Bali ultimate mentioned "dicks" without mentioning WP:DBAD. "Spin-doctoring, exaggeration and failure to mention mitigating circumstances." Spot on, I'd say.)

I transcluded WB74's !vote because, months ago, User:Noroton was kind enough to transclude mine. There were no objections at that time.

Otherwise, I have consistently referred to edits, not editors, unlike the complaining editors here who are going out of their way to provoke us. I will also point out that MastCell, the admin who has volunteered as parole officer on this topic ban, specifically authorized me to edit ACORN; and despite my repeated posting of MastCell's authorizing diff on the article's Talk page, these people relentlessly repeated that I had no right to edit there. Consider the poisonous environment these people have created. Kossack4Truth (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, brother. Not again. It always ends up with some accusation against me for being on troll patrol. Wikidemon (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just following your good example, Wikidemon. You handle the Talk page at another article with a forklift and people seem to love you for it. You're an experienced editor. What better goal in my Misplaced Pages existence could I have, than to model my Talk page management skills after yours? Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. All this sound and fury, but the edit histories of these accounts, and their endlessly repetitious behavior, speak for themselves. I don't see a need, at least for myself, to respond any further to these attempts to turn this incident report in on itself. --GoodDamon 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry confirmed

• Note Checkuser results show Curious bystander and Marx0728 are the same person but probably different from the others, although from the same city. 300wackerdrive edits exclusively from a workplace previously associated with BryanfromPalatine; Kossack4Truth edits exclusively from a residential IP in the same city, and WorkerBee74 edits exclusively from a Sprint PCS mobile device of some kind. Thatcher 12:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

could someone notify these "users" on their talk pages or put notices up on their userpages? Not sure of the ettiquitte on this myself.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. If you review the ACORN talk page, 300wackerdrive supports Marx0728's proposals with near-exclusivity, as does Kossack4Truth. The Curious bystander sock has recently appeared there to vote-stack. Purely from the fact that Marx0728 and Curious bystander are now known to be the same person and being used to support each other, both of those accounts should be blocked immediately. Now, I've noticed that Kossack4Truth doesn't seem to edit at the same time of day as Marx0728. Again, I can only go on behavioral patterns and editing history, but it seems pretty obvious that Kossack4Truth is the account the puppetmaster uses while at home. I'm new to this BryanfromPalatine character, but if the behavioral patterns are the same, then we're probably dealing with a puppetmaster who has grown savvy enough to work some accounts from home, some from work, and some from his mobile device. Sigh... Seems like so much work just to push a POV onto an online encyclopedia. --GoodDamon 14:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, you're right, this looks totally like a savvy sockmaster, specially the one editing only from a mobile device (he can afford an internet-enabled device and connection, where editing is imcomfortable, but he can't afford a internet-enabled PC where typing and viewing pages is massively easier? Not even an internet café once in a while? Seriously? Lol) and the non-overlapping of home/work connections. This, plus the WP:DUCK argument, plus the POV disruption, should be enough to block all 5 of them. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

When I think about the literally thousands of hours in talk page discussions going over and over the same contentious material, I'm frankly disgusted if it turns out that this was caused by a group of collaborating socks and meats. What a terrible waste. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

My favorite aspects of these high-profile AN/I's are:

1. abusive editors accuse other editors of not assuming good faith.
2. abusive editors accuse regular editors of "trolling" them.
3. abusive editors turn out to be socks.
4. Before the end of it, Wikidemon's name gets dragged into the situation; regardless if he was involved or not.
5. Blocky McBlockerson comes out to play and life resumes as normal for a few short days.

It would really be nice to simply block these troublesome accounts. It's impossible to build a good article when their around pushing their agenda. In this case, I think ignore all rules applies towards pro-actively blocking all their/his accounts for the good of the project, it's editors, and the articles hindered from being approved. Digital 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, all 5 accounts need to be blocked for any movement forward in this articles to take place IMO, and the fact they all have strong evidence of being socks. Digital 14:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get too hasty here. First, my name isn't Bryan. Second, the editing trails of CB and Marx are entirely separate with the sole exception of ACORN. Marx edits random articles apparently, while CB focuses on gay and lesbian issues. I think they are more likely separate people with the same IP address, possibly a university or public library such as the Chicago library system. The accounts were created weeks apart, and stayed on their separate editing trails for several months before their paths finally crossed at ACORN, so they're not meatpuppets either. By the way, the IP address edits above were from my supervisor and his name isn't Bryan, either, but his comment that over 17,000 people share this IP address is accurate. Third, looking at the Bryan edit history, he showed an inordinate amount of interest in Free Republic, which none of us have touched, and no interest in Barack Obama, gay and lesbian issues, or ACORN. All are encouraged to look at the differences. It's true we all appear to be from the Chicago area which may explain why we're interested in Barack Obama. About 10 million other people are also from the Chicago area. Are you going to block all of them pro-actively? 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If they make the same POV pushing, vote-stacking, and WP:BATTLEing that you guys did, then, yes. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Look, I'm not saying I disagree with your positions, I actually do agree (well, to a more neutral extent). However, AN/I is expressly designed to comment on editors. You know that yourself, the Marx guys, CB, and WB74 have all been extremely relentless. The proper thing to do isn't to beat your point into the ground then get uncivil and/or make consensus impossible. Instead, write out a compromise, then the other team will counter, and re-compromise. Eventually, you've learned a little more about their positions, and they've agreed to something you can live with. I constantly have disagreements with editors (especially GoodDamon), but I also respect them and their positions, which makes them, by nature, more willing to listen to my positions and vice versa. Kindness, civility, and less emotion towards the subject is the fastest path to consensus and wikihappiness.

I only recommended a 7 day block (expect for WB74, who is already on a 21 day block...don't know what to do about him), regardless the outcome I think you should consider working on a few non-political articles (or better yet, create some of your own) and even asking the folks your having disagreements with for help. That way, they can see the good faith you show and before you know it some mutual respect might even develop. Lastly, WB74 has expressed his grief in not being able to comment on this AN/I via has talk page here. I personally think his block should remain as his comments here would lead to nothing but a prolonged discussion and frustration for others. Digital 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that at least. But it seems what you're saying is that we're not allowed to get into content disputes, and that if someone disagrees with us, we're just supposed to cave in because we're all from Chicago, and I happen to work for the same massive corporation as BryanFromPalantine? And whenever LotLE and Bali Ultimate get nasty, we're supposed to respond with sweetness and light? I suggest that what's missing here is civility parole for all concerned. Many of the editors commenting here appear to believe that K4T was under civility parole but, try as I might, I find no evidence whatsoever that anyone told him about it. I suggest six months' civility parole for the five editors mentioned, plus LotLE, Bali Ultimate, Scjessey and Wikidemon ... because if you impose civility parole on one side, the other side will see it as carte blanche to increase their baiting and hectoring. This civility parole is explicitly intended to prohibit any comments about any editor's conduct on any article Talk page or User Talk page, and to include, but not be limited to the terms "Obama fanboy," "Obama campaign volunteer," "cabal," "sock," "sockpuppet," or "meatpuppet." The proper venues for such complaints are this noticeboard, WP:AN3 and WP:SSP. Both sides need to tone it down. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I always get dragged into this - every time someone a report involving any of these editors they use the occasion to accuse me of nonsense and blame me for their own behavior, even in this case when I'm editing on a completely different article. Saying that they only did it because I taunted or incited them, or that things are rigged because I get away with stuff and they don't, has been such a routine over so many months it must be part of the meatpuppeting. The difference is that I and others are holding the line against disruption, and they are the ones disrupting. Dealing with a swarm of repeatedly blocked and banned uncivil, edit warring, wikigaming sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, or like minded POV pushers, or whatever this group is, does not imply tit-for-tat sanctions against the long-term legitimate editors who they have decided to battle against. There are not two sides to this. There is no legitimate question of anyone else's behavior here but theirs. Leave me out of it, please. I was patrolling the Obama article, which needed a lot of help just before and after the election, and only made a few passing comments on the ACORN talk page that this report is supposedly about.Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't noticed, WD, but I am cheerfully submitting myself to the same civility parole, under the same conditions. You should as well. If you have any complaints about my conduct or anyone else's, you can make them on this noticeboard, WP:AN3 or WP:SSP. Making them on article Talk pages and User Talk pages poisons the well. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed, and your misbehavior should not subject the editors you antagonize to sanctions. I have also noticed that checkuser has apparently found that you are using a sockpuppet account, and are likely a blocked user who has done this repeatedly in the past. I haven't been the one doing the outing so your complaint is with someone else, but it's preposterous to say that sockpuppet accounts have a right to keep their account pages free of notices, or not to be spotted on the pages they are gaming. There's not much else to say under the circumstances.Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but if they are all the same person, which I think is pretty obvious now, a 7 day block is not sufficient. When you are dealing with a POV-pusher who is so firmly convinced he knows the truth that it becomes perfectly acceptable to that person to run multiple accounts and pretend to be different people who all miraculously join together whenever one's arguments go sour, that person cannot be reasoned with or coached. That person will engage in long-term abuse, and attempt to overcome blocks, because even a day of not being able to push the truth is unacceptable to him. That person will not stop until forced to, and allowing such users to return results in more unnecessary drama and work for everyone else. We -- and when I say "we" I do not mean "me and my sockpuppets" -- are under no obligation to put up with this any further. And now that I've had a chance to review BryanfromPalpatine and that account's history, I think it's overwhelmingly obvious this is no more than the return of a talented puppetmaster. --GoodDamon 16:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

SO, on marc and curious, at the very least one of those accounts have to go, right? As i understand it the checkuser came back positive? As for the claims that one of these socks edits on LBGT issues, well, there's been a transparent effort to make it look that way -- that account pushes commas around on lgbt articles. Marx pushes commas around in other types of articles. Kossack for truth claims to be a daily kos left-winger (despite exclusively pursuing a right-wing political agenda) etc... This puppetmaster (i admit there might be two working in concert at this point) as laughing at all of us thanks to his success in gaming the system. Remedial action drags on, he gets another flight of socks on the launching bad, and whoosh...Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So we're from Chicago. Barack Obama is also from Chicago, and ACORN and its sister organizations such as Project Vote maintain a strong presence here. Does it surprise anyone that the five of us edit articles about Chicago related topics? 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we both agree that blocking should be involved. However, I can't in good conscience recommend an indef block on someone that may not be a sock. However, I do think a long-term block and/or topic ban on WB74, and CB and Marx0728 indef block as abusive socks is perfectly acceptable. 7 days on the rest of them is short, however, I think it will be effective. My reasoning; just within range of being justifiable in the eyes of the users involved to wait around and think about their actions without creating new socks, especially since they'll be spotted and figured out pretty quickly. I'm completely against the use of socks and I personally learned a lesson to that respect. Note my edit history and block log, over a year ago I was blocked for one week using socks to vandalize. In reality, it very well should have been an indef block according to policy, however, User:WJBscribe in his own judgment decided on 7 days. After I was blocked, I went months without even editing and was able to think long and hard about how I feel about this project and the good dedicated editors bring by building something millions use on a daily basis to improve their lives. I have to reflect that same level of optimism that if one questionable editor can be guided to become a value to the community, it's well worth the effort involved. I hate to use myself as an example because I fear it makes me look bad in front of other editors I've come to respect, however thought I'd share my perspective. That being said, the community has every right and is well advised to consider long-term blocks/bans in this case. Digital 17:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Why do you think 7 days will work when we're probably talking about the same guy who, if we're right, has amassed dozens of blocks since 2006? Even if not connected to this user, when does the death penalty come out for a user like K4T? He's already on his 2nd or 3rd "last chance." More last chances just encourage more gaming. Obviously, you got hot-headed once and learned something. But it didn't take you long. This has been going on not for weeks or months but for years once one looks at the BryanfromPalatine stuff. Of course, nothing will prevent the creation of new socks... but if the guy reforms and edits like an adult, no one will ever know or care he's a ban evader. And if he misbehaves again, he will be caught very quickly. At minimum, let's make him start over, since it will be easier to prove sock-puppetry via two or three or four new accounts (all of whom suddenly develop a passionate new interest in acorn the moment they log in to wikipedia) then via his established habit of using existing accounts and new socks. These socks have reduced my involvement in wikipedia from a productive one to a defensive one. I'm sure i'm not alone in this.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is if conclusive evidence of sharing the same IP is found, along with a pattern in their edits; indef block. Further, I think you suggested the point I was getting at earlier but only clearer; make them start over. If we do that, they'll be easy to stop, we know their location, ISP, etc, so I have no problem with that. In reality, I don't have any issues at all. I'm just reluctant at indef blocking someone who may be better served (and thus better serve the project) via alternative actions. The primary reason is because they'll just go off getting new accounts but this time with a personal vendetta as you said. Ultimately, I agree with your reasoning all around. Digital 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Setting an arbitrary length of time for a block in not necessary. There is already a sensible "escalating block length" mechanism in place. Proven socks should get an indefinite block (as per normal), but anyone else should only be blocked with a length of time that considers their existing block history. Contrary to DigitalNinja's experience, the editors being discussed immediately returned to their troublesome behavior patterns, indicating lengthier blocks are necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx has never been blocked. He only crossed paths once with CB, on an article related to Chicago. Proof of socking is inconclusive. They share an IP address. Thatcher didn't even say that WB74 is from Chicago, only that he edits from a Sprint PCS mobile device; and upon reviewing a previous SSP on him, it's clear that he's not from the Chicago area. Since returning from a block, I've done my best to edit in a polite and constructive manner. I've learned my lesson like Digital Ninja. K4T has been pushy (if you don't like him) or assetive (if you like him). But I continue to believe that civility parole all around would resolve this. Scjessey, you continue to get warning notices on your User Talk page, and not just from the five of us; you get warnings from multiple different editors. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen you disruptive little man: According to Thatcher, check user was conclusive that marx and curious are operated by the same user. They should both be blocked already. Your current guise's history of disruption and gaming (irrespective of your abusive use of other accounts) should likewise have you blocked already. If it was up to me, you'd all be summarily tossed into the brianfrompalatine block log, which has had dozens of socks blocked to date, with sadly no effect on your (the actual persons) behaviour. You've found wikipedia's weak spot -- its slow consensus-oriented dispute resolution mechanisms. Congratulations on wasting all our time (i suspect the real reason you're here is for the drama, rather than the political agenda).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to contact Thatcher and raise the possibility, after looking at their disparate edit histories, that Marx and CB are two people who share an IP address. Let's see what he has to say in response. In the meantime, please try to restrain your venom. 300wackerdrive (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Scjessey, you continue to get warning notices on your User Talk page, and not just from the five of us; you get warnings from multiple different editors."

What does that have to do with anything? My conduct is not in question here, and I have not been accused of sock or meat activity. I even publish my IP address on my user page. I've received few warnings and only a single block (plus one incorrectly applied block after wikigaming by User:CENSEI, another one to add to this rogues gallery). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone who would like to compare the editing behavior of these accounts to BryanfromPalatine: BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The modus operandi, the POV being pushed, the disingenuous and laughable claims of being a left-winger from several of the socks, the mannerisms, the specific misspellings, the same physical location... Boy, if this isn't all the same puppetmaster, it's his twin. --GoodDamon 18:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. This is why I hate my involuntary tendency to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It's amazing how similiar their "I'm a liberal", "I have left-wing agenda" while pushing right-wing POV is. I support blocks all around. Digital 18:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"By the way, let's all remember that the complaining editors have engaged in many content disputes with the editors they're complaining about. So there's a motive to spin-doctor events, exaggerate, and fail to mention mitigating circumstances; also to pile up incident reports, then point to the pile of incident reports and say, 'Why don't you just block them based on the number of incident reports?' " Well said. 300wackerdrive (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the argument chiming out of all the sock accounts - the accusation that all the ANI incidents, blocks, edit warring, etc., is a plot by a cabal of editors to set them up for false accusations. Meanwhile completely misrepresenting the current incident as a content dispute between two POV camps. There is a single complaining editor and a number of other editors and admins who have weighed in. Of course the people here have tangled with this puppetmaster before - he's railed against a few dozen legitimate long-time editors on a wide range of articles, and he's sucked several of those editors into this latest report. It's him against Misplaced Pages, not him against a cabal.Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would say "hey guys, any chance that the IP's are so similar because they all edit through a corporate firewall", but I don't believe that is the case. I say this because in a company that requires/affords that type of firewall, you would be hard-pressed to find a few random editors who all have a penchant for editing the same articles with the same style of writing - unless, of course, they were all editing articles about their company (which would then be COI). -t BMW c- 18:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just caught that 300Wacker and the "supervisor" he admiringly quotes, with whom he shares similar writing styles ("By the way"), similar takes on the Misplaced Pages cabal, and a shared tendency to edit war over sockpuppetry notices, are both editing from the same Robert Bosch GmbH subsidiary IP address, above, used by prolific sockpuppeter BryanfromPalentine. I wish I had a "supervisor" who would show up to defend me on AN/I, even a boss who had any idea about Misplaced Pages. Personally, if I worked for a public company and I found that my employees were using company resources to play politics in an election, and were accused of pranking Misplaced Pages to do it, I'd report them to HR and IT rather than joining in the act myself.Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Christ on a bicycle. It's painfully obvious that this is, if not bluntly sockpuppetry, then an organized collection of people editing to the same goals on the same pages. Block the bloody lot of them and be done with it. If we, for some odd reason, can't reach a consensus on that (and considering how often we've been sucked in by this particular little Illinois crowd of POV-pushers), then I suggest the issues be cooled down by issuing a topic ban on any politics-related articles. First choice is the block button, though - otherwise, this is going to keep coming back over and over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• • These socks are trying to send a subliminal message - that they are operating the same way ACORN was claimed to be operating. However, ACORN has dropped off the radar on the Limbaugh page, so it's basically a dead issue now. Baseball Bugs 19:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• This sock puppetry is a disgrace and has no place in WP. Those puppets should be ashamed of their behavior and banned for good. They even should have their American citizenship removed (although that is not possible) since they're used it in such disgracefully way that I'm pretty much ashamed of this behavior of my fellow citizens. I'm full of anger and done with it for now before I lose myself and really start posting inappropriate comments/opinions and I'll better don't watch this page for a while unless I cool down. Having a few bad day's anyway lately so this here it is the least I need right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One inappropriate comment (I just can't resist): Dump them in the next available landfill! Ok, now I shut up.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, do you drink much on your bad days Magnificent? :-D Digital 19:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what you consider to be "much", yes, sometimes (like yesterday), but you could ask me such embarrassing things on my talk page instead of here. D'ow.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's go with not doing that. I want abusive Misplaced Pages accounts banned. Nothing more. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think murder or revocation of citizenship are options, but I'm wondering if Bosch's IT department should be told its IP is being used abusively? Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't imply "murder" in my last "over the top" comment. I really want to make that clear since I would NEVER EVER would imply such thing. Sorry if it was misunderstood.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good remedy. There is absolutely no reason to punish the entire company because of the behavior of one bad apple. They should definitely be made aware of the abuse. I'm sure they have policies in place to deal with such situations. --GoodDamon 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Write something up regarding this and I'll send it to the Swiss (and German) main office. Their tolerance for such misuse of company time and equipment is way lower than at the American branch, so there is a chance to be heard and consequences be applied.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy guys. Lets just take it one step at a time an block them first. We can always do more at the approperiate time, if such a time comes. Digital 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What a shocker - the cabal o' Obama have completed another witchhunt. I'd like to see the same loose standards of sockpuppetry "confirmation" applied to GoodDamon, Wikidemon, Scjessey and the rest of them. In fact, I'd like someone to run their IP addresses through that wiki utility that checks to see if they are working for a government agency or campaign. Seriously, this "confirmation" is just crap. I was accused of sockpuppetry once because I used the same ISP as some dude - an ISP that covers something like 5 states. What was the test for witches again? If they sink they are innocent and if they float they are witches? TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

TGLocust, you've just come off your third block in a month. Is this really the kind of accusatory first edit you want to make on your return? Dayewalker (talk) 08:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What to do about this one? This is the account's first edit after a 2-week block for, well, you have to see the history. Wikidemon (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey I call it like I see it. When I first made an account I was almost immedietly accused of sockpuppetry. You and your friends provoke people and then go and get them banned since they aren't as profiecient at working the rules - and in this case you are banning people for being from the Chicago (and at least one looks likes he may be using a mobile card from Sprint). A few people may be socks, but it looks to me like 3 of them aren't. Heaven forbid people in the tiny town of Chicago take an interest in a Chicago politician and his background. Why don't you just ban everyone with a Chicago IP? Well...if they are conservative that is. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to you exactly once on this. The "cabal" as you describe it is made up of editors with diverse editing histories. None of us -- I'm assuming you include me in your theoretical cabal -- are single-purpose accounts. The accounts of the puppetmaster you defend, however, are. Oh sure, he got smarter somewhere along the lines and started, as Bali puts it, pushing commas around on a few random pages with several of his socks to establish them as supposed editors in good standing, but they each evinced the same behavior, they each used the same editing styles, and they were each eventually traced to a puppetmaster with an extensive history of precisely this kind of activity. And as for you? You're also a single-purpose account. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but when a flock of SPAs continuously descend upon an article or series of articles with the intent to push the same POV, other editors can be excused for wondering if perhaps they're all the same guy, perhaps a sock army by a guy with a conflict of interest and an point to make. So get over it. --GoodDamon 10:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocks

I have just indefinitely blocked User:Marx0728 and User:Curious bystander as abusive sockpuppet accounts (I don't really care who's the master and who's the puppet). I'm about to block 300wackerdrive, WorkerBee74, and Kossack4Truth as sockpuppets of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine. Please note that in addition to the well-documented escapades of B4T, there's good reason to suspect that the same person was involved in a festival of POV-pushing at the Waterboarding article (see also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding).

I don't think this action should be controversial (except in the eyes of the blocked users) but I welcome review and discussion of the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support the actions of brave akhilleus in ending the hectoring of this ilian army. You may strip them of their socks and vaunt.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hektoring... I like that. Nice. MastCell  19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I approve both Akhilleus' action and Bali ultimate's literate comment. However, I hope that we can avoid dragging the corpse of this edit warrior around the city. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock it to 'em. Baseball Bugs 23:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This may be useful:

In this case the block could certainly have waited. On the other hand, I don't think that a blanket admonition to rely on checkuser is the best advice. Checkuser is a confirmatory tool, and it's prone to false negatives as well as false positives. Case in point: I was absolutely sure that this guy was a sock of a specific banned user. However, the checkuser request I filed came back unrelated. Being a new and naive admin at the time, I trusted the checkuser result over my intuition. Finally, though, I couldn't ignore it: this was obviously a sock. So I took the plunge, blocked the account despite the unrelated checkuser, and posted it to AN/I, fully expecting to be shat upon given the prevailing attitudes on this noticeboard. Fortunately for me, Dmcdevit repeated the checkuser at AN/I and confirmed my suspicion. The take-home message is that checkuser is one tool for identifying abusive accounts, albeit a useful one. Administrative intuition or judgement is often as useful, and sometimes more useful. I agree with Jehochman that the checkuser was essential for rounding up the other socks, but my point is that checkuser is a complement to, not a substitute for, sound administrative judgement. MastCell  17:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

300wackerdrive (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was a well-chosen quote. :) For the record: I think it's long past time to clean up this mess and block all of these tendentious agenda accounts. Whether they are actual socks or merely indistinguishable for-all-intents-and-purposes socks is a bit academic. They've all made it amply clear that their political agenda takes precedence over the encyclopedia and our basic behavioral and content policies. It's really too bad that we lost Noroton (talk · contribs) - who was opinionated but generally respectful of the project's goals - while this group of obviously abusive accounts remains active. Good blocks, and I advocate tying up the loose ends. I feel bad personally for not taking care of it myself sooner. MastCell  19:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Block. If the editor feels compelled to provide us very real evidence they are not a sock, then that would be a very good reason to actually use the "unblock" feature. Hmmmm, some reason I foresee 5 different fully protected user pages in the very near future ;-D Digital 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Methinks perhaps at this point he is hinting that he knows the "joke" is over. If that is the case, then I doubly support Wikidemon's suggestion that we inform his place of employment of the long-term abuse coming from their IP address. They can no doubt track down the individual user on their corporate network responsible for most of their Misplaced Pages traffic, and prevent further disruption. Good riddance to bad rubbish. --GoodDamon 19:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, Akhilleus. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness this nightmare is over! Good work all around. Grsz 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Support re-review and not an indefinite block I have not reviewed the edits and I also voted for Obama. But there are complaints of which I've seen evidence for at least one, that Obama supporters are banning anyone that does not support Obama in Misplaced Pages. This is bad because this is Misplaced Pages, not Obamawikipedia.org. I did see that this discussion is about ACORN. ACORN is a valid point to include in the Barack Obama article because it was a significant part of the election. What the banned people want to write, it is not shown here.

I also disclose that I am not anywhere near Illinois.

The spirit of Obama is fairness, not being a dictator stamping out all opposition. As long as discussion is civil, that is the American way and also the Misplaced Pages way. ImNotObama (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is left watching this -- it is quite likely, based on past patterns, that ImNotObama is a new sock of bfp/wb74/k4t etc. etc. This three day-old users first action on a user talk page was to appeal on k4ts behalf (and like K4t claims to be a big obama supporter) while providing a misleading interpretation of digital ninja's position (basically he says ninja wants only a 7 day ban). While I know blocks are not typically issued preemptively, I feel a close eye should be kept on the back forty of this serial abusers next sock farm and this is probably a good place to start.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not only have I already blocked him for exactly those reasons, but within <5 seconds he has filed an unblock request citing his IP geolocation. MastCell  23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I was expecting some extra socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of this guy's current sock-farm, but that was fast! --GoodDamon 00:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The faster they come in, the faster they go out. Baseball Bugs 00:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh... And I just realized how funny it is for him to ask for leniency for accounts proven to be his sockpuppets. Kind of more-or-less automatically results in the new sock getting blocked, too. There are many cases where asking for reviews of indef-blocks is perfectly reasonable. Long-term abusive sockpuppetry ain't one of 'em. --GoodDamon 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Declined. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Might I suggest locking this user's talk page and those of the other socks? Otherwise, I'm guessing that there will be all sorts of time-wasting requests for unblock shortly. --GoodDamon 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• In view of the above, I support the block of all these socks, but I suggest that talk pages be protected only after abuse of the unblock process has actually taken place.  Sandstein  05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Still disrupting

Can somebody block 78.34.129.217 (talk · contribs) as well. I also want this edit removed from my history immediately. Grsz 02:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, especially in light of this and other comments. seicer | talk | contribs 02:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on style, I wouldn't assume it's BfP, but it's definitely a sockpuppeting troll, and definitely needs a block. This IP claims to be Everyme. Is it? Because if yes, then maybe it is BfP after all. --GoodDamon 02:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is User:ImNotObama blocked?

I notice this user has been blocked, but it is not clear from their talk page why this is. Their edits seem reasonable, and no-one appears to have referenced the edits that were the cause for their indef block. It's been asserted that they are a sockpuppet, but I can see no evidence that a checkuser has been run to confirm or refute this. Please could someone double-check to see if the proper procedures have been followed? Many thanks, --Rebroad (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins: This user rebroad has an extensive history of blocks for socking and ban evasion. He has archived most of his talk page stuff, but this is not a bad place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rebroad/Archive_2007 I find it interesting he's popped up here, and so interested in the fate of three day old user imnotobama, with whom he has never co-edited or corresponded with before. I strongly suspect this is yet another of BfP's socks.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebroad's most recent edits are to complain above about the ImNotObama block and to reinstate material on User talk:Noroton . Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not for sure of the motive here. It doesn't appear that Rebroad has been involved in prior discussions regarding this case or the prior cases. seicer | talk | contribs 03:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't appear to be much overlap, but the restoring of the Noroton stuff is weird, and does represent many points of contact. Rebroad has been on wikipedia it appears for a very long time -- yet why did he immediately gravitate to this?Bali ultimate (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest all of you ban-happy people read about the Salem Witch Trials. So far the consensus, to the obvious glee shown by some editors, is the banning of anyone who comes to the defense of these "socketpuppets." This not only prevents any real defense being mounted (which is also trying to be prevented by locked the talk pages), but it also prevents anyone else from coming to their defense or to express their own honest opinion out of fear that they too will be persecuted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

These are sockpuppets. He was found out. The evidence is overwhelming. This is not a matter of content disputes or POV, it is a matter of long-term abuse. That it was long-term abuse by a puppetmaster you happen to agree with politically doesn't make his behavior OK. --GoodDamon 10:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So who now? ImNotObama based on his prior conduct? Rebroad based on his talk page archive from 2007 and two edits today? TheGoodLocust and myself for now semi-supporting them? How far does this rabbithole go? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Man, do I agree with Locust. The entire series of articles have become a mess of ownership control games, with anyone outside subject to ridicule and blocks. This obsession with finding "socks" all days is just nonsense. Quit trying to figure out which new editor with two edits to articles that are in the news A LOT look or seem like socks. I hate to mention it but when we hit the point where an editor NOT making any mistakes gets blocked for being too suspicious, it's time to rethink the whole "indefinite block on sight" policy. Suggest we close this thread with archive tags and keep this speculative from going any further. Of course, then again, I could just be a 4-year-old underground sock waiting for this exact moment to be outed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please give it a rest. The articles saw massive disruption wasting hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hours of editing time. We just discovered the core of the most disruptive sock farm. If you're a legitimate editor, then a few seconds perusing TheGoodLocust's history should cue you in that he isn't someone you want to be encouraging. One thing you are right about, the thread is attracting trolls. Wikidemon (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, mark as resolved and leave separate discussions for another time? And I see what you mean. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reopening discussion to ask pertinent questions

I'm reopening this discussion to bring up some questions and a few points I think are necessary for people to think about before this is archived. I received a few emails about the subject of this thread that are bringing me back from retirement at least to discuss this. Currently I'm recovering from an illness and it's a bit difficult to concentrate, so I'll try to keep it brief, but these points trouble me:

• 1. The blocks to Curious bystander and Marx seem to be based on definitive checkuser information. Those seem like good blocks.
  2. The blocks on WorkerBee74 and 300wackerdrive are partly based on easily manipulated IP usage -- WB74 using a cell phone or similar device and 300wacker using a workplace IP address used by an already-identified sockmaster. It seems to me that either user should be able to get a new account from home. Combined with the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, I'm OK with those.
  3. The Kossack4Truth block bothers me a bit. Apparently that one was from home. There seems to be no evidence of socking other than K4T living in Chicago. If the block is about socking, that's insufficient. I suppose WP:DUCK behavior could be sufficient for a block, but I'd like to see that spelled out in detail, which is only fair. If the block is about behavior, then that should be justified with specific diffs, not general statements that K4T is behaving badly. There have been some statements about bad behavior in this thread, but they are made by other editors involved in disputes with K4T, and for that reason those statements are inherently unreliable. And I see very few diffs of bad behavior.
  4. What bothers me most about the description of K4T's behavior is that many of the same statements could be made about other editors who happen to have been on the side of the complainants here. (I readily admit that the K4T group that's been blocked advocated roughly the same positions that I would have if I'd been participating at the ACORN talk page or on Talk:Barack Obama. Also, I received two blocks myself about a month ago after a dispute with Wikidemon, so in that sense, consider me "involved".) Besides socking, K4T is accused of rough treatment of others' comments on the talk page, moving them around and, I think, closing discussions -- just what Wikidemon was doing on the Talk:Barack Obama page. Incivility is another charge, and there's been a load of that on both sides on both the Obama and ACORN talk pages. I'll try to provide some diffs. If K4T is going to be indef blocked for combining this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIV behavior with alleged -- and unconfirmed -- sockpuppeting, then some kind of sanction should be applied to editors who are perpetrating much of the same behavior.
  5. I get the sense that the admins doing the blocking are largely relying on vague recollections of past complaints and current, vague statements from involved editors without looking closely -- independently -- at the record on the talk pages. It would be good form for not only the complainants to cite specific diffs but for the blocking admins to do so. Providing specific diffs and specific reasons would be good form because (a) that helps avoid mistakes that lead to unfairness; (b) that helps someone unfairly blocked to mount a defense; (c) it offers proof to everybody else (like me, for instance) that some care and attention has gone into the decision to block -- it's important that Misplaced Pages not only try to be fair but that it be seen to be fair. Apperances matter, and this looks bad. Other editors further up on this thread have already complained. Even if every editor mentioned as a sock of this BrianFromPalatine is actually him, you'd want even the sockmaster to feel he'd been treated fairly -- I think that tends to reduce future bad behavior.
  6. The block of ImNotObama seems to have been done simply because that user came to the defense of a blocked user. That really doesn't pass the smell test. That should be reviewed by other admins. Also, the person who created ImNotObama should be able to start another account from the same computer; would someone please tell me if that's possible?
  7. Bali ultimate has stated that User:Readbroad has an "extensive" socking record. That's not true. I see a single block for it, from more than a year ago. That statement should be redacted. It's this kind of inaccurate accusation that raises doubts about the blocks. GoodDamon's idea to block talk pages of the blocked users is also troubling.

I think these are reasonable concerns that jusify keeping this thread opened longer. It seems to me that a strong case can be made even for K4T's block, but the case should be made. I don't have the strength right now for a long discussion, but I'll try to find those diffs I promised, or I'll redact the statement above. Please keep this thread open so these concerns can be addressed. I realize everyone's a volunteer here, but indefinite blocks deserve more attention to detail than we have here. And I'm not questioning any admin's good faith by raising these concerns. -- Noroton (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a case of WP:DUCK. In Kossack4Truth's case, a lot of his behavior was identical to that of old BryanFromPalatine socks, specifically claiming to be a left-winger while endlessly pushing a very non-neutral right-wing POV in the name of "truth." It's a slog, but go through some of BFP's old socks, and you'll find K4T was either another sock, or a twin brother. Then there was timing... 300wackerdrive edits during the day, from BryanFromPalatine's work IP address, and then Kossack4Truth edits in the evening. Never the two did meet, near as I can tell. As for making a sockmaster feel he's been treated fairly.... ehh, no. I just want his accounts blocked so he can't disrupt pages anymore. BryanFromPalatine is a banned user, as in permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. His socks are a block-on-sight kind of thing. As for ImNotObama, that account, which had never been here before, appeared all of a sudden to protest the blocking of the other socks, in the middle of some weird -- and frankly BFP-ish -- edits he was beginning on the Obama page. Again, looks like, "I'm really a liberal, guys! Only I think we should pick apart how his positions between the campaign and now have completely changed and he's going back on everything he ever stood for blah blah blah..." Same crap BFP socks always do. Now, I don't know if a quick checkuser on him verified that he was using the IP address of one of the other socks, but sure looks like a duck to me. --GoodDamon 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for Bali, I think he was wrong. But it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with from this puppeteer. --GoodDamon 22:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

One other thing... In reviewing cases of other determined puppeteers, it looks like it's extremely common for a few more socks to come out of the woodwork in defense of other socks when a group of them get discovered and summarily dealt with. --GoodDamon 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

On my talk page, GoodDamon wrote, under the heading, Why reopen?:

I thought I was effectively answering your questions. Look... I understand that you happen to agree with this particular puppeteer politically. But this isn't about politics, it's about long-term abuse of Misplaced Pages by a banned user. I understand your concerns about ImNotObama, but seriously, look at that user's edits and tell me if you think that's his first account? There's no need to rehash all this. It's done. Give it a rest. --GoodDamon 23:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon, do you know whether or not ImNotObama (INO) is BryanFromPalatine or an acceptable alternate account of some other editor? No, you don't. Do you know if INO is a former editor just returning? No, you don't. Sure, if the new editor was both suspicious and behaving pretty badly, there's a good reason to block. I don't see that there was a need do block that editor, and the possible harm is obvious -- especially if the person is not permitted to create a new account.

You're right, the issues here are not political. The issue is whether one group of editors is being favored over another group of editors, and whether blocks are being made without adequate examination of evidence (I'm not questioning administrators' motives). If there is evidence, diffs can be provided. Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your disinterestedness, but I'd rather rely on the diffs along with the word of the admins who acted. I don't think clear explanations are too much to ask.

I explained why I was removing the blue box and reopening the sections just above , but Bali ultimate removed my comment, which I left I believe that's a violation of WP:TALK. This is actually a good example of the kind of rough treatment of other user's comments that editors were complaining about with regard to Kossak4Truth. When this kind of thing is taking place, it's a good reason for administrators to independently look into something before blocking rather than trust a complaining editor's perceptions. There isn't evidence that administrators did that.

it was understandable, given the crap we've had to put up with The blocked editors could make a good case for saying the same thing. -- Noroton (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The blocked editor. Apparently, ImNotObama's behavior was suspicious enough -- he was obviously monitoring the AN/I, he responded so fast -- that administrators I have no reason to doubt whatsoever took one look at his already-established behavior and concluded that yes, indeed, this was a newly discovered sock, come to defend old socks as is typical behavior. So yes, I'd say I do know that User:ImNotObama is BryanFromPalatine, because the admins made that determination. By the way, ImNotObama's sixth edit was a junk report here of Wikidemon, this puppeteer's current favorite punching bag. I'd say that qualifies as both "suspicious and behaving pretty badly".

Now, as for the favoritism argument, I point out again... for what must be the thousandth time... that while one group of editors are not single-purpose, POV-pushing accounts, all the socks demonstrably are. That is why there is what you perceive as favoritism. Take a look at my contribution history: You'll find things from major rewrites to Scientology, to creating new articles for obscure Orthodox Jewish sects. You'll find an extensive history of vandalism-fighting, and if you look carefully you'll even figure out my true identity based on one particular article (which I try to avoid now, because I have a better understanding of WP:COI than I once did). Look at Wikidemon; the same. Look at Grsz11; the same. Look at the editors who aren't socks or SPAs; the same. That is why the admins "side" with one group over another. One group is helping the encyclopedia. The other appears to be a single banned user with an ax to grind. --GoodDamon 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being an SPA is good grounds for suspicion and scrutiny, but by itself it isn't grounds for blocking. Yes, it certainly looks like ImNotObama is/was an alternate account, but again, not reason in itself for blocking. I'm not saying SPAs shouldn't receive greater scrutiny and even have less leeway than regular editors. I'm saying that admins have relied so much on passively watching complaints come in to AN/I that constant complainers (Wikidemon, especially) have caused a certain warping, where Wikidemon's targets are treated more harshly than Wikidemon's allies, who he naturally doesn't complain about. Admins actively looking into the talk page and article histories would see actions by your allies that are in some ways similar to the accusations against the blocked editors. It's fundamentally unfair for one side to get blocked and for the other to get off scott free. Time for me to find some diffs to prove this. -- Noroton (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

2-on-1 tag teaming from roux and Laval

At Bethmanns and Rothschilds, a sub-article equidistant to main articles House of Rothschild and House of Bethmann (or Bethmann family), roux posted two templates to the top of the Article page: {{essay-like}} and {{peacock}}.

On the Template instructions, editors using the Template are instructed to:

Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag.

roux did not add such an item to the Article's Talk page. I then left a note on roux's Talk page, inviting him to discuss criticism and improvements, and told him that I was removing the Templates for the time being.

roux then joined me at Talk:Bethmanns and Rothschilds, and after initial general criticism, offered two specific critiques. One of them I explained was mistaken, the other I agreed was on point and I immediately implemented a change to the Article. I offered to continue working on the Article with his general criticism in mind as well as continuing to respond to any future specific criticisms. In addition, I emphasized that roux is always entitled to edit the Article directly for improvement.

However, I did ask that the Templates be left off while we were continuing the discussion, as they are intrusive and not conducive to collegial editing.

Next, Laval added 2 (two) Templates to the top of Bethmanns and Rothschilds: one, an AfD Template nominating the Article for deletion, and (2) an {{essay}} Template demanding improvements in the Article. I removed one of the two Templates, namely the {{essay}} Template, and informed Laval on his Talk page of the reason, namely that the two Templates are at odds with each other. He responded that I had a "fundamental misunderstanding of the AfD process". (I note that even though the Template suggested to Laval that he "Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Bethmanns and Rothschilds}} on their talk page(s)", he did not do so.)

Now roux has filed a 3RR abuse report on me asking for administrator intervention. Again, neither roux nor Laval notified me of this report, I had to find it by going through roux's "user contributions". roux also added a 3RR Warning to my Talk page.

Individually, none of these actions by roux and Laval may rise to the level of a rules violation. However, I feel that they are not conducive to collegial editing, and I would welcome suggestions on how to deal with this situation. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You removed tags from an article without actually addressing the issues. Laval replaced them, you removed them again. I warned you about the potential 3RR violation as required. I offered only two specific critiques because I didn't really feel like going through the entire essay line by line and pointing out what was wrong. I would add that other editors have also agreed that the article is filled with OR and POV and reads like an essay. The 3RR report was in aid of a) me not simply reverting your removal of the tags, despite them being completely appropriate and accurate, and b) having an admin point out to you that what you were doing was wrong. I've done nothing wrong here. 19:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also asking for a block on Miog1974. This account made its first and only edit yesterday diff, slapping a Speedy Deletion template on the same article. Per WP:RCU I may not ask for a checkuser in this situation, but am entitled to ask that a "disruptive 'throwaway' account used only for a few edits" be blocked.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am one of those type of editors who feels that tags were invented for a reason. Although they tend to look gaudy on the article pages, they are an essential part of the editing process. How else would other editors know that there is a problem? The tags are what helps fix the potential problem, even if editors do not agree with them. Tags should though, be used in good faith and not be used to make a disruption. I see your point about the two editors though. In the meantime, the tags should stay until the issue is resolved, otherwise why have tags.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally hate tags because they make a page look so horrible. I feel that they should only be used if there is a very clear understanding of what needs to be done in order to get a tag removed. The "essay" tag is particularly obnoxious. How can an editor ever figure out what to do about it? looie496 (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I am not at all opposed to the use of improvement tags. I've used them myself, for example diff. But it is important to post an explanation at the same time to the Talk page so that other editors will know what you are criticizing and how they can fix it. (Other improvement tags such as "Unreferenced" are self-explanatory.) What I am objecting to is the discourtesy exhibited by roux and Laval, their tag teaming to produce 3RR, and the insistence by roux on getting an admin take action against me even after his 3RR report got a "no violation" response from an admin.

(If I may go off on a bit of a tangent, improvement tags are like cattle prods, they are designed to get attention and to prompt corrective action. Once that action is under way, the tags can be removed. In fact, at de:Historikerstreit I got good results even after the main author removed my improvement tag. Instead of putting the tag right back, I reiterated my request on the Talk page, and sure enough, the other editor then made the requested improvement.)

Admins: will Miog1974 be blocked?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually. Tags shouldn't be removed until the reason for the tag is resolved. There was no tag-teaming, and I will ask you one more time to stop making those accusations--I don't really know or even like Laval. I very clearly did not ask for an admin to take action against you, I asked for an admin to talk to you because our attempts to get through to you weren't getting anywhere. I really would appreciate some honesty when people talk about me, this is getting ridiculous. 21:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the implication that I'm socking? Yeah, no. I invite any Checkuser to please scan my IP and confirm that the only sock I use is this one, openly declared, which I haven't even used in a while. Seriously, please do this. I am sick to death of bad-faith accusations being thrown at me. 23:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, honesty is important. That would include not making demonstrably false claims such as "You removed tags from an article without actually addressing the issues," above. Likewise, not claiming falsely that I implied that roux is socking.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you remove all the peacock words from the article? No. Did you rewrite the article so it doesn't read like an essay? No. So yes, you did remove the tags without actually addressing the issues. And yes, you did imply that either I or Laval was socking. Please leave me alone and stop accusing me of things I haven't done, is that perfectly, absolutely, crystal clear? I hope it is. 02:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User Seeyou

• Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Seeyou
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#User:Seeyou

Seeyou is a WP:SPA with a poor command of English who tends to ignore consensus, disrupt articles and their talk pages, and assume bad faith of anyone who disagrees with him/her.

Most recently, Seeyou has decided to ignore the consensus from a month-old RfC (which was a re-visitation of a previous discussion), and restore the disputed information , claiming that the conclusion from the discussions what that the information should be kept . Since then, Seeyou has been edit-warring over the information, overlooking the objections to it being kept that were made November 8th . --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While a second RfC/U for Seeyou has been discussed, I think it would be better if an admin would step in and consider a block or ban. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Just making a drive-by suggestion, but if the RFC/U has apparently failed, what about trying formal mediation? MuZemike (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its been to mediation 4 times, I know at least once when I failed as a medcab mediator to resolve it. MBisanz 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is not a particularly useful process for dealing with a tendentious, single-purpose agenda account. MastCell  21:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeyou is escalating the situation with continued assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and misrepresentation .

As an alternative to a block, I think it would be helpful to find out what Seeyou's native language is, then find an editor fluent in it to ask Seeyou basic questions about Seeyou's ability to understand the policies and guidelines that Seeyou repeatedly violates. --Ronz (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One more suggestion (then I will "butt out" of this discussion), but if all other avenues of WP:DR had clearly failed, then the only other route might very well be requesting for arbitration - get something final and concrete. MuZemike (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support arbitration at this point, as my experience is that Seeyou uses RFM and MedCab as his own personal attack dogs. I filed an RFC/U against him and got an MedCab against me in response, so I'm done assuming good faith with him. -Jéské Couriano 02:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RfCs and Mediation have repeatedly failed with this user: , , , , , . This user has also attempted to introduce a POV fork when his edits to the BM article were rebuffed: . Three requests for arbitration (two by me, one by Seeyou) have been declined: , , . I cannot see a way forward beyond a block or ban. Famousdog (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of paratrooper forces

One User:Archangel1 is continually blanking the above page, because he feels it is not well sourced. Can an administrator please explain to him that that's not how the deletion process works? --Tavrian 00:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Restored previous version, Level 2 warning to user. Now, please properly source the article: starting... NOW! (starts stopwatch) -t BMW c- 00:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User has deleted content from List of special forces units ‎with a summary of English refs required, not foreign) - someone needs to explain to them that we are absolutely allowed to cite to non-english sources and for articles/information on non-english entities they may well be the best choice. Exxolon (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There have been a fairly long standing series of discussions about the use of cite requests, things have just now come to a head. He tends to remove requests he doesn't like. What's prompted this has been predominantly around Pathfinder Platoon which is a bit of a pet of his as a former Parachute Regiment soldier attached to the recce force. Overnight he's also trashed that article as well as the Special Boat Service article, in what appears to be retribution for my reinstatement of a handful of citation requests.

He's been made aware of the policy and guidance, and this is merely his approach to interpreting them.

ALR (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has a history of deleting material he doesn't like without engaging in discussion beforehand. He deleted most of the List of special forces units article back in August and edit-warred endlessly with editors who added and re-added cited material on the grounds that the sources didn't meet his standards. He was warned for this behavior (), and settled down to productive editing, but is now back to the same behavior. I'd block him for this disruptive behavior, but was involved in the SF article dispute so I won't do so as this may be seen as unfair. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a message on the user's talkpage directing him to WP:NONENG, which specifies that while it is preferable for sources to be in the English language, it is by no means required. Hopefully that will help out some. Lankiveil 10:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

Not entirely convinced it had the desired effect considering the hissy fit that's going on now. :)

ALR (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's really too bad, especially as I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of removing unsourced content (which, to be fair, a lot of it is). It's just that rampaging around like the proverbial bull in a china shop is not the best way to achieve this. Lankiveil 11:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC).

I'd be more sympathetic if there had been any effort to do these things in the past. The issue with the SBS article is that the sources I have are all protectively marked, so not reliable in wikifairyland. OK they're only RESTRICTED, but the principle applies.

fwiw I've lost interest in providing some guidance, this is the second time he's gone on a retribution spree. But then from experience I've not come to expect much more from the inmates at Colchester.

ALR (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

He is, of course, putting {{fact}} tags everywhere ... one single edit at a time. -t BMW c- 12:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

addendum: I reverted to the pre-fact tags, and repeated the references template at the top of the page. At least 2 editors (including myself) have done some quick and dirty research to add some references - I'm not even a military buff, and I had no probs finding refs. I would consider additional tagging/blanking by Archangel1 to be disruptive, and would ask for immediate admin action should it happen. Thanks in advance -t BMW c- 23:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by editor with possible conflict of interest at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

Fru23 (talk · contribs)began a series of wholesale deletions of several sections of this page, w/o any discussion on talk and little or no edit summary. In a chat discussion this user claimed to be affiliated with the O'Reilly Factor. He has since "sort of" retracted that admission.Jimintheatl (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Warned for edit-warring. As an aside, Fru23 (talk · contribs) seems to pretty clearly be a sock, but whatever. Either he'll go to the talk page and work things out (as the article does have some room for improvement), or he'll ignore the warning, continue edit-warring, and end up blocked. MastCell  19:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please initiate an RFCU on this new editor? I haven't the time currently, but given that the article has been a POV target in the past I think it's fair to assume this may be either a banned editor returning to cause more disruption, or a sockpuppet of an already-established editor with an agenda to service. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Right now, a RFCU would only be fishing unfortunately. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation at Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Other admins are welcome to lift or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, the user is an employee of Bill O'Reilly; admitted such on IRC. 21:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hard telling why he would be deleting the stuff about Hornbeck, since that stuff is what O'Reilly said and O'Reilly did make a reasonable case. Baseball Bugs 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Fru23 has made possibly disruptive edits of the same nature on some other articles, deleting entire sections again (akin to the warning template for censorship), for trivial or incorrect reasons. Some oversight over those would be nice too. I've gone ahead and reverted most of the ones that represent overt deletion when using the fact tag, or waiting for discussion could be more contributive to be safe.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Boxstaa

This was archived before it was replied to, so I'm reposting it:

I'd like to bring to attention the user ] (] · ]). This user is consistently adding unsourced material, often original research to articles. A few examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. They have also created several categories that are over categorizing, such as: Category:Bands named after places, Category:Mondegreens, and Category:Spanglish songs.

I have a very strong suspicion that this is the same person as ] (] · ]). The names are very similar and Roadstaa has a long history of adding original research and creating original research articles. Roadstaa also created at least one category which was deleted. Roadstaa has done an extensive amount of dubious page moves, and Boxstaa has already had one page move reverted. I would have filed a sock puppet report but Roadstaa has not edited since Boxstaa was created (two days after Roadstaa's last edit).

I'm not sure what should be done about this user. I'm assuming good faith, but I think this user is causing more problems than they are helping.

Since I initially posted this Boxstaa has created the category Songs about poverty. I also found my old incident report on Roadstaa's AfD behavior for a bit more history. swaq 20:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one wants to comment? swaq 16:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive user posting personal info

The rebellious one (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to posting lengthy conspiracy theories on the Jewish Iluminati . This wouldn't be the end of the world, except that on his user page he claims to be Bryan Brandenburg, and links to his external blog (which is a well-spring of crazy). The page also mentions several family members, and there's personal information posted about his alleged ex-wife.

I don't see anything productive coming out of this user, and would recommend a block and deletion of his user page. Thanks. Chris 21:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus. I've blanked it pending deletion. X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that you’re talking about the userpage, it was deleted by one admin, the user was blocked by another admin, and I put in a request to have the userpage oversighted. Thanks for the heads-up. —Travis 03:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The return of User:Infoart

The Saatchi Gallery and Charles Saatchi pages have been the subject of much attempts to rewrite them in a more favourable light, generally lead by User:Infoart. Yesterday he attempted to do the same under a sockpuppet account, User:Sharpen16 which was quickly banned. He's uploaded a bunch of images, all apparently GFDL licensed by the Saatchi Gallery (which is nice). However both as the banned user Sharpen16 on that talk page and as InfoArt on Talk:Saatchi_Gallery he seems to insist that an "official Wiki representative" contact him to make changes to the page. Given that, as InfoArt he waved the legal wand around a little before it would be remiss of me to not flag that he appears to be wanting to control edits again, and is yet again making COI edits and removing content critical of the gallery. --Blowdart | 21:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to contact Cary Bass, as I understand he was very recently dealing with a senior staff member of the Gallery and may have a more detailed understanding of the standing of Infoart in relation to the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the pointer. --Blowdart | 22:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to this as far as any special handling. As I told them, they're welcome to edit the page so long as their edits conform to Misplaced Pages policies. They don't have any special ownership of the page, nor does the Wikimedia Foundation have any special interest in the page for any legal reasons. Bastique 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, I want to point out that there is no such thing as "an offical Wiki representative." They don't want the Foundation, as we have no authority over content. If someone wants to be helpful and contact them by phone, that's fine. There are a few editors who are willing to do that. Bastique 22:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I did try to explain that. On the sockpuppet page as well *shrug* Fair enough, I wouldn't get involved either. If someone gives me a shiny badge that says "ofishul" I wonder if that would work? --Blowdart | 22:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to contact the Gallery, be prepared to deal with "legalese language"... I tried and very quickly directed them to OFFICE - where they apparently were handled by Cary Bass (hence my "understanding"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

←As an uninvolved admin that has sat back and watched all this unfold, I am sick of seeing this and would support an indef block as a disruptive SPA and a community ban because they clearly do not intend to abide by our policies or edit in good faith. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This has been going on for over two years with a number of accounts all trying to achieve the same aim. See Talk:Saatchi_Gallery/Archive_1 and AN/I discussion. The ban should be applied to any new editors that make the same kind of blatantly promotional edits. Ty 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence and User:Mercenary2k

I have tried engaging this user in constructive editing on MANY occasions, both on their talk page and on the Discussion page of the article in question. They have continually deleted my comments, ignored attempts at discussion, and reverted to their "own" version of the article, citing "removing vandalism" repeatedly. I have exhausted my patience, and am requesting administrator action on this article. I am open to suggestions.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have notified the user, on their talk page, of this discussion. It will probably be deleted, as all my entries on their talk page have been.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have warned against edit-warring on both CSHunt68, Mercenary2k and the related IP address. Even though you have not met the 3RR threshold, reversion after reversion after reversion ad nauseaum is not permitted. The changes by Mercenary are "bold", and yes need references. Why not discuss the changes and how to properly reference them before simply reverting. Mercenary does need to understand WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF -t BMW c- 23:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"Why not discuss the changes"? I have. Repeatedly. "The changes" are mine, not Mercenary's. He feels the article was (is) his, and disliked the BOLD changes _I_ made. I remain open for suggestions.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the most recent revert on the article by Mercenary2k, with the "revert vandalism" tag, and the following comment on the discussion page: "CSHunt68 stop your vandalism. I know you are an Indian in disguise trying to undermine this article. Get a life. All the missions and rest of your reverts have proper citations. Dont know why you are so obsessed with this article." Also note the deletion of the edit-warring warning from Mercenary2k's user page. ... I await suggestions. If none are forthcoming from administrators, I will revert to the version I have worked on.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted Mercenary2k's talk page to the version showing him the edit-warring warning, and with my notice of this discussion on WP:ANI. He still has not posted constructively on the article talk page (nor here, nor on his talk page). If nothing is accomplished by morning (eight hours, my time), I will revert the article to remove this user's unwarranted edits.CSHunt68 (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to excessive edit war (16 reverts in the last 6 days), I have protected the article for 1 week. Please resolve your disputes in the article talk page. Thank oyu. --Ragib (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what I posted above? Sorry, but your "solution" is totally useless. Please see the article talk page for more. Another solution is required.CSHunt68 (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like it to be clear to and from the administrators. If I ask for discussion on the article talk page, and get no response for a week (as it so happens, this is the length of the article protection), am I free to make BOLD changes to this article? If so, and my changes are reverted without discussion, am I free to revert? Must I post in the article talk space and wait (probably in vain) again? Am I going to be warned about edit wars if I revert again? Is the article going to be protected if I ask for changes, get none, and revert - and am reverted back, ad infinitum? Do you see a pattern? ... Because this is what has already happened. I asked for talk. I got none. I posted desired changes, and waited a week for discussion. I got none. I made changes. I was reverted. ... PLEASE OFFER CONSTRUCTIVE ASSISTANCE, or none at all. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues. Administrators are not empowered to step in to blow a whistle between editors who disagree. We can, however, advise, and our advice in this case is that you attempt to talk to the other editor calmly and rationally (this means not using templates and not using the undo function). If the other editor fails to respond, dispute resolution facilities are available and can be tried. Only after dispute resolution steps have been taken and an editor remains unresponsive can administrators then step in. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 14:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute, and is better resolved via discussion in the talk page of the article. The page has been protected to stop the ongoing revert war. Please take this 1 week to discuss your differences in a calm, logical manner. --Ragib (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Redvers, I HAVE attempted to talk to the other editor calmly and rationally. I did not, until VERY recently, use any warning templates on his talk page. At one point, BEFORE I implemented my proposed edits, I gave him a week to respond (which, based on his history of ignoring me, insulting me, and deleting my comments) was EXTREMELY generous. When he didn't respond AT ALL, I made BOLD changes, as per Misplaced Pages policy. He has done NOTHING but revert these edits, ignore me on the article talk space, and delete my comments on his talk page. He has since deleted the comments of other ADMINISTRATORS from his talk page. I am asking for available facilities which can be tried, since the other editor has ALREADY FAILED to respond.

Ragib, I have already tried this. There is NEVER any cogent response other than "reverting vandalism - stop editing this article", as should be apparent from the relevant talk pages. Please suggest something else. Thank you.

Once again, I would like these questions answered: "If I ask for discussion on the article talk page, and get no response for a week (as it so happens, this is the length of the article protection), am I free to make BOLD changes to this article? If so, and my changes are reverted without discussion, am I free to revert? Must I post in the article talk space and wait (probably in vain) again? Am I going to be warned about edit wars if I revert again? Is the article going to be protected if I ask for changes, get none, and revert - and am reverted back, ad infinitum?" It is no response AT ALL, Ragib, to say that if this happens you will just protect the page for a longer period. NONE, AT ALL.

That this is the case will be evidenced by your monitoring the talk page of the article for the next week.CSHunt68 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is third on the left down the hall. Go there. We cannot help you except for protecting the page in question. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It is going to end up in arbitration, I guess. Either one of you could have, perfectly simply, answered the questions I posted, rather than just read from the script. *shrug*CSHunt68 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom won't even consider the case until you have proceeded through dispute resolution. Which you're not doing, in favour of moaning here. It's up to you to do something: admins are not your mummy and won't come running to sort out a problem between you and the big kids. Self help. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks, Dad. I'll take my chances elsewhere. Consider this discussion closed.CSHunt68 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Junk edit"

Has "junk edit" become a technical term in Misplaced Pages? If so, what is its meaning? If not, is its usage - to refer to another contributor's edits, without giving reasons - a violation of etiquette? Feketekave (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on whether it's junk or not. Hope that helps. 0:) Baseball Bugs 23:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. We are not talking about vandalism, but about an edit that was argued for in the talk page. The revert did not address the issue. (This was a second revert, with "rv junk edit" as a comment.) Feketekave (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit incivil imho. Have you tried reporting it to WP:WQA ? Sticky Parkin 00:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would think you shouldn't have to ask whether or not something offends you (i.e. I know it when I see it). At any rate, that does sound like a jab at whoever made the edit. John Reaves 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

At first blush it sounds incivil. But I would hesitate to make a definitive statement without being aware of the full context. (I've seen far too many situations where 'An admin told me you shouldn't do that!' is used as a bludgeon in an editing dispute.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA? Since when do we advise people to run to noticeboards before even discussing it with the person in question first? Whoever that is, this report is lacking any diffs so we're left guessing at what incident Feketekave is actually referring to.--Atlan (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Hm, a diff might be helpful. But honestly, I am not sure what administrative action is being sought here. Tiptoety 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See the recent article of Boris Pasternak, the corresponding talk page, and the talk page of User:Galassi. This is not at the top of my list of interests, but the language struck me; I'd like to know what to do in this kind of circumstance.

So, should I go to WP:WQA, or not? Feketekave (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

PS. His talk page seems to show that he has also used the term "junk edit" in other contexts; I have nothing to do with them, but you may find them of interest. (I haven't cared to examine them.) Feketekave (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say a "junk edit" is not necessarily descriptive of the editor who made it. If I changed a "good word" for a "weasel word", it could be considered a "junk edit". If I fluffed an article for fluffing sake, it would be a junk edit. So, believe it or not, as Baseball Bugs said - it all depends on the quality of the edit, and not the quality of the editor overall. No need for WQA (as much as I like the work over there), just a need for good quality edits. -t BMW c- 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

However, the alleged "junk edit" - good or not, I cannot tell myself - was argued for in the talk page, and the revert was not. If the term had not already been clearly dismissive, it was so in its context - or at least that is how I perceived it. Should I have made a third edit, to be reverted again? Feketekave (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Junk edit" may be entirely appropriate for IP vandalism of the usual sort, but should never be used for edits that have been discussed on the talk page. In that context, it's uncivil for sure. looie496 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any discussion on the talk page where it was argued "into a Jewish family" should be removed from the article. Could you point me to it?--Atlan (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Feketekave was clearly acting on the basis of the "Conversion of Pasternak's father" thread. He/she had raised doubts about the accuracy of the statement in the article, which nobody responded to. Were you unaware of that? looie496 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I made that flippant comment is that the complainant gave no specifics - and I'm still not seeing it. I went to the pages he specified, and I'm not seeing it. A diff is needed here, to minimize the chasing of wild geese. Baseball Bugs 04:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Junk edit" can often imply a tiny, minor edit of utterly no consequence - for instance, here on AN/I, a junk edit may be made to extend the "archive deadline" for a thread that, while currently untrafficked, is still active. Perhaps "null edit" would be a more accurate term, but honestly, even if this was meant as a euphemism for "crap edit", must we take offense? Sometimes it seems like people are just itching to find something - anything! - to take offense at. Like some sort of passive aggressive power trip or something. Badger Drink (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, extending the life of an obscure thread in WP:ANI. Like I just did. :) Baseball Bugs 06:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Be it as it may be, I am still waiting for advice as to the way to act. What we have is both a term to which we seem to agree that somebody could reasonably take offense, as well as dismissive editing. Am I supposed to simply revert my edit, waiting for an opposing case to be made in the talk page? Would that not start an edit war? Feketekave (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the terminology, and proceed as if were a polite edit summary. Only if it becomes a habit of the editor concerned to use dismissive language need it be brought to WP:WQA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarvagnya and insulting comments

Could someone pls comment on User:Sarvagnya's comments during my interaction with him today. Here it is, last paragraph. Or better still, read up on South Indian languages and histories. Or confine yourself to defending Bihar's sorry case (oh.. I'm not doubting for a moment that all of India and the world is responsible for their sorry state) on a dozen coatracks.

It is not an isolated incident. Pls see this edit summary. rm unsourced bullcrap.. cite the nonsense if you want to bring it back.

He was also recently warned by User:Hersfold during his interaction with User:Fowler&fowler. Please see here.

I would appreciate some input on this. It just makes working with him difficult. Thanks a lot. Docku: What up? 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm what? Someone said my name (or something close to it; I fixed the link above. User:Hersford is in fact one of my doppelgangers.)

For better context, the "bullcrap" edit summary was partially what led to the previous block I placed. I would note that the incivility in edit summaries does appear to have slacked off. Hersfold 05:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry for the typo. Docku: What up? 15:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Universalsuffrage

I wish to request a ban be placed on Universalsuffrage for his continued derailment and soap boxing in the September 11th Talk Pages. His latest exploits can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:September_11_attacks#How_is_it_known_that_passengers_were_actually_killed_with_boxcutters_when_there_are_no_witnesses.3F

He has been warned, banned for 24 hours, and still continues this disruptive behavior. I am requesting a pertinent topic ban, since he has said on more than one occasion he is 'Done with Misplaced Pages'. --Tarage (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the request. Should it be taken up at the arb enforcement notice board? Tom Harrison 13:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to block (for longer than 24 hours this time, obviously) for repeating the BLP violation - the allegation that the "US Solicitor General lied" is sourced to a court transcript, and if the court had made any such finding, I'm sure many newspapers would have mentioned it. Ryulong beat me to it with an indef. No objection. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the indefinite block of Universalsuffrage. He was disrupting Misplaced Pages. I think he is a sock of someone. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser won't help since records are not kept that long, but I have a strong hunch from Universalsuffrage's writing style, edit summary usage, and how he's "always wondered about me", that this is Lovelight. Lovelight was subject to a community ban in late April 2007 , after an RFC. I also see similarities in Quantumentanglement who edited in December 2007 before being indefinitely blocked, and Tachyonbursts who came along when the 9/11 arbcom case was underway this past April, and was put under a topic ban. I also note that Tachyonbursts and Lovelight edited logged out on a few occasions, and the IP addresses geolocated to the same place. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Lovelight and Tachyonbursts did edit logged out, checkuser might help, though it's a moot point since Universalsuffrage's behavior alone more than warrants a block. --Aude (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes; good block. Tom Harrison 15:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should close this. If he creates another sock to cause disruption, we can easily spot him. AdjustShift (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I found evidence in the 9/11 talk page history that makes me 99.9% sure this is Lovelight and Tachyonbursts, though per privacy reasons, I'm reluctant to repost ip addresses on ANI, even for a banned user. Fine to mark this resolved. --Aude (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's quite moot; if he's the banned user, his "contributions" to the talk page could be removed. If not, then it may not be appropriate to do so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing them, particularly regarding Mr. Olson from the current article talk page, as well as Tachyonbursts/anon edits about the same thing from Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_40#Solicitor_General_Lies_about_Phone_Call. For full disclosure, Tachyonbursts' topic ban was only through the end of May, though I say it be made indefinite. --Aude (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that Lovelight had the right to appeal his community ban to arbcom, but declined to do so at the time. --Aude (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Fort Meigs article being deleted

Hi, I wrote a very informative article on the siege of fort meigs and some users are deleting it without a discussion, or even when I said I will change it later on. Its a very well-written article... Can you help at all??? InternetHero (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First, they aren't deleting the article so much as removing your additional text. Second, this is a content dispute and so doesn't belong here. Third, when you say "I'll fix it in a couple of weeks", don't be surprised if others don't appreciate having to fix your work later (or are willing to just wait for you to get around to fixing it). Instead of trying to triple the size of the article, work with other people on how to best use your source before you start off reverting them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Internethero's talk page, I'm surprised he's complaining here. He's reverting a good version for one which reads like a short story. dougweller (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal info on a BLP

This edit is worrisome as it reveals the subject's personal details (as a direct violation of this). Would anyone care to revert/oversight, considering that the subject is a semi-notable public figure? (Anyone interested see here as well) --Flewis 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits and given the user a 3RR warning. It's clear that the person's address should not be linked as it is but you guys should discuss whether the "undisclosed child" accusations meet WP:BLP. Seeing so many reversions on a page with empty talk is troubling. Oren0 (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user appropriate messages, and responded to a thread that he left on my talk page. "Empty talk" - care to specify?--Flewis 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of preference I guess, but I don't see why there should be so many reversions when Talk:Richard Polanco has nothing on it. Another editor who has this page on his/her watchlist might not know there was a discussion on your talk page about the inclusion of material and that's how edit wars continue. Oren0 (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The reversion that has now occurred was OK per WP:BLP ("Misplaced Pages articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons"), but oversight is not required. It's publicly available information about a public figure, after all.  Sandstein  05:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Holla admins

Yo, can someone put "Hollaback Girl" on a username blacklist already? Her accounts do not seem to be bot-listed at WP:AIV. Thanks, the skomorokh 05:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for this. It is really becoming tiresome.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, even though this might prevent account creation with that specific meme, the user would just choose something else. Would it be possible to have it auto-block any ip that tries to make an account with that meme, or perhaps put the IP in a category specific to this user?— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this user's sole purpose is to change founded to co-founded on Jimbo's user page. Is it possible that this text can be blacklisted?— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure a bot could be set up to automatically revert edits by non-autoconfirmed users to User:Jimbo Wales that altered the text "founder". It would be inadvisable to put it on a project-wide blacklist though. the skomorokh 06:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to limit a blacklist to a page or group of pages?— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's be technically precise here; by requesting that "Hollaback Girl" be put on a "username blacklist", I was requesting that User:Cluebot or one of its ilk monitor the user creation log and add a report to WP:AIV whenever a user account is created that matches a certain string (in this case "hollaback girl" or components thereof); what you're proposing is something else entirely, I think. the skomorokh 06:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. I was wondering how alerts were modified.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ABFIL. The tools to combat exactly this sort of problem have been added to MediaWiki by the Devs. They should "go live" at English Misplaced Pages in a testing (i.e. log only) mode by the end of the year, and if that goes well, should become fully active a few months after that. This stands to be the biggest abuse and vandalism tool we have seen in a LONG time at Misplaced Pages... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to keep blocking the user? Can a rangeblock be used if a CheckUser finds the offending IPs? --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That Jimbo is not founder but co-founder of wikipedia is simply a fact isn't it? :) Sticky Parkin 18:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's Jimbo's page; he can describe himself how he likes. Saves others the trouble. --Rodhullandemu 18:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As above, Jimbo Wales reflects a neutral point of view, User:Jimbo reflects Jimbo's point of view. WilyD 18:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I too look forward to ABFIL, flagged revisions etc., but am I wrong in saying that we have bots report usernames to UAA or AIV that are similar to those used by banned users? Is this not a case where that would be appropriate? the skomorokh 18:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cooljuno411 again

Cooljuno411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, this user keeps using a very large signature, and it has been discussed in the past(the first time this user's username appeared on this board) that it was too large, and should be kept small. That was the consensus.

I see a pattern here, let me clarify. This is the third time the sig of this user has been called to attention, what happens is, he's warned about it being to big. So he makes it small. Time passes. He makes it big again, and it's brought AN/I again. He makes it small after being alerted, time passes, he makes it big again.

I see a failure to get it, if you know what I mean. This user does not understand that the requested change must be permanent. I don't know why this could be the case, or maybe he thinks that others would forget about him after awhile, either way, something needs to be done about this.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, even if the user hasn't been constantly changing his signature, he has recently admitted that he is still using a font size of 3 when so and so meets so and so. For reference, the consensus that his signature needs to be reduced in size, and stay that way, can be found here.— Dædαlus /_Improve 07:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, consensus was far from clear from that ANI discussion (it was assumed that he would be friendly enough to actually reduce it and keep it reduced), so this will be different. I just find it annoying and if he's playing games about reducing it, I say a final warning and make it clear that he cannot just be playing fast and loose with the rules. It's too early (and probably too stupid a reason) for a block right now, but I'm guessing he at least responds here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What precisely should this warning constitute?— Dædαlus /_Improve 08:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A note on their talkpage, referencing this discussion, and words to the effect of "Please therefore reduce the size of your signature, and do not again alter it. Should this matter be raised again it is likely that you will be sanctioned."? Keep it friendly and short (the comment, not the sig!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I use what you just said as the warning/quote you?— Dædαlus /_Improve 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, per this, it appears he still doesn't get it, and doesn't plan to stop any time soon.— Dædαlus /_Improve 01:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)

I've just archived very nearly a megabyte of arguments from the talk page. This represents just 3-4 months of discussion.

The cause of this seems to be that User:David Tombe was unblocked.

User:Brews ohare actually requested that he be unblocked. To say that he enjoys the argument is a bit of an understatement.

These 2 users are basically using the talk page as a discussion forum. The article doesn't seem to be improving noticeably.

I'd appreciate it if David Tombe was reblocked. He's basically an extremely non-consensus POV warrior that has been blocked 11 times for various infractions including multiple incivilities, several times 'permanently' and was only unblocked this time at an admins discretion. I do not believe that this unblock experiment has been successful, and I would appreciate it if he was reblocked at an admins discretion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If this user is causing further problems, it might be worthwhile to contact Antandrus (the unblocking admin) directly on their talk page, and asking them to review the unblock. From a quick glance through the various pages, familiarity with the case would look to be helpful. EyeSerene 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

David Tombe appears to be looking to take this extended discussion off-wiki anyway, which would serve everyone's purposes. Certainly the enormous discussions on that talk page have been outside the generally-accepted limits for talk-pages, so if they can carry on their arguments elsewhere then everyone's happy. ~ mazca 18:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

From my own personal experience this Wolfkeeper fellow is just as big a problem as Mr Tombe. The problem is that the editors, Wolfkeeper, and Brews Ohare are just as much a part of the problem as Mr Tombe. They refuse to achnowledge that there is a legitimate difference of opinion. They ignore his points and keep the argument going just to keep their opinions the ones that dominate the article. This is not really about compromise or trying to come to an understanding, it is about enforcing a certain scientific opinion upon wikipedia. I think that the other editors, including Wolfkeeper who are involved should be blocked from editing the centrifugal force page. My reason is that it is clear that the article should be a fair and balanced presentation. I say block all the current editors and start over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.58.151 (talk) 18:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think, in the light of Mazca's diff, we can probably consider this closed. I don't see a need for further administrator intervention at this point anyway. EyeSerene 19:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not an occasion to issue blocks, nor to single out individual editors. As long as the philosophical discussions can take place in another venue, there is no cause for action. Acroterion _(talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As Mazca says, I would now prefer to take the discussion to private e-mails behind the scenes. But while I'm on here, I'd like to clarify what this argument is about in a nutshell. There are conflicting sources in the literature about centrifugal force. I have admitted that there exist some sources which are contrary to my own point of view. But I have been finding it nearly impossible to get a clear and open admission of the contents of sources which support my own point of view. The principle one is Herbert Goldstein's 'Classical Mechanics' which deals with planetary orbits and centrifugal force without any mention of rotating frames of reference. All I was trying to do was to get the facts on the table in order to try and work out a compromise balance in the presentation. I wanted one simplified, shortened, and coherent single article on centrifugal force.

It ill becomes Wolfkeeper to come here and request that I be blocked at his own pleasure merely because I am in opposition to his point of view. Wolfkeeper is the one who split the article and he has a vested interest in maintaining this split which is merely two different angles on the same topic. Wolfkeeper didn't have a single legitimate ground upon which to make this request. David Tombe (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your note on Antandrus's talk page, and left you a note as well. The complaint was grounded in the fact that your talk-page discussion is off-topic and so lengthy as to become disruptive (see WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages). This is a legitimate complaint, and presuming bad faith and ulterior motives on Wolfkeeper's part is really not the most helpful way to go. Let's not extend this thread unnecessarily. EyeSerene 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

EyeSerene, The debate was going nowhere because it was going round in circles, and because not all participants were being consistent. I don't recall that it went off-topic at any point. I think that you were premature in accepting Wolfkeeper's allegation in this regard. And even if it had gone off topic, that was no grounds to single me out in particular. So I disgaree with your analysis that Wolfkeeper's complaint was legitimate. It's like as if you are saying 'Wolfkeeper can complain against you, but don't you dare complain against him'. That may not be what you intended , but that's the way it came over. The assuming of the bad faith was clearly a two way thing. I have pulled out of the debate for the reason that I have realized it was futile. It was going to have to end sooner or later and now is as good a time as any. David Tombe (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Hungary

Two Romanian editors keep removing a New York Times article and Encarta from the article Hungary without a valid reason. As I don't want to edit war with them, I'd like to ask an administrator to insert back those references. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

An admin intervened, so if there won't be any objections to the present solution, this is probably resolved. Squash Racket (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem - Maritime disasters

Help! Article Maritime disasters. There is an IP address there, and now I cannot make changes and record the history. Try it yourself! The article seems to have been corrupted. Can you remove the IP address entry? Wallie (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was able to undo the edit just fine... --Tarage (talk) 09:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Have a look under the history button. Your name "Tarage" is not there. That is the main problem. History is not being recorded. Wallie (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but why is there a wallie and wallie1 on that article history..--Crossmr (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought there may be a problem with user wallie (my id). I put up a second id as wallie1 to see if that had the same problem - it did! Wallie (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this before the cut-n-paste move was fixed, or after? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jazzmand

Jazzmand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s user and talkpage to I am an Asshole. Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I've moved the page back to where it should be (I never knew that I could move a page back until now) but Jazzmand should be dealt with for the personal attack which was also vandalism and disruptive. Bidgee (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Already blocked once for vandalism-only and was unblocked under a promise to start discussing. Moving people's user pages like that is beyond the pale (besides, it's not like his discussions at Talk:Sanskrit were remotely civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree and thanks for the reply. I support the Indefinite block. I've listed I am an Asshole‎ and it's talk page up for speedy deletion. This may sound a little bitchy but could someone fix the deletion log? As "and the only contributor was Bidgee" sounds as if I created the page which I didn't (Just happened that my name was the only one listed even though it was created by the blocked editor.). Bidgee (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block. It was a vandalism-only account. AdjustShift (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Troll IP

58.107.179.146 (talk · contribs) is constantly accusing everyone as Nazi/Nazi supporter regarding the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany in his trollish comments.

• - note Anyone who advocates an article which PRAISES ANY FORM OF NAZISM/ARYAN PRIDE IS A NAZI

Please see the talk page of this IP. On November 2 and November 10, this IP was warned two times for making personal attacks. Also see the bock log , was blocked on November 2 for personal attack. I do not see any positive contribution from this IP. Should this IP be warned once more? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked and given my rationale at the ip's talkpage (User talk:58.107.179.146#Blocked for 72 hours). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good block. He's just here to be a PITA. endorse this action fully... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP should have been blocked for a week. Previously, it was blocked three times, twice for vandalism and once for harassment. AdjustShift (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oreius

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

Several editors at WP:PW have been trying to reason with this disruptive, refer him to WP:CIVIL and leaving warnings on his talk page about his conduct. It doesn't seem as if anyone is getting across. The issue is becoming increasingly worse.

It started at first with some bad faith comments here and here.

He then refuses to accept to consensus, shows bad faith again, and seems to assume control of the article.

He then makes a threat against another editor before he decides to violate wp:own again, admits to sock puppetry before insulting and editor. There's more wp:own and he even insults someone who is asking him to join the project. There's one more insult and another assertion of owning the article, and then his reply to my request that he abide by WP:CIVIL.

If we could have the appropriate admin intervention here, it would be appreciated. If I'm overreacting please let me know.  Hazardous Matt  13:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you've been astonishingly patient under the circumstances. I also see no mainspace contributions at all - this person is quite possibly here solely to stir up trouble, but perhaps we can afford one last chance. I've blocked for 48 hours (as usual, review welcome) and will leave a note that unless productive contributions are made and WP:CIVIL adhered to on returning from the block, the next one will be indefinite. Hope this helps, EyeSerene 14:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. I would probably have made it a bit longer after reading these diffs. —Travis 15:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I’m not sure that the user will ever be able to make positive contributions, especially considering his astonishingly poor spelling: weither (whether), makeing (making), your (you’re), loseing (losing) And those are just from the first diff above. —Travis 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I did initially select 1 week (after considering indef!), but when I went to click the button I thought maybe I was being a little harsh. However, as you think so too, I've extended it to 1 week. Thanks for your advice ;) EyeSerene 15:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a checkuser may be needed here, as here he says there is "a total of 10 user account to my computer,". Might be worth "seeing" just which accounts these are... D.M.N. (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that would amount to a fishing expedition. Anyway, as the user has been pretty much sticking to one page, any socks should be obvious. —Travis 16:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser can be used to prevent disruption, and someone threatening to evade a block is clearly a disruption. I checked the account and it would seem the user is lying about having more than one account. --Deskana (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change for West Paterson, New Jersey

On November 4, 2008, a ballot initiative to change the name of West Paterson, New Jersey to Woodland Park, New Jersey received more yes than no votes and many articles reported that the measure had passed. In response, a number of editors had changed the title of the article and changed the name within the article. After further review, a number of editors agreed that there were circumstances that argued that the name change was not yet official and that the status quo ante should be maintained. This discussion took place on user talk pages and was summarized at the article's talk page. User:Woodlandpark has made a series of edits to effect the name change to Woodland Park. I have tried to explain the issue within the article and on the talk page to little avail. User:Woodlandpark has argued that "The name change is official...time to let it go and move on" (here) and that "there are no issues except for people not liking the new name" (here), neither of which are particularly strong arguments. He most recently appealed to "http://www.westpaterson.com/ its on the borough's own website, the name is changed." (see here), thoush a review of the borough's own web site shows that for Election 2008 "UNOFFICIAL RESULTS (11:12 pm, Nov. 4)" for "Change Name to “Woodland Park”" were "Yes – 2,125, No – 2,094". Underneath, the site notes that "Results include Absentees. 101 Provisional ballots not counted when above results were tallied." The Borough does not consider the results official. A source provided in the article from The Record shows that the results are not official, that it may still take another week and that the borough has to determine when the name change will take effect. User:Woodlandpark's most recent edits (see here) not only changed the name, but removed the source demonstrating that the name change has not taken effect and replaced it with the statement that "The name change is now official." While I believe that my case is justified, I am already on the cusp of a potential WP:3RR issue and will not make further edits without further guidance. While User:Woodlandpark has already violated WP:3RR, I believe that he is a new user who believes that he is doing the correct thing and that he believes he is acting in good faith. Any assistance in this issue will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Kbdank71 already took care of a little holiday in Woodlank Park West Paterson. -t BMW c- 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding the issue of the block, the article remains with User:Woodlandpark's edits unchanged, with the name change to "Woodland Park" as if it were in effect. Please review the sources at issue to ensure that the change is justified before restoring the status quo ante. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The quick checks I did show that it's not yet official, so I reverted. -t BMW c- 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all involved, especially Kbadnk71 and Bwilkins, for the prompt intervention. Alansohn (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Idenitifying data for a child

User:Ashfreak261 needs deleted, with a nice explanation as to why children shouldn't give out their full name, city, and age.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The user is 13. I believe we only remove information like that for subjects under the age of 13. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I've removed them and left him a cheery note. Better safe than sorry. Black Kite 20:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

13? Not saying you're wrong, but where do you get that from?—Kww(talk) 20:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - for example, my daughter's 12, but no way would I let her leave her details on-wiki until she's quite a bit older - certainly not 13. Black Kite 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy. Tiptoety 20:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was getting the 13 thing from Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, as I am guessing that that is the most applicable law, have seen that used here before, and as 13 certainly seems to be the age when websites start accepting people without parental consent. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the relevant details have been oversighted. --Deskana (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

unanswered question from earlier

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

Ok.. Regarding the "Why is User:IAmNotObama blocked" - This question is less than 24 hours old, so way too early to archive it. Secondly, the question has not been answered. All that's happened is people have made more wild accusations. Can someone please either answer the question, or unblock this user that appears to have been blocked based on association and nothing else. Thanks. --Rebroad (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read the history of the ACORN thing on here. It seems to be that this user hasn't done anything other than try to calm the situation and ask for order. I would suggest that given there is no evidence of sockpuppetry that they be unblocked, but that an eye be kept on them, and an open mind kept as it is obviously possible they are a sockpuppet, but without evidence other than association, a block is a ridiculous move IMHO. --Rebroad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting these comments, this is still under 24 hours old. If there is a policy that allows these comments to be deleted without discussion, then please let me know what it is and I won't say anything further on the matter. Thanks. --Rebroad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated on your talk page, the comments you posted were not removed, but were moved to relevant discussions above where it was placed for continuance. You were repeatedly botching ANI by clipping archive templates, removing other user's comments, and botching up ANI: and -- which was reverted by multiple editors. Your edit summaries, such as this are incorrect. seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

He was blocked because he was a sockpuppet of BryanFromPalatine. You are being disruptive by continuing to persue this. Stop. L'Aquatique 21:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Insults and threats on talkpage

I was recently the recipient of the following message on my talk page:

Dear Sir. I wish to express to you my extreme distaste at your person, and to verbalise the shame I feel to call you a fellow. What it comes down to is that a genuinely decent, hard-working, constructive contributor and a good man has left our numbers, and you could have prevented it merely by adopting a half-way reasonable attitude. Congratulations, for you have incurred my considerable displeasure, and I shall see you removed. You, sir, have been forewarned. Good day. DBD 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of his opinions of me, this commentary is personally insulting and contains evident threats against me. I hope this will incur the appropriate reprimand. --G2bambino (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned by this behaviour, however as I understand it he is a little upset regarding the loss of a friend from the project. Yet that does not warrant these comments and cannot be used as an excuse. He is establishing a vendetta against G2 which will, in irony, see any efforts to "remove" G2 fail...perhaps its all hysteria- but he needs to be warned. Gavin (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, yep. I left a friendly notice on his talk page, another less involved admin may want to leave something a little more substantial. L'Aquatique 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've never understood these "I'll see you that you be blocked!" threats. Now, I admit, I have in the past gotten so pissed off about another user's actions that I was determine to see them blocked even if it meant a lot of hassle for me, e.g. filling out a 3RR report which, let's face it, is a pain in the ass. But actions speak louder than words. I have never said to someone "I'ma get you blocked!", and I'm so glad I haven't. In cases where the user is behaving in a way that will result in them being blocked, I just report them and they are blocked, and that gives me all the satisfaction I need.  ::::And in a couple of cases, I've checked contribs but seen that, despite the conflict with me, the user in question had no questionable behavior, and in fact in one case that eventually led me to decide my initial impression of that user had been all wrong. Imagine how embarrassing it would have been if I threatened to "have him blocked"!!

Nah. No matter how pissed you are, don't threaten to have someone blocked, because there's only two outcomes: They get blocked, in which case you've got your "satisfaction" anyway; or they don't get blocked, in which case you look like a tool. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the threat wasn't a smart move. Particularly as it spoiled the effect of a well worded reaction to G2's recent behaviour. It can't be excused, and I hope that the author will offer an apology. As it happens he didn't need to "have him blocked", because FutPerf was already onto G2, and has blocked him for 3 weeks for stalking.

Having said that, whilst it can't be excused, it can be understood. G2 is like a kid poking a cat just slightly for many hours on end. Eventually the cat turns round and scratches, and the kid feigns innocence.

Goading people into attacking, then reporting them with righteous indignation is a game that G2 plays, and it is a game that is losing us editors. Mayalld (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

fascism.com

. . . . points here. . Which is cute. X MarX the Spot (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that can't be right. Everybody knows that Misplaced Pages is Communism. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 22:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be exact, it points to Sarah Palin, which sends a slightly different message. L'Aquatique 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Should I be worried about loggin in on that website? --CyclePat (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wonder who owns it. According to WHOIS the owner id appears to be blocked by the provider. I wonder who would get sued in that case? --CyclePat (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows me as already logged in when I go to it. That said, it doesn't just redirect, because that giant "donate now" banner shows up- which I have turned off in my preferences. L'Aquatique 23:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) If people want to point domain names to silly places, they're welcome to - free advertising for Misplaced Pages. Maybe Sarah Palin would worry about this, but I can't see why we should. ~ mazca 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... L'Aquatique 23:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO a proper action would be to notify Sarah Palin, so that she may demand the take-down. `'Míkka>t 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, and replied by their mailbot. `'Míkka>t 00:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends where fascism.com is hosted, of course ... European servers tend to ignore DMCA requests (a la PirateBay) ... Black Kite 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I discovered this care of the God fearin' parody lovin' folk over at the Landover Baptist Church Forums. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I'll just drive downtown and see if she's in her office. "Sarah, guess what? fascism.com leads to your biography!" She's probably not in her office though. L'Aquatique 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed Acorn AN/I endlessly being reopened

Further upthread you'll find a discussion involving a bunch of socks who had been editing at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now. The socks got indefed, admin closed the discussion. Then Rebroad happened along, and reopened the closed discussion to ask questions/complain. Admin reclosed. Rebroad reopened. Admin re-closed. Now, along comes Noroton an oft-blocked edit warrior (over the same topics that led to the blocking of the Acorn sock army) who says he returned to wikipedia after recieving "emails" about this matter. He reopened. I reclosed and asked him not to do it again on his talk page. He reopened. I reclosed again, asked him again not to do so on his talk page. He's now accused me of edit warring. I did leave Noroton's own new text alone, but outside the previously closed and resolved discussion. I'm uncertain that this is appropriate, but don't much care. I hope an admin can cool this down. I guess the adminstrative sanction i'm seeking is for Noroton to be told to let closed AN/I's lie, and that rather than reopening to soapbox over this or that, he should open new reports (or appeals of his friends bans) by the appropriate channels. Thanks and sorry for the drama.Bali ultimate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

Just because one person closes it doesn't mean everyone feels the issue is done. Closed or otherwise the thread will be archived after a day of inactivity if you think they're trolling don't respond to them. They're under no obligation though to start a new section for a related issue when one is here just because someone felt the need to arbitrarily close a discussion. They say it takes 2 to tango and letting them make their statements and letting the thread drift in to obscurity would have been far less drama inducing.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

an oft-blocked edit warrior This is the second time on this page that Bali ultimate has wrongly characterized another editor as "often" having done something (previously Bali attacked Rebroad: This user rebroad has an extensive history of blocks for socking and ban evasion -- 01:35, 13 November 2008). I was blocked twice for the same, single set of actions last month. Prior to that I hadn't been blocked in a year. Rather than characterizing me as an "oft-blocked edit warrior" who is "reopening to soapbox", why can't Bali just let me state my concerns without delivering a personal attack (WP:NPA: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.) against me? Bali ultimate also removed a comment of mine when Bali reverted . It should be restored. Now I'd rather address the actual subject up above. -- Noroton (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Noroton's block log is here: ]

The problem Crossmr is this user has returned to canvass on behalf of five banned socks (or at least it seems that way. he says he received emails notifying him of this issue, though he doesn't explicitly say from whom). He is taking much the same tone as the five banned socks (who wasted hundreds of hours, at least, of editor time). His return to wikipedia after a months absence closely followed the indef-banning of a sixth sock, ImNotObama, who came to canvass on behalf of the 5 socks in question shortly after their accounts were blocked. ImNotObama was found to probably be a sock of the puppetmaster for the original 5, BryanFromPalatine who has accumulated an impressive list of confirmed socks over his long career. ] At any rate i've said my piece. Misplaced Pages's tolerance is admirable, but it often feels a bit much.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Intolerance is a bit much, too. "Canvass" has a specific meaning related to WP:CANVASS. Perhaps Bali could state just where I canvassed against policy -- or even canvassed at all. Nor have I disagreed with all the blocks of the accused socks. He is taking much the same tone as the five banned socks -- is there any disagreement that Bali finds acceptable? What are we on, now, the third, fourth, fifth personal attack against me by Bali in the last few hours? This is what I get for politely bringing up sincere, cogent concerns and questions. -- Noroton (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

One more thing as colombo used to say. If one wants to understand the traditional tone of Noroton, just go to his edit history ] and look at his edit summaries. It's funny, these editors seem to want to make it about the other editors when on article talk pages, and make it about the content when on AN/I.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack #6. I'll stop counting, now. What do Bali ultimate's attacks have to do with my point? Or with anything? My "traditional tone" can be found in my 35,000+ edits, not in the last dozen prior to my block. Trying to make me lose my temper again, Bali? Not gonna work. -- Noroton (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Glasnost

A new Atdm (talk · contribs) persistently adds an essayish piece to the page Glasnost and ignores warnings in the talk page. While formally he does not violate the 3RR rule, despite restoring after being reverted by several other editors, I feel that it is time to issue a preventive block, (because I suspect he is not aware of talk pages), so that he takes time and reads the rules and policies. I cannot do it myself, since I am involved in editing of this article. `'Míkka>t 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Imperious use of Admin powers by User:William M. Connolley

I asked a very simple question:. The question was clear and legitimate. The answer was a 12 hour block for apparently having had the impertinence to ask it. I can think of no other place on Earth where a person would be barred from discussing a claim put forth by another Editor in support of a content edit to the encyclopedia. Is there a rule that prohibits one from discussing supporting evidence to a content edit? 75.49.223.52 (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this thread gives the background of this block. The IP and User:Arcayne were engaged in a dispute, and Connolley appears to have decided the IP was wrong enough to be blocked , and the IP's question was the final straw. Connelley did warn the account a day in advance. But, to impose a block after the IP asked a polite question is, in my opinion, problematic. Cla68 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a polite troll. looie496 (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, WMC shouldn't have made the block (COI). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor keeps removing AFD notice from article

I've restore the AFD notice on the article Shadow Yamato X three times within the last few hours. The first two times, the AFD notice was removed by an IP editor and then by the article's creator, Mvdgo (talk · contribs). The artilce has already been deleted though a previous AFD discussion as a hoax. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise! The website claimed as a source doesn't exist either. Ho hum. All in a day's work. --Rodhullandemu 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I MfD's his user page since it's a copy of the article. This guy should just be indef'd. JuJube (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's starting to look like a case of Whac-A-Mole. --Farix (Talk) 01:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the IP editor that kept removing the AFD notices from the original article is within the same range as the single IP edit on Mvdgo's user page. This could very well be the same editor. --Farix (Talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Please copy to Request for Arbitration page.

{MastCell and Speicer}

Initiated by ImNotObama2 (talk) at 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

ImNotObama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Speicer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AMastCell&diff=251683895&oldid=251676961

Speicer's talk page is locked.

Confirmation that other steps in [[Misplaced Pages dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ImNotObama (MastCell asked to unblock and also asked to request a checkuser)

Statement by {ImNotObama}

This is a case of MastCell and Spiecer indefinitely blocking me because I asked that people carefully and fairly consider what to do with Kossack4Truth. I did not suggest immediate unblock of him. Those two indefinitely blocked me on the excuse of sockpuppetry on the assumption that any (even remotely defending) of a blocked person is automatically a sock. I requested they submit a checkuser request, which they refused to do.

TheGoodLocust said it best when he wrote about me on ANI "I suggest all of you ban-happy people read about the Salem Witch Trials. So far the consensus, to the obvious glee shown by some editors, is the banning of anyone who comes to the defense of these "socketpuppets." This not only prevents any real defense being mounted (which is also trying to be prevented by locked the talk pages), but it also prevents anyone else from coming to their defense or to express their own honest opinion out of fear that they too will be persecuted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed a few Kossack4Truth edits and the ones that I saw were reasonable. I therefore asked for a re-review and possible reduction of ban to 7 days. A reasonable administrator would either explain why indefinite block was more reasonable or that a more extensive review should reason for blocking.

Instead, MastCell and others say that anyone can edit from a computer that looks like it is in another city and anyone who comes to the defense of someone is a sock. Therefore, there is a consensus because any opposition is a sock. Very specious logic/very flawed logic. This hurts Misplaced Pages because, frankly, I don't care about Kossack4Truth much but I have much specialized knowledge to add to Misplaced Pages.

The fact is that I am not technologically saavy and Kossack4Truth is in Chicago while I am a thousand miles away. Speicer violated the Arbitration Committee's finding that administrators must carefully consider all unblock request and not automatically assume guilt. He should have requested a checkuser if he was going to deny the unblock.

Misplaced Pages must not have hot tempered administrator who block based on their own temperment and against policy. I respectfully request that MastCell and Seicer's power to block be removed.

Statement by {Party 2}

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards