Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive378

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

Noticeboard archives


Need someone to delete/clean up an AFD naming - easy admin work[edit]

Fixed Can someone move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (2nd nomination) for me, so that the naming/list on the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Shell (3rd nomination) doesn't show an extra AFD? Thanks! Lawrence § t/e 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oo! Oo! Pick me! I like the easy stuff! Consider it done (because it is). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Can you solve the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia next? :) Lawrence § t/e 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Er, that broke a number of links and transclusions...Someguy1221 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I only found one broken link, and have since fixed it. Thanks for the heads up. As to the more important question posed by Mr. Cohen. Er, I don't know. The Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalisim, if I'm being honest, are unfixable. Go buy a house, though, the market is friggin fantastic if you're looking. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
<me blinks in puzzlement> So Keeper's fixes to the US Sub-prime financial crisis and NPOV issues with nationalism on Wikipedia didn't break a number of links & transclusions? Glad to know fixing those won't break any articles. -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael L. Vincent[edit]

Per this message on Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) talk page, it appears that outside users are being recruited to disrupt the AFD discussion referenced above. Their method appears to be blanking the talk pages of users who !vote delete. In addition, they are creating multiple copies of the article in question, mostly with extra periods. See L. Vin.cent‎, Mi.k e L. Vin.ce nt, and Mi.k e L. Vin.c.e n.t, all of which were copy-pasted. I and a couple of other users have tagged them as implausible redirects for speedy deletion, but I see this as disruptive meatpuppetry. Concerned users appear to be:

Since there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing, I wouldn't be surprised if more show up. Help please? // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps protect the AfD page, as Docg did on the Iseman AfD? Eusebeus (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There's been some other socks too:
One Night In Hackney303 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The following users:

  1. Unitdealt1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Mainquick1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Clubtaken1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  4. Girlgirlgirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

have been indefblocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Storyrates1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps someone could do a checkuser on the others. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - add the following as socks of the same editor:
  1. Yeargyro1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Also, the main troublesome IPs have been blocked ACB, so that should help - Alison 23:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I've retagged these. Am I understanding correctly that all of these accounts are related, including Gregg Potts (talk · contribs) and those listed at the top of the thread? MastCell Talk 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'd like to clarify here that Gregg Potts (talk) is  Unrelated here to the other accounts - Alison 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Shite. Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue. My bad; I misread. I've offered a very strong apology to Gregg Potts (talk · contribs), whom Alison has unblocked. I'll fix the tags up to point to the actual sockmaster. Man, I feel awful about that. Thanks for the quick response and for clearing up my confusion, Alison. MastCell Talk 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasfou514 (talk · contribs) is also claiming to be unrelated - did I screw up there by blocking as well? MastCell Talk 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm - I'm afraid so :( Wasfou514 was never implicated as being one of the socks. I'll unblock now - Alison 00:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[edit]

I saw this user posted at AIV and someone had already posted a note that it was an AGF edit rather than vandalism, however a few other editors dogpiled the anon and he ended up in a 3RR situation. I realize he broke 3RR, but should the other editors have dogpiled him accusing him of vandalism when they appear to be attempting to simply add information that the "senior" editors don't want in the article? Perhaps asking him to come to the talk page would have been a better idea? Just because an established editor decides someone is a sock or a vandal without proof/checkuser it seems that newbies are getting trashed and that makes WP a bad place to hang out. Can someone uninvolved take a look? [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] Thanks Legotech·(t)·(c) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

While Id like to assume good faith here, you may want to take a look at the conversation going on right up here regarding this sockpuppeter and the IP range his is using, which is very close to this IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute as to whether to list Epcot Center as being in the City (Orlando, FL) or County (Orange County, FL). I'm unsure as to actual Wikipedia policy on locations (couldn't they compromise and list both?) but it looks like a really silly debate that both sides just want to blow out of proportion. And as a content dispute, I'm 100% sure this doesn't qualify as "vandalism."

As a side note, I agree that accusations of "sockpuppetry" and "vandalism" are thrown around far too often in what are simply content disputes, and blocks based on the accusations made too often with a very itchy trigger finger. M1rth (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocks were made because of a WP:3RR vio. and for evading said block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Coolies, I'm wrong, thanks for the info! Perhaps there should be more info on the block/users page? As it stands it looks like a bunch of editors dogpiled him because they didn't like his edits and then he got blocked because "senior" editors didn't like his edits. Look at it as a noob...there are a lot of complaints about WP being "run" as the playground of just a few editors and admins, if we aren't careful to fully document stuff like this, we give those people confirmation of their already biased attitude. I'm not horribly new, and I couldn't find the info that showed that this was anything more than a playground argument, enough so that I felt I should bring it here to find out whats up. Legotech·(t)·(c) 00:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Their edit warring was pretty obvious, but I had left a note on the respective talk page, and protected Epcot. The IP address has since migrated to another IP. seicer | talk | contribs 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The same editor is being discussed elsewhere on this page. I think it's inaccurate to dismiss this as a content dispute. The editor is hostile, abusive and rejects all appeals to consensus, policy and procedure. A close read of his or her edits from at least 15 different accounts or IP addresses shows an immediate pattern of personal attacks ("idiots" being the most frequent insult) and a refusal to abide by consensus. This is not someone acting in good faith (example, example, example, etc.). &#151;Whoville (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not an admin, so I'm sorry if I'm butting in somewhere I shouldn't, but I've done a little research and found that this appears to be a pattern for this user. It seems like whenever a change he makes gets reverted, he gets personal, as shown here and here. To add gravity to the point, these are for an article completely unrelated to the current situation. I've attempted to start a discussion on consensus, only to be personally attacked. Other users have had the same experience. Nobody has disputed the content the editor is attempting to add, only that it goes against the consensus that has been established, with no explanation or attempt at a dialogue to explain them, or why consensus should change to support the edits. Thank you for your time. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 02:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Some background on the situation, for those who are merely looking at it from the outside. (and I apologize in advance for not providing all links here; they have been posted in various talk pages already, such as on the Disney's Hollywood Studios talk page). Back in 2007 the decision was made by consensus that the category "visitor attractions in orlando, florida" would be used to encompass the greater orlando area. In fact, the "visitor attractions in greater orlando" category was merged into it and then deleted. Last week, a user decided that the "orlando, florida" portion of the category meant that it was only applicable to the physical city limits of Orlando, rather than the general area that the category has come to represent. An attempt to discuss the matter took place on the DHStudios talk page, but it was ignored and those involved were told that we were idiots because we couldn't read a map. We asked for previous policy and examples (as that was what was being quoted to us) and none were provided. This user then proceeded to change all the Disney-related articles (both parks and individual ride articles) to say that those parks were in the city of Bay Lake and/or Orange County florida. (In reality, WDW covers two counties, and Bay Lake is not the parks' official mailing address or city of residence). The user became uncivil and posted rude comments in edit summaries and on people's talk pages, earning them a temp block... and that's when the sockpuppets began. We got admins involved to help monitor/maintain the situation, and this is where we are a week later. Today, when the category this editor created to replace the "attractions in orlando, florida" category he didn't like was officially deleted per CFD, the category was recreated and the edits and reverts started anew. So in a nutshell, aside from all the article edits and reverts, we also have an editor that is creating new categories, having those categories deleted per CFD, and then recreating them after consensus was already reached. It's obviously more than just a little content dispute, as all the regular editors are trying to do is maintain the article content -- we've even gone so far as to remove location information that shouldn't have existed in specific articles at all so there shouldn't be a reason to say the info is right or wrong, only to have the too-detailed and some say incorrect location info put back in. All in all, it's been a fun few days, but admins have been involved (on and off) all along the way so it's not been entirely the non-admin editors doing the work. SpikeJones (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you muchly for the history...I'm desperately trying to learn my way around here and appreciate being "read into" the history of this sock drawer. I'm sorry if I caused any trouble with my post here. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The user appears to be at it again. To make matters worse, when asked politely to discuss, he blanks his page and replaces it, as shown here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a royal mess. Until someone figures out a way to block this individual, I'll continue to revert changes as needed. I guess I can add a 30-60 day protection on these articles in the hopes that things will calm down. I am not following these discussions, so if you need to clue me in drop a link on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not like we haven't tried, as indicated here. He just blanks the page and ignores the requests for an explanation or a discussion. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oy,I'm on the job as well....ick. Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have another question...will I be breaking 3RR if I'm fixing this stuffs? Legotech·(t)·(c) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My reading of 3RR says no, because you are reverting edits created by an account being used to bypass a block on another account (i.e., a sock puppet). Of course, the admins and higher-ups have final say. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the articles have been page protected against IP addresses and new user accounts for one month. If there is one that is experiencing heavy IP vandalism or is protected for 3 days (I reset my original 3 day protection to 1 month to coincide with other protections), let me know. seicer | talk | contribs 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The contribution pages of the socks point mainly to the Walt Disney World and SeaWorld articles, even the individual attraction pages. I know that's a lot of pages to be protected. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All relevent pages protected[edit]

Also see the related thread above. I hate to have had to do this, but it look slike we have had to protect all of the various orlando-related articles. Much thanks to Seicer and Vegaswikian, who apparently reached the same conclusion as I did at around the same time, as it looks like we kept running into each other. Anyways, since blocks were UTTERLY ineffecitive at stopping this person, who is a banned user using a drifting IP address to edit agains consensus see [4]), I think we had no other choice but to protect the whole lot of pages. Not sure what else to do. If any unprotected pages pop up on anyone's radar, let us know here, or on my talk page, and we'll add them to the list. 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an admin solution, but maybe the Orlando participants should define a template which emits at least the desired category. Documentation of the template would explain when it is to be used (city or greater Orlando). Other editors would then have a chance to find that info. Orlando-editors might find some other info for an Orlando template, such as links to City and County articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 07:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, but Miamiboyzinhere is no longer blocked, he may go back and vandalise the articles that are under protection from the IP addresses that vandalised them. Momusufan (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Users Soccermeko and Infostorm[edit]

Despite numerous attempts to resolve editing conflicts on the Nicole Wray page and a couple of subpages including Nicole Wray discography and Template:Nicole Wray which have included page protection, the suspected sockpuppets User:Soccermeko (also see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko) and User:Infostorm continue to repeatedly add misinformation to all of the pages. Please can someone look into this. Since Soccermeko has received a warning, all edits have been made on the other account. Cloudz679 (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty blatant to me. Certainly quacks like a WP:DUCK as far as I'm concerned. User:Infostorm indef blocked as a sock. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Individual has been Stalking me as well as forum shopping [5] . Has been warned many times for personal attacks and uncivil behavior reported to AIV [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Editing while blocked [11] Uconnstud (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:St. John's University (New York City) for the truth. User is a vandal, and is attempting to block people instead of editing contructively.- --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Has been edit warring, and stalking. He follows me around in articles and tells people to act against my constructive edits. 3rr violation [12] Uconnstud (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is trying to use Wiki system to get his way when all else fails. He is reverting a semi-protected article, and causing significant content loss. He is a vandal, and needs to be stopped. All it takes is a quick comparision of the articles to realize his intentions, and he refuses to engage in meaningful disucssion on the talk page. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Has a history of edit warring and not working with others.

06:43, 8 August 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Abusive sockpuppetry to edit war) 15:14, 9 June 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: on St. John's University (New York City), again) 11:59, 8 June 2007 Tariqabjotu (Talk | contribs) blocked "TiconderogaCCB (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: on St. John's University (New York City)) Uconnstud (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All these blocks are a result of HIM, before I realized he was doing things exactly like this. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's the result of you acting poorly and not being an asset to wikipedia. Please stop edit warring. Uconnstud (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If attempting to constructively edit an article with meaningful content while trying to prevent vandals from destroying and misrepresenting facts makes me a bad asset, then I'm guilty. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Both parties are working with J.delanoy (talk · contribs), who is providing a third opinion at TiconderogaCCB's request. I have cautioned both parties that any further reversion or shenanigans will be grounds for a block. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

NYRofBooks BEANS[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#New_York_Review_of_Books_article_on_Wikipedia points at an article about Wikipedia which gives examples of vandalism on specific articles. Here's a list of named beans; some are redlinks and should be until someone writes some good stuff. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

these are articles mentioned there--most of them in other contexts than as being vandalized. Nonetheless, they all would bear watching now. DGG (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've made a shared watchlist at Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Random832/watchlist/NYTimes. —Random832 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, The New York Review of Books has nothing to do with the New York Times -- except that they are both published in the same city. One is a high-brow, literary publication, the other is a newspaper. I suggest this mistake be corrected quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed here. Wouldn't want to confuse any NY Times reporters. -- SEWilco (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal information as punishment, sockpuppeting, POV pushing, edit warring, single purpose attack accounts, etc.[edit]

Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets for habitual edit warring and per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta).

This user was previously blocked 1 in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and for related 3RR process disruption; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit histories of socks for details. Commonality of edit history and talk page rhetoric is blatantly apparent. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between.

User engages in exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 5.

Suspected sockpuppets

NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(Note: User has been simultaneously reported on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) for sockpuppetry.

Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

REPOST: RYNORT returns[edit]

I am re-posting this request for assistance, since it was overlooked previously with no responses. If it is deficient in any way, please let me know how to improve it.

A while back User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was indefinitely banned for multiple incidents of massive incivility, personal attacks, and generally reprehensible behavior. A coordinated effort came from (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), which was also banned by several admins for the same sorts of behavior. I filed this ANI report back in January regarding some malice from RYNORT, and in this earlier ANI report I pretty much laid out the idiosyncratic behavior that linked the two. This IP has been trolling and making personal attacks, most recently on my talk page. RFCU may be appropriate, but based on the IP's own gross incivility I think the case is made for blocking the IP entirely. Thanks for the help. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month (same duration as previous block) as an obvious IP sock of RYNORT, used to continue same disruptive behavior. Edits and block log indicate this is a fairly static IP, and there should be little to no collateral damage. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat? Advice requested[edit]

Background: User:Harlempanther187 repeatedly created the article Tony Accardo Jr, which stated nothing other than birthdates, parentage, and that the person was a member of the Chicago Outfit. No sources. I repeatedly deleted per WP:BLP, and gave the appropriate warnings and advice. The author got mad, started vandalizing, and redirected his talk page to Fuck NawlinWiki, so I eventually blocked him.

Today, I got this comment on my talk page from User:, an anon IP registered to DuPage College. Its previous edit was to add Tony Accardo Jr to the Chicago Outfit article. The message purports to be from a law firm in Chicago that represents Tony Accardo Jr, and demands that I contact them (giving an email address and a phone number). I blocked the IP for 55 hours for legal threats, and posted an explanation to the IP's talk page (including pointing out that all they need to do to reinstate the article is write one that complies with WP:BLP). User:Zsero wrote and said that s/he didn't think it was a legal threat and that the block was improper. I think that the IP is, in fact, User:Harlempanther187, making a crude attempt to intimidate me. But I would appreciate some second opinions. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would just ignore it. If its a threat, its pointless. You could try an RFCU/IP, if course, but is it worth the effort? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Checked ABA and Illinois directories of lawyers, none by that name who are admitted to practice. Phone number resolves to an address in Illinois, but with a different name than either the corporate or individual name in the diff. And google maps doesn't reveal a law office by that name in the vicinity of the address the number links to. And when was the last time you saw a real lawyer with that style of email address. I wouldn't contact it or engage them in on-wiki conversation. If their serious (and I doubt they are), they'll contact Mike Godwin at the Foundation. MBisanz talk 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a phone call or an e-mail to DuPage's abuse address is in order? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I won't and I'd tell Nawlin not to either, but maybe someone whose more involved with foundation stuff (read: Comm Committee/Meta) would want to. I'm any event, I'd agree it was a good NLT block. MBisanz talk 21:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it a good block? It's not a legal threat at all, or a threat of any kind. It doesn't matter who posted it or why, it's not grounds for a block. -- Zsero (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zsero. It wasn't a threat, legal or otherwise. --Kbdank71 21:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that there was not an explicit threat... why else would a lawyer seek an editor's real name, except for legal proceedings? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A lawyer contacts you on wiki, saying they represent someone, someone whose topic you've in some way been involved in editing, and they wish to get in touch with you off-wiki for your real identity. What WP:AGF reason could they have for doing so? MBisanz talk 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Ultra and Mbisanz. "Legal" is subjective. If a "lawyer" asks for my real name, or Nawlines, or any Wikipedian, I can see how that can easily be construed as a threat. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter. If a threat comes in, then block. Otherwise, it's a request, which anyone can make. Just because a person is a lawyer doesn't mean squat. Unless we're now pre-emptively blocking. --Kbdank71 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Will you start paying me 50% of your income, or should I get someone to break your kneecap?" No, not a threat, just a harmless question... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If the request ended with "...or I'll sue you", then block. But if you just asked me "Will you start paying me 50% of your income?", my answer is no. --Kbdank71 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to missed the entire point of WP:NLT in favor of bureaucratic waffling: the intent is to allow intimidation-free editing, and this was clearly a fairly crude attempt to intimidate. As for the example given, threatening physical violence is okay, but threatening legal action isn't? You need to recalibrate your reality meter. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Are we overlooking the fact that whomever purports to represent the law offices has (a) a pretty awful grasp of grammar, and (b) a web-based email address? Leaving aside whether or not the block was right, given that the IP is registered to a college, isn't it more likely to be a hoax? GBT/C 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, much more likely. If we knew that for sure, then even an actual threat would not be blockable as such. But even if we were to take her at her word that she is a lawyer, the fact remains that she did not make a threat. She simply asked someone to contact her, as is her perfect right (just as that person has the perfect right to ignore it) -- Zsero (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

...s/he didn't think it was a legal threat and that the block was improper. I think that the IP is, in fact, User:Harlempanther187, making a crude attempt to intimidate me ← Are you aware of any incident involving a "legal threat" that was anything other than a crude attempt to intimidate another user? — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


I believe the user to be a sockpuppet. There was an edit war the other day on Maddox (writer) and I got 3 different vandals (and possible suspects of each other) banned at WP:AN/3. Now Arisedrink is making the same edits as those vandals as you can see here. Even if the user is not a sockpuppet I think a block or ban is in order. That user has only existed for about a week andf they've only edited the Maddox page. The user has also blanked their talk page numerous times after being warned again and again to stop vandalizing the page and citing rules which do not fit. I'm almost 100% sure it's a sockpuppet of one of those vandals, however, at the very least, it's a vandal and should be blocked. Thank you. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since you can't be sure, report the user for WP:3RR. Banning wouldn't be the right course of action - and a temp block would come from the report. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, best thing to do is report to WP:3RR like said above. Tiptoety talk 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, (and this is just an aside - not assuming anything), try and avoid referring to them as sockpuppets unless you have near incontrovertible evidence or strong suspicions - enough to open a sockpuppet case. In other words, don't tag their user/talk pages as suspected sockpuppets. Not saying you would, but just wanted to mention this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not the article Za'atar should retain referenced information concerning Israel. A few days prior an edit war broke out over similar Israel/Jewish references in the article Hummus and since that died down, its moved over to Za'atar. I'm not real sure how to proceed on this, I did leave a notice on one of the editor's TALK pages as well as a pose the question asking for input on Za'atar's TALK page. -- Nsaum75 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Boomgaylove II[edit]

Note: the first AN/I incident may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#User:boomgaylove) - Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we kindly get some administrative help on this? There are edit wars brewing on the AfD discussions, articles, etc. I'm in a tough spot of having to choose between attempting to keep order at the risk of edit warring with possibly legitimate Wikipedians, and letting the articles devolve because I don't want to get involved. This may all clear up once we run a checkuser on some of the suspicious-looking editors who have jumped in, so I think everything would benefit from a cool-down. Some neutral, experienced help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please, do help! I am not "making" claims of drug dealing or inserting any derogatory material. The article mentioned the rap artist's drug-dealing (he was convicted of it and placed on probation as a 17-year-old) before I ever came to this, and I did so only because of the abusive sock puppet issue. The sockpuppets have been gaming this issue heavily. The information does not seem to be harmful because he apparently freely admits to it, and a feature article about him in a local newspaper mentions it. The news article and the artist's own words are the sources, and the attempt to remove the fact and the citations, as well as all references positive and negative to the rapper himself, were part of the sock attack. Since the sources are reliable and the mention relevant and harmless, there is no obvious BLP violation. I have no stake here, but I do not want to let sockpuppets dictate article content or goad people into starting edit wars. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
See WP:SELFPUB for the interview. The newspaper source is obvious from the article. Try reading it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved Wikidemo's edit from the archive to this thread for ease of use. --jonny-mt 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

New sockpuppetry report[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. In addition to the obvious sockpuppets / evasion of block, a number of IP and recently-registered users have recently flocked to the issues, nominated for deletion the two (now five) articles that the now-blocked editor was trying to gut, parroted the same tactics and language. There are several users who are not clear sockpuppets but may be, could be meatpuppets (the user has admitted to meatpuppetry as well), or might just be innocent editors who wandered in. I'm not sure what to do next - a checkuser?
Also, I'm wondering if we can speedy close or otherwise suspend the AfDs pending a resolution of the sockpuppet issue. I won't argue the articles' notability here (obviously I think they are or I wouldn't be here), but it's an undue waste of time dealing with edit wars, AfDs, and other wikigaming in the middle of trying to figure out who is a sockpuppet. If the articles are deletable they can wait a couple weeks until we've gotten rid of the trolls, and reasonable editors can have an honest content discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There are legitimate AfD concerns which are evident by the majority opinions on the AfD of J Stalin. Just because some user was blocked for contentious editing does not mean that any editor which coincidentally has a similar stance on the article's notability its a sock puppet. Also not a reason to indefinatly stop AfD's which you are biasly in favor or not occurring, while vindictively adding arbitrary and baseless warnings talk pages.Icamepica (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't look like it will be deleted so the question is moot, and I see no point responding to the random potshots of an accused sockpuppet. I don't want to get into AfD procedure because, assuming this is boomgaylove, he/she has nominated at least six articles for deletion in five days, including this one three times using three different accounts, and should not be taught the ins and outs of how AfD relates to sockpuppetry.Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Note - I am commenting out some of the residue of user:Icamepica's trolling from yesterday. As per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove we have uncovered a dozen or more sockpuppets (including Icamepica), some clearly linked to boomgaylove and some not yet. I'm adding this comment in part in case Icamepica causes trouble again when his/her block expires in a few hours and if the account has not (yet) been indefinitely blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet more attacks[edit]

And in the midst of all this, yet another user with civility issues, User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous is making personal attacks. He's attacked me before in opposing my attempts to deal with the swarm of sockpuppets / trolls. See this edit[13], which he has made three times and I've deleted twice as a personal attack on me. My statements are correct, actually, and for that he/she calls me "ignorant" and says my edits are a demonstration of an "encyclopedia-that-any-idiot-can-edit." Rather than reverting him a third time I'm inviting him to remove his (or her) comments. Would someone mind taking a look to see if this is an NPA violation and if so, what we can do? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Some additional material - He's been edit warring in support of the sock puppets and making personal attacks on this article elsewhere in the past two days. here he calls me "irrational" for adding a second source, and deleted it along with sourced content, during the article's WP:AfD process. here he's doing the same thing a few days earlier. From the talk page this editor has a pattern of civility problems, and showing up in the midst of the bizarre sockpuppet swarm raises concerns (although the majority of the account's overall edit history does seem productive and in good faith). Anyway, I don't want to let stand an attack that I'm "ignorant" and an "idiot" for saying something that is, actually, true. Wikidemo (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The user has not removed the attacks. They really should not stay as a fixture on the article talk page, nor do I think it's good to leave them up while the article is under a sockpuppet AfD effort. I haven't gotten any guidance here and the user hasn't responded to my request for removal. I'm also hesitant to go to a different forum with this because I've tried to consolidate it all here after the sockpuppets went forum shopping and canvassing. So unless anyone has any other suggestion I'm going to just archive the incivilities. The editor has threatened to go past 3RR, claiming my removing his attacks are "vandalism", so please be alert in case this continues. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that whatever the merits, or lack thereof, in Wikidemo's arguments above, that he (or she) has tried to, basically, censor the discussion on the Cypress Village page, most recently by a rather transparent move of "archiving" a short discussion with the clear intention of getting it out of sight. I don't mind the ongoing back-and-forth here, but I do object to such unilateral attempts to remove what this user apparently sees as embarassing material. Discuss the issues on their merits, why don't you? As I said there, for my part, I'd like to get back to a substantive discussion of the topic, in this case, neighborhoods in West Oakland. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing a personal attack (calling me an "idiot" and "ignorant") is not censorship. I proposed here exactly what I was going to do if the editor did not remove the uncivil comments, and I did it. Of course it is transparent, deliberately so. I archived the thread with the insults because there is no more conversation to be had when one of the two parties is calling the other an idiot, and that is the best way to preserve it without altering it. The editor said he "stands by" his comments (notably, that I am an idiot and ignorant), and has now violated WP:3RR with this edit[14] by inserting those invectives for a fourth time. Can someone please help? Is this the wrong place - should I take it to the 3RR notice board? Wikidemo (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I can block both of you for violating WP:3RR, or I can conclude that both archiving is different than removing completely and unarchiving is also different from restoring after a removal. I choose the latter. Stop edit warring, both of you, or I'll change my mind and go with option 1. Yes, his comments are incivil, no they don't reach my standard for administrative action. GRBerry 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Scolding both of us is not helpful. The other editor has violated 3RR, I have not. The other editor is misbehaving by spewing insults; I am not. I am trying to deal with a serious abusive sockpuppet problem here; the other editor has been supporting the sockpuppets. I am not a disruptive editor. I have been asking again and again for guidance and help, and gotten none. Is that the official word from administrators around here, that I get blocked? I have zero risk of future disruptive editing - I have asked for administrative blessing every step of the way and gotten no opposition or guidance of any sort. If that's the thanks I get for helping with the encyclopedia, go ahead and block me. Wikidemo (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) I should note that the two of us are talking on our talk pages and I don't expect any more trouble for now. I've asked if he/she would mind putting an archive box around the part of the discussion that just concerns the two of us, so that it does not distract from the larger ongoing sockpuppet matter.Wikidemo (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

As a victim of both of these users, WikiDemo's McArthy-in-scope sockpuppet paranoia and ILike2BeAnonymous' colorful borderlining and incivility may I suggest all parties involved take a breather?CholgatalK! 00:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there is considerable evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove pointing to the fact that Cholga is Icamepica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who was recently blocked for disruption in this very discussion. While I rather agree with your suggestion that a breather might be in order, I object to your misrepresentation of the situation in order to take a dig at both editors involved. --jonny-mt 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The results of the checkuser are here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the confirmed sockpuppet accounts. This appears to be a co-ordinated and long-term attempt to establish multiple accounts which have been involved in a variety of dubious activities. Gwernol 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review: Eleemosynary[edit]

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs). This request is procedural since the block ends fairly shortly, but since he intends to post a complaint against me here when it ends (by which point I'll be asleep and unable to respond), I believe I should get my word in before I go.

3RR violation[edit]

Eleemosynary is claiming that I "admin abuse"-d him by blocking him for WP:3RR violation on Matt Sanchez. First of all, please note that the article is subject to an article probation, and all of the article's consistent editors, including Eleemosynary, are aware of this. My block message was as follows: You've been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on Matt Sanchez. Your reverts were as follows: [15], [16], [17], [18]. You were warned of your pending 3RR violation here and referred to it as "officiousness", and you are aware of the 3RR as you have been blocked 4 times before for it. Continual disruptive editing will not be tolerated.

Eleemosynary contends that his edits were not 4 reverts, which even if it were correct is irrelevant because the 3 revert rule does not entitle users to revert 3 times per day. From the policy: Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive.. However, his edits were indeed 4 reverts. A revert, per the policy, "means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content..."

His first revert, [19] was a removal of this edit made on the 21st. His second revert again removed the text "writer". His third revert removed the text "writer" from a different place in the article. Eleemosynary contends that this is not a revert, however, clearly states A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time so in fact it is. Revert 4 is clear.

Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation.

tendentious editing[edit]

As I have shown above, there were 4 reverts within 24 hours, a violation of the 3RR. Even were there not to have been, Eleemosynary was clearly edit warring on the article. Just a few days before that, he had edit warred over the bad faith removal of images of Matt Sanchez, justifying his removal of a freely licensed picture under the assumption of bad faith that "Matt Sanchez had lied before about the ownership of pictures, he must have lied about this one too."

You may note from Eleemosynary's extensive block log that he has been blocked 7 times for violating the 3RR, or edit warring. He's also been blocked for legal threats, and blocked twice for violating WP:OFFICE. Eleemosynary should know better than to edit war on an article, but even after being blocked, he insists that he was right, the blocking admin was wrong, and this is harassment against him, and that I have a grudge against him (more on that later).

Furthermore, given the article probation that affected the page (and he was well aware of such probation) he should have been on notice not to edit tendentiously on the article. Therefore even if his block was not for 3RR violations, it would have been appropriate for disruptive editing.

allegations that I have harassed him[edit]

Until this block, I have not dealt with Eleemosynary in months. I've blocked him once before, in August 2007 if memory serves right, for another 3RR violation. Just a week later, some of you may remember, was User:Crockspot's RFA. I don't remember the exact details, but it was disrupted by allegations that he was a racist, showed some off wiki forum posts of an off-wiki user with the same name saying racist things. At that time, a Digg user named Eleemosynary made a digg post about Crockspots RFA to try and disrupt it. It naturally failed. Our User:Eleemosynary was just coming off of his block from me. I can't remember exactly what it was for, but the block log says "multiple 3RR vios". He was blocked for a month by Isotope, which was later overturned by Theresa Knott. Eleemosynary here (who is a vocal opponent of Crockspots) maintains his innocence that he is not the Eleemosynary from Digg. I did not and still do not believe this, and at the time I wrote a post on my blog about it. Eleemosynary believes this to be my "harassment" of him. It should be very clear, however, after reading it that it is nothing of the sort.

His responses to this latest block are snarky, claiming that I have a grudge against him, and that I have harassed him and continue to harass him. This conveniently ignores that I have had no contact in months with him, and that a 16-entry long block log would imply that perhaps he is the one doing the harassing. As evidence of his hostile behavior, please see these diffs: "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace" (referring to Matt Sanchez...yes there's evidence that he had good intentions for that article), [index.php?title=User_talk:Eleemosynary&diff=next&oldid=194538800 Well, this dishonesty isn't surprising, coming from "Swat."], (in that same diff accusing me of admin abuse, accusing me of lying, etc.) accusing me of editing on behalf of a banned editor, and again, and again, accusing me of working on behalf of a banned editor, harassment, and abusing my admin privileges, alleges that I've threatened him off wiki (!)(?), while maintaining that he has not been hostile at all, etc., alleges that I am interpreting policy "tortuously", which apparently means "deceitfully",

I've warned Eleemosynary that if he continues to make these allegations against me, I will block him for gross incivility, and that here is the appropriate place for him to bring any complaints he has against me. Since I expect to be asleep by the time his block expires, I wanted to post this now, before any facts get distorted. I believe that Eleemosynary should be article banned from Matt Sanchez, this is a remedy that any administrator can enforce since the page is already under article probation. I further would like to see this block endorsed, and possibly a community ban on Eleemosynary. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


My recollection of the "Digg-post" and Crockspot's RfA: I remember the Crockspot nom, and when the Digg posting went down. At the time the only evidence that they were the same person was that it was the same name, and I think a trivial bit of location info, which I was able to find --on wiki. At the time of Eleemosynary's block, I sent an email to Administrator Isotope, inquiring as to whether there was any off-wiki evidence that he was privy to, but not available to the average wikipedian. He said there was none. It was my impression at the time that someone used his name to stir up extra drama here. And I believe that before he left (?) Crockspot and Eleemosynary were behaving civilly with each other. This lack of acrimony between the 2 of them led me to believe that, at some point, Crockspot decided that Eleemosynary did not make the Digg post either. R. Baley (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly right, R. Baley. Crockspot and I had a very contentious relationship here. But, after contacting me, and (as I recall) checking the timestamps of the posts in question, Crockspot dropped the issue of the fake off-site posting in my Wiki name. The only person who kept that canard going was Swatjester, here, on his off-site blog. (Swatjester could never get away with such an unfounded personal attack on Wikipedia.) I never even voted on Crockspot's RFA because 1) Swatjester blocked me during most of it, and 2) there was no way I could render a neutral judgment.
During that RFA, a number of admins came to my defense when talk of extending my block -- based, again, on no evidence whatsoever -- came up. However, Swatjester pressed for a significantly longer block, evidence be damned. Thankfully, cooler heads and good faith prevailed, and the block was quickly reversed. But I have to wonder if Swatjester's activities over the past few days are "spillover" from several months ago.

--Eleemosynary (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary has demonstrated aggression on this page before and I remember warning him about incivility. I think Eleemosynary generally means well, but I think he has trouble controlling his temper. Ronnotel (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably true. However, I think the same could be said of Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you care to support that statement with evidence? SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a troubling example. I would also point anyone interested to your recent fight with Guettarda, which resulted in your being blocked. But as this isn't an arbcomm case, I'm not going to compile an evidence list just yet. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A non-neutral summary from SwatJester?[edit]

It seems to me that the principal question in issue here is not the block itself, because SwatJester is not really asking for a review of the block. If SwatJester really wanted a block review, he wouldn't have waited until shortly before the block is to expire to ask. Further, the blcok has already been endorsed by John Vandenberg in a post on Eleemosynary's talk page. What is in issue here is SwatJester's actions, and I am concerned by the summary with SwatJester has offered. Some things I find worrying:

The block was not contested until shortly before it expired. As well, one endorse is hardly a general opinion. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your action was questioned by a third editor 19 minutes after you notified Eleemosynary of the block. You chose not to post here until near the end of the block, when it seemed likely that Eleemosynary would post here at AN/I about your actions. I understand that you wanted to pre-empt - which is ok - but to present that pre-emption as a request for a review is dubious, in my view. And, for the record, I think Eleemosynary did technically breach 3RR, and I told him so when he dropped by my talk page. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. SwatJester stated that Note, that he was warned after his 4th revert that he violated 3RR. He deleted the warning as "officiousness." I then blocked him for 24 hours for the violation. It is interesting to note that no diff was provided. I wonder if that is because the warning was not that Eleemosynary had already violated 3RR, but that he was in danger of doing so. Now, the full discussion between Eleemosynary and Philippe is not all that constructive (it is preserved on Philippe's talk page), but it does make clear that Philippe believed that Eleemosynary's "next action may result in blocking". SwatJester is correct that Philippe's post was removed as "officiousness" from Eleemosynary's talk page, but I find SwatJester's mischaracterisation of the warning interesting.
    As I understand it, the warning was that he had already violated WP:3RR. Regardless, it's even more damning if he had been warned before violating 3RR. This is a semantical point. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Your understanding is in error - look at the diffs. "Please be sure to not revert the same content 3 times in a 24 hour period" is not a statement that 3RR had been breached. Nor is "<shrug> OK, but... well, you've been warned. The next action may result in blocking." Since a technical breach had already occurred, this would be semantics as you suggest, had you not relied on the warning in justifying the block. Your suggestion now that the warning was before the breach - which you must know to be false - makes your objectivity in this matter appear very doubtful. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. My concern is heightened by that fact that SwatJester knew that no action was taken after the warning. His block notification states that Eleemosynary was "warned of [his] pending 3RR violation". R. Baley pointed out shortly after that Eleemosynary had not edited after the warning, which Swatjester dismissed as irrelevant. SwatJester also noted that Eleemosynary "should have been using the talk page".
    I dismissed it as irrelevant because it was. Either Eleemosynary violated 3RR, was then warned, dismissed it as officiousness, and was subsequently blocked for it by me, or he came within 1 revert of violating the rule, was warned, continued, and then was blocked for it by me. Either way, it is a non-issue: he still violated the rule, undeniably. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    You know that the second option is not true, and trying to use it to bolster your position is questionable. As for the former, an objective response would be that the rule breach justifies a block. Nothing further needed saying - yet you keep bringing up a response to a warning which you state is irrelevant. I suggest you ask yourself "Why?". Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Looking at the talk page for the Matt Sanchez article, there is a thread on the issue, started by Eleemosynary here.
    Which he did not actively participate in until after the 4th revert, as was noted on his talk page. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    He began the relevant thread - and you only noted anything about using the talk page in your dismissal as 'irrelevant' of R. Baley's concern that no edit was done after the warning. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. It takes at least two to make an edit war, and in this case the two parties are Eleemosynary and SatyrTN. As noted by SwatJester, the material on Matt Sanchez as a writer was added around 21 Feb, so either adding or removing it is part of edit warring. Here are the diffs, times, and edit summaries:
    Eleemosynary - 2323 26Feb - [20] - Changed "writer" to "blogger." He's not a writer in the traditionally accepted use of the term (as in, published by something other than a vanity press)
    SatyrTN - 0211 27Feb - [21] - The New Republic isn't a blog, therefore he's also a writer.
    SatyrTN - 0212 27Feb - [22] - +writer
    Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [23] - He's never written for The New Republic. Beauchamp did. Check your facts before you revert.
    Eleemosynary - 0428 27Feb - [24] - fix info box
    SatyrTN - 0436 27Feb - [25] - Sorry - I meant NY Post. Writer.
    Eleemosynary - 0440 27Feb - [26] - He wrote one, single guest column in the New York Post. That does not meet the threshold of a "writing" profession. Please take this to the talk page.
    SatyrTN - 0530 27Feb - [27] - per talk page, please reach consensus
    Note that the edit summaries show an on-going discussion - not in the correct forum - but nonetheless a discussion. If Eleemosynary deserved a block for vilating 3RR, surely SatyrTN violated the same rule. Note also that Eleemosynary initiated the talk page discussion at 0442 27Feb - 2 minutes after editing requesting to take the discussion to the talk page. SatyrTN performed a final revert 48 minutes later, in the same minute as joining the talk page discussion. In such a circumstance, wasn't that reversion provocative?
    Perhaps it is. But that's not relevant to the block of Eleemosynary. You are more than welcome to request a block of SatyrTN on WP:AN3 if you'd like. I'll even make the block myself, if another admin recommends it.SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    The point is not whether there was a 3RR violation, it is that there were two of them - and you sanctioned only one editor. Again, is this consistent with the action of an objective, unbiased, and uninvolved admin? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Did SwatJester simply not notice the other side of the edit war? It seems unlikely in collecting diffs that he would have missed this fact. SwatJester commented immediately after SatyrTN in the talk page discussion, announcing the block. SatyrTN then thanked SwatJester for acting, and SwatJester didn't even mention SatyrTN's own 3RR violation. It is interesting that SatyrTN asked "Please let me know if I a) overstep or b) understep - I feel like I might be getting too close sometimes, and I feel like I'm too new with the mop to know what and when to clean up. SatyrTN has been editing the Sanchez article, debating sources (on user talk:Benjiboi, for example), and using his admin tools: [28] - a full protection that ended less than a day before this edit war was up and going. Even if SwatJester didn't notice SatyrTN's role in the edit war, shouldn't he have responded to SatyrTN's request with advice to not use admin tools when he has been editing the article? His actual response was an offer to help if needed.
    My response was an offer to help teach SatyrTN how to properly use the admin tools. I'm not convinced that SatyrTN has done anything wrong, and even if he has, he's certainly in better standing than Eleemosynary, who has been blocked multiple times for 3RR. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Are you serious? SatyrTN, an admin, has been actively editing the page, discussing changes on its talk page, and debating issues in other areas of WP; he fully protected the page and then become involved in edit warring within a day of it coming off protection and violated 3RR with 4 reverts in 3 h 19 min. And you are still not convinced he has done anything wrong? Your judgement is way off here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. In the above discussion SwatJester, cites as evidence of hostility that he removed a talk page comment from Matt Sanchez as "remove impotent rantings of utter disgrace". Note that the comments from Matt are abusive - he has called Eleemosynary "a crappy editor", described him as "a total sham masquerading as a legitimate editor", "pathetic", and "a worthless whore", called him "a rabid idiot" contributing "nothing but supercillious commentary" and with "a gay-hate agenda", and stated that he will "probably commit suicide once they throw you off of the article. What else would you have to live for?". All of this is in the last four days. "[I]mpotent rantings of utter disgrace" doesn't seem that unreasonable a summary to me - although I should admit a bias in that Matt called me "unprofessional and childish" and a "fellow traveller" of "homosexuals and sodomites". SwatJester's evidence of Eleemosynary's hostility towards Matt Sanchez based on his decision to remove abuse from his own talk page is pretty thin.
    The comments by Matt are indeed abusive, and uncalled for. Matt Sanchez is a banned editor because of it. That does not give anyone permission to personally attack him. Do not feed the trolls. Civility does not cease to apply to interactions with banned editors. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    Eleemosynary's comment was in the edit summary on his talk page edit removing abuse from a banned editor. Which of the words Eleemosynary used are untrue? Given the blocking of IPs everytime he pops up, Matt is (metaphorically) impotent, his comments are rants, and they are utterly disgraceful. WP:CIVIL is absurdly overused on WP, and this is a good example - Eleemosynary was calling a spade a spade, and acting having been subjected to homophobia again. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. SwatJester notes that Eleemosynary accused him of editing on behalf of Matt (a banned editor) but interestingly chooses not to mention that Matt asked for help on SwatJester's talk page, nor that Matt asked for Eleemosynary's topic ban: [29] [30]. Since the Sanchez posts were removed by Benjiboi, I can't prove that SwatJester read them - but I can show he edited 10 minutes after Matt's second post was made to SwatJester's talk page, and that benjiboi didn't remove the comments until nearly two hours later. Isn't this a relevant fact given SwatJester is calling for a topic ban?
    It's relevant how that an IP has edited my talk page? One that, you may note, I did not respond to. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    It's relevant because that IP editor is Matt Sanchez. The diffs make that absolutely clear. The IP was blocked as a Matt Sanchez sock, and this is recorded on the Bluemarine ArbCom page. Matt asked you to topic ban Eleemosynary - he even did so civilly, which is unusaul for him. You are now asking on this thread for that topic ban. I find that highly relevant. I also find it interesting that you state that you did not respond to him (which is true) but don't deny having read the requests. You would have got a big orange bar around your either before making this edit or after pressing the submit button. Are you denying having read the requests from Matt? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. In the SwatJester / Eleemosynary talk page interactions during Eleemosynary's talk page, SwatJester states: "If you want to allege harassment, you need to do it in the appropriate forum, which is AN/I" - which is difficult for him to do when he is blocked by SwatJester.
    His block expired within an hour or two of that edit. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    True. But, before coming to AN/I, aren't you supposed to discuss concerns with the admin? Where else was he supposed to discuss them whilst blocked? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  9. This is SwatJester's last post on Eleemosynary's talk page. Wasn't SwatJester required to post a notification of this thread for Eleemosynary?
Eleemosynary was aware of it here, as I had directed him to take his complaints to AN/I, and he indicated that he would do so.SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you have apologised to Eleemosynary for not notifying him: [31] This would surely have been a better response here, wouldn't it - to say "yes, I should have notified him". Also, I find it interesting that you posted the above comment at 1809, and made the apology on Eleemosynary's talk page at 1947. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that SwatJester's summary is seriously slanted and leaves out important facts; some of this actions (notably around SatyrTN) are also questionable. Are other admins really comfortable accepting that SwatJester has acted objectively in this matter? Jay*Jay (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My summary is entirely factual, aside for a couple debatable points which are irrelevant to the broader issue that the block was valid for a 3RR violation. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Your summary here is incomplete, with significant omissions. The tone of your responses is defensive, in my opinion. I have serious doubts about your ability to act with objectivity with regard to Eleemosynary - and that, not the 3RR violation - is the issue here. Jay*Jay (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The only issue I see here may be a conflict of interest with SwatJester (blocking admin) and John Vandenberg (endorsing admin) per this at Commons and maybe SwatJester's own involvement at the Matt Sanchez article including a previous revert and warning of Eleemosynary. There's other edits at Matt Sanchez as well per SwatJester's contribs. It's just highly unusual that they somehow both seem to be watching Eleemosynary here on WP too. That being said, I don't see any harassment per say by SwatJester but he isn't an "uninvolved" admin and probably shouldn't have been the one to block for 3RR. - ALLSTAR echo 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    My edit to that picture on Commons was a result of an OTRS ticket, as was the edits involving the removal of the pictures. I've no idea who John Vandenberg is, nor if he is even an admin. That's hardly an evidence of a conflict of interest.SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have a lot to add to Jay's excellent work above. I hope admins will look at the whole story, and respond accordingly. I would like to add that, judging from Swatjester's final paragraph, what he's after is getting me permanently banned from Wikipedia. He'd also like me banned from the Sanchez article, even though my edits have been constructive. (Despite the reverting between SatyrTN and me, I think one will find I've improved the article.) To lobby for these bans, Swatjester has constructed arguments on this page of half-truths (again, many thanks to Jay for providing the full story.) I would ask that, in the future, Swatjester defer to other, neutral admins if he has a problem with my edits. I think the guy has the capacity to be a good admin, but he's been very contentious of late, and I don't think he's capable of neutrality when it comes to me. --Eleemosynary (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    You think an edit war is exemplifying constructive editing? Again, I object to your characterization of my summary as half-truths. Calling people liars in any shape and form is simply uncivil, especially when it's not true.SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I think my many edits to the Sanchez page that were not part of the exchange between SatyrTN and me were constructive editing. And it is true that your summary is rife with half-truths. Further evidence posted above has shown that. Pointing out half-truths in not incivility, and I wish you would stop claiming "incivility" whenever your tactics are criticized. You were also wrong yesterday, when you threatened to block me for making my case. "Incivility" does not translate to "anything you don't agree with." --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My intentions with regards to this editor[edit]

As has been rightly pointed out above, I issued a warning to this editor. Because the editor is a "regular", rather than using a templated warning, I chose to personally write a warning, which this editor seems to believe was "officious". As I said before, I regret that response from him.

I initially intended to block him for 3RR. Given that Satyr and he were engaged in what might tentatively be called an edit war, and I didn't know the facts of the situation well enough to judge "writer" versus "non-writer", I chose, instead, to warn Eleemosynary, who has had some brushes with 3RR in the past. At that point, my intent became simply to warn him away in hopes that we wouldn't need to issue any blocks.

Frankly, I was annoyed by his response to me and decided to walk away, because I didn't want my temper to get the best of me. Actually, I chose to (for real!) go brew a cup of tea.

It is my belief that Eleemosynary is one of those rare editors who, because of natural disposition, chooses to push buttons to see how far he can stretch the system. I think that Eleemosynary thought I'd block him and he could raise a stink. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that SwatJester fell into the trap that was set for me.

I find Eleemosynary's attitude to be abrasive and abusive. In my opinion, the Wiki was not a worse place when he was blocked. I endorse SwatJester's actions, but not for the reasons he stated. My poorly worded personal warning did, in fact, say that Eleemosynary could be blocked after the "next" action. I should have stated that the article was on article probation and he was already on thin ice. However, since that's at the top of the article talk page, I didn't do so. I regret that.

SwatJester did the right thing by blocking Eleemosynary. I probably would have done it for violating article probation and not 3RR, but since I chose in my clumsy warning to reference 3RR and not article probation, SwatJester probably felt that he needed to act on that. Regardless of the wording, SwatJester's actions protected the wiki. - Philippe | Talk 19:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the exchange between Philippe and myself, Philippe had actively taken sides about the article in question. I don't believe his warning to me came out of good faith, but was a slight way of bullying. (And, yes, an officious one.) Had the warning come from a disinterested editor, I would not have dismissed it so readily.
I also note that, like Swatjester, Philippe issued no warning to SatyrTN, who was just as deserved of one as I was. I haven't checked the policy pages in a while, but I doubt that 3RRs are only be issued to editors with opposing viewpoints from the admin. --Eleemosynary (talk) 01:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Dismissing warnings because they are "officious" is never a good approach. As for your last para, this is about you, not anyone else, and "But he did it too." usually doesn't fly as a defense. It's something worth looking into perhaps, but doesn't get you off the hook. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking to be let "off the hook." Nor am using "he did it too" as a defense. I'm pointing out that two separate admins -- I'm assuming Philippe is an admin -- actively involved in a contentious article, both issued 3RR warnings to only the editor whose edits they disagreed with. As a matter of fact, Philippe left a very supportive message on SatyrTn's page, which I linked to above. Indeed, that bears looking into.
And no, your statement "this is about you, not anyone else" is incorrect. This is also about Swatjester, who chose to come here pre-emptively during my block, and not notify me until almost a full day later, and who I feel has a serious conflict of interest here. It's equally about Swatjester. --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, I took sides in a BLP dispute on this article unrelated to the one you were involved in. The BLP issue in question was around the word "escort", which did not involve the writer/non-writer dispute. I was un-involved in that dispute. I do not apologize for taking sides on a BLP issue. I also DID NOT block you; in other words, I did not take administrator action against an editor that could even - by the BROADEST reading of policy - have not been a neutral action. I remind you that I issued you a polite warning. I do not appreciate your attempts to create a straw-man argument. For the record, I will no longer engage in this discussion because I have presented all the arguments that I have to present. Should new information be required, I will happily do so, but it is very clear to me that this editor is attempting to bait me, and I choose not to engage in that. The editor is welcome to open an RFC should he so desire. My actions are defensible, and I stand by them. - Philippe | Talk 06:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Philippe, I'm not creating a "straw man" argument. You stated on SatyrTN's page that might be "moving on" to another "battle" on the Sanchez Talk page. Your popping up on my page was correctly interpreted as your next battle, and I (correctly) had none of it. No one is trying to bait you. You say your actions were defensible; I say they're suspect, in light of your previous statements. So be it. --Eleemosynary (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

This matter came up for discussion on the CU mailing list. 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. Endorse block on those grounds. The article is on probation. Endorse block on those grounds as well even if the block itself was mistagged. I don't always agree with Swatjester about everything but his action here seems eminently reasonable to me. Eleemosynary seems to be a bit disruptive in his apparently tendentious challenge of this matter. Further, this [32] revert ascribes the reverted edit to Matt Sanchez himself. I can see why someone might conclude that, but it's almost certaintly not correct, and I think the record should show that, as it may have bearing on future matters relating to Matt. ++Lar: t/c 20:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the limitations of the privacy of that list, would you be able to expound upon why this is a checkuser matter? SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Another checkuser ran a check, for what I consider good and valid reasons, to determine what the story of the IP was, and asked the list for advice about how best to handle what he discovered. We are trying hard to reveal the minimum about the IP possible here, and yet not unjustly let an accusation of Matt stand for something it seems almost certain he did not do. That's all I would prefer to say. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Lar, leaving aside the block itself, are you saying that none of what has been presented above raises concerns? Not SatyrTN violating 3RR? Not SatyrTN using admin tools on a page he is editing? Not SwatJester continuing to characterise a warning not to violate 3RR as a notification that 3RR had already been violated? Not describing a block as uncontested when it was challenged by a third editor 19 minutes after it was announced on Eleemosynary's talk page? Not SwatJester apparently not noticing the 3RR violation of the other side of the reversion war? Not SwatJester still maintaining that his presentation here was balanced?
I have no idea what the CU issues are here, and I understand that you must be circumspect in that area - but is that really the only issue here? Jay*Jay (talk) 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Lar commented on SatyrTN, but he has endorsed the block in question on two grounds. Given that he endorses the block, the description in later discussion of a warning given prior to the endorsed block seems irrelevant. As to the rest, I'm not sure what you're asking Lar or anyone else to do. If you agree that the block was warranted, on the grounds given as justification by the blocking admin, then all the other problems are secondary. Do you think that the block should have been reversed, or a notation about it entered into Eleemosynary's talkpage? Do you think that, long after the fact, SatyrTN should be blocked as well? Lar commented on the CU issue because he is a CU, and the relevance of CU is that an edit in question that was apparently ascribed to Matt Sanchez was not actually made by him. What I'm asking, basically, is for you to explain what you are looking for with this discussion. I agree that SwatJester's summary and conduct is not entirely above reproach, but the action itself was justified and the relevance of the rest is questionable. Avruch T 00:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That pretty much sums it up, thanks Avruch. Jay*Jay ... "all the other problems" or at least a lot of them, seem like you're complaining the paperwork wasn't executed properly. Sorry, that doesn't fly here, this isn't a moot court. I'll add this, if SatyrTN was edit warring as well, then yes, some sort of action may need to have been taken regarding that as well. (c.f. my comments in the IRC RfAR where I took Phil Sandifer to task for singling out one editor for edit warring while ignoring all the rest) But it is not necessary that the action taken be exactly the same. If we have one editor who has a long and checkered block log including multiple 3RR blocks, and another editor who has never been blocked at all except once in error, it seems to me that blocking one and merely warning the other is not an unreasonable action. Should Swatjester maybe have found someone else? Maybe. But I also don't buy the "as soon as an editor voices any sort of opinion once, they're no longer able to take any admin action at all in any remotely related case" theory that some subscribe to. ++Lar: t/c 02:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps all the admins involved in the blocking and supporting of such could be encouraged to enlist outside/uninvolved editors next time around. It seems like the block was warranted but given they were all involved parties it smacks of less than impartial handling especially given the contentiousness between Swatjester and Eleemosynary. Benjiboi 02:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
How many months of no interaction would be enough, in your view? Again, I don't buy the "only previously uninvolved people can say anything" angle. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
That's an exaggeration of the "angle." How about we limit it to admins who don't have off-site blogs attacking the editors they're trying to block? --Eleemosynary (talk) 03:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Amending my statement. I'm not convinced the block was warranted at this point and to me seems quite troubling that Swatjester was involved at all. In my understanding we're aiming to be impartial and that includes admins who by all accounts should know better. Although I don't agree with Eleemosynary on the issue that was being revert-warred I've found them to be pretty spot-on on most issues and frankly someone who's contributions far outweigh snarkiness. I think Eleemosynary would have done much better to simply engage the very active talk page on this and would have quickly realized there was little support, however, this does not also excuse and admin blocking them for what easily can be seen as a personal conflict. Benjiboi 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue about Eleemosynary receiving an inadequate warning about 3RR violations. Checking his block log I see he's been blocked for 3RR or edit warring on about six previous occasions. He has also reported at least one other use for a 3RR violation.[33] The user has been on WP for years and can be expected to be familiar with major policies, and he's certainly aware of WP:3RR. There's no need to keep reminding experienced users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Colleenthegreat - disruptive editing and threat of sockpuppetry[edit]

I would appreciate comments on this.

Background: User: Colleenthegreat has a long history of silly and disruptive edits.

  • If you read her talk page, you will see that virtually every comment is a warning to stop making silly edits. I have gone through her edit history and I have discovered no meaningful edits to articles - only silly edits that were eventually (usually immediately) reverted.
  • On one talk page she proposed an edit that would be a clear violation of NPOV and V; one editor told her this was a bad idea and her response was that this was just "islamic propaganda" [34]; then an editor warned her that she should read those policies and her response was, in essence, that she refuses to abide by NPOV and V [35].
  • I warned her - and to repeat, mine was just the last of many such warnings - to stop making such edits [36].
  • Later, I checked her contributions and discovered that in one day she made dozens more silly edits; for what it is worth the last straw for me was when she changed the word heroine in an article, with a link to hero, to heroin, with a link to the article on the drug [37], and I finally blocked her for one month.
  • She appealed the block and Mangojoice declined her appeal [38] and [39]
  • She appealed again and Jayron declined her appeal [40]
  • And NOW she has simply declared that "I have renewed my IP address and created another account from which to edit and bypass my block."

User:Ricky81682 reblocked her for a month - thus adding two days to my original block - but it seems to me that at this point it is clear she is a troll trying to game the system and I believe she needs more sever action and monitoring, monitoring I cannot do all by myself. By the way, her excuse for the heroin edit is that she is not a native English speaker. Now, even if this were true, I would not give it any weight because (1) many of us are not nativee English speakers and we make good edits and (2) someone who is conscious of their limitations with English would have checked a dictionary and the different links before making the heroin change. Frankly, I think she is lying and if you read all of the stuff she has written protesting the block you will see that - native or not - she is fluent in English; there is no excuse for the heroin edit it is just vandalism. Her refusal to accept NPOV and V in one discussion, her refusal to stop making silly edits after many editors have posted numerous warnings on her page, and her refusal to accept a one month block after two other admins have rejected her appeal, all add up in my mind to vandal/troll. I hope others will review this and at least keep an eye on her as I am fairly certain now that she will do something to evade Ricky81682's most recent attempt to deal with her. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I really don't endorse the block that strongly, especially not for this duration. I only left it in place because of the very odd proposal at Talk:Jesus; the "nonsense edits" for the most part look like reasonable but not verified edits, although there are one or two strange ones. This user never got a "final warning" template, and the first block was for a month. This just seems overly harsh. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And her assertion that she will resort to sock-puppetry to evade the ban does not give you pause? This does not make you even more concerned she is a troll? Anyway, would you propose to lift the block, or reduce the amount of time? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Mangojuice. One month seems excessive for a first block. I only just did a "one month" block again but since it had been 3 days since Slrubenstein's block, that ended up adding three days to the block. That's why I put a 24-hour protection on the talk page. I wanted her to sit it out for 24 hours and if she gave a good unblock reason, I'd lift it. However, it seems that she instead decided to post another long, similar unblock request on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the protection has elapsed from her talk page, so she's free to request another unblock. I've suggested having a different tone, which I hope she does. I'll leave it to another admin to decide though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

THUGCHILDz again[edit]

User:THUGCHILDz ignores again this consensus for wording Australian rules football, rugby league and cricket are all claimed to be the national sport by various people in national sport#list of countries' national sports and pushing cricket as most popular Australian sport but cricket is certainly not most popular Australian sport!!!! I inserted Australia and South Africa in national sport#countries with various most popular sports citing 3 sports but THUGCHILDz removes it always. THUGCHILDz likes cricket but pushing this sport in all corners!!!! He is a POV warrior against consensus of other editors and against evidence: may you stop his absurd edit warring? I report him for second time in this page.--PIO (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

May be you should be the one that should be reported because if anyone looks into it, they will see that there was no consensus but the closest we got to a consensus is not what you are saying. And I'm not the one that fights against consensus of other users, you are. Just have a look at it and you guys will know who's at fault. PIO is being like I'm right and everyone else that disagree with me is wrong. Here's an example. There's been numerous cases of that happening. I'm not the one at fault here and most people involved would back me up on that. I was tryning to be nice and see if we could have resolved the issue on the talk pages but PIO is really difficult to communicate with him/her. Should just write a complaint against him?--THUGCHILDz 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend to PIO that he produce version diffs of THUGCHILDz removing valid content. Also, I was the mediator at the above case. I closed it as being at an impasse. Therefore it should not be IMO cited as a consensus (otherwise I would've closed it as such). Uninvolved admin review is welcomed. MBisanz talk 19:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is intolerable. I've been involved in this one, and anyone who cares to look at the diffs will see that if there's a "troublemaker" who stubbornly insists on having his own way above and against consensus it is PIO. PIO has fixed views and a modus operandi that is opposed to discussion, agreement, compromise or consensus. It's not in his nature. This complaint is just another attempt to get his own way. If anything should be brought to the attention of ANI, it's PIO's canvassing and edit warring. Have a look at your leisure: [41] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted this comment--PIO (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Individual has been Stalking me as well as forum shopping [42] . Everywhere I go he follows me and edits right after me. What was he doing at the Stony Brook article? what was he doing here [43] Uconnstud (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't double post. This discussion is happening a few posts up already. Natalie (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Appletrees is abusing the system[edit]

At Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/2008FromKawasaki, Appletrees (talk · contribs) added myself (Nanshu) and others to the list of checkuser.[44] I've asked him/her (actually I asked Thatcher), and it's now clear that his/her excuse[45] doesn't bear the criteria of checkuser. Endroit and others are the victim of Appletrees' abuse of the system.

That checkuser has been processed by a couple of people. And they even use personal communication [46][47]. I think we need third opinions. Thanks in advance. --Nanshu (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if you are not a sock/meat, but I thought you were because your history of biased edits on korean articles[48][49][50], your stalking me[51][52][53],[54] and your knowledge of 2channel. You strongly urged the admin, LordAmeth to forget about the meatpuppetry from 2channel and not to believe Korean editors. And you said the same story of what 2channel editors plan to accuse me at ANI. Please see the table.
I also welcome 3rd opinion, or more admins watching articles like Sea of Japan, Liancourt Rocks, South Korea, Koreans in Japan, Asuka period and so forth that were discussed on 2chan and edited by socks. --Appletrees (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s You said I unreasonably included Mochi (talk · contribs) in my RFCU file[56], but here is an evidence that Mochi is a 2channel meatpuppet and stalker.[57]
How do you think, Nanshu?--Appletrees (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipedia. Posting on public pages in other languages is rude. Corvus cornixtalk 03:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for posting the original Japanese sentences with translation but I didn't have much time to translate them and Nanshu and several Japanese editors said about my poor translation ability. I will translate it as soon as I can. --Appletrees (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In the aforementioned checkuser report, Appletrees gave a false statement suggesting that I was involved in editing the Hoe (dish) article using these diffs (in a completely unrelated article).[58] Since that particular request was unanswered, Appletrees did another report, which looked like yet another fishing expedition. Who knows whatever other bogus accusations he's got cooked up.

To be fair, I believe that there are signs of sockpuppetry on BOTH sides, reminiscent of the old Appleby vs. Kamosuke rivalry from 2006.

Appletrees (talk · contribs), though, has a buddy system of his own, cooperating with the POV-pushing IP range 75.6.x.x thru 75.7.x.x. When I posted a {{3RR}} warning for (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [59], Appletrees was quick to remove it.[60] (If any admin is interested, I can provide further proof of disruptive revert-warring (including a few recent ones) by the IP ranges 75.6.x.x thru 75.7.x.x.)--Endroit (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Endroit (talk · contribs), make RFCU file on me as many as you want because I have nothing to hide. :D I joined in Korean Wikipedia first which 2channel people already catch and mentioned at 2channel. Could you guys explain why you try to covering 2channel? Not both side, just Japanese side. You must not mislead the thread again. --Appletrees, Endroit, watch your language. The result is likely from evidences I've provided. If the case is fishing, checkusers might've declined. As for fishing expedition, you have such experiences[61] You proved that you filed several bogus files on Korean editors like these as well. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lions3639 during the poll of changing name of Dokdo and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Odst. You must speak of truth. --Appletrees (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The part of that checkuser report including Endroit and other users was archived without a decision, not "likely" like you say. Who's not telling the truth here?--Endroit (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You're so persistent to move my edit down. You obviously lied as switching Saintjus't case above with the case of From2008Kawaseki who was banned regardless of RFCU.
Appletrees did