Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:24, 18 December 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

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

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

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

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

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppetry?

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

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

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

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

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

So far I have edited the follow articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Foxy sock drawer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afterthought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hold the phone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another country heard from

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

This has gone on long enough

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just when you thought it was over

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IRC transcript

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

<Ceiling_Cat> KingsOfHearts - I have a question for you

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

<Ceiling_Cat> Agreed?

<KingsOfHearts> Ok

<KingsOfHearts> yes?

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

<Ceiling_Cat> right?

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> Yes i also retired mine

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

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> we got caught

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

<KingsOfHearts> and save one account.

<The359> those edits 4 minutes apart is quite suspect

<KingsOfHearts> Ya I was with him.

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

<KingsOfHearts> I think it was same comp

<Ceiling_Cat> that's awfully convenient

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

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

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

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

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<Ceiling_Cat> when?

<KingsOfHearts> I don't know

<KingsOfHearts> i could get him to though.

<Ceiling_Cat> Ok, one last question

<KingsOfHearts> Ya

<KingsOfHearts> sure

<Ceiling_Cat> These edits:

<Ceiling_Cat> (one sec)

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

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

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

<Ceiling_Cat> Explain please.

<KingsOfHearts> I don't know

<KingsOfHearts> I can't realy

<Ceiling_Cat> were you on the same computer?

<KingsOfHearts> No

<KingsOfHearts> same Ip yes

<KingsOfHearts> we have to computers it the same room

<KingsOfHearts> *two

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

<The359> Shocker

<KingsOfHearts> So is the ip differant

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

<Ceiling_Cat> I am posting the data now

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

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

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

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

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

Endgame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although I initially requested a temporary topic ban, these later developments have caused me to support a permanent community ban. The use of sockpuppetry to edit war, combined with the rank dishonesty, shows an unwillingness to take the project seriously and a total lack of desire to work constructively. As Blaxthos said, with this pattern of behavior it should end with a community ban. Ramsquire 23:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lightbot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To answer the original question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Tony1:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"However, piped links may be useful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abusive single purpose account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Desperate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to think that's a featured article :) VX! 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Harassment at my usertalk by User:QuackGuru

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(the above statement has been refactored to remove probable WP:BLP violations SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

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

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

Based on his subsequent edits to Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein‎ this is (yet another) User:DavidYork71 sock puppet. David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One point of crossover is the Islam and children article, which York did some work on, and this current apparent-sock merely touched upon, but that's a giveaway as it seems totally out of context of this guy's current rant. Baseball Bugs 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I blocked User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill for block evasion? This seems to sail through the quack test with flying colours. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr has done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I aggree this is most probably DY. I filled a RFCU to see if there are any sleepers. I expect there are (I triggered an autoblock). -- lucasbfr 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Jolly good. Markallenmacphail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) remains unblocked. He had just 2 edits in October, to the Troy Davis article. The dilemma now is what to do about edits he made in his 4 days here. Baseball Bugs 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, either I'm just paranoid, or Tuzlar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a brand-new sock. The only edit so far is in defense of the now-blocked sockpuppet, HonourOfficerMcPhaill.— Dædαlus 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1 Edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made a request for mediation on 5 December 2008. At that stage there had already been a good deal of edit warring so I think the article should have been locked immediately. Misplaced Pages's inability to deal with disputes quickly is a serious handicap which could harm its reputation. Administrators should think about this and try to improve it, not just blame me for pointing it out. Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not blaming any administrator personally. I am just pointing out that Misplaced Pages's mediation process is not "fit for purpose" and needs to be overhauled. If something like this happens again I shall not seek mediation. I shall, instead, try to get the warring editors (on both sides) banned immediately. Biscuittin (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is an informal, good-faith based process, and not always suitable for resolving a hot edit-war. For future reference, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP, report on-going edit warring and three revert rule violations at WP:AN3, or there's always this noticeboard. No-one's blaming you for pointing out the disruption, but in the interests of fairness we're bound to look at everyone involved. I agree that this should have been stopped some time ago, but unless you bring it up in the right places it won't get the proper attention. I hope you don't mind me saying that you can't blame admins, or the system, for your oversight ;) EyeSerene 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Your points noted. Biscuittin (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Commonsense prevails. At at last, Misplaced Pages is asserting its right to be authoritative and factual and NOT be swayed by political correctness, marketting hype or just pandering to egotists. All hail JzG for his astute reading of this situation. Bhtpbank (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Death threat on Isopropyl alcohol

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

User 74.179.30.67 made the following addition to Isopropyl alcohol "HI MR REVEALS 8TH GRADE IPS CLASS. I AM GOING TO KILL MR REVEAL BECAUSE HE IS A BIG FAT PAIN THE THE YOU KNOW WHAT, AND 7 DAYS TO DO SLUDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE! I AM GOING TO FLICK OFF THE HOMO THE NEXT TIME I SEE HIM". A threat..yes, credible...??. Silverchemist (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am looking into this. Bstone (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Threat, yes. Credible, probably not. Contact the school and have administration put the fear of God into whatever kid posted that. Probably will need a Checkuser to narrow down the specific computer used, if that's even technically possible. // roux   18:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am on the phone with one of their school admins, trying to find out if there is a teacher at the Indianapolis Public Schools by this name. The IP seems to be coming from Atlanta, GA, but google is not revealing IPS as a school system in Atlanta. Additional help would be useful. Bstone (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No teacher by the name of Reveals at the Indianapolis Public School system. Looking at Georgia. If you have leads please post them here. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have sent an email to the abuse email for the ISP and included a link to the diff and the IP it came from. I asked them to contact their authorities. Bstone (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The ISP is headquartered in Atlanta, but you are looking in the wrong place. Dnsstuff.com says that the actual user is in Frisco, Texas. --B (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule I don't take anything seriously that is written in CAPS LOCK, but please don't take my advice. Atlanta is Bellsouth HQ, so that means nothing. this link says Frisco, TX, and this one says it's asymmetric DSL. Plus they're probably not at school today. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am forwarding this to the Frisco, TX authorities. Bstone (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding any staff named "Reveal" but there are at least three student with that surname, and at least one of them should be graduated by now. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have spoken to the Frisco, TX police and spoke to Sgt Fortenberry. Case # 08133204 and they are looking into it. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I kind of missed this one, but I'm developing a form letter for these situations, and would always appreciate any help or suggestions you can make regarding it! —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "IPS" in the threatener's message probably represents "Introductory Physical Science". Deor (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ what happened to just blocking trolling IPs? As in WP:DENY? If we're going to call the police for every kid trolling Misplaced Pages, they will probably need to shut down all their lesser law-enforcing activities. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempted outing By User:Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Evidence is here.. I would reccomend a block of 24 hours with the understanding that this is never acceptable regardless of disagreements with editors over sources or content disputes.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a notice to assume good faith. --w 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While outing is never appropriate, we're not a promotional site. The majority of user:Syntacticus's edits have been adding citations or external links to reports written by one person. There is evidence that he has used an IP owned by that person's employer. If the user would stop being so single-minded about promoting that person then the concerns over his possible conflict of interest would be lessened. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This user has a history of such like behaviour. He accused me several times wof being a sock of Brian of Palatine. There should not be two standards here, one for users whom we find annoyiing and distasteful and others whom we agree with . There should be something more than a warning to assume good faith . Speculation as to who a user might be is verboten and this user (Bali ultimate) should be sanctioned with more than a" please assume good faith". There are people here who I have deduced who they are in real life and i disagree with them on issues. If I speculate on who they are or ask them if they are who i believe they are on the talk page, will you both just tell me to assume good faith ? If so, I can't wait to get started as I believe that it will prove embarraessing for the two individuuals.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually ,this behaviour is harrassment and covered under WP:OUTING. Bali nominated an article for deletion of this user too, a harrassment. Let's try to be fair here, no matter how you feel about Syntacticus.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. "Outing" is revealing a person's real-world identity against their wishes, if not already disclosed on Misplaced Pages. Accusing one account of being a WP:SOCK of another and requesting an WP:RfCU accordingly, if sincere (i.e. done in good faith) is done all the time and is a legitimate part of running the encyclopedia. It is a suspicion of bad faith, not an assumption of bad faith. If you look at the "Fru23" thread currently on this page you will see a case of dozens of accounts found to be sockpuppets of a single editor gaming the system. At least three large sock families of various levels of sophistication were editing the article in question, ACORN, so it is a legitimate concern. Bali Ultimate is indeed one of the more aggressive editors around here doing what I call "troll patrol" - guarding against vandals, socks, trolls, POV pushers, etc. I have not looked in enough detail to see if he took that too far, but in principle there is nothing wrong with doing this. Legitimate concerns have been raised by longstanding editors as to whether Syntacticus is a sockpuppet / COI editor on articles relating to an organization on whose IP he is editing, and there is an active RfCU on that. Frankly, that CU ought to be performed sooner rather than later. If he is a sock it is a major breach; if not we should clear him as soon as possible and be done with all this drama. Die4Dixie seems to have taken him under his wing and is giving good and patient counsel on how to avoid all this trouble in the future... so the sooner we can put this all to rest the better. Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

the link is above in the complaint. Alledging a COI is OK. Asking him if he is Vadum, and saying that he believes that he is Vadum, is a clear breach of WP:OUTING, especially if it is not on the check user forum. I agree, do a check user, but speculating about the real world identity of this user is no good.(funny, the idea of me taking someone under my wing!)Die4Dixie (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I had assumed Vadum was the name of an account but I see that's the real-life name of one of the CRC editors and former fellows. Although if true this is a significant COI and a considerable ruse by the editor, it is also true that anybody is free to edit the encyclopedia if they want, without threat of outing, and people of all persuasions and occupations are free to check their COI at the door and enjoy the exercise. We should probably wait for some input from administrators familiar with this policy and its applications but it does seem quite wrong to name names like this unless it's known. A WP:TROUT seems appropriate at the very least - blocking is to prevent disruption and would only be appropriate if this continues or becomes a pattern after admonishment to stop. But the more serious issue is that attempted outings ought to be contained - at the very least deleting the offending comment, probably deleting this discussion, and conceivably, redacting the edit histories if that can be done so that the outing is undone.... Whether and how to do that is way over my head. Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What threat of outing? What outing? I asked what i thought was a reasonable question. Dixies claims of my "repeatedly" doing this or that are false. I guess we're done here, at any rate. I'll try to ignore syntacticus one way or the other.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Your continued denial shows a lack of contrition, and editors like yourself are bad for this project. Hopefully an admin. who is willing to use the tools will come along before you are able to do any more damage. If you still cannot understand why your questions were not what you thought to be " a reasonable question" then you really don't belong editing until you do for the good of the project. IF after three admins have told you why you cannot engage in this puerile behaviour, then you are either a WP: DICK or WP:DENSE. What ever the case, your personal problem with this editor has gone beyond appropriate. You should find some other topics and leave syntacticus alone.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Outing is unacceptable in any circumstance, and irregardless of a possible conflict of interest. Bali ultimate: anonymity is one of the foundations of Misplaced Pages, and asking a user if he is person so and so is not a a reasonable question. So don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Block review for IP making legal threats

After making this legal threat on the Joe Scarborough article, I have blocked 75.57.213.252 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) indefinitely. The IP had been reported to AIV for his/her half-dozen reverts to the article, but on investigating I immediately ran into the above threat. While I am cognizant of BLP and WP:DOLT concerns, I feel impelled by WP:NLT to block the IP until/unless we can figure what else to do. Though I recognize that we generally do not levy indefinite blocks on IPs, I was not sure what other duration would be appropriate here. Other admins who have more expertise with BLP and/or legal threats should feel free to adjust this block as they see fit. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it depends on the type of IP address we are dealing with. A checkuser may be able to help. On the other hand, his response here manages to be both uncivil and against WP:NLT. His entire mess has been in the course of an hour. I suspect 24 hours would be more than enough before he moves on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid continues personal attacks and vandalism after several warnings, explanations and even after filing a report at ANI

I'm being forced to file this report again as a similar but shorter report was filed at ANI earlier but no action was taken. Thereafter, this editor has been informed repetitively of the uncivil personal attacks and wikitag vandalism but only to fail in stopping the editor from personal attacks and vandalism.

Continued personal attacks

• Here the editor has called other editors "extremists".
• Here the has attacked other editors by cracking insulting racist comment and was informed about unacceptable behavior
• Satanoid continued personal attacks and was given another/final warning about personal attacks but he still continued here and here in edit summary.
  
• He was reported at ANI and informed about the report here. But no action was taken on ANI.
• He again hurled insults by calling other editor "son" in a demeaning manner ("Don't overdo it son") and was was warned about personal attacks once again here.
• Regardless, satanoid again resorted to the same insulting behavior by insulting other editor calling him "son" in a demeaning way.
• Satanoid force edits uncivil language ("fucked") on talkpages, his earlier such remarks were toned down by other editor but Satanoid comes back and forced edit uncivil language.

Vandalism

• This where another editor "Sinneed" warned Satanoid for his vandalism of wikitags, but Satanoid continues vandalizing the tags again see here.
• Satanoid was warned by editor Sinneed again here but Satanoid still continued vandalized tags here.
• The tags were once again restored as discussion was in progress between 4 other editors on talkpage, but Satanoid again vandalized the wikitags.

Suspected sockpuppetry

• Another editor had expressed concerns on previous vandalism from an IP range of this user please see.
• This account also seems like a suspected sockpuppet of Satanoid.

Religious hate comment
One more editor was outraged at Satanoid's religious comments on the death of Sikh guru's sons and he informed me about it seeking help on wikipedia process to file a report. There can be several other damaging edits that can be added but for the sake of saving time, I'm leaving them out. Perhaps other editors can add them if they have time.

I've notified him of this discussion and by the way, the prior discussion is archived here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While I think Satanoid is out of line, I believe that he or she sincerely and honestly does not understand Misplaced Pages at all, and is firmly convinced that those of us who are taking the article away from Satanoid's intended path are indeed extremists or their sympathizers who are vandals damaging Misplaced Pages. I see no examples of excellent behaviour from any current active editor on the article, though Satanoid is PERHAPS the most overt in the lanugage and insults. I see that only as a matter of degree though. And yes, I include myself in that list. I see several places where I might have done better. I do wish the personal attacks and edit warring would end. If any heavily experienced editor would care to send me mail through wikipedia, I would very much appreciate suggestions of ideas for how to have helped more. One editor who I asked said "Run away quickly.", and I understand that advice better now. :) sinneed (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, what in the world is going on at User talk:67.194.202.113? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry? --w 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably and fairly pathetic if so. Ok, I've warned him yet again. If he doesn't shape up, I'll give him a short block to stop this. I do suspect some socking but I'll wait on it. If he's blocked, he can't edit as an IP (although I'm concerned when he's arguing with himself to form a "consensus"). However, you really should work on shorter section headings and just plain writing less. Long complaints like this are less likely to be read, and the addition of the yellow box is just plain obnoxious in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682, I've removed the color. However, I'm not sure how to trim down the content of complaint. I wanted to include enough history of the disputed behavior (and in time sequence) so that it puts less time burden on the reader to see what is going on. Noted the section heading advice for future as well; leaving it intact for now because it may break (not sure) the links in the message I left at couple of other pages. --RoadAhead 04:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the first advice I would give is clean up the talk page. Remove all the arguments about edit summaries that are there (those are personal issues and not article issues) and the general arguments about each others conduct. That belongs at RFCs, not there. I might just archive things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of RfCs, have you thought about establishing a conduct a Conduct Request for Comment for User:Satanoid? --w 06:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a user problem. I mean, it's clearly a user problem but the issue is bigger than that. Look at Talk:Sikh extremism. 90% of that is on an argument eliminated here, because it actually belongs elsewhere. The archives are full of stupidity like "I was warned so here's a three paragraph explanation of why I was warned" and arguments about edit summaries. None of which are relevant. There's got to be huge socking going on as multiple new users shouldn't be able to put in complex ref formatting for the same articles. However, all's well. This still doesn't compare to the fun I was having before. At least nobody's accusing me of Holocaust denial again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be concerned that the RfC would only result in more soap-boxing. The squabbling is already so very bad.sinneed (talk)

Well, if anyone is interested, I received this response. Please ignore his attacks, this last time, as I warned him yet again. As I said before, I don't care if he honestly believes it or not. That type of language is inappropriate here. The last character I dealt with may also have sincerely believed I deserved this crap but that still got him blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It is rather amazing when, in the middle of a series of insults, a person will insist they have never insulted anyone. sinneed (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to add he has been at it again here, targeting a fellow contributor to Sikh-History.com (because he thought Randip was me). This shows clearly he has been involved in Internet trolling in the past and posting anti-Sikh sentiments before. I really wish people like this would get a life and be more constructive. Just for the record sikh-history.com is a veryn anti-Khalistani site.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have given the wrong link. The section That's all folks was my creation to notify people that I am no longer editing under that IP anymore. Satanoid's edits were in the previous section. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh terrorism

Since the editing at Sikh extremism has controlled itself, it looks like he's decided on creating a new article: Sikh terrorism. I've redirected it back to extremism as a pov fork. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That, combined with this which followed from a bad faith assumption, was enough. I've blocked him for a day. If he wants to work with others, he can when he returns. If there are socks continuing this, tell me and his block will be worse as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How is Sikh terrorism a POV fork? If anything, sources are more likely to talk about Sikh terrorism than about Sikh extremism, though the two are obviously related. I think you misunderstand what has happened Sikh extremism. One side of the dispute got tired of fighting, and so stopped editing. In Satanoid's case, if he over-fought and got blocked. Now the article is completely skewed in favor of the whitewashers. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He started Sikh extremism, tried to get the article renamed, lost that argument, tried to get theocratic and undemocratic in the lead, lost that argument, and then created a new article to get those in the lead. Add in a long history of bad faith statements and blatant lying and I'm done playing games with him. He was warned enough and knew exactly what he was doing. You yourself are starting down the same path and should stop. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was the one who tried to get it renamed, but yes, I didn't appreciate how Satanoid added "undemocratic" without using a source. I think I left him a note about that, not that it would change his behavior. The problem is when people edit based on their personal opinion of the ideas under discussion rather than what most sources say. Your claim that I am "starting down the same path" is absurd and demonstrates that you either have not investigated this conflict properly (see my note on your talk page), or you have entered as a non-neutral player. The most that could be said ill of me is that I used language other users considered patronizing ("fella," "buddy," "honey-chile," etc), but I have since realized that they have no joviality in this conflict, so I no longer use these terms. Aside from that, I challenge you to show a time when I have not been acting to uphold WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and other content policies. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A gnat

65.93.74.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.70.16.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 69.156.56.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Template:69.156.59.207 - IP-hopping irritant. Any way this can be dealt with? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it just those three IPs? Rangeblock? Are there a series of articles? Protection? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, those were just a few I picked out. See their contributions, they're all vandalizing the same pages, so the other IPs that are doing the same vandalism should be blocked, too, if possible. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If they all are vandalising the same article, should we semi-protect that article? --w 03:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock would be impossible. The smallest range to catch these all would be like a /6 or something like that; effevtively blocking something like 2-3% of all IP-space. Selective semi-protection and Whack-a-Mole seems the only effevtive means. A good idea would also be to have these IP addresses checked out at WP:OP to see if they are openproxies. If they are all the same person, then it seems unlikely that their ISP would represent such a wide range of IP addresses. If they are different people, this is likely some sort of /b/ style attack, and as such, whack-a-mole and protection is our only recourse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind on that, it is clearly one person. All of the IPs show up as Bell Canada IPs at WHOIS, meaning that this is likely someone taking advantage of a wide range of Ips being shuffled through a huge dynamic range. Again, it looks like unless we want to rangeblock ALL of Bell Canada (we don't) then protection and whack-a-mole blocks is all that will work here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Caspian blue continued false accusations, misrepresentations and personal attacks

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

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full disclosure: This situation has arisen surrounding a content dispute over policy wording at WP:IUP and my application of it to an area of my interest. I felt that WP:IUP indicated that galleries shouldn't be in articles in main space without good reason and decided to be WP:BOLD and remove it from quite a few articles (which just happened to be korea related). Caspian blue took issue with that, and so far his comments have run the gamut of false accusations. Any time he is presented with evidence he either stops discussing, reverts, etc. I found his last revert to be uncivil and a further personal attack. This isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of galleries in articles (people can go to the IUP talk page if they want to do that). Given this editors past behaviour in Korea related articles, I felt his continued behaviour should be presented here for the community. His last revert is here where he claims I was making false accusations against him and instructs me to "behave" yet most of those statements came either with diffs or referenced things on his talk page.

1. Initially he accused me of using a threatening tone with an editor and scaring him away from wikipedia.. I presented him with several diffs asking where the threatening tone was . His response was to revert the diffs and state "Enough" . He has yet to provide a single diff to demonstrate where I used a threatening tone to force this editor out of the project.
2. At the Patbingsu article he falsely accused me of not reading the discussion prior to removing the gallery from the article. Yet here I am prior to the removal commenting on the discussion looking for clarification . He then claimed that I stated I never read the whole section . Yet, I can't see where I ever said that.
3. He's repeatedly accused me at several places (his talk page, patbingsu talk page, IUP talk page) of not wanting to discuss things. During my removal of the galleries I received two complaints from editors. The first one I showed the policy to and he said "Okay no problem" and with Caspian blue, he left me a talk page message: to which I replied on this talk page . He didn't engage on any talk on any of the articles I edited, my talk page, or the section on his talk page for 6 days . From his comments on patbingsu I was apparently supposed to be watching the history at an article I've never edited to know he wanted further discussion: . I explained that I don't wikistalk him and if he wants to talk to me he needs to make a comment somewhere I'm going to see it , he stopped discussing that.
4. He falsely claims a consensus at WP:IUP that my WP:BOLD edits were "reckless" . The word reckless appears nowhere on the policy talk page. For the record there appears to be a 3/3 split on my application of Bold, with caspian blue, badagnani, and davidwr being against it and deiz, protonk, and skeezix1000 not seeing a problem with my being bold.
5. In this edit he falsely accuses me of having no time to follow-up his suggestion for discussion and that I was attributing the state of the articles to the J-K conflict on wikipedia, when in fact it was Deiz who made that statement User_talk:Deiz#Galleries. In regards to having no time for follow-up, as I demonstrated above, I left the last message for him and he felt no compulsion to contact me for 6 days.
6. As far as another misrepresentation here he expreses amusement that I accept a gallery at Champmol even though there is a duplication in it, yet previously when I stated it was a pretty good example of good use of galleries, I qualified that with though I would discourage any duplication in content between the images on the WP:IUP talk page. Caspian blue also tried to make this point on the IUP talk page , to which I informed him that I had already stated that I thought the duplication should be removed . He should have been more than aware of that fact since it had been stated twice and he repeatedly edited the page (including that section) after I made that comment.

While these are specific examples, they are not the only examples and just capture the main themes of what he has been saying.--Crossmr (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest someone archive this section and you guys head off to an RfC. This seems too complicated for this page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This content dispute does not belong here. Let's use our energies to do what we should be doing: improving articles. Badagnani (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with a content dispute. This is a report on Caspian blue's behaviour which violates several policies.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall Badagnani repeatedly said to you, you have been uncivil and your tone is threatening which are disruptive and unhelpful. This false accusation report is another reflection of your own violations to several policies.--Caspian blue 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Then you should also recall that I've repeatedly asked him to show where I was threatening and he did not.--Crossmr (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Crossmr's false accusations and personal attacks after his unilateral deletion of galleries

I knew he would make this another false accusation against me instead of solving the problems that he has caused. (he blamed me that the analysis is a personal attack) He began to delete galleries from Korean related articles on Dec. 10 without prior discussions nor notification to WP:WikiProject Korea. In general, such big changes tend to be first notified to the community and discussed fully between members, but he never did. So I left a comment to him regarding his deletion on the same date as including a suggestion to open a discussion to WT:KO. However, he claimed that his removals are "consensus" and insisted that "no good reason" has not been given". What ground would people measure a degree of "good reasons"? His ground? Should I give him reasons until he feels satisfied? On the other hand, Deiz who strongly agreed with Crossmr suddenly deleted a gallery of Bibimbap after I left the message to Crossmr. I also suggested to Deiz to join in a discussion with me. However, neither came to discuss with me further until Dec. 15. For the past 5 days, Crossmr ceased to the removal campaign. Therefore, I believed that Crossmr's break was due to my suggestion to Bibimbap.

But he resumed the removal of galleries on Dec.15th, so I objected to his removal at Bosingak on the same date. However, he currently mispresents that I was quite doing nothing to resolve the dispute for 6 days. Then, Deiz came to me my page to express the support for Crossmr's edits which I believe his unilateral action is out of policy.

For more worse, Crossmire falsely accused me that I initiated edit war as reverting his removals of gallery at Bosingak, and accused me of violating the image policy. He has insisted that I have failed to provide "a good reason" to him regardless of my reasoning. I repeated suggested him to open a discussion at my summary field[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosingak&diff=next&oldid=258078302 but which were all ignored. Therefore, I opened a discussion to IUP to solve the problem. My responses to him can be found in User talk:Caspian blue#Galleries and User talk:Crossmr#False accusations, Talk:Patbingsu#Repeated deletion by Crossmir and WT:IUP. He threw a long list of false accusations and personal attacks to my talk page. Therefore, I left a following comment to his page.

1. Crossmr falsely accused me of making "false accusation like "You threaten Macropolis". Nope, I said his tone is threatening and he (Macropolis) was scared enough to leave Misplaced Pages. Do not distort my comment.
2. Crossmr falsely accused me that "there is no single discussion on article talk pages regarding "gallery", therefore his deletion is legitimate. After pointed out by me, he said he visited the talk page. However, his "declaration for deletion" tells that he did not fully read prior discussions. My analysis on him is correct.
3. Crossmr falsely accused me that I'm the one who initiated the edit war at Bosingak. However, in fact he is the one who began deleted the gallery and received the 3RR warning unlike me. When the edit war occurred I clearly repeatedly suggested him to open a discussion, but he did not do that. Instead he reverted 3 times. Crossmr is the one who rather chose to edit war with threatening edit summaries.
4. Crossmr falsely claimed that his removal is supported by the consensus. People at IUP said he should've opened a discussion first since he is the one who wished to carry the deletion campaign.
5. Crossmr falsely accused that I made a personal attack to hims for my comment that the current problem is caused by his unilateralism. That is a valid analysis and his unwarranted accusation is a rather clear personal attack. His threatening tone is already pointed by another editor, Badagnani (talk · contribs).
6. Crossmr falsely that I was repeatedly informed that his removal is a valid consensus at image policy and I should've presented a "good reason". (why?, is he my boss?) I clearly left the message in my edit summaries.
7. Crossmr falsely accused me of having no time to insert enough contents and then have failed to provide "a good reason" for his own sake. I said he is not a judge nor enforcer to push his POV to me and Korean project.
8. Crossmr's threatening tone and the misquoting of the policy do not provide a good atmosphere to talk civility. Another user has said so.
9. As soon as I opened the discussion, Crossmr falsely accused me of violating the image policy that none agreed with you except Deiz.
10. He repeatedly and persistently mispresents my edits and behaviors. He is old enough to know the virtue of WP:CIVILTY, WP:DISCUSSION, WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DISCUSSION, but he rather chooses to ignore all rules for his own POV as misquoting the policy.

Crossmr've made many false accusations and others in the rude manner. I don't understand why I should provide "good reasons" for his persistent unpredictable standard on gallery. His unilateral removals of galleries have caused the great conflicts, however he keeps falsely accusing me of something because I pointed out his wrongness, and disagree with his assessement. Therefore, I believe his behaviors constitute WP:Harassment and WP:Personal attack which should not be tolerated. Thanks-Caspian blue 04:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Caspian, if your complaint is in response, I would suggest making it a subheading instead. Also, Crossmr at least gave us diffs. But same view, archive this, and you guys should head towards dispute resolution. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with dispute resolution. The issue at IUP is completely separate from his behaviour here. His behaviour violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and from what I've seen around AN/I this is hardly the first time.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

1. I clarified that in my post above. You should really read these things before commenting. You still haven't provided a single diff to demonstrate where I used a threatening tone to force Marcopolis off the project. You've been given multiple opportunities. Until you can demonstrate this it is yet another false accusation.
2. I said there wasn't a single discussion on the article talk page about the reason for including it. The only discussions were about what pictures to include, not how a gallery benefited the article itself. After you claimed that I didn't read the talk page, I specifically said "I read it" Not that I visited the talk page. Another attempt to misrepresent.
3. I was stating that you can't claim I started the edit war and didn't discuss because your only call for discussion was in the process of reversion. If you truly wanted to discuss things you could have discussed things instead of reverting first.
4. I claimed my gallery removals were supported by policy consensus per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IUP, and I was being WP:BOLD. Policy is considered to have consensus. Only half of the editors who took part in the discussion recommended that I should have discussed first. There is no consensus that I abused bold. Another attempt to misrepresent.
5. I've more than demonstrated your false accusations above.
6. As soon as you demonstrated any real opposition and opened a discussion to what I was doing, I ceased gallery removal. No one made any repeated attempts to stop me prior to that. As I demonstrated you didn't respond to me for 6 days and after 6 days your response was to revert.
7. I honestly have no idea what you're referring to here.
8. I haven't made any threats (which would be required of a threatening tone) and my words have been neutral. Badagnani was asked repeatedly to demonstrate where I was being threatening, he refused. I have not once misquoted a policy to my policy. Consensus on the IUP page is that the policy is poorly worded and unclear.
9. My first edit was to remind you of the wording of the policy and indicate you should make a case for the galleries . I see no accusation of violating the image use policy in that statement. Yet another misrepresentation.--Crossmr (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
10. You've failed to provide a single shred of evidence that I've done any of those things.

This is not what Misplaced Pages should be about. Let's please all get back to the important work of improving articles, not doing the above. Badagnani (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Improving articles cannot be done in an environment of editors, including yourself, making unending personal attacks and accusations when you can't seem to defend your point.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So you're using the previous ANI reports on me filed by sockpuppeters. That is not wonder. As for Macropolis, I have had a bad impression on your accusation against him because you reported Macropolis, a prolific image uploader to ANI as strongly urging him to be blocked for his lack of communication. You assumed bad faith that almost of his images were in violation of copyright policy and exaggerated his mistakes in formatting causing a big trouble which I disagreed. His edits are hugely decreased after that report and now seem to stop editting Misplaced Pages. Your behaviors against him was viewed as "threatening" to me. You have no willingness to accept different people's different behaviors. Besides, as another editor repeatedly said to you, your tone is very rude and threatening. You have acted like you're correct, and others who disagree with you totally wrong. That kind of behaviors offend me very much and you violate WP:NPA, WP:Harassment. WP:AGF. You're almost inactive, so I should've waited you for your unilateral behaviors? Your problematic behaviors have caused the issue very big, and do not divert the issue to me.--Caspian blue 05:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also using the fact that you've been blocked several times for edit warring. You can't provide a single diff where I used a threatening tone can you? This will be the third or fourth time I've asked. Some of his images were copyvios, and speedied. In fact even when he was told they were copyvious he repeatedly uploaded them and didn't communicate. I never once said almost all of his images were in violation of copyright (though if you can find a diff, please do). I did say that another image that looked very professional and like an image from the seoul metro website was possibly a copyvio but we needed information on that. We got a french speaking editor to get that information. As I demonstrated on your talk page I made several attempts to communicate with Marcopolis and he refused. I only asked for a block after repeated problem behaviour from him after many many attempts to communicate.--Crossmr (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of my block record constitutes WP:Personal attack. I also notice that you're blocked for incivility which is very understadable given your rude behaviors and threatening tone.--Caspian blue 05:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The mentioning of your block record is relevant to this discussion since the blocks were in relation to the same subject. I was blocked for incivility once 2 years ago by an editor involved in a dispute with me. Can the same be said about you? Sorry where on NPA does it say I can't mention your block record? This isn't an article talk page where we're discussing content like a gallery. We're here specifically to discuss your conduct--Crossmr (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That courtesy is heard from an admin, not my own opinion. So you should be very careful when you're doing something offensive. Well, some of my blocks are much related to sockpuppers, and you have failed to prove that your block of edit is from involved admin. I get that you're blocked from warring and incivility. You're confusing the current situation which you have produced dramas and your conducts which caused offensiveness to me.--Caspian blue 06:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I only see one of your blocks retracted. Whether there were sockpuppets or not, you were still blocked for edit warring over Korea related articles. For the record, I noticed your tweaking up above. Your didn't make an edit on Bosingak until Dec 16 . Your edit to my talk page was the 10th, your next edit was the 16th.--Crossmr (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have shown no credibility to me, I believe that your block for edit warring and incivility is very much reasonable given your current disruptive behavior. I use UTC, and my edit at Bosingak is Dec. 15, not 16. I visited you on Dec. 10. Do not distort my edits and mispresent my action. Besides, why do you ceased to removal campaign after my visit to your page? Why did not you even notify your deletion to the community until now? Since you're so confident about your deletion campaign, why you RESUMED your deletions on Dec. 15? I assumed you saw my discussion suggestion to Deiz at Bibimbap. Bear in mind that I instead opened the discussion to resolve the problem that you have caused to Korea project. --Caspian blue 06:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yet another personal attack. My block 2 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with your behaviour now. Your blocks for edit warring on korea were only last month. Actually I didn't cease removing the galleries from the pages. Shortly after you visited me, I finished removing the galleries from the subway station. I was busy for a few days and then when I had time I carried on with the next batch. As far as credibility goes you haven't provided any diffs to support your position or anything you've claimed.--Crossmr (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Refresh your memory. You repeatedly gave me the above personal attack here first. So you're okay to do a persosnl attacks to user who disagree with you, but others say your past is personal attack? Logically flawed again. This report is stemmed from your disruptive behaviors to the Korean project and incivility. Therefore, your past block record has very much something to do with your current behavior since you resort to other's block record. The current issue has nothing to do with my last block for reverting 2 times in 24 hours. --Caspian blue 06:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to your claim that I have no credibility, not about you referring to my block log. We're still waiting for you to provide diffs to support your position. You keep adding more and more claims but not a single shred of evidence to back it up. Your block log is very recent and shows an aggressive habit to try and control Korean related articles.--Crossmr (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Who are "we"? Ho, you're again exaggerating my comment. "You have no credibility to me". That is quite natural reflection regarding your bad faith report and disruptive deletion campaign. Do not worry, your diffs are very much overlapped with mine and your constant addition of personal attacks to me prevent me whenever trying to add diffs.--06:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We? Myself, and Ricky above, the other user who suggested you provide diffs to support your points. As well as anyone else who might like to read this, but if you don't want to provide any evidence to support your position, we're not going to hold you down and force you to do it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not falsely delegate you as "we" (you already did when removing galleries as misquting the policy and consensus).--Caspian blue 07:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Did ricky not ask you for diffs above? Should I have referred to it as "ricky and I asked you to provide diffs?" would that have been better for you?You've actually provided a couple diffs, lets go over them

1. he blamed me that the analysis is a personal attack Read npa again, npa has nothing to do with truth. you were asked about a picture and article content you decided you couldn't comment on the picture without commenting on me as an editor at the same time.
2. He began to delete galleries from Korean related articles on Dec. 10 Never disputed that, utterly irrelevant as to what that has to do with anything. There was no requirement that I notify the project before editing the articles. You've been referred to WP:BOLD many times. Again this has nothing to do with the galleries, stay on topic.
3. but he claimed that his removals are "consensus" and insisted that "no good reason" has not been given". I had no reason to believe there was any serious dispute with the policy at WP:IUP. There were no tags on the page claiming the policy was disputed. WP:CONSENSUS is very clear that policies have consensus. Your misunderstanding stems for your inability to assume good faith. You would have been free to also state a good reason at the articles, but you chose not too. Instead you chose to remain silent.
4. I objected to his removal at Bosingak on the same date and after you demonstrated a serious objection, I ceased all gallery removals. Your point?
5. Therefore, I believed that Crossmr's break was due to my suggestion to Bibimbap. You had no evidence to support that I read that and agreed to it. I didn't edit bibimbap or make any comments in regards to this article.
6. and accused me of violating the image policy. As it was my understanding of the policy at the time that I made that statement. Consensus is clear that the policy is not clear. Misinterpretation shouldn't be attributed to malice, assume good faith and all that again.
7. I repeated suggested him to open a discussion at my summary field At that point in time the only editors to express an opinion(that I was aware of) were you, deiz and I. You were the only one objecting and there was a policy (poorly worded)indicating their removal. Again WP:AGF, it'll get you far. --Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you deleted more than 40 galleries on one day, Dec. 10th! This is a huge change in the one project. You solely carried the campaign without prior discussion in the name of WP:Consensus and WP:IUP which I feel "wrong". My WP:AGF has shown as repeatedly suggesting to you to take the matter to a bigger community, which you totally ignored for 5 days. You did not assume good faith on my suggestion and denounced given reasoning "nothing good". After your logical fallcy was pointed out by several people at IUP, you quickly changed your catch praise to WP:BOLDness and falsely blamed that I did not assume good faith. Since you still have not admitted the aftermath of your conducts, your reporting here is a clear evidence on your failure of WP:AGF. Also You did not immediately ceased to remove the gallery until receiving 3RR warning, but blamed me to edit war! If I had no intention to resolve the dispute with you, I would've run to report you to ANI not to take the matter to IUP. Besides, you demanded me to add contents to balance text and images to keep the gallery with providing "a good reason" for you. Your standard on gallery is unpredictable and arbitrary per your support of some article, and then you blamed it. You left a long scornful message responding to my expression on your past ANI report on Macropolis, and you really expected me to read such uncivil message? I have a right to revert whatever unpleasant rambling left on my page.--Caspian blue 08:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes and for such a huge changed I received 3 comments. 1 person praised it, 1 person at first didn't like it but when shown the policy changed their mind, the other person when my logic was explained said nothing. There was nothing there to indicate I needed to take it to a larger consensus. Sorry but those 5 days are on you. I replied to your inquiry. You asked me "what consensus" and quoted you the relevant policies, which was not just WP:IUP btw, but also WP:NOT. and you said nothing. If you don't raise any further objection, there is no reason for me to assume you have any further objection. I said I stopped mass removal of the galleries when I saw your serious objection. I stopped removing the gallery on bosingak when another editor got involved. See how that works? Until the other editor got involved you were the only editor against 2 editors and policy claiming there was no consensus to remove the gallery.--Crossmr (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to not realize that my suggestion for you to take it to the bigger community is to get broader opinons from people. That is a common sense. Galleries and images are created by several or many editors, and they could not keep up with your pace. I did not notice your huge deletion campagin, until one article that has been on my watchlist was edited by you. Your deletion started on articles that a few people visit. The station articles are managed by South Korean geographic task force (most of them are currently inactive). That's why a courtesy note to the community and discussion between members are required. People who said it know you deleted more than 50 galleries by your own decision? I don't think so.

You and Deiz discussed on galleries several times and he followed your POV to Bibimbap article, so I assumed you would come to discuss with me to the talk page. You deleted the gallery at Patbingsu, a Korean dish, so the deletion at Bibimbap, another Korean dish is a result of your discussion with him. You keep failing to accept different opinions with you. Different opinions with are authomatically blamed as "bad faith" by you? No way. You provoked that I have provided nothing good rationale, and ignored previous discussions between users. You become increasingly incivil and falsely attack that I made a personal attack to you. I dont' see any violation from my comment to you. Calling a spade (your wrongdoing) a spade is not personal attack. However, your accusations here are outrageous.--Caspian blue 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You made a suggestion, nothing supported it. You were the only one suggesting it, while there were 2 editors in favour and policy. You seem to forget what a suggestion is. If you wanted to contribute more you could have continued the discussion, instead you didn't. There is no requirement that I leave a courtesy note to the community before editing articles under their project. Even if I'm not being bold, I don't need to notify the project before I make any changes. But if you can point to the policy on that please do. Again you make too many assumptions about which articles I supposedly read and would comment on. You have no evidence to any of that. I've provided plenty of evidence to support my complaints about your behaviour. You'll also have to point to where on NPA you are allowed to insult other editors if you feel its true.--Crossmr (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, you prove me that you only see what you want to see. Your diffs are not evidences to prove your false WP:POINT. You also falsely attack me being a tag-team with Badaganani. You seem to be sleuthing my past, and your such accusation is very amusing again. I made a suggestion as opposed to your interpretation of policy with a clear reason. That is not nothing. You constantly denounced my given reasoning and previous discussions "no good". What ground? There were 2 editors including you were favoring your interpretation of the policy which I and others disagree with. You falsely accused me of violating policy (your misquoting policy in a threatening tone is personal attack (the diff in the second paragraph), making edit war (you initiated the edit war), so all of your allegation are in series of your personal attacks. Although you're also member of Korean film task force, you did not bother to notify your massive deletion as believing your behavior is a consensus which is clearly not. Boldness without following consensus is not real bold action: just causing a chaos. Your diffs are also evidences of your behaviors because it is responses to your comments. So do not misstate my complaint about your behaviors.--Caspian blue 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Except I don't need to prove anything to you. Just the community. I don't need to sleuth your past at all. I edit AN/I enough to see your name here repeatedly in regards to disputes surrounding Korean articles. I think its interesting that badagnani showed up to revert that article just in time so you didn't have to do it a third time. I also notice in your blocking history you were blocked for gaming the system to avoid 3RR a couple of very interesting coincidences. I'm not insinuating, just an interesting observation. At the time we had the discussion, the only editor disagreeing was you. Until badagnani showed up, it was only you. You are not consensus. You seem to forget there. Show me where I was being bold without following consensus? When another editor showed up to support you, I stopped. Until that point it was you, all alone. Two editors on board who agreed on an interpretation of a policy and just you who didn't. Yet you were the one pushing to revert an article against that. Where was your consensus?--Crossmr (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you're not consensus but you act like that. You just repeatedly confirm yourself being uncivil with the unwarranted preachy tone. When your previous block for incivility was pointed out after your mentioning my log, you were quickly attacking me and trying to justify your past without diffs to be evidence for your claim. This is really contradictory of your standard. You keep violating WP:NPA policy with above attacks and make this drama. Your activities tell your character very well. I've also seen you having commented here for whatever reasons and do not expect me to think that your comments are regarded as valuable as others' comments by community. Badaganani and I have rarely agreed with each other, so his reverts of yours show that your unilateral edits caused disruptions to Korean project. Do not forget that removal of gallery at Bibimbap is Badagnani's edit. Therefore, you're again intentionally mispresenting that I am the one pushing to revert article against policy. You're the one who made edit war as willing to make your false point. Once you're being a member of the Korean project, please try to edit constructively and do not blatantly disregard the community as you did. Well, people at IUP clearly said otherwise, so do not distort their comment as well.--Caspian blue 10:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've subordinated the above heading. Retaliatory reports--or those which appear to be retaliatory reports--don't help anyone. If you have some specific concern that needs admin attention you can raise it in a separate thread. But having dueling threads like this will make for a circus. Protonk (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  With all due respect, the outrageous title named by Crossmr is his ill-intention to ruin my reputation, so I think I should revise the title" on my report. --Caspian blue 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ok. But making an identical or similar title in "response" doesn't ease tension, it only enflames it. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Badagnani personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and stirring the pot

Since he wants to get involved in this, Badagnani has more or less been tag-teaming with Caspian blue over the last 2 days. When asked specific questions he often stops talking, or tries to deflect the conversation.

1. In this edit he claims I was removing the galleries out of revenge or teaching another editor a lesson , and claims I was "rampaging" through wikipedia. He assumes bad faith and provides no diffs to back up his claims. He is told by skeezix1000 to assume good faith .
2. He claims to be sure he knows its revenge after being told to assume good faith . Simply because I didn't start a discussion at dozens of article pages and instead chose to be WP:BOLD a well established and accepted practice on wikipedia. I explained my reasoning for removal and being bold, "revenge" wasn't one of the reasons
3. Here he asks me to "moderate" my tone and refrain from using capital letters To this day I still can't see where I used capital letters. Badagnani frequently tells me to moderate my tone, yet can never provide any examples of what is wrong with my tone.
4. In this diff He demonstrates misrepresentation, he was asked to demonstrate, other than the patbingsu article where there was evidence that other galleries were carefully selected. He still hasn't provided that. He also demonstrates that he apparently understands AGF
5. Here he tries to misrepresent my position I never once stated I was going to ignore formed consensus on a policy page. Since this discussion at IUP began I haven't engaged in any mass gallery removal.
6. Even after explanation he still assumes bad faith that I'm attacking Korea
7. He begins to make comments like this Claiming that I refused to discuss things, but as I pointed out in Caspian Blues edits I responded to the only 2 comments I got on it until now. Once this discussion started I stopped and joined it. Another attempt to misrepresent my action, further example
8. After insisting I engage in discussion on article talk pages, my first reply to an article talk page is met with him calling me tenditious and disruptive . Apparently for not immediately agreeing with them and instead defending my point. His evidence of that is apparently You're threatening because you're threatening. No diffs or explanation of what language I was using that was so threatening.
9. he again attempts to misstate my position here claiming I only want 1 image for any article on korean buildings.
10. When I finally tell him myself to respect the policies of NPA, AGF and CIVIL and then continue on with my point about the gallery, his response is again of "moderating" my tone .
11. instead of addressing the gallery he continues to assume bad faith and make disparaging remarks about me .
12. he continues to assume without evidence that I intended to continue on removing galleries from articles non-stop .

A way forward

Clearly an RfC/U is required here. Should it be an omnibus including all three, or three separate filings? // roux   06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of this stuff seems topic-related more than just personal, so an omnibus one might be best. Otherwise we would have three separate ones turning out like this fun. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of caspians complaints are topic related even though I asked him to leave it at the relevant policy page. My complaints are 100% user behaviour, violations of AGF, NPA and CIVIL.--Crossmr (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you again mispresent my stance. You're not me, so do not falsely state my opinion. Of course, my complaints are related to your behaviors like threatening tone, and misquoting policies for your POV. Can I ask when you asked me to leave it at the relevant policy page? I already presented your wrong interperation of the polices to the relevant page, but this report on you is 100% your behavior including the activities here.--Caspian blue 08:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For which we're still waiting for those diffs. The only diffs you've provided are about topic stuff. You've only provided one diff about npa, and that stems from your misunderstanding of the policy in thinking it is okay to make a personal attack if you feel its true. Please read my introduction, way up at the top, where I said policy stuff should be discussed on the relevant policy page. This isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of galleries in articles (people can go to the IUP talk page if they want to do that).--Crossmr (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you're not "we". You're the only one asking diffs more than I presented. Do not distort about the NPA policy again just like your repeated mispresentation of WP:IUP and WP:CONSENSUS. Oh, you also falsely try to put various charges which I rather see you have been violating all accusation by yourself. Besides, you did not clearly state the suggestion. Like having said, I could not read your mind.--Caspian blue 08:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What is unclear about This isn't the place to discuss the appropriateness of galleries in articles (people can go to the IUP talk page if they want to do that).?--Crossmr (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You know the discussion is not only about the specific images in the galleries. You again prove that people should follow your own rule. --Caspian blue 09:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

there is already a long discussion on the image policy page there is no reason to duplicate it here.--Crossmr (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You must be confusing "the discussion" with here. The discussion that I referred to is the discussions at the article of Changgyeonggung, Patbingsu.--Caspian blue 09:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another sockpuppet of banned editor PoliticianTexas, namely TeranceRamirez

Blocked user. Orderinchaos 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is very likely a sockpuppet of community-banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Evidence:

• Recreation of deleted article Carlos F. Vigil Middle School: article was originally created by DeLaCueva (talk · contribs), a known sock of PolTx, then the content was moved to Espanola Public Schools and replaced with a redirect; TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs) has moved the content back.
• Made some edits to Espanola Public Schools, a page created by Thomasalazar (talk · contribs) (known PolTx sock) and edited mostly by Thomasalazar and DeLaCueva, although the new edits appear not to duplicate earlier work (diff)
• Made some edits to Espanola, New Mexico, a frequent target of PolTx, although these do not appear to duplicate earlier work (diff)

How about a block of TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked contribs, seems to be a lot of promotional stuff. The articles being edited are same content area and same or similar way to previous user. Have reversed all edits but for a couple which were minorly helpful, and blocked. If an unblock admin considers there is sufficient evidence that this person is not the banned user's latest incarnation, I have no objection to this being reversed. Orderinchaos 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Blatant case of administrator abuse

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

I'm currently involved in the most absurd content dispute with another editor (User:Kwamikagami) over at the Swahili language page. It turns out that the other editor is an adminstrator. I found this out when he locked the page in his preferred version -- a clear case of administrator abuse:

"Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

I've quoted for the offending administrator the same passage above from WP:ADMIN, and told him to unlock the page. However, he insists on keeping it locked in his preferred version. Can an uninvolved adminstrator who does actually respect Misplaced Pages's policies and doesn't abuse his or her own administrator privileges unlock the page and at the very least have a word with this administrator? Thank you in advance. Middayexpress (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the diffs on the article. It's very clearly a content dispute. No vandalism and no need for protection. The admin who protected it, Kwamikagami, is involved in the content dispute. Seems like ultra bad judgement on the part of Kwamikagami. Bstone (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bstone for your feedback. That's just what I'd thought. Are you by any chance an administrator yourself? If so, in your experience, how does one go about dealing with such cases? Does the administrator get a warning of some kind or something else maybe? Middayexpress (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment, this is very poor judgment and he needs to explain it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural note: User:Kwamikagami notified of this thread EyeSerene 08:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the kind of incident that should be taken to AdminWatch, but unfortunately it won't be launched for a few weeks. Are you interested in filing a notification? If so, please let me know and I'll think about how to use this as the first case. It's important that we start keeping records of regrettable behaviour such as this. Tony (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed the article under protection for 24 hrs to give Middayexpress a chance to provide some references for his repeated deletion of information from the article, and ones related to it. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask someone to provide evidence before blanking information that is readily supportable by numerous sources. He should at least use a tag. I'm not the only editor who disagrees with him; one of the others accused him of "acting like a child". There are multiple reliable sources as late as 2007 (such as Derek Nurse, a respected Africanist working on comparative Bantu) stating that Swahili is spoken in Somalia. It is entirely possible that they have all fled the country, and if they have, so be it, but Middayexpress has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever for this. He's simply going by the fact that the CIA doesn't specifically mention Swahili; if you look at their language coverage, you'll see it's very spotty, and in general they only mention the major languages of a country. (There are, of course, other languages in Somalia, such as Oromo, which Middayexpress is evidently also denying because they're not mentioned by the CIA.) If you look at Japan, for example, the only language listed is "Japanese". One can hardly infer from that that Ainu and Okinawan are extinct, or that ethnic Koreans and Chinese speak only Japanese; similarly, you cannot infer from the limited coverage under 'France' that Tahitian and all the Amerindian languages of French Guiana are extinct. Negative evidence is not a valid argument. kwami (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First, note that you also violated WP:3RR on that page. Second, your explanation above doesn't explain in any way why you don't think the protection policy applies in this case. Your conduct has not been good, here; I recommend that you at least acknowledge that. That said, Bstone, please don't template the regulars, as you did here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect the page yourself, immediately. Regardless of who is correct, this is still a content dispute. I'm still looking at whether any other action needs to be taken regarding 3RR. Black Kite 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't endorse unprotecting the page; while protecting it was a clear violation of policy, it's unquestionable that there was an edit war going on, and if I'd come across the page at WP:RFPP I'd have protected. Unprotecting because it was gamed by the protecting admin isn't going to solve anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it should be an uninvolved admin who does it. Or it should just be "I'm unlocking this, but one more blind revert from either of you and the banhammer comes out". Black Kite 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course it should be an uninvolved admin. But would anything really be gained if I headed over there and unprotected it with a rationale of "improper protection", and then reprotected with the rationale "edit war"? Your second solution works for me, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and implemented that measure. Both editors informed. Black Kite 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds eminently fair. Black Kite, if there are any further problems, I'll come to you. Hopefully we can resolve this on the talk page. kwami (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As expected, Kwamikagami is not telling the truth. The truth is that there was already a discussion going on my talk page on well before he ever took it upon himself to lock the Swahili language article in his preferred version. Instead of pursuing said discussion, Kwamikagami did exactly as I explained above and the uninvolved editors Bstone, Crossmr, Tony1, and Sarcasticidealist have all correctly deduced. Coincidence? I think not. If there's any doubt, please follow the links to said discussion and the article's history page and compare the time stamps to see that this is indeed the case. I have to agree with Tony1 especially given Kwamikagami's unrepentant attitude that an AdminWatch notification is definitely in order. Middayexpress (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There are only two editors involved, both have exceeded 3RR and are well aware that they are being watched now. I doubt either of them are going to do anything silly like continue the edit-war. I've left a note for requesting that user:Middayexpress confirms that they wont edit this part of the article for 24hrs. John Vandenberg 09:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (but it looks like BlackKite has gone and done it...which is good)

Would y'all mind keeping an eye on Barawa and Bravanese people, which are under related edit wars? kwami (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite shows again how skilled he is at dealing with such situations, and he knows I have great respect for his work. However, his very skill at stepping in and righting the wrong after the fact has swept under the carpet an issue that I suspect the complainant feels is anything but "Resolved" (the word that neatly adorns the top of this section). I have a fear that nothing has been learnt or acknowledged. Let me say now that I see on Kwami's talk page evidence of knowledge that is valuable to the project, and that he may be right in a content sense (I'm not going there—it's irrelevant). I also need to declare that my comments here have probably disqualified me from managing the case at AdminWatch, which itself has rules governing conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminwatch?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is admin watch an official process or something? I sense a great instruction creep in the force :). -- lucasbfr 12:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be something Tony1 (talk · contribs) wants to propose - not official process. Toddst1 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but it looks it already has its own recusal processes, a COI policy and such. The way Tony talks about it makes me fear this is going to grow as a yet an other process monstrosity. -- lucasbfr 13:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What's currently wrong about submitting cases to AN/ANI, and then have it escalate (if need be) to dispute resolution or ARBCOM? seicer | talk | contribs 13:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, except that method doesn't have quite enough drama. This looks like a wonder of shrubbery, with sections to be moved hither-and-thither and templates to be completed and comments to be made and hurdles to be jumped and rules to be followed... all so that the one-a-month actual case of minor misuse of tools can be swamped by dozens and dozens of vandals, POV-pushers and general moaners turning up to complain about how ERic IS A FAGGG!!!! was deleted out of process and the rest of the people there can pop the admin concerned on a pillory and throw rotten fruit at them. I'll bet real money that it goes onto MfD roughly the day it opens. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 13:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, is that a threat? Trying to destroy it would be the ideal demonstration that the process is sorely required. There is considerable support among users for the initiative, and significant dissatisfaction with the current processes for dealing with grievances concerning the policy rules governing admins. Please be reassured that the process is intended to be balanced, disinterested and NPOV. Redvers, I don't think that you can justify your predictions at this stage. People should have nothing to fear about such a process if the admin policy is taken seriously. Tony (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any threat here. I however see concerns over how it would work. -- lucasbfr 13:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Nice piece of catch-22 reasoning, but does not address Redvers' absolutely valid comments in any meaningful way. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of immediately discounting an editor's hard work to bring transparency to an obscure part of Misplaced Pages's behavioral policies—the maintainence of the high standards of admins' actions, you might offer suggestions for improvement on User talk:Tony1/AdminWatch. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Redvers already suggested the most appropriate improvement. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

POV pushers and moaners won't get far—they bore me as much as they bore you. What I'm getting here is a sense of fairly aggressive jokiness ("Eric is a fag") about a significant problem at WP. This is a sign of what I believe WPians at large do not like. Tony (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and in case people might think I'm a power-seeker, I've already declared that I am not interested in running such a process after it has proved itself. My interest is in getting process right, technically and legalistically. Beyond that, my interest at WP is in language. I can see people may also claim that I'm an admin hater; also not so. I want greater social and professional cohesion between admins and non-admins. But this is not the place to debate the matter. Tony (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

But the pillory has already begun: Redvers used "fairly aggressive jokiness" on a noticeboard!! zOMG!!!! AdminWatch (not at all Misplaced Pages's creepiest name) sounds like a kangaroo court to judge admins on their every move, with its hand-picked group of "co-ordinators" who will sit in judgement upon both the complainers and the admins complained about. Have you seen the type and number of complaints the average admin gets? Do you know how often people have called for me to be desysopped or banned for deleting such joys as Portable car, Boobys, Yabba my icing, Robby like chipotle, That girl next to Brandon, Steven Gay willams and Thing Windows xp is better at than Windows Vista? Normally, they can be confined to my talk page. Now they're going to have a whole process devoted to their grievences, with appointed "co-ordinators" deciding whether they should be listened to or not, and no doubt little templates on my talk page telling me where to respond and how and what template to use and where to put it and where to move it and how to complete it and which shrub it goes under... This isn't going to work. Honestly. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. I mean, Google Watch has proven to be an admirably fair and balanced check on the power of that entity. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Their sister project has less of a good reputation. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who likes the idea? :) To address your problem Redvers: how about stipulating that <insert number here> registered users have to complain about an admin (or an admin's actions) before a case is initiated... Just a thought. ;) Best, --Cameron* 14:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We already have that process. It's called RfC. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)It's hardly effective to complain about further process and bureaucracy in a system that thrives on process and bureaucracy such as Misplaced Pages. The AdminWatch that Tony has proposed is not yet functional, but like all systems, has the flexibility to change when problems arise. This is the fundamental nature of Misplaced Pages. When something doesn't work, the community changes it. On a micro level, if part of AdminWatch doesn't work, it will be changed. On a macro level, if it does work, admins themselves may change. --Moni3 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or do as I will do: ignore it utterly. It has no powers of enforcement and is bound to end up as a petty annoyance like the unlamented WP:AMA. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I hit the record, for simply removing extreme left wing POV from a BLP and arguing briefly with the user, some person filed a RFCU, a harassment report and an edit war report, AND emailed oversight if they were to be believed, even blogged about me, with all of them being rejected and the user ceasing to edit on the day said rejections became clear. A project such as this, admirable as its intentions are, would simply penalise admins who work in more disputed areas of the 'pedia. Orderinchaos 16:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Redvers: I appreciate your concerns, and note that no one has yet managed to create a fair, constrained, focused process before, althought it's been talked about a lot. I've been made aware in correspondence with FT2, and with at least one hard-working admin on the AdminWatch talk page, just how tricky it is. Heck, mediation on WP is tricky enough, and doesn't really seem to work well at all.

That is why I've built into the process a highly constraining factor. The moaners and POV pushers will be discouraged first-off by the necessity to cite, justify and evidence (through diffs) the specific policy requirement they believe has been botched, by number and letter. They are warned about keeping the personal out of it, of being "extremely civil", and of restricting themselves to the relevant facts. They get booted out if they don't. You're right, the biggest challenge is in filtering out the rubbish. I ask that you wait and see—give it a go. I don't expect to be rushed with complainants because of the tough requirements for admissibility. If there's only one a month (referring to your comment above), that would be great: putting itself out of business is an objective.

Carefully controlled userspace is a good place for this to evolve, given that the required checks and balances would die a death by committee if this were a proposal in public space. The whole purpose is to achieve a more stable wikicommunity. I'm awake for only another hour, but am interested in receiving your advice, if you choose not to ignore it (on the talk page, or people will complain about off-topic discussion?). Tony (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The draft page makes an interesting read, and does bring up some very valid concerns. However, I can't help seeing its ultimate problem in the same way as Redvers states above, although I wouldn't have put it that bluntly ;) Unless it has both teeth and community legitimacy, what's the point? I'd much rather see problem admins handled by a far more rigorous Arbcom - I think we have a promising list of candidates this year - than by a process that runs the risk of creating a siege mentality amongst admins and entrenching an 'us and them' mindset. EyeSerene 15:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What would this committee do if an admin had indeed gone rouge? Start a RfC? Call the Arbcom? That's where I get confused: what's the point of it if it has no power, and what counter-power would prevent the committee to use this to pursue personal vendettas and grudges? -- lucasbfr 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

And if the committee "ruled" as such, what would prevent the admin under fire from indef blocking all committee members for disruption? Hiberniantears (talk) 15:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

I propose that we have a new noticeboard, the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Rouge admin abuse where such complaints can be made and the complainants handed spider-man suits or banninated according to whim. Aggressive archiving of threads inactive for over three minutes should keep the drama content up to the required level and ensure sufficient edit conflicts. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving to close

Chaps this is all interesting, and occasionally entertaining, but it's not relevant for ANI. There are plenty of more appropriate fora (sorry, I studied Latin - badly and a long time ago), most notably the talk page of Tony's proposal, or VP or even AN, but not here. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undeletion trouble

• Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests contained this request:-
  • C.D. Chivas USA to Club Deportivo Chivas USA – BlueRed – 02:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  So I did so. I histmerged the talk pages correctly. Then I went to histmerge the article pages: Move C.D. Chivas USA to Club Deportivo Chivas USA: it asked me if I wanted Club Deportivo Chivas USA (with 1084 edits) to be deleted to allow the move, so I told it to: OK, and it deleted it and made the move. Then I tried to undelete those 1084 deleted edits of Club Deportivo Chivas USA to finish the histmerge, and Misplaced Pages system is being a snail and a snail and refuses to perform that undelete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • P.S. I tried that undelete again, clicking the box to invert the selection of which edits to undelete, and the undelete worked OK. There seems to be a bug in the (part of the undeletion mechanism) that treats "no edits checked" as meaning "undelete all" rather than "undelete none". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bug it's a feature ^^. Selecting nothing has the same behavior than selecting everything there (or you wouldn't click Undelete in the first place). On big undeletions, note that the system is a bit slow sometimes and the restored revisions can take a while to show up again. It seems everything is OK now (I see no deleted revisions). -- lucasbfr 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Improper use of MfD page?

// roux   17:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently, this MfD is used by WLU to sling all kinds of mud at me, rather than to discuss the topic. I am unfamiliar with MfDs, but my guess is that this is not what it is intended for. The same user already has created a page dedicated to me is his own user space, it appears, without informing me about it, so I see no need to poor all his frustrations onto this MfD page as well. It's quite clear that there is no consensus to delete, so the MfD should be closed anyway. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That MFD seems to be only missing a formal declaration of war - the mud is flying in both directions thick and fast. Orderinchaos 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you both of you just quit discussing it (you've both made your opinions clear) then you'll be fine. Secondly, you cannot decide that there is a consensus to keep as it's (the page in your userpace) actually written by you, and, to me, it looks pretty even leaning towards delete. Scarian 16:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the page in the interests of keeping all of this drama out of Misplaced Pages, per my rationales detailed on the MFD. I will provide copies of the page to Guido and to other parties upon request. It is best to keep this to your personal web-host, forum or blog. seicer | talk | contribs 16:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have also provided a copy of the page to Guido. seicer | talk | contribs 17:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well that was a poor decision, since there was no consensus to delete at all. So, please restore the page forthwith. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean it wasn't resolved the way you wanted it to be resolved. There's only so much that can be done here on ANI - this is not the place to have a full-blown debate on your userspace page. If you don't like the way the MfD was resolved, take it to DR. Tan | 39 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean it was resolved because a user who voted delete unilaterally decided it was.

I've asked for a delete review. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Which I cannot find listed? seicer | talk | contribs 18:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 17 CIreland (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, this screams bad faith: "...an admin who has been angry with me various times deleted it regardless." Can you please find a citation or substantive content to verify that poor acquisition? In fact, I can't recall having any prior interactions with you, Guido, because I have purposefully kept myself out of the dramas that you seem to induce on an almost weekly basis. In addition, this edit summary seems to have been made in bad faith as well. seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a poor memory. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino, part #3

Hi all, let me draw your attention to the Ragusino problem once more. Namely, despite being indefinitely blocked after two reports, he simply continues to edit articles and engage in revert-wars with several users on Ragusa-related articles. (This has been going on for weeks.) His IPs usually start with 190. and 200. and can be noted from the history pages of affected articles, most of which have become completely unstable due to his vandalism and revert-warring. The articles are in desperate need of long-term semi-protection. These include:

• House of Bunić/Bona
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
• House of Getaldić/Ghetaldi
• House of Gundulić/Gondola
• House of Božidarević/Bosdari
• House of Natali
• Ivan Gundulić

His activities are also almost certainly going to spread to the following articles when the above are protected:

• House of Bondić/Bonda
• House of Kaboga/Caboga
• House of Gučetić/Gozze
• House of Gradić
• House of Menčetić/Menze
• House of Lukarić/Lucari
• House of Pucić
• House of Saraka/Saraca
• House of Sorkočević/Sorgo
• House of Zamanjić (Džamanjić)/Zamagna
• House of Restić/Reesti
• House of Zlatarić/Slatarich

I know its probably a relatively lengthy task, but according to discussions on previous reports he can't be banned, and is more than likely to continue his activities for weeks (and even months). Furthermore, these articles are obscure and are almost never edited by IP users: no damage will be done by semi-protecting them. Quite frankly, I can't imagine any other way to stabilize these articles and put an end to his editing :( Regards --DIREKTOR 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume range blocks won't work for various reasons? --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The range appears to be too big, according to admin comments in parts #1 and #2 of the saga... --DIREKTOR 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

169.204.228.230

See the users history and block log, I looked back till 2007, oct. Only (mostly ordinary) vandalismn without exception. I think its time for very very long block. NobbiP (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked the IP for a year. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP?

After filing a WP:SSP, I looked to see what the likely backlog is. There are 75 open cases listed, the oldest one going back over a month. I stopped counting unaddressed cases after 20. When I submit evidence to ANI, I'm told to use SSP. An open-ended question, hopefully to prod someone. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I try to get to at least one or two every few days, but I start at the top of the list. There are so many inactive or outdated cases at SSP. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I share your frustration. What I normally do is locate an admin that has processed a sockpuppet report about the user before, and notify that admin of the report. Since they are familiar with the case, it usually gets handled pretty quickly. If that fails, I just beg an admin that I have a good working relationship with to process it. What's frustrating is that the report rate really isn't very high. If a three admins just processed three reports a day, that backlog would be go away and not come back. It hasn't got anywhere near the traffic of RFPP or AIV.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I'm just not sure if I have a good working relationship with seasoned admins. Either that, or I'm internalizing that I burned my bridges when I had a meltdown a few months ago... Well, I'll just wait and see. If the user I've reported gets too unruly, I'll just post it here and hope for the best. At the moment, it's fairly easy easy to contain, more like a splinter under your fingernails. Although, sometimes it seems like a CU in conjunction with SSP helps, but I might be just woolgathering on that. Sorry for my rambling :) Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP2? D.M.N. (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:SSP2 is the answer to these issues. FT2 along with myself had been working on this, but now in turn need the communities help in making the changes and enacting the merger. (Also see here). Anyone interested in helping with the merger can say so I on the WT:RFCU thread, or send me a email and I would be happy to delegate out some tasks. Tiptoety 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I always knew I should request Checkuser :-) ♪BMWΔ 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing

Just wondering what would be the suggested course of action. The documentation at Template:Coor_title_d/doc was deleted by Pigsonthewing without much explanation ("emphasise deprecation") while the page itself and the template is kept.

After I restored it with an explicit edit summary, he removed it once more. I was wondering if I should just let him delete my contributions or shall I restore it once more? -- User:Docu

You could always try door number 3 - talking to him about it. I assume his reasoning is something like this: if the template is deprecated and should be replaced by {{coord}} wherever it's used, why do you need instructions on how to use it? So, in this case I think Potw's edit was probably correct, although I am firmly of the school of thought that says civil discussion should not take place through the edit summaries of reverts, even if THEY'RE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, you should of discussed it with him first. That said I also agree with his actions; the template is deprecated, so why do we need instructions on how to use it? VX! 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this is another thread on WP:DRAMA regarding Docu and Pigsonthewing clashing over coordinate templates, I assume there will be a sub-thread about Docu's continuing refusal to abide by the community norm of putting a userspace link in his signature in a few minutes ? I'm beginning to think atomic clocks could be set more accurately by tuning to these things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a good reason for making it inconvenient for other users to visit Docu's userpage, talk page, and contribs. I just don't know what it is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A collection of socks, revisited

Hi

I reported the results of a RfCU here, which resulted in a number of socks being indef blocked. A new user has popped up, revering changes made by the blocking admin to some of the socks' user pages - here and here (their other edits seem to be in areas favoured by my socky friend). I suspect User:Closeupon is the latest incarnation of my quacking aquaintance. Could someone take a look?

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made to the talkpages, but I don't have the shiny red button so someone else will need to block this enormous duck. // roux   23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that it's a sockpuppet; still, it wouldn't hurt to do a CU? VX! 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sadly, it's probably worth doing because past history suggests the next few days will see more socks appearing daily. Thanks for your advice and help, This flag once was red_deeds 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely that if one appeared, more will follow. VX! 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chubby Brother is Back

A little while The "Chubby Brother" was banned for making disruptive edits to List of Arthur episodes, and some page called The Mystery Chase Kids. And later we determined that "The Chubby Brother" was "Martha Runs The Store". Now i've found an IP who added spec to List of Arthur episodes, and inserted nonsense about The Mystery Chase Kids. I believe this IP is a sock-puppet of "The Chubby Brother". What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbutler (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's him, all right. And he's now kindly given us his map coordinates, as well; mighty nice of him, don't you think? Blocked. GJC 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IP proving a point

Can someone take a look at Landing at Kip's Bay and the recent edits for me? An IP is trying to prove a point by inserting information about how GW was a slaveholder and the British were key in ending slavery. Regardless of the truth, these edits are far beyond the scope of a small battle article like this and it's clear the editor is pushing a personal agenda. I have heavily edited this article in the past, so I feel I might have ownership issues if I don't step back and let you folks take a look. Tan | 39 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he's created an account to continue inserting his agenda into the article. VX! 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a sock puppet, but this IP needs to be blocked. Not only is he POV pushing, but he has violated WP:3RR (see here, here, here, and here). I am currently at three reverts and will go no farther; I leave it up to you... VX! 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I left a note on his talk page recommending that the dispute be taken to the talk page. I emphasized that the 3RR was taken seriously here on WP and that another violation would result in a block. Hopefully he will be dissuaded and decide to discuss his proposed changes on the discussion page. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

admin abuse

I was blocked without warning by an administrator who stated mistruths as his reason for my blocking.

His agenda is obviously to preserve an article as he sees fit even if it doesn't fit with reality hence User:Caulde needs to lose his ability to block people.

--Voooooh (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You were actually blocked for edit warring, which I see you started doing again as soon as your block expired. I'd suggest you use the talk pages instead, or you're likely to find yourself blocked again. --fvw* 00:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with fvw here.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Clearly doesn't get it, but final warning left, up to the editor now. Black Kite 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You were informed that you were edit warring not once, not twice, but three times before you were blocked. In addition, you continue after your block to attempt to reinsert the section that had you blocked in the first place. The information is already in the article. --Smashville 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. An ability to interact with other humans, and an ability to read stuff like WP:EW is required. If he is capable of doing this, he can rejoin us in a week. If not, he should go somewhere else. Edit warring combined with POV pushing equals very little patience from me. --barneca (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, look like Black Kite was warning at the same time I was blocking. If someone wants to reduce the length or see if the warning works this time, I've no problem with anyone overruling me. --barneca (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the block. He's blocked for edit warring - not only does he continue it, he makes a complaint about the block which means he very obviously does not get it. Since blocks are supposed to be preventative and it is very obvious that this editor intended to continue his edit warring, I endorse this block. --Smashville 00:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I was going to block myself but changed my mind. Barneca is probably right, in hindsight. Black Kite 00:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:71.102.2.128 and the Church of the SubGenius

The user made a non-good faith comment on the article's talk page. I reverted one of the the user's edits as part of RC patrol. User told me it was none of my business reverting it. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit here is a gripe, not an accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to make peace on that talk page all afternoon. A well meaning editor slapped a notability tag on an obviously notable but poorly cited article about a semi-serious parody religion. The editors there, largely devotees and newbies who do not fully understand Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, were startled and alarmed. They quickly came up with some references, then criticized the editor for applying a notability tag without doing his/her homework first. The editor defended the tag and told them it was their duty not his/hers to establish notability and they should spend their energies improving the article instead of lashing out. Both sides have been scolding each other ever since. Other than the taunt the comment looks spot on. In fact both sides are right in my opinion. The notability tag was completely according to correct procedure, but it could have been handled with a lot more patience and understanding. It's all moot now that notability is established, so both parties flogging each other over how they should have handled it will not accomplish anything. A little warm-and-fuzzy goodwill on either side would quickly fix things and they could all be editing buddies. This is a perfect application for WP:TEA.

Update: Cirt did block the IPer for his/her actions. Willking1979 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sockofadix is User:Fadix evading one year block.

By socks own admission. I've reverted its edits. Someone should block it. By both the sock's comments and Fadix's own comments it wants to be blocked "undefinitely" rather than for a year. So someone should probably just give it what it wants. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How cunning. Blocked. --fvw* 03:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IP page-blank vandalism at Talk:California University of Pennsylvania

I am not quite sure if this is appropriate to report to WP:SSP or right to WP:AIV for all of them on this one. A series of IPs — all from Pittsburgh — are continuously engaging in page-blank vandalism on the talk page of California University of Pennsylvania (including calling my vandalism revert vandalism in itself), of which I have just requested semi-protection over at WP:RFPP. The IPs be

• 71.240.61.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.240.71.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.20.124.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

in order from earliest to latest. They are all very likely to be the same person doing the same page-blanking. I would say that blocks may be necessary. I report this here since I'm not sure what to do with a person using multiple IPs without a registered user involved in any of it. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion they're blanking appears to be about 6 months old. Maybe simply archiving it would satisfy them. --Onorem♠Dil 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The RFPP was declined due to lack of recent vandalism (despite the last one being two hours ago). MuZemike (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection of any sort is not given based on when the last edit was. It is done when there is an acute period of severe vandalism. After I took a look at the history, even I won't semi-protect it. —kurykh 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the word "enough" should have been italicized rather than "recent." Or both. Maybe I didn't quite understand what was meant by "lack of recent disruptive activity." Apologies if I had not. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)I looked at it and threw it out, it seems to be an instance of non-notable information being inserted by a full wealth of SPAs that just managed to outtalk and wear down other editors who had to fear edit warring. The talk page had a poll on it, for crying out loud. If I'm in error, feel free to revert me. Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban review

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this topic ban discussion.Mccready (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

removal of talk page contents!

Could someone explain to me or to the person who removed these, these and these contents. The reason given was "rm vios of WP:TALK and abuse of the talk page... this is not a personal scratchpad". Docku: What up? 05:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards