Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive292

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Removing DYK nominations because of "squabble"[edit]

I would like to get the communities input on removing did you know nominations because you disagree with the DYK admins decisions about your articles. W.marsh (talk · contribs) block removed a large number of his contributions with an edit summary stating, "I know longer want this or any other article I created squabbled over here by bean counters." If you view the removed edits you see that Amarrg (talk · contribs) had commented on the length of his nominations in regards to how DYKS are selected. I left W.marsh a custom warning message after he began edit warring to keep removing his noms. I dont want to be beating a dead horse but feel that W.marsh is violating WP:POINT and has now broken the WP:3RR at Template talk:Did you know. I have made an effort to address this issue with the editor in question however my talk page comments were reverted or ignored. He has been notified of this thread. A second opinion on this would be much appreciated. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • This is trivial beyond belief... Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed. He has also posted annoying messages to my talk page to that effect, and of course moved on to step 3, the AN/I thread. This all could have been solved by simply asking himself whether he needed to go gung ho over a failed nomination, or just let another editor edit in peace. He chose the former. This is not an important issue. --W.marsh 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • First off, I have never crossed your path on this project. The comment, " Chris wants to make sure the nomination, which is doomed because of being 18 bytes too short, remains on the page so I am maximumly annoyed" is completly out of line and a complelte lack of assuming good faith. 18 bytes short, I would offer to fix them. Removing them before the nom truly expires is counter productive to the point of DYK. DYK is not black and white. It is fluid, you make changes you fix things that are wrong with articles. You dont delete them in anger because of "bean counters" Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Except of all the people whining about the 18 bytes, no one has bothered to edit the article or explain what the extra 18 bytes might actually add, other than meeting a meaningless quota. If that had been the focus of the discussion, my reaction would have been totally different. --W.marsh 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That is right, not even you have offered to expand it. You will gladly WP:OWN your posts at TTDYK but dont feel, it is worth it to add 18 bytes to an article you nominated instead feel it would be better to just delete it. Do you see why I am frustrated now? It has nothing to do with "out to get you." I dont even know who you are. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • if you have a problem with the way DYK is run, or think it is stupid, try to reform it. I dont disagree with you that 18 bytes is stupid and I prob would have put it up anyways. I thought they were well written articles which is one of the reasons I did not want to see them removed. We need good DYK articles and you clearly can write them. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Where did I say I wanted the article deleted? You're just making things up now. --W.marsh 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If someone doesn't want their stuff on DYK, it doesn't have to be there, no? Moreschi Talk 13:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Is that just like saying if somebody does not want there stuff in the article, they can take it out too? GFDL? Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • In every forum on Wikipedia, one can withdraw one's own nominations if it's doomed and everyone agrees. It's just common sense, as I said in an edit summary. --W.marsh 13:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
      • GDFL is not relevant here in the slightest. You know that just as well as I do. Complete red herring. Moreschi Talk 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
        • No, that is exactly what this is about. I hate to see people, remove good content because they have a disagreement or are too proud to add 18 bytes to an article. I feel he does not WP:OWN his content being he released it under GFDL and does not have the "right" to remove it. I will go add the damn 18 bytes to the article because I like the articles. It has nothing to do with out to get somebody or making attacks. It has everything to do with how I believe this project shoudl work where people cant take back there stuff because they disagree. If these were truly doomed, I would not give a damn. The only critique was, 18 bytes short. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a note to explain the first reversion was by me, purely because W.marsh had carelessly also deleted someone else's nomination of a second article that was nothing to do with him. Subsequent to-ings & froings have just involved his article, so are strictly not the same reversion. He does seem amazingly bad-tempered, I must say. Johnbod 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ironically a Kentucky editor who probably knew or cared little of this silly dispute has since added the precious 18 bytes and more to the article. --W.marsh 13:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I was going to say, I woul dlike to thank Dale Arnett (talk · contribs) for beating me to expanding the article! Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but why on earth would a DYK nomination fail over something as ludicrous as being eighteen bytes too short? What's the point of that, other than meaningless red tape? >Radiant< 15:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I guess people may be confusing the word should with must in the guideline: "Articles should have a minimum of 1,500 characters of main body text in size, and preferably longer - no stubs." -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because if you say something sensible, like "of reasonable length", too many people would be unable to function properly due to no criteria to do their thinking for them (even if it's utterly arbitrary and counter-productive, as all such criteria are). This is a general rule and in no way specific to DYK, or even Wikipedia. Neil  16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DYK rules guidelines used to get bent or broken all the time, and for good reason... the real goal of DYK, in my view, is to foster good and interesting article contributions by both new, and established editors, and their subsequent improvement. I'd point to my latest DYK article Christopher Columbus (whaleback) which was a pretty good article, but is now a lot better after having gotten exposure, lots of other editors came in and made improvements. That's the sort of thing DYK fosters. I am not sure that being 18 bytes short of a suggested guideline is a "doomed" nomination that needs removal immediately, nor am I sure that an editor should feel that preventing a nom is appropriate... DYK is a consensus driven process, or is supposed to be, and while it is rare that someone doesn't want "their" article featured on the front page, it's not entirely their decision. That said if people are nitpicking authors or their noms, that's not good. The guidelines exist to cut down on squabbling, not to foster it. For the most part they have been effective at improving the perceived reasonableness of the process. Ultimately, though, people who don't like the outcomes should get more involved in the process and do some updates themselves to see what it's like. ++Lar: t/c 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think this particular article would have been ignored by the updaters. On the other hand, it is not that difficult to add 18 bytes of text to the page. Although there is no instruction creep, we need to stick to some sort of rules/guidelines. W.marsh should have been more patient. If he/she absolutely needed to remove the nomination, the best course was to comment it out, rather than summarily removing a bunch of comments and even an unrelated nomination. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would have been ignored either. Nor do I think it would have been hard to come up with what, 4 words? Some sort of guidelines are good, some patience is good too, some flexibility in applying guidelines is good too. Hopefully that is that? ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppetry to circumvent the 3RR rule[edit]

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

User:Ramdrake reported by User:MoritzB

Race and intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Ramdrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake has performed these six reverts either restoring deleted material or deleting added material. In his sixth edit he used a sockpuppet.

For confirmation of sockpuppetry used to circumvent WP:3RR see:

The consequence of the edit war and sockpuppetry was that the page was locked and is now in the version endorsed by the puppetmaster Ramdrake.

When I gave a message of the 3RR violation to Ramdrake. [1] he performed an edit in which he restored my version of the article and said so. [2]

However, 2 minutes after this edit Ramdrake's sockpuppet IP address reverted the article back to his version.

I became suspicious because the location of the IP address is in Montreal, Canada and Ramdrake lives in Montreal. See: [3]

The contribution history of indicates that this IP address has been used to make edits related to Quebec, white people and race and intelligence. The contribution histories of Ramdrake and this IP address are in all respects very similar. [4] [5]

Then Ramdrake lies that he owns this IP address on his talk page. [6]

However, as User:Deskana concluded it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake.

Ramdrake has a history of disruptive editing and making false reports of sock puppetry. He is guilty of using a sockpuppet to circumvent the three-revert-rule. He is a dishonest editor who lied after the sock puppetry was exposed. A long ban is the only appropriate sanction in this case. MoritzB 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see this AN/I report as a way to get back at Ramdrake (talk) for a RFCU case filed against MoritzB (talk) by Ramdrake (talk). Also, it would be nice if MoritzB would assume good faith when dealing with other editors. nattang 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition, Ramdrake (talk) filed an SSP report against MoritzB (talk) 2 to 3 days before MoritzB (talk) fileed against Ramdrake (talk). So again, this reports is nothing more than a way for MoritzB (talk) to get his revenge agaist Ramdrake (talk). nattang 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The check user showed that I am not connected to "Franz". Besides, how does Ramdrake's previous report excuse the fact that Ramdrake circumvented the 3RR with a sockpuppet?
There is very strong evidence that he did so. I assumed good faith but because the IP address so obviously belongs to Ramdrake it is hard to trust in his honesty. Doesn't the IP address reported belong to Ramdrake?
MoritzB 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
User:MoritzB has already filed a RFCU and a suspected sockpuppet report on me, using almost exactly the same material (this is basically a copy-and-paste of the same info). His (weak) case was turned down. He then filed for 3RR violation, but since he was also one of the edit-warrin parties, the article was already protected when the 3RR was evaluated, so he was turned down again, on the grounds that blocking for 3RR is preventive and not punitive. Now, he brings the same matter a third time up after being turned down twice, in order to seek -- I don't know what. Can an admin please kindly remind this user that this constitutes forum-shopping and as such is frowned upon at Wikipedia? Also, and for the record, this user is also under investigation for sockpuppetry, on grounds that look much less tenuous than those of his case. [7].--Ramdrake 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You keep evading the issue. Do you own that IP or not?
The checkuser request not accepted on the grounds of the technicality that the privacy policy prohibits releasing IPs. The reviewer User:Deskana concluded that it is obvious that the IP is Ramdrake. You claimed that 3RR was not violated. However, it obviously was which was confirmed by the reviewer Heimstern Läufer. He directed to me to "post at WP:ANI about the sockpuppetry issue".
MoritzB 18:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that Ramdrake may have more socks. Jeeny and Ramdrake have similar edit histories and times [8] [9], identical positions (ex: See how Jeeny backs up Ramdrake: [10] Many more examples can be provided...) Recently Jeeny retired [11]. Less than 2 days later, so did Ramdrake [12]. Then Jeeny returned, claiming a Wikibreak: [13]. So did Ramdrake, exactly same day! [14]. And of course they returned from the break together: [15] [16]. KarenAER 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER: if your evidence isn't sufficiently damning, did you also notice that Ramdrake's professed first name is Jean which is suspiciously like Jeeny?? That can hardly be a coincidence ;-) Mathsci 06:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
3 different edits in a single minute:
2 talk pages edits in a single minute:
Do you still believe that they are socks? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah because those are small edits. If they posted long talk page edits, you may have been right. Do I need more evidence? How they revert to each others version in numerous articles? KarenAER 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd stick to the Jean/Jeeny line if I were you. Have you ever read the Miss Marple books? They might provide you with some useful hints on how to find non-circumstantial evidence. Never, never, never overlook the conservatory. -Mathsci 19:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ZOMG! Yes, his name is Jean, so is mine. We also have the same letter in our last name G. ZOMG! We both live on the same continent. ZOMG! Difference. I'm a she, and I live in the US and my name is pronounced jeen, while his name is pronounced zhahn, I believe, because it is French. Yanno, like a lot of people in Quebec? ZOMG! :). It's spooky. I wouldn't be surprised if we were of similar age too. We think alike in some ways. ZOMG! Maybe we're long lost relatives. ZOMG! I think I'm back in high school with a bunch of bullies. - Jeeny Talk 21:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You forgot one, I think we both have some American (Native) Indian (in my case, several great-great-grandparents) and some African (in my case, one great-great-great-grandfather) blood in us. Creeeeeepy! (ROTFLMHO).--Ramdrake 21:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ZOMG!! Are you my brother that I never knew I had, and always wanted??!!! Pfft. - Jeeny Talk 21:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER, your accusations of sockpuppetry are incredibly unconvincing. First it's Beh-nam and The Behnam because they have the same name and speak the same language, and now it's Jeeny and Ramdrake because they agree with each other. Please don't accuse Jeeny of being Ramdrake's sockpuppet again without very good evidence, it's bordering on harassment. With regards to the IP, obviously it's Ramdrake's. Picaroon (t) 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't mean to stick my nose in where I'm not invited, but does the tone used by Jeeny and Ramdrake in the posts immediately above this seem a small bit inappropriate for AN/I? If it isn't, just strike my comment and ignore me. :) $PЯINGεrαgђ  22:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Why have you struck your comment Spring? Ramdrake and Jeeny, please use appropriate words to express yourselves. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
FayssalF, what inappropriate word(s) did I use? I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, and if I did, I apologize.--Ramdrake 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I could say it loudly and it would be fine (i.e.ROTFLMHO). But when two people use excessive caps to just clutter threads than i am sorry Ramdrake i'd have the right to note it. Worse enough is that comments were struck by Jeeny using an odd edit summary. Is it this way that you guys handle discussions w/ other editors at talk pages? If yes than i am sorry to say that there is a problem indeed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Thanks for apologizing Randrake, much appreciated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, certainly. Again, I apologize for my lack of decorum in this situation, and I can assure you I don't usually interact this way on WP. Comment well taken. :)--Ramdrake 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. As noted before, MoritzB has no evidence, it was all suggested to him by the instigator Karen, who even accused me of being Muntuwandi, based on nothing whatsoever![17]..

MoritzB has a history of edit disputes and racial pov-pushing and the articles in question that were blocked, was a result of his insistence of the pov, not the other way around. The sockpuppet case against him is solid.[18] He only opened this case because Karen suggested on his talk page that he do so since everything (his other cases) else failed miserably.[19]. A view of his talk page will indicate that he is the center of contention on more than one article. Cases of wikistalking were even filed against him due to persistent harassment and personal attacks.[20].

So in summary, the user is waisting people's time with this report imo as Ramdrake has done nothing wrong, is the least problematic of the two in general, and this is merely in spite of charges brought against him and a blind following of User:Karen's misguided suggestions.Taharqa 23:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF—I didn't strike my comment; I asked someone to strike it if it was wrong. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh i see it now. You comment couldn't survive. Well, it would serve as a monument. I don't know why people can't say sorry when they are clearly being criticized of something they've have done. Be it good or bad. !strike! rulez coupled w/ an odd edit edit summary is all you get. Maybe something like "oh, no sorry i don't think so" would have been sufficient. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451[edit]

I've endured harassment from this user for many months now, but User:Fahrenheit451 shows no signs of letting up the nonstop needling. No matter what or where I post, it's a given that User:Fahrenheit451 will show up (often immediately) and post a highly insulting, ridiculing, unhelpful and often unrelated-to-matter-at-hand tirade against me. He's done similar baiting with other editors such as User:Leocomix and User:Justanother as well, apparently hoping to incite them to lose their temper. His most recent examples are the deliberate mess he's made of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics and here: [21] [22] and there are dozens more on his contributions page. I just want him to leave me alone. Some of his remarks I find to be disturbingly subtly sexual in their undertone, such as calling me "Trixi", referring to my "sticky hands" and talking about "handling" me. wikipediatrix 22:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict - above)I have reviewed a sample of wikipediatrix's contributions and agree that Fahrenheit451 does indeed jump in on discussions, taking an opposing stance together with overfamiliar language (including abbreviations of wikipediatrix's name which she has requested he not do). I believe a first and only warning would suffice initially, but would like the opinion of another party as well as wikipediatrix's thoughts. LessHeard vanU 22:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, Wikipediatrix and I have been on opposing content sides of the most controversial articles on Wikipedia, namely those that are scientology-related. She or he, is purposely taking words and phrases I have made out of context in a effort to solve what she sees as a problem, by means other than by editing. I will provide the diffs to show the context in the next paragraph.--Fahrenheit451 22:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"sticky little hands"--Fahrenheit451 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of "Trixi"--Fahrenheit451 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

mention of "Trixi"--Fahrenheit451 23:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"handling" meaning and context--Fahrenheit451 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed wikipediatrix's recent contrib history. I can provide diffs where she requested you not to use familiar username abbrevations, subsequent diffs where you did not, and further diffs where you reverted to referring to her as "trix(i)". I would also invite a third party to review whether the tone or content of your responses to her are appropriate. In the meantime I very strongly suggest that you use extremely neutral language and refer only to the topic in hand in those matters you feel you have a point to make. Whatever your motives for your use of language (and I AGF that you do not intend to distress) you must, per WP:CIVIL, moderate it as requested. LessHeard vanU 22:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, as proven by my typo above I am needing my sleep. Can another person look over this? LessHeard vanU 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, regardless of whether or not Wikipediatrix is correct in her interpretation of your comments as having any sexual tone, it's obvious that they're bothersome and that she does not appreciate the nicknames. So stop doing it. If someone requests not to be referred to by a nickname, don't. If the tone of your comments is bothering someone, tone them down. If it doesn't bother you, that's great, but that doesn't make that true of everyone, and you're needlessly inflaming the situation. Continuing to poke at someone in a way you know they dislike is highly uncivil and a form of harassment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, I have been editing WP for about 2 1/2 years and developed quite a bit of tolerance for other views as an editor of scientology-related articles. I really understand on the topic of wikipediatrix's alleged "sensitivity" to nicknames. I will use wpd or wpx instead. If that offends him/her, then I guess the matter will escalate. In any case, we are dealing with editors who do not and cannot WP:AGF because the practice of Fair Game (Scientology) proscribes how "the enemy", who they call Suppressive persons, are to be "handled". I can promise you that wikipediatrix will create some other issue to use as a complaint after this. The basic issue is not resolvable due to the dogma that cofs-directed editors are operating on. --Fahrenheit451 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What part of "do not use abbreviations of the editors username", and "do not use them in a familiar manner" are you having difficulty understanding? If you wish I could enforce a period of contemplation by blocking you until there is some indication that you understand that that you are required to abide by wikipediatrix's requests per WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. I would also point out that even mentioning the context of the subject matter that wikipediatrix is in dispute with you as a possible excuse for your behaviour in an example of extreme bad faith on your part. Simply put, it is not acceptable to contribute in such a manner to annoy, scare, insult or otherwise harass another editor. Kindly stop doing so. Now. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you see what I mean? He can't even help himself from doing it right here in front of everyone. Not only was "him/her" unnecessary, he's talking Scientology mumbo-jumbo about "Fair Game" and "cofs-directed editors", making the mistaken assumption that I must be a Scientologist (as if there's anything wrong with that), simply because I disagree with his excessively anti-Scientology edits. This is nuts, nothing short of just nuts. (In point of fact, if you check contribs, I'm the creator of many of the strongest critical-of-Scientology articles of Wikipedia!) I don't know what to do about this person and his crusade, I just want this person to leave me out of it. wikipediatrix 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WPD, What DO you mean? You say that I "can't even help myself from doing" WHAT "in front of everyone"? On the "him/her", I don't know your gender for a fact. WPD, I find your remarks here and elsewhere to be quite insulting, uncivil, and harassing. You point one finger at me, and three at yourself. --Fahrenheit451 02:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"regardless of whether or not Wikipediatrix is correct in her interpretation of your comments as having any sexual tone," - it is clear enough that she is not _correct_ - I think the issue here is whether she is _sincere_ in that interpretation: she made a very severe accusation, and initially with no diffs so people could not see the context for themselves. --Random832 03:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I can see how they could conceivably be interpreted that way, though I don't believe that they genuinely were meant that way. If I thought someone were actually engaging in some form of sexual harassment here, there'd already have been a block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Finding evidence for the claims of stalking is fairly easy; you look at the complainants recent contrib history, click on some of the talkpage edits, and note who responds to each edit. You then note the context of the responses, and whether they address the specific points raised, and the tone and language used. I did that. That, and the responses by Fahrenheit451 above, have lead me to issue him with a WP:NPA warning, together with suggestions how he might moderate his behaviour. Should Fahrenheit451 refuse to agree to act according to WP:CIVIL, then the claim of stalking may be proven. LessHeard vanU 12:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics[edit]

This bears looking at and is indicative of Fahrenheit451's ongoing harassment and disruption of process. We are talking someone with a 2-1/2 year history here. F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists that attacked me when I first started editing here one year ago. In fact, I credit him with "showing me the ropes" as to how WP:PA baiting is done.

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idenics:

*Comment to the closing admin This AfD is a Office of Special Affairs inspired hatchet job and Justanother is a member of the Church of Scientology who, along with his cohorts, are following the human rights violating dogma of Fair Game (Scientology). The Deletes from User:S. M. Sullivan, User:Leocomix, User:HubcapD, and User:Justanother are all maliciously motivated. There is no such thing as assuming good faith from them because the cofs dogma demands that they must not.--Fahrenheit451 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. [emphasis added]

--Justanother 13:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Justanother's false accusations and personal attacks[edit]

Justanother personally attacks me by characterising me as "F451 was one of the most offensive anti-Scientologists". My only objection to cofs-directed editors is the editing practices where they apply the human rights violating Fair Game (Scientology) practice by repeated violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and the use of tendentious editing such as the forementioned AfD. There are admins on Wikipedia who are familiar with their tactics. By the way, Justanother is misinforming about my edit history: For the first six months, I edited many different articles and was not even interested in Scn articles until I observed how those editors repeatedly attempted to bully other editors and whitewash verifiable, reliable content. Justanother's false complaint is posted to harass and spread misinformation as I am considered Fair Game (Scientology).--Fahrenheit451 14:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We may have a double standard at work here as Justanother refered to wikipediatrix as "trix" here:[23]. If the term is offensive from me, it should be offensive from everyone else as well.--Fahrenheit451 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't what is talked about here but using the ID 'Fahrenheit451' against the rules of copywriter infringement? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Helena Kobrin may view it as such. :-) --Fahrenheit451 19:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix requested that you did not refer to her in that manner, as it indicated a familiarity which she found unacceptable within the context of your comments. How she chooses to conduct herself with other editors is (as you pointed out regarding your own choices) entirely her own business. LessHeard vanU 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway - violations of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:3RR all rolled into one...[edit]

User (who also comes under the username 'Danielthesaint', as evident by the fact that both IP and account are used interchangeably in the situation) has repeatedly edited the Docklands Light Railway article to include original research which is not sourced, thus breaking WP:V and WP:OR. This has all been pointed out on the talk page, by both myself and a third opinion. The user has blatently ignored this, violated WP:3RR a couple of times, and still insists on having the article his way. He has also maxed out his warnings. I'd love to keep changing it to the correctly sourced way, but I don't particularly want to break WP:3RR myself ;). Any admin assistance would be great. TheIslander 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have lodged a report at AN3 about this user's 3RR violation. Adrian M. H. 00:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And he has reappeared with an alternate IP address. (talk · contribs). Someguy1221 02:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

this what happens when you give power to a prick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serco dlr (talkcontribs) 21:55, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin that finds this - hope I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence, but just to make it crystal clear, the above is almost certainly a sock of Danielthesaint. TheIslander 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC) is User: Sinex - see personal attacks on my talk and user pages. TheIslander 22:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Obvious socks in use by User:Disturbedrcool1[edit]


User:Disturbedrcool1 had been vandalising Chaos Space Marines by introducing incorrect information, and was given a number of warnings for this; exactly the same information was then introduced by a number of puppets, some of which have been blocked but one, User:The Immortal Lord is continuing. Blocking this obvious puppet account was declined at WP:ANI because no warnings had been given. Could another administrator please review this decision and take appropriate action? Cheers --Pak21 10:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for info, I removed User:The Immortal Lord from WP:AIV as no final warnings or any warnings had been given. It is, in my opinion, not sufficient to put a report on AIV accusing an editor of socpuppetry, without giving evidence and/or expecting us to pick out similiaries between editing patterns, hence the reason I put in the edit summary suggest WP:SSP. It is stated clearly here If you suspect someone of sockpuppetry file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Obvious and malicious sockpuppets may be reported to AIV. A link to the sockpuppetry report should be included in the reason for reporting.. Without evidence this, in my opinion, does not constitute obvious. Regards Khukri 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The report on AIV included a link to both User:Disturbedrcool1, which links to the list of suspected puppets, which include the already blocked User:Immortal lord 00 and User:Immortallord, whose entire contributions are making exactly the same edit as User:The Immortal Lord, and Chaos Space Marines, where this clear pattern of edits can be seen in the history. I don't see how it can get much more obvious than that. --Pak21 11:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Pak21 on this one - it's completely obvious that this is the same person again - just the "orginality" in the names of the vandal should be obvious. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I will block all of these accounts. These are obvious socks and should be blocked indefinitely. I'll close the SSP discussion accordingly. Pascal.Tesson 01:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem user[edit]


Can others please have a look over Buzybeez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who has been whitewashing an article on an unaccredited medical school. This article has a chequered history replete with vicious attacks by its supporters on those seeking to keep it neutral. I'm not really active right now, as you may know. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've placed Buzybeez on 1RR probation for being a disruptive, edit-warring single-purpose account (virtually all the account's edits of any substance have been to the St Christopher article). This is in accordance with the directive to restrain single-purpose agenda-driven accounts on this article put forward by ArbCom. If Buzybeez goes over 1 revert per 24 hours, he can be warned; if he doesn't self-revert, then blocked. Feedback welcome, but there has been far too much nonsense from single-purpose accounts on this article in the past, as exemplified by the ArbCom case. MastCell Talk 23:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Need another admin to keep an eye on Zendik Farm[edit]

I have a POV warrior attempting to turn Zendik Farm into his own private indictment of that group. (He's probably a sock of an earlier POV warrior, but I have no independent verification of that.) Can another admin keep an eye on that article and respond appropriately? Thanks. - Jredmond 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted it. This user probably is a sock of a past pov pusher judging by the move logs. We have an admission, will block as a sock.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! - Jredmond 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]


[24]. Corvus cornix 22:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked for 1 week by User:Alison. MastCell Talk 22:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral's sockpuppets[edit]

I think I've found another of User:Phral's incarnations: Phrallus the Great (talk · contribs · count). Neranei (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Provide evidence at WP:SSP. Miranda 23:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
How about the name? SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As the user hasn't messed with anything, that's the only evidence. Should he be left alone until he disrupts something? Neranei (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Obvious sock, consistent with other entries at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hayden5650. Blocked ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

SPA wikistalker[edit]


SPA blocked. —Crazytales (t.) 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/TomCat111 has been stalking me, creating bogus sock templates, and impersonating me on a disproved sock case. I suppose an indef is in order, esp. because this user has no constructive edits, only stalking/impersonation and cruft.Bakaman 23:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Crazytales (t.) 23:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, might I add that was very quick.Bakaman 23:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Luck. I just happened to drop by ANI at that time. —Crazytales (t.) 00:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
NOt sure that this counts as impersonation. I think he is just unaware of how to use templates. Impersonation there would make no sense: his point cannot credibly be expected to come from Bakasuprman, as he is accusing Bakasuprman of sockpuppetry, using Goldstein Orwell. Not that Goldstein Orwell is Bakasuprman's sockpuppet; it's Hkelkar, so the relationship is more subtle. Block's probably unjustified; The account isn't an SPA stalker,as he was trying to introduce information that Bakasuprman was reverting. May be someone else's sock, of course. Hornplease 00:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Puh-leez. Thats what impersonation is, pretending to be someone else. He was trying to make it look like I confessed to be goldstein orwell. Its quite obvious the only reason you voiced opposition to this ban is because the user is harassing me.Bakaman 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That may appear ridiculous to me, but if I'm wrong, then someone will tell me so. He certainly isn't harassing you, in particular, merely trying to introduce a quote sourced to the BJP website to that party's article and related articles on its parent organisation. He needs to have WP policy on quotes explained, not a random blocking. I notice you haven't bothered to explain your reverts. In any case, this is someone else's problem now, namely someone who can review the block and determine the level of justification. Hornplease 01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I've unblocked agreeing with hornplease. —Crazytales (t.) 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fresh eyes Please[edit]

Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) has for the last couple of days repeatedly made accusation that an Australian MP has been harassing him via the foundation. I checked with an uninvolved editor who has access to OTRS the user indicated that there isnt any emails there.

There is an email distrubuted via a mailing list that was in response to another editors personal approach to the MP offices when they saw the comment the MP made about Wikipedia but this doesnt mention the editor or any edit he's made, I'm happy to forward this to any admins who request it

I'd like for a fresh set of eyes to have a look at whats going on including the way he's wording editdiff summaries when he's requested to remove the information. Gnangarra 01:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the userpage needs to be selectively deleted at least because the allegations are made repeatedly in edit summaries, but Gnang and I have been dealing with this user for the last couple of days and it would be good to get someone uninvolved to review. Thanks guys, Sarah 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This really needs some input, the comments need to be looked at I agree with Sarah's suggestion. Gnangarra 03:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, looking through the relevant edits I can find no fault with the way Sarah and Gnangarra have handled this. Its rather an awkward situation as we're dealing with a good contributor. Nonetheless, per WP:BLP we really cannot have these sorts of unsubstantiated accusations about idenitifiable people - even outside article space. I endorse Gnangarra's speedy deletion (per CSD G10) of the subpage that laid out the accusations in full. The problem is now the revisions of his userpage that contain the accusations - which are also replicated in the edit summaries. I agree that those too should go. I am therefore going to delete the revisions of his userspace dated 10:49, 28 August 2007 UTC through to 01:02, 29 August 2007 UTC (17 revisions). I will leave a note on his talkpage explaining my reasons for the deletion and expressing my hope that he will be willing to overlook this matter and return to contributing in the positive manner he has previously done. WjBscribe 03:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dan Patrick to Dan Patrick (Sportscaster)‎ cut/paste move[edit]

I haven't looked too much into this, but it appears that someone felt the need to make a cut/paste move in order to create a disambiguation page. I was hoping someone with a mop might take a look at this before too many edits occur to either page. --OnoremDil 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Proves my point that administratorness is more about the mop than the cudgel. —Crazytales (t.) 01:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
With the little discussion I saw between the two editors involved, I don't think you were far off from needing both. Thanks for the quick fix. --OnoremDil 01:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Death Threat[edit]

I stumbled on this diff from LeadSongDog 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP is self-reverting, but I've blocked three days for trolling.--Chaser - T 03:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Was this the right place to bring the issue?LeadSongDog 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure. WP:AIV will give you a faster response to any clear and blatant issue like this, but either is fine. Good job.--Chaser - T 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Iron Chef[edit]

Hey. First off, my apologies if I posted this in the wrong place; I wasn't quite sure where to put it.

On to the issue. There's a user who keeps making the same edits over at Iron Chef. The user has done it once a day for a few days, though on Aug 27 he or she did it three times, but we failed to report it. The big issue, though, is that his IP keeps changing. The edits: on Aug 26 as, Aug 27 (first) as, Aug 27 (second) as, Aug 27 (third) as, and Aug 29 as Is there anything that can be done, or do we just have to keep reverting and hope that the user gets bored? Is this issue worthy of a semi-protect, or is that a bit too much? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say just keep reverting, there isn't that much problematic activity and it looks like ordinary vandalism. If it gets worse, WP:RFPP will be the place to go. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 04:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Mnuux is a Blanker, blanking content from various articles related to Somaliland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talkcontribs) 05:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

All edits have been blanking: Special:Contributions/Mnuux —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingoman (talkcontribs) 05:48, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by WJBscribe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for 24 hours. You'll probably get a faster response to vandalism reports at WP:AIV though. Cheers ~ Riana 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes - please do. If you have properly warned the user, and they do not desist, then file a report at AIV; things there usually get picked up quite quickly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible new SummerThunder sock (long-term abuse case)[edit]


Before I start a case at SSP, I'd like to know if anyone else shares my suspicions about a particular account. Tastetrees (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is starting to bear a resemblance to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. The account shows the same combination of interests in the People's Republic of China (particularly the PLA and censorship issues) and the University of California, Riverside (here s/he is removing the semi-protection template put up in the wake of the last SummerThunder attack on the UCR article). The account's username is similarly constructed to the SummerThunder's most recent, post- "0cDxxxx" socks. The user is also showing the same kinds of word-choices and immediately-confrontational style on Talk pages (see User talk:El C#what is wrong?). Am I just seeing things, or is there really something there? Is this account quacking? --Dynaflow babble 16:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I saw the edits to the UCR and History of UCR articles. Nothing at all conclusive IMHO but enough to make me wonder... --ElKevbo 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to go off to work now and may not be able to file an SSP report until tomorrow. Can you or someone else familiar with the SummerThunder problem-user watch this thing until I get back? Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 17:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it. Inspector Lee 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like C.Fred already got one of them: User_talk:Bastrain. Inspector Lee 17:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There may be another one here: Sxme12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Inspector Lee 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot like him. Here's that user doing the exact same thing to the Tank Man article that the user I reported did to the UC Riverside article. Someone with sysop powers should probably look into this now. My fear is that SummerThunder is "aging" an army of sockpuppets to go on another one of his multi-account, dynamic-IP rampages again without having to worry about being stopped by his favorite articles' semi-protected statuses. It would be nice to nip this in the bud.

I don't think an RFCU would yield useful results, because of SummerThunder's use of dynamic IPs, but these accounts are all starting to quack like ducks. It may soon be time for a judicious application of the banning bat. --Dynaflow babble 22:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another that has already been blocked as a SummerThunder sock, doing the same sort of thing: Poelmean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). This is definitely his MO, and here he is editing in his favorite subject, as per his LTA subpage. Can an administrator please get on this? Compare this now-blocked user's contribs to the other listed users' contribs. --Dynaflow babble 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
He probably knows we're watching those accounts. At this point, I don't think they'll go active, but I'll probably be proven wrong. Inspector Lee 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Check: Maigad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Inspector Lee 05:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
suspected ST sock user:Maigad currently revert warring on Religion in China Inspector Lee 05:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Tastetrees and Maigod editing Banned films back to back:[25] Inspector Lee 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All listed accounts are now listed at SSP: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets#User:SummerThunder. Feel free to add any more you find. --Dynaflow babble 06:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

All listed accounts have now been blocked as SummerThunder socks, and the majority of their most recent edits (which could be cancelled out by the "undo" button) have been reverted. Keep an eye out. He'll be back, and he'll be enormously pissed. --Dynaflow babble 07:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Heh, heh. Just when you might have thought it was safe to un-protect some of his old haunts. Inspector Lee 10:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin needed fast - Cowboycaleb1 reverting edits at Sasquatch[edit]


The above user has reverted my edits several times, see here and here. Caleb is also clogging up Sasquatchs talkpage, see bottom few topics. He has also removed a sockpuppet template of User:Bobo54 several times, see here and here. Can someome block this user as it seems like he is just here to cause vandalism. Thanks in advance. Davnel03 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like he's reverted my edit again, but with a sock... Davnel03 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
He's reverted it AGAIN, can somebody please do something. Davnel03 20:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Both editors have been warned. I don't believe any further intervention is necessary. Sasquatch can handle further disruption on his own. Pascal.Tesson 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Both editors now blocked after further bickering. Pascal.Tesson 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3 disrupting RfA[edit]

Hello. I'd like to have an uninvolved admin go over ther recent edits of Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs). He happens to be in a long-term conflict with WikipedianProlific (talk · contribs) and has been disrupting the latter's RfA despite my request for him to cool down [26] which he dismissed [27] because I supported the RfA [28]. He's now accusing WikipedianProlific of having meatpuppets [29] so I am tempted to block him but it's probably wiser to let another admin consider the problem and take appropriate action. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I also came across this editors attempt at gaming WikipedianProlific's RfA, which changed my first impression to support into a very firm support. I went to Cuddlyable3's talkpage to find that it had been cleared ("Clean up" is Cuddlyable3's preferred terminology) of any criticism, warnings or block notices. All within the rules, of course, but not indicative of someone whose main focus is working consensually to build an encyclopedia. I echo Pascal Tesson's request for a non-involved admin to look over the nature of Cuddlyable3's contributions.
I would comment that I have suggested to WikipediaProlific on his talkpage that I strike through Cuddlyable3's questions at the RfA, to no response as yet. LessHeard vanU 00:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Has three times removed well-sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, and after removing the footnote, added {{cn}}. Please tell him, someone, that this is not done.

This statement on my talk page is a falsehood; he has presented no evidence, only deleted it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

While transferring this from WP:AN, I have received a conciliatory message, which may indicate that this revert-warring is merely stubbornness and inexperience. But I would like to know whether anyone else has had a similar problem; and I would appreciate the reminder. This is not a newbie; he's been editing for a year, and should know better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Nevertheless, this edit appears to indicate that his standard on these matters is not [[WP:V}} what he can imagine the Founding Fathers doing. They are verified as doing a lot of things he can't imagine; and the sources for this edit are a respected cultural historian and the American Dictionary of National Biography.
This sounds like a simple content issue. You should probably go towards dispute resolution to fix it. Pascal.Tesson 05:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I will, if necessary; but the reversions of sourced content are a policy violation. I'm not asking for a block, just a reminder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

KarenAER blocked as sockpuppet of Lukas19[edit]

I have blocked single-purpose editor KarenAER (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and the previous account, KarenAE (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), as sockpuppets of banned user Lukas19 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (formerly Thulean (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)). Now before you say "but the checkuser said unrelated", please hear me out.

First, note when KarenAE started editing: April 23, 2007. Lukas19's arbcom ban was enacted on the 4th of that month. From the first edit, it was apparent that this user was not new. KarenAE, later abandoned in favor of the account with "R", jumped right into discussion on Talk:White people, the favorite debating arena of Lukas19, and KarenAE's first mainspace edit was to restore deleted information. Nothing wrong with that on the face of the issue, but it displays an odd familiarity with the site to not only use indents and tildes, but the correct number, and to know how to restore information from the history. It wasn't even a revert, it was actually picking text out of a version of the page from days earlier. So we know he isn't a new editor.

Next, let's look at the stylistic and grammatical similarities. See these ellipsis? And these ones? And these? They were a common feature in the edit summaries of Lukas19. I found these five diffs after about 30 seconds of looking, not even using the search function: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Next up, a rather interesting habit: where most people say "for example" or "e.g", we have Lukas19 using the interesting "for ex". And we have KarenAER doing it too. Finally, an interesting shared typo: meditation where he means "mediation." Where have we seen this before? Oh yeah, right here. Same talk page even.

Just compare the edit histories of both of these accounts. The incivility, the soapboxing, the winding things up in bureaucracy to slow them down, and, most of all, the obsessive focus on race. All in all, I don't see a way these could be two people. Picaroon (t) 03:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also weird spelling of standard as standart, the t and d on the keyboard are not adjacent to each other.[35] [36] Both these users also have a habit of telling other editors to "learn to read" during talk page discussions. Alun 07:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much. I and other editors also noticed some of these things - it is good that you just went ahead and composed the comparison that had been brewing. Race-related articles are difficult to edit as it is - we don't need (or appreciate) rightly banned users returning to do the same disruption. Hopefully this will make working on those articles less stressful and more productive. Regards, The Behnam 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
See also here where I make a very similar case. All people who had had dealings with Lukas19 agreed at this time that this was Lukas19, but the admin decided that a checkuser was conclusive. I'd note that people do actually move house, go to college etc, so the fact that someone has changes their IP is not conclusive in my opinion. The similarities are so striking I'd have thought it was obvious, even making the same linguistic mistakes over and over again. The style and substance of arguments is also almost identical. Both Lukas19 and KarenAER told me I was "banned" from posting on "their" talk pages. I'm sure if one were to seriously check the edit histories of these four accounts even more evidence compelling evidence could be found. Alun 05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think sockpuppet blocks like this on very sketchy circumstantial evidence are used to silence opponents. These particular editors seem to be thinning the opposition to help create a false "consensus" on certain articles for their extremist political agendas. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Also on the surface of it Picaroon seems to be working on behalf of the afrocentric troll/vandal Muntuwandi. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make accusations like that without some kind of evidence. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The evidence is just as good as against Karen. Picaroon seems to be from the same region as Muntuwandi, mentions this issue of race, and is attacking one of Muntuwandi's prime opponents. Actually I'd say that is better evidence than is available against Karen. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Which region? Africa? Picaroon (t) 05:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep. I mean it's not even disputable that you've been working with Muntuwandi on this. Like these comments on his talk page and frank discussion of strategy. I always find it curious how some people do not even make an attempt to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How is that a "frank discussion of strategy"? He just notified Muntuwandi that an indef'd troll had cleverly used impersonation to make Muntuwandi look bad. There is nothing wrong with that - Muntuwandi deserves to know. The Behnam 05:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Right now your wild claims of some sort of conspiracy with Muntuwandi aren't very convincing, but I'd also like to point out that they are not relevant. None of this changes the damning evidence against "KarenAER," who is similar to Lukas19 in every way except IP. The possibility of an IP move is much more reasonable than any claim that all of these similarities are mere coincidence. The Behnam 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You have to consider how innocent of some things Muntuwandi is or appears to be. Picaroon is seen in that quote 1) working with muntuwandi to eliminate his enemies 2) trying to assist muntuwandi in understanding some aspects of feinting and subterfuge. He's basically serving as a guardian angel for a very questionable user. This hunt for sockpuppets seems to be directed particularly at opponents of Muntiwandi which makes all of its allegations suspect. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 06:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
These assertions are laughable. Behnam, DNFT.--Chaser - T 06:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Role account[edit]

Apparently JKDN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a role account[37], which AFAIK, are prohibited on en.WP. Leuko 04:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think this is a pragmatic opportunity to not enforce that policy so we can keep all the PR concentrated in one account (it only edits a single article).--Chaser - T 04:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I've left a note on the user talk page about COI but I don't think we need to take it any further than this. ugen64 04:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would always advise against enforcing policy for policy's sake. If the account proves disruptive, that's another story. Someguy1221 05:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a COI situation, but to disrupt the fan-cruft for sake of policy will almost certainly result in us getting a sockmaster who will never stop. As long as he doesn't start spreading this guy's PR to other articles, we're probably better off leaving it be. Much as I dislike saying that, I do recognize the ENTIRE contrib log of that account is the one page and its' talk, so the problem's already 'contained'. ThuranX 05:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought we block these on sight, though. See Role account. x42bn6 Talk Mess 10:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd always figured those who wrote that would have added "Block on sight" if that were the case. Someguy1221 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The Role Account page states 'likely to be blocked'. This suggests to me( and standard IANaAd disclaimer) that these can be examined on a case by case basis. that said, Unless this account starts to edit other pages, I see little rason to start a fight. ThuranX 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD Notices on article talk pages[edit]

user:Bulldog123 had the same concern, which he posted on my talk page. Is this appropriate? User:Badagnani has posted AFD notices on talk pages of other articles to solicit responses to the AFDs. Examples are TALK:Laos, TALK:Jamaica, TALK:Germany. While I think posting of the AFD notices on WikiProject pages is completely appropriate (and encouraged), I do not think such notices should be posted on talk pages of other articles Corpx 06:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? The more response those AFDs get, the better, and these notices are not being directed towards specific people (which is discouraged). ugen64 06:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, talk pages are meant for discussion about the article they are attached to. Except for the post on Talk:Germany, the AFDs are at best tangentially related, or not at all. This is a relatively minor issue, methinks. Someguy1221 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The more the merrier, but I dont think AFD notice should be plastered just everywhere Corpx 07:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes an article has been split out from a main article after discussion on the main article's talkpage. If this split-out article is nominated for deletion by someone else, isn't it natural to inform those working with the main article? Not everyone remember to put new articles on the watchlist, or frequent AFD with any regularity. Soliciting opinion is bad if done with the intention of unfairly skewing the debate, it is good if done with the intention of getting the opinion of those who are closer to the subject matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that trying to garner additional opinions and reactions is harmful. Many of the AfDs I see have a handful of participants, and usually the same handful at that, so perhaps encouraging greater participation would result in more accurate closings? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible WP:POINT violation in Talk:Jackie Chan#Son[edit]

On the discussion page of Jackie Chan, there is a discussion on Jackie Chan's illegitimate daughter (Click the link on the header). In spite of being presented with multiple reliable sources, such as Time Magazine and Sing Tao Daily, a user DaliusButkus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) insists that the daughter isn't his, and refused to acknowledge it unless a paternity test is given as proof. The discussion has become rather tedious since he does not seem to change his positions despite repeated explanations of the sources by several editors, and it is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and thus a violation of WP:POINT. I hope some third opinion could come and ease the situation.--Alasdair 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If the content can be sourced, then it is worth adding in the light of appropriate context. An (effective; when considered) ask for a paternity test is both something which is obviously not going to happen, and which is quite ridiculous given the situation. Thats my 2c. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Keen[edit]

Resolved: Neil has semi-protected the page and blocked the socks. --Bongwarrior 09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody protect this page and/or deal with the vandals listed on WP:AIV fairly urgently? Cheers --Pak21 09:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Done and done. And I mean done. Neil  09:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


I wish to point out I've found several recreations or copies of BJAODN and ESP pages in userpages, and nuked these per the previous lengthy discussions on the topic, and CSD #G4. Somebody is bound to scream bloody murder over this, but I do believe that after the aforementioned debates, neither ESP nor BJAODN should be recreated unless the previous outcome is overturned at deletion review, which at present does not seem particularly likely. >Radiant< 09:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call, userspace is not for content which has been deleted and isn't, ever, going to be restored. Especially when both of these have been debated to death. Neil  09:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And as expected, somebody started screaming bloody murder at deletion review here, alluding to a Evil Admin Conspiracy that ignores the alleged consensus of the good community to keep the Bad Jokes around indefinitely. >Radiant< 12:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Crimes and misdemeanors: WP:BLP violation[edit]

I apologize for this uncivil edit summary. I should have hit a different Twinkle button.

But I note:

From BLP:
Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles'
Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).
Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.

An editor is edit-warring to repeatedly violate BLP, including this third revert] that overwrote a comment explicitly referring to the policy. He then makes a personal attack when I point the policy out to him and accuses me of bad faith. How come I get three warnings on my talk page from one single edit, and no one is saying boo to the guy who is deliberately violating Wikipedia policy?

We now have a second editor reinserting the material, which comes from a blog quoting an unnamed source. Does never mean never, or does it mean something else? If it means something, else, please modify WP:BLP to avoid this sort of confusion. I removed Wonkette cites from Madeline Albright, too, so this isn't POV-pushing on my part. Per WP:COOL, I'm walking away from this, and leave to others without further discussion from me, but I'm disappointed in the double-standard. THF 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The material is reliably sourced, and applies to a corporate action, not a living person. As I see it, it isn't a BLP violation. THF has refused to address the substance of the issue, and instead chose to post vandalism warnings. In addition, of course, only two of those reverts restored this material, and one of them was undoing a massive whitewash of the article by THF. Guettarda 15:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a related thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Regnery Publishing. I'm going out; any uninvolved admin is welcome to review and undo my page protection as appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a news article. We have a higher standard than a news article because whereas a news article can retract a story, the viral nature of our content means that a mistake is potentially out there for a very long time. Consequently, even though a news article (or news blog, in this case) might be willing to report an anonymous claim/rumor, we most certainly do not. I endorse the protection and/or blocking of any user who persists in adding this claim. --B 17:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler, still[edit]

Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This guy just will not stop taking shots at me. Here he is implying that anyone who supported me in my RfA is a bigot and homophobe.[38] Here he is baiting and taunting me, and accusing me of being a racist, because I do not choose to assist him in researching his pet POV project.[39][40] These are the same types of constant attacks that FAAFA used to pull off, a user banned for a year by ARBCOM, and who Bmedley has already admitted to editing in proxy for. How long is the community going to continue to assume good faith regarding this probable sockpuppet, when even he does not extend the same good faith to the community, judging by my first diff? I'm not sticking around tonight to bicker over this. I'll check in tomorrow. - Crockspot 05:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is 100% false. "probable sockpuppet" is a NPA too. He or his friends already made one harrassing RFCU on me that came back empty. I am trying to help Crockspots really. (refactor taunt) My last post I said that I was through with this issue since Crockpots made it so clear that he lacked any interest in what I asked him about documenting racism. I dont even know why hes bringing it up now except I think he is very sore that I was the one who posted those links to what he wrote on that other site. This whole issue is dead now. Except now he wants to re-live it here. Why, I ask. smedleyΔbutler 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You two. First, let's not goad with references to quotes brought up at the RFA. Second, Crockspot, if you suspect him to be a sockpuppet, please take the case to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and file a report there with plenty of evidence and a minimum of drama. Third, editing for banned users is explicitly prohibited. There's no diff for that, so that's all I'm saying for now.--Chaser - T 06:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not editing at all for FAAFA. I was blocked for 48 hours for that and I learned my lesson. He wanted me to add a long protest note after they re-set his 1 year block, and I told him no. smedleyΔbutler 06:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bystander who opposes racism but hasn't edited William Regnery II. I'm opposed to axe murders too but I haven't edited this either. Does this make me a racist with a hatchet? Really Bmedley Sutler, stop it. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Crockspot's edits or former RfA, its not helped by disingenuous "suggestions" such as the ones you made above. Repeatedly misspelling his user-name isn't especially adult either. How about leaving him alone and get on with contributing to the encyclopedia?
As an aside I agree with Chaser re the sockpuppet allegations. If there is evidence, take it to the proper forum. Otherwise, leave it alone. Euryalus 06:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I told him in my last post that I was through with this suggestion since he said he would not help anyway. This report from him was not needed and his accusation was an NPA. I will try not to mis-spell his name. Pot and Pots are the same meaning anyway. A Crockpot is an electric pot for making stew, yes? smedleyΔbutler 06:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Crock-pot is for making stew, yes. "Crockspot" is the handle of a Wikipedia editor and nothing else.--Chaser - T 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for general comment)For now, just stay away from each other. Wiki is a huge place, there is no need, if you don't get along, to talk to each other, or edit the same articles, just don't do it. Mr. Sutler, I have some sympathey for some of your positions, but if you go out of your way to interact with crockspot, I will be at your WP:CSN, as quick as anyone (and vice-versa. . .take that how you will --in either case). Wikipedia is not a battleground (stop making it one!) and if you see it that way, you're in the wrong place (not speaking to anyone in particluar). Respectfully, R. Baley 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)(comment strike at 18:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC) by R. Baley)

Bmedley has already been blocked by User:Thatcher131 for 24 hours for taunting and another 24 hours for acting as a proxy for FAAFA. He was warned that this would be his only warning [41][42]. He continues to taunt by reposting the RfA quotes. This is the noticeboard that needs to take action against this, not SSP. The issue is taunting, not sockpuppetry and it continues even after a 24 hr block. --Tbeatty 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

IMO, the above post is a harrassment. The 'only' warning was about making proxy posts for that FAAFA. I have seen lots of warnings for NPA and taunting. No one gets an 'only' warning for such things like quoting what someone actually wrote on another site. He wrote those things, not me! No offense but IMO Tbeatty is maybe on purposely mis-stating what happenned to get administrator action taken on me. IMO, he is part of an organized group and campaign that continuingly harrass Seven of Diamonds, Giovanni33, me, and a few others to try and ban leftists who resist them. If this harrassment continues I will be making an action on them. smedleyΔbutler 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the exact wording:


Tbeatty's comment is correctly pointing out that you are continuing some of the behavior that led to a block. That is not harrassment. Also, this thread is about your behavior, and has nothing to do with neither Giovanni nor SOD. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Look who shows up! Where are the others? The 'only' warning was about proxy editing for that FAAFA. Tbeatty, IMO, tries to make it sound like I got an 'only' warning for NPA or 'taunting'. I have seen some editors post NPA attacks dozens of times with only warnings, not even blocks. Now Tbeatty is pushing for an action? This is too funny. Why is it the same 4-6 editors show up where ever I post? Is this not Wikistalking? This harrassment must stop. smedleyΔbutler 08:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No one follows yur posts. You end up on AN/I. You end up on AN/I because you are trolling. The fact that a majority of your posts are defending yourself on AN/I is not evidence of other people stalking you. --Tbeatty 08:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
You actually argued the opposite point regarding MONGO. Stating the numerous AN/I posts regarding him are proof of harassment and trolling. Two sets of rules? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats it! "Bmedley, please quit playing stupid. No one buys it, and it is infuriating. Thanks, Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC) I should not be attacked because I have not yet mastered English! I ask that Pablo gets a 24 hr block for NPA. smedleyΔbutler 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask that Tbeatty gets a 24 hr block for his NPA saying I am trolling too. This harassment and Wikistalking from the same small group must stop! smedleyΔbutler 08:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Further, there is no consensus among admins that NPA violations ever warrant a block. I suggest you drop this and find an article to edit. You seem to be involved in a one-sided battle. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Isolated personal attacks are rarely blockable, but deliberate and repeated personal attacks, incitement, and treating Wikipedia as an ideological battleground are indeed blockable and even bannable, if not by the community then by ArbCom. Bmedley has several agendas and he needs to be told that agenda-driven editing is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals and philosophy. Thatcher131 11:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I have raised this issue previously on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, and have provided other evidence linking this account with FAAFA's to Thatcher131 via email, along with past arbitration principles (including one from the arbcom that FAAFA was banned under) that show that there is more than enough evidence to treat this user as FAAFA. No serious action has yet been taken. I have even been told by admins in email that they are certain that they are the same editor, but that banned users should be given a chance to return and edit positively. Well this editor has maintained the same patterns of behavior that got FAAFA banned, fighting with the same users. From the day that Bmedley appeared, he has showed up in articles that I have long showed an interest in and attempted to disrupt by making suggestions that clearly do not meet our sourcing, npov, and OR policies and guidelines. He makes all too familiar suggestions that if other editors don't help him prove X, then they must be Xists. He says he has not mastered english, but sometimes in discussion, he slips into perfect english, like it was his mother tongue. I wonder what his claimed mother tongue is, and would like to see him converse in it in real time with someone else who speaks that language. I have only posted the latest diffs, because a significant percentage of his edits in discussion and talk contain cheap shots and attacks. If I have to take the time to document every single one, I will bring them before the arbitration committee, not here. - Crockspot 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If repeated personal attacks are bannable (sp?) ... well it seems someone should have been banned by now for their attacks on me. Things on AN/I seem to go in one direction only. Also what is classified as "fighting" with the same users should be looked at from the other side. If those users believe he is FAAFA, then perhaps they are fighting with him on purpose. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Which "someone" are you referring to? I have been showing an incredible amount of patience and restraint, and am not getting satisfactory action. - Crockspot 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not you, just a general point since my name was brought up here, I am starting to become a celebrity of sorts and would prefer people just let me edit in peace without subjecting me to WikiLaw & Politics 101. I am pointing out the irony of the situation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well in my case, I have been trying to avoid conflict with Bmedley, to the point where he has driven me away from editing articles I have long been interested in. If anyone cares to notice, I am keeping my contributions mostly to discussion. In the article linked above, I even provided him a link and some information to assist and guide him to doing accurate research on this topic, but that was not good enough for him, so I must be a racist. I've had about enough. - Crockspot 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am in a similar situation in a further case of irony. I cannot edit articles related to one of my interests because I am afraid I will be compared to anyone else in my city editing it. I know the feeling, however it is probably for the best, and with all the articles on Wikipedia, I learned it is better to avoid the dramatists and just find something else to edit. Luckily I find peace in other articles that I am sure the "political" people on Wikipedia will have little interest in. Something that may help you, visit your local bookstore and pickup a book about a topic you enjoy. Hopefully it will have some useful information for you to add to an article. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So your suggestion to solve the problem of an abusive sockpuppet in direct violation of an arbitration ruling is to go read a nice book? Perhaps I'm the one who needs to leave Wikipedia. - Crockspot 12:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
One suggestion is that calling each other names will not solve the issue. Is there a solution here? You want him banned on account he is a sockpuppet, something you will not bring to the appropriate venue to check. He thinks he has disengaged from you, and you keep bringing up the issue to stir drama. My suggestion as other suggested is to avoid eachother. It is a big encyclopedia. My suggestion to you, if you are here to help the encyclopedia, is to help expand articles, instead of fighting over what should and should not be in them. There are tons of articles that can use expansion and citations, pick one and enjoy the Zen of editing in near peace. Avoiding the dramatic will make you a better editor in my humble opinion. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This colloquy is rather beside the point; Seven will have ample opportunity to address his concerns in the pending Arbitration case. As for Bmedley, I know he is in contact with FAAFA but I do not believe he is a sock or meat puppet (that is, I don't believe he has directly acted on a request by FAAFA since I blocked him for it). I do think he is driven by an agenda, and he needs to adjust his behavior. Thatcher131 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks Thatcher, I was of course replying to Bmedley's demand that Tbeatty be blocked for 24 hours, but I should probably have clarified my comments more. Certainly if Bmedley continues to disrupt the project then that would be a different situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize which comment you were referring to. Thatcher131 13:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was clear in my head, why wasn't it clear in yours? :P Seriously, thanks for making it clear to me how unclear I'd been. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That blocks are preventative, not punitive is understood, but Bmedley's behavior issues are ongoing and show no shows of stopping. He's been blocked twice (and just missed a third), how long do we have to put up with unprovoked taunting like this? I don't see a consensus to block now, but I hope that we put him on a very short leash and make the next block longer. RxS 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Count me as another support for a block for BMedley. I opposed at Crockspot's RfA, but ruthlessly dogging the guy isn't acceptable behavior. His actions in the past are worth NOTING for an RfA, but NOT strong enough nor valid enough to pursue any sort of consequences on wikipedia for him, like banning him as some sort of agenda warrior. You can't go around harrassing him with that forever, BMedley, an the fact that you're not listening here, as Strangelove notes above, weighs more, to me at least, than Crockspot's old actions. I think that they once blocked his RfA is probably the end of their viability as leverage against him. We all saw it, and we acted upon it to our consciences. You need to leave him alone. (Yes, I realize it's bizarre that I'm defending Crockspot, but different situations are different.) ThuranX 15:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont think those are FAAFAs pictures unless you know something I dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmedley Sutler (talkcontribs) 23:25, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Time to take action?[edit]

It seems clear from the above, if nothing else, that Bmedley is disruptive. In addition to any other issues, he has demanded that two editors be blocked for 24 hours each for perceived personal attacks - neither of which is blockable - which indicates he is making any dispute a personal battle. This wastes everyone's time. Is there support for more substantial action about this, above and beyond the patient explanations everyone has been giving him? mentorship? Some kind of parole? Community ban? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest on-wiki mentorship or something for all those involved- Tbeatty, Mongo, Crock, Seven, and the rest. There has been at least four or five issues within this troupe in the past few weeks. Maybe it all started at Crock's RfA; in any case, that's when I noticed it. But the repetitious bad faith, personal attacks, and appearances on AN/I asking for each other's blocks is not helping the wiki at all. David Fuchs (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I would actually love a mentor, however it may not be needed since I do not participate in drama filled political articles anymore. However if another admin would like to assist in guiding me, that would be more than welcome. I have questions abound. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure but something needs to be done. The disruption, edit warring, incivility, etc... is getting to out of hand. Perhaps an admin mentor who will keep an eye on the user would be helpful.--Jersey Devil 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a ban from political articles for anyone who participates in an AN/I posting against the other? That would be interesting. If the behavior is bad, someone else is sure to notice it and report it themselves. Cleans up AN/I and maybe gives some users a much needed break from hot topics. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That would be a very bad precedent, as it would permit any troll to pull a legitimate editor off of an article by harassing them on AN/I. THF 16:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think my feelings are clear, I don't know how long we have to put up with this type of behavior. It's probably too soon for a full ban, but a longer block is absolutely in order. Any one who looks at his talk page/archive can see all the warnings...he's an ongoing source of disruption. If there are other editors people have issues with that's fine, but please don't lump them all in here....they are separate issues. RxS 14:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually do not think it is all separate issues. It is the same drama from the same group, my self included up until I just gave up and walked away from the articles. I have actually recommended others such as Crockspot and Smedley do the same. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia to edit, which is why I decided to more focus on narco-terror related articles. I was pushed out by the same people calling for Smedleys ban. The same people who are on AN/I everyday calling for the ban of what can only be classified as another upset "left leaning" editor. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I also want to make something clear before some clever person wiki links it. I do not think there is a cabal, but how often do you see the same editors calling for a ban of someone they are in conflicts with. I am sure its a possibility that editors from all over possibly gravitate to them to ca use them stress, or its something else. Its up to Wikipedia to determine which it is. Believing there is a cabal attacking them, is just as "wacky" as believing they are a cabal. The answer lies obviously in the center somewhere. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not involved in your arbcom, I only edited a related article one time. Bmedley has been appearing in articles I have a history of contributing to. He went around this weekend and taunted other supposed RW cabalists to help him research his latest interest. This issue has nothing to do with you, it is about Bmedley. Though if he does get dragged into your arbitration, I will be there with bells on, and a list of diffs that will choke a donkey. - Crockspot 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think anyone looking at the series of warnings/blocks on his talk/archive page will see that a fairly broad range of editors have issued them. I don't think this concern is limited to a small group of editors. RxS 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Support doing something, with the specific value of "something" being left to community consensus. Dealing with the drama that perpetually surrounds Bmedley has become a time sink, turning Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a sociological experiment. I don't edit any of the same articles as Bmedley but anyone who has kept up with the proceedings to date can recognize that he's not an innocent party being unjustly persecuted, as he would have it. Raymond Arritt 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Smedley involved in the SevenofDiamonds arbcom case, if he isn't, he should be tossed in there and let arb com deal with him, he's also involved in the same topic. Jaranda wat's sup 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
No, he's not listed at this time, and he has not entered a statement on the case. I'm not so sure about "tossing", but as its all intertwined it does seem like an excellent idea to have it all out at once, rather than piecemeal. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but my Arbcom is about a specific issue, attempting to lump my Arbcom arbitrarily into another issue seems foolish. Considering the attitudes here. I will present my counter-evidence to Arbcom and leave Wikipedia. The political bickering the exudes from this place once a editor receives a username is beyond comprehension. I should have just stood anonymous, editing without issue. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I support a longer term block for disruption, maybe a month or so, with the clear indication to him that the next time he acts up he'll be gone indefinitely. Coddling him and mentorship will not work, since he clearly has it in his mind to be polemic, vitriolic, and disruptive. SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That is clear-cut enough. Supports/disagrees/comments? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
See ThuranX's comment immediately preceeding this subsection. - Crockspot 15:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I rather see arbcom deal with all this in one case, I do support the month block as well. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 15:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC) With regard to mentorship etc., admins can only warn, threaten and then block. With regard to blocks being preventative, not punative: yes, but sometimes prevention takes the form of blocking people so that they learn we are serious about enforcing community norms of behavior. Regarding action toward Bmedley at this time, I would suggest opening a user conduct RFC. One of Bmedley's complaints is that he is attacked by the same small group of users. So I would post a notice of the RFC on the CSN asking people who have never been involved with Bmedley to review the case and offer input. If the combined weight of many experienced Wikipedians does not convince Bmedley to change his attitude and approach, we would have the basis for either strong community action or Arbitration. Regarding Jaranda's comment, ArbCom sees this as a case against Seven (see particularly JamesF's acceptance vote) and ArbCom frankly does very poorly with blanket cases whose scope keeps expanding. It would be better to open a separate case against Bmedley. However, they usually will not review a case without a prior RFC, and ArbCom would only be needed after the RFC if there was a serious disagreement among admins as to how to handle the situation (as there is with Seven). We don't need ArbCom to spend two months to endorse a long block, topic ban, or site ban for a user who persistently "doesn't get it" as long as there is consensus among us admins. Thatcher131 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree to this block, and agree that Arbcom doesn't necessarily need to be involved at this point. RxS 15:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not totally a disagreement with a block (he certainly "doesn't get it"), but Bmedley certainly isn't the only one in this situation who is being polemic, vitriolic or disruptive, as SwatJester put it. David Fuchs was correct above. ELIMINATORJR 15:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are referring to me, which I don't think that you are, the other people are all involved in an arbcom, and will have their behavior investigated fully. This notice is a complaint by me against a single user. All these other distractions are just that, distractions. - Crockspot 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a month long block and do see it as a preventative block as per the comments made by Thatcher. I'm not sure a user conduct RFC would be appropriate as it would just make the process needlessly longer for something we all already know (that the user is causing a disturbance to normal wikipedia processes). But if you guys would like to go that direction I'd be fine with it as well.--Jersey Devil 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Roll it in with the SoD arbitration if the committee will have it. There are more editors beyond those named there that are part of the problem.--Isotope23 talk 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Smedley has been a warrior from day one. It would be ideal if he could take a step back and contribute in some less controversial or confrontational areas... that would go a long way toward demonstrating that he's here to improve the encyclopedia rather than fight with specific users over specific topics. Based on what I've seen so far, it would be really hard for me to disagree with a block for disruption at this point. However, if ArbCom will take the issue up that might be ideal, because the best solution may be a form of probation etc. rather than a block or ban. MastCell Talk 16:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with mastcell here. I think if Smedley backed off from the controversial articles, we would see if he's here to improve the encyclopedia and its a "near occasion of wiki-sin" or he's just plain disruptive. David Fuchs (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Its not all my fault. How many times has Crockspot and the others been told to quit calling me a sockpuppet? And to take these accusations to an official hearing? And stop throwing wild charges about me? They already filed one RFCU that came back empty. There is a small group of 4-6 editors who fight anyone with a leftist POV. How many false RFCUs did they file on SevenOD? I would suggest a hearing on the actions of this whole group and the leftists they fought against. Go back 2 or 3 years. You will see to find an organized campaign of harrassments, complaints, call for bannings, and then bannings of those who don't share their exact POV. They have run wild over Wikipedia getting their way. And I mean no offense but a few administrators helped them and put politics before enforcing the rules fairly on both sides too. Look at the complaint boards. This groups names are there every day. They were fighting long before I got here. Any calls to action on me is just more of how they got their way for years now. I will avoid any arguing with them and when they attack me Ill just run to a complaint board too. See, one more time they get their way. Seven got run off certain articles and now I am too. Or facing a block. I will choose to avoid any conflict with them on any talk pages where we both edit. But I expect that they should have to follow the rules as much as I do. Thanks for the advice. To show that I have more than any agenda, I will go back to editing mor of the Big Sur articles which I wrorked on a lot before drawing in like a magnet to certain political articles where they are guarded like a grizzly bear mother guarding her young with 'White Wash' agendas. Please notice too, that when I first got here I suspected that CIA and DOD and USGOV were editing many articles. Guess what? Wikipedia should reflect a global POV. Not the POV of only the American right wing! I made these suspicions of the CIA and USGOV editing articles public and I was called crazy and paranoid and ordered by several administrators to stop and not to make any more of these accusations. Months later now the Wikiscanner poofs come out and show that I was right and this same group who called me crazy, and of whom I have so many problems was wrong! Whos laughing now? I will avoid this group where ever possible so that there needs to be no action on me as is their plan. Okay? Okay! smedleyΔbutler 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

More distraction. Who is "they"? Go back two or three years? I've been on Wikipedia a year and a half. I am here as an individual editor, filing a complaint against an individual editor, namely you. Your behavior toward me is unacceptable, and my complaint has nothing to do with any "others", nor with Seven, who's arbitration I am neither involved with, nor want to be. BTW, I looked at the wikiscanner output, and I have not seen any articles that I am involved in on the edit lists of the USCHIMPBUSHGOV and CIASPOOK edits. Do you still think I'm a "spook" for the CIA or the secret Rove empire? - Crockspot 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) PS I have also never requested a checkuser on Bmedley. None is required, he has already admitted editing in proxy for FAAFA, and according to the arbitration ruling involving FAAFA, that is enough to assume and treat them as the same user. - Crockspot 16:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Did Crockspot or anyone else call you a sockpuppet before you made edits clearly at the behest of FAAFA? You have to own your responsibility for that. Thatcher131 16:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Smedley was accused of being a sockpuppet of Giovanni, then of FAAFA before he made the Big Sur edit to include FAAFA's pictures, which are honestly nice pictures. The sockpuppet check is under Giovanni33's name. It also accuses me of being Smedley. Consider me officially gone, and thank you. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe I had anything to do with that. Because I voted in the past in a few AfDs similarly to some other editors, I am assumed to be the ringleader, or at least tied at the hip with these users. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't even have the same interests in most articles. I am primarily concerned with BLP articles, those "others" are more concerned with NPOV aspects of topical non-biographies. - Crockspot 17:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think he and they did. I would have to check though. Look at Crockspots 'tone' above. "USCHIMPBUSHGOV" "Rove Empire" Its 'Mocking' and 'Taunting' IMO. I don't find it funny or helpful. And here on an official complaint baord? Of course he wants to not include the others in 'his' group and change the issue. I can go back a month and find a complaint where I ask to have this whole group looked at for harrassing me and others. If its going to be charges and counter charges asking for bannings and blocks and actions, lets address my months old complaint along with Crockspots call for only action of him vs me.To make peace I will be the one to 'walk away' as he advised others to do involved in a conflict, but seems to be his advice for others only. smedleyΔbutler 16:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Post some diffs, or stop making the accusations. I have stopped editing nearly ALL articles, because of you. My contributions are now limited to fighting blatant vandalism, and participating in discussion. - Crockspot 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Now your problems are all my fault?! Go edit any article you want. I think maybe Beauchamp. I'll give you all the distance you want and avoid conflicting with you to show my 'good faith'. I do not have time for any 'diffs' until tonight, and would rather edit articles than fight on complaint boards anyway. smedleyΔbutler 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this adds anything, but add me to the list of folks whose assumptions of good faith in Bmedley have been crushed and who now support more decisive action. Most posts I've seen by Bmedley have little to do with the article in question and are either loosely related ideological harangues, far-fetched accusations of being personally attacked, or, most commonly, personal attacks (as delineated by WP:NPA). When his/her behavior is pointed out, he/she either ignores it or has a defense such as misunderstanding the English language ("playing stupid" as Pablo puts it) or saying that being gay means that rules against homophobic personal attacks don't apply to him/her. I do not