Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive409

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents[edit] (talk · contribs) has left a message on ASE's page admitting he's a sock. It's RYNORT. APK yada yada 14:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:RYNORT has been indefinitely blocked. User:Blaxthos has previously determined that the IP is a sockpuppet of RYNORT. I don't know if a checkuser was performed. Aleta Sing 16:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Isn't he actually denying being Rynort? Aleta Sing 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should have reworded my original statement. He admits to being a suspected sockpuppet and he has been blocked in the past for being a sock of RYNORT. APK yada yada 16:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have to wonder if this could also be related to Jsn9333 (talk · contribs), who also has an odd obsession with Blaxthos, and has only edited two articles: Fox News Channel and Jeremiah Wright‎ (note's most recent edits are to the Talk:Jeremiah Wright page). - auburnpilot talk 17:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
He's quoting me from a warning template I gave him back in December, which apparently makes me part of some 'LOL'! cabal. Hell, I didn't even remember what for until I went back and found why. Then I found his reply to that warning. Now 4 months later he returns to my talk page. - ALLSTAR echo 17:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think AuburnPilot has hit paydirt. Rynort has been indef blocked for sockpuppetry, harassment, and incivility. I had previously not connected the two incidents as from the same source, but the probability of two SPA accounts freakishly obsessed with harassing me and editing the same articles with the same points of view approaches zero. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Since I am being accused here, I will defend myself. Last time I defended myself against Blaxthos User:R. Baley blocked me, so I would appreciate it if any independent administrator would keep an eye on this. Blaxthos says I am "freakishly obsessed" with him, and hence am a puppet of the aforementioned user. If anyone is obsessed, it is Blaxthos. He did an very extensive investigation of my interactions with other users in this complaint on the ANI, listed a few quotes of other editors getting heated with me, campaigned on some of his friends talk pages asking them to join in, and had me banned from the Fox News entry. Regarding the substance of his new accusations here in this thread, the only evidence he has presented is that I have gotten heated with him in the past. In reality, the probability of editors with the same POV getting into heated confrontations with Blaxthos is quite high. Here are some examples, and they all involve entries where Blaxthos' abrasive style lends itself to POV confrontations (Fox News and Ted Kennedy entry):
  • ... you are attempting to end the discussion... and you continue to do so by insulting me by accusing me of some sort of plot. Bytebear (directed to Blaxthos) diff
  • Your attack against is both personal and completely unwarranted. User:RonCram (directed to Blaxthos at this page)
  • Perhaps it would be best when calling an RfC to allow editors to express their opinions without badgering them. User:Crockspot (directed to Blaxthos at this page)
  • Hey Blaxthos. I normally try to stay civil, but may I direct your attention to WP:DICK? Once your done reading that, try to realize that if there's one thing that can be clearly established at this point, it's that there is no consensus on this matter. There may have been once, there is none now. TheNobleSith (directed to Blaxthos after Blaxthos was very uncivil to me because I edited the Fox News article he has assumed ownership of) diff
  • Blaxthos, you should be ashamed of yourself... this was a simple of issue of if it should be mentioned, yet you turned it into a huge bash against me. Arzel (directed to Blaxthos) diff
  • Once again, I re-iterate I am not here to fight or POV push. Holding yourself to the same standard, one would say that you are POV pushing too. I personally don't think either one of us are. As I replied, this is a misunderstanding of intent. Hope this explains things and we can move on like civil people. Arnabdas (directed to Blaxthos on his talk page)
  • ...instead of responding civily to my comments, Blaxthos show just what kind of person he is by making a huge rant against me. Just what the heck is your problem? Arzel (directed to Blaxthos)diff
Blaxthos claims I am "freakishly obsessed" with him, but the opposite is actually true. He and I had a minor edit war and had some confrontations similar to those he has frequently had with other editors. If anyone will take the time to actually scan through Blaxthos and my confrontations in this Fox News entry archive you will see that he immediately assumed bad faith when I showed up and commenced insulting me and referring to me as a troll. He especially does this to newcomers to the entry, as well as using the "FAQ" to wikilawyer them, as noted by this editor at the Fox News talk page.
So please understand the background that occurred before my alleged "obsession" began. My "obsession", which eventually got me banned from the Fox News entry, was posting this quote of Blaxthos' several times, "ByteBear, you should get a job at FNC, your skills of misrepresentation are absolutely amazing!" I quoted that after I was accused of "POV pushing" by Blaxthos. For doing that he had me banned from the Fox News entry, per the ANI complaint I described above. Now he is complaining here again, attempting to get me permanently banned (it seems). That, my friends, is obsession. Do a grammar comparison, IP address comparison... whatever you need to do. The fact is, I am not whoever Blaxthos is claiming I am. I have been blocked before for meatpuppetry, and that makes me look bad. But most of the admins in my WP:SOCK case said they believed it was meatpuppetry, and it was a mistake due to ignorance, not evil. But I have apologized, I have contributed to content quite a bit for a newcomer.
If you will look at the latest Fox News archive you will see I instituted an RfC that got some wording changed over Blaxthos' vehement objections. Please do not continue to allow him to take out his frustration on me, as he has already done very much of that. And will someone please warn him about how he treats newcomers? Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone needed proof of freakish obsession, and his desire to advance the conflict, that post is it. Continued violations of the restrictions placed on him by consensus at ANI earlier, continued dangerous stalking and harassment, posting "sound bytes" from conversations that happened over a year ago... I don't have time to respond fully right now, but this is becoming insane. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See his first complaint on the ANI against me for an example of true 'freakish obsession', as he calls it. Blaxthos had just as many "sound bites" that he had collected from past conversations of mine. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And the consensus at the previous ANI was for *all* involved editors to not discuss the other involved editors any longer. That includes Blaxthos. However, given that he is leveling brand new accusations against me in this thread I must defend myself.
Blaxthos, please just lay off me and you won't hear anything from me. I did not start this thread nor this accusation... you did! Just leave me alone, lay off with the baseless accusations, and this will all go away. Deal? I am trying like hell to avoid discussion about you per the previous ANI, but you continue to obsess about me and bring me up in every accusation you can think of. Just lay off me, please. Please! Jsn9333 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"you won't hear anything from me. . ." seems inaccurate -see next post.
"I did not start this thread nor this accusation... you did. . ." demonstrably false, see beginning of this thread. Blaxthos didn't start this thread, nor did s/he first mention you. More to come. . .R. Baley (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC) (see my post below. R. Baley (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
What I mean is that Blaxthos has made accusations against me in this thread. If he had not, then I would have no reason to be here. It would be patently unfair to say I cannot respond to these fresh allegations simply because it is Blaxthos that is making them. As it is, he submitted evidence that I am a socket puppet. His evidence was, essentially, that I had heated past with him over similar POV issues as another editor. Therefore I have a right to respond and show that many editors have had such heated encounters with Blaxthos. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos' continued definance of ANI restrictions[edit]

In a previous ANI thread stemming from a heated debate between Blaxthos and I it was concluded that, "All editors are cautioned to not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations... any on-wiki taunting, gloating, or basic "poking" (to be interpreted broadly) will be met with a block." This was said to be applied to "all involved editors" in the consensus.

Blaxthos has continued to discuss me on various talk pages, and has just recently started a new accusation against me here. Would someone please enforce the previous ANI and give Blaxthos a warning block. The ANI administrator, R. Baley, seems to be perfectly willing to block me for asking him about Blaxthos' behavior on my talk page (per the ANI rule), as he has done once, but he winks an eye as Blaxthos continues to obsessively accuse and talk about me everywhere he can. Now Blaxthos is asking R. Baley to block me again, because I responded to his latest accusation in this thread and defended myself. Please do not allow R. Baley block me again while shutting his eyes to Blaxthos' behavior.

Can another administrator get involved here and actually enforce the restrictions that have been placed on Blaxthos? I think a temporary block might set him straight... and might actually be required. I am just trying to move on, yet Blaxthos continues to bring me up and level every possible accusation he can at me. Thank you. Jsn9333 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jsn, your behavior is beginning to border on harassment. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that you have been personally involved in the Fox News debate out of which this conflict stems, I don't think you are the administrator to make that call. No offense. I would like an independent administrator to look into this situation. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Jsn9333's topic ban[edit]

Jsn9333 is currently serving a 4 week topic ban on any article related to Fox News Channel, as outlined on WP:AN/I#Proposed short term remedy. All involved editors have already been cautioned to "not attack each other's biases, not to speculate as to motivations, or basically do anything other than comment on the edits, not the editor."I would like to propose an amendment to Jsn9333's topic ban, in that he may not at any time discuss Blaxthos (talk · contribs) specifically. Almost every edit Jsn9333 has made to a talk page over the last week or so has been about Blaxthos, and this is merely a continuation of the problem at Talk:FNC that led to the initial topic ban. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What you are proposing is that I can respond in my defense here when someone accuses me, unless that person is Blaxthos. That is patently unfair. If you don't want me to respond to accusations made by Blaxthos, it would be more effective for you to tell him to stop accusing me. I have discussed Blaxthos' behavior over the last week with administrators on my own talk page. That is not a blockable offense. I have not "poked or prodded" Blaxthos in any way shape or form. I have also been looking for new pages to get involved in and contributed to content having nothing to do with Blaxthos or FNC in the last week. Please just be patient and give me some time.
I am attempting to move on from the previous dispute covered in the ANI, but as mentioned above, Blaxthos continues to level baseless accusations at me here even today. I will respond whenever he does so. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jsn, get over it and move on. Why continue to perpetuate a situation that earned you a 4 week ban from anything FNC related? You say you've made other contributions, but your edit to Old Providence Church is hardly evidence. The point of R. Baley's remedy is that you would have a chance to prove you are here to contribute constructively, and thus far you've chosen not to do that. Don't watch Blaxthos's edits, talk page, or anything else related to Blaxthos and there would be no problem. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have every right to watch this administrators notice board. And when someone makes an accusation against me, I have every right to respond. What you are proposing is that I can respond in my defense here when someone accuses me, unless that person is Blaxthos. That is patently unfair. The point is I have been trying to move on. How about you tell Blaxthos to stop continuing to bring me up if you don't want me to continue to defend myself? Please tell me what is wrong with that suggestion. Jsn9333 (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to debate this with you, because obviously nobody is going to support a topic ban on themselves. However, please stop rewording your posts after somebody has responded. It changes the meaning of your comments, and subsequent responses make less sense. - auburnpilot talk 14:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
If I've made any changes after someone responded it has been punctuation, spelling, etc... not changing core meanings of my statements. I apologize for not using the sandbox better. Please have patience. Jsn9333 (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! it's Sunday, and I'm back for a bit. First point, the condition of the remedy proposed at the 1st ANI report was that everybody walk away and quit talking about each other. I blocked Jsn because he could not walk away. This led to a review of my block initiated by Jayron32 at a 2nd ANI report. At the 2nd ANI, Jayron32, Auburnpilot and myself (3 admins) decided it was fair to unblock Jsn if s/he was "willing to completely, and without reservation, abide by the remedy as per the previous ANI." Though Jsn was following the thread, there has never been an indication on his part that s/he intended to move on. I take that as an indication that they were willing to sit out the block (and have it extended, "In fact, make it a lot longer." -Jsn) as long as they we're able to reserve the "right" to argue and accuse, and generally continue the disruption in the future.

The review of my block at the 2nd ANI, did cause more comments. That's the nature of a review, it means that the issue is not resolved. Thus, once again, there was no "moving on" just a continuation of the previous dispute. Now here we are again at a 3rd ANI (4th, if you count the thread initiated by Jsn, which I combined into this one). And there is speculation that Jsn might be Rynort. I have seen at least 5 (2 topical and 3 behavioral --Auburn mentions post modification above, this is one of them) indications now that this might be the case, but no definitive proof. Personally, I find that Jsn9333's (contribution to disruption) ratio over the last month, to be too low to be allowed to continue to edit, even without making a connection to a previously disruptive account. I would prefer that another admin look at this at this point, but I'm not going to sit by much longer while attacks against users by Jsn continue (his/her repeated invocations of WP:Bite, notwithstanding). Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as "disruption to contribution", I began and participated extensively a very detailed and drawn out RfC that ended in a WP:NPOV change, by consensus, in the lead of a major WP entry, the Fox News entry. That alone is a lot for a newcomer, but I have also been involved in several other entries. No one should turn a blind eye to my productive discussion and work while embracing the few examples of heated discussions I have been in that Blaxthos has produced (especially if he is going to ignore the heated discussions Blaxthos has also been in). That is patently unfair.
This latest accusation of his is fresh and completely different from the old ANI thread. I have the right to respond, and all I have done is respond. I did not start this. To say I cannot respond to these accusations is even more patently unfair, and to threaten blocking me for responding to such accusations is incomprehensible. Blaxthos' assertion that "probability approaches zero" that I am a not socketpuppet because he and I have traded barbs in the past is simply not true. I am totally defensive, responding simply by putting forth proof that there are quite a few editors who have traded barbs with Blaxthos. I am not the guy. I know for a fact that there is no proof from grammar matching, network matching, time-edit matching, etc... because I'm not the guy! You could stop this from continuing, very, very, very easily... by simply asking Blaxthos to put up proof or to stop with these accusations. Please do that. Please. Because I have the right to respond to every last fresh accusation, and I must respond or else he is going to have me permanently blocked.
I don't like wasting this time defending myself as much as you don't like having to read my incredibly long, boring defenses. So if some independent administrator will please step in here and ask Blaxthos to have proof when he makes accusations, then this would all be over very, very quickly. I have moved on from the Fox News mess and have started finding other, less controversial articles to work on. Please, someone just tell Blaxthos to leave me be. Jsn9333 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

um, assistance is needed[edit]

In the past 2 weeks my user and talk pages have been vandalized 36 times by the same person. (talk · contribs) and his sock IPs are obviously bored and feel the need to flirt with me. I'm flattered, but a-holes aren't my type. I'm sure I've met this user in another life and now my user page is once again semi-protected. Do I need a checkuser performed or what is the best way to get rid of this problem. It's getting rather tiresome. APK yada yada 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that 37, (talk · contribs) APK yada yada 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I blocked the latest one, and can range-block (briefly) if he keeps harassing you. Would you like your talk page semi-protected? Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, if you don't mind. He will just keep coming back with a different IP otherwise. APK yada yada 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I semiprotected your talk page for 24 hours--if he comes back either drop me a line or post here again. If he continues the harassment another way I'll range-block (they're all in St. John's, Newfoundland; it's a pretty big provider so I would only do a soft block for a fairly short time). Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Gracias. APK yada yada 01:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone could always consider contacting the ISP. They may act on it, given the nature of the vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


I suspect it's nothing more than trolling, but for what it's worth, Jonnymore2008 (talk · contribs) has become suicidal after being blocked by myself for edit warring earlier today. Could an experienced admin please step in thanks? My further involvement appears to be greatly upsetting this editor. -- Longhair\talk 00:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted the page to an earlier state, sans the threats, and protected the page for the duration of the block. seicer | talk | contribs 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Stewart[edit]


Charles Stewart (talk · contribs), who was blocked] in March as a sockpuppet of community-banned user New England (talk · contribs), has made an extremely offensive edit to his talk page: [1] I think the clear solution is to full-protect his talk page, and those of his other sockpuppets, so that he isn't able to do such things again. szyslak (t) 01:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted and protected by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs). Thanks! szyslak (t) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: No admin action needed, Metros (and others) can do whatever they want with their talk pages in terms of reversion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Metros (talk · contribs), a respectable admin, has been exhibiting bad judgement recently. Duering a civil conversation regarding the misuse of User:RyRy5's rollbacking tools, RyRy5 asked a question to Metros:

OK, but I still have one question for metros. Why do you sometimes revert edits on your talkpage that is not vandalism and it is just a simple comment?--RyRy5 (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To which Metros responded:

You've got better things to worry about than what I do. Metros (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that comment just made my face go :| I know that admins are usually fairly condescending but that was just ridiculous. -- Naerii 22:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. Metros (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This simply cannot be tolerated from some of the high ranking users of the project. As I have said, admins are given too much leeway compared to regular users and rollbackers such as RyRy5 and myself. I think that some type of measure should be taken for this, and I have suggested removal of adminship, however this may be too harsh and I would like some feedback from other admins. Editorofthewiki 00:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said on RyRy's page, Metros is (at worst) guilty of bad manners and (at best) of bad verbiage. To suggest sanctions for an uncivil comment is simply absurd. - Philippe 00:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Seems rather petty and unimportant to me. Admins are not expected to be perfect, they are human. I suggest dropping it and getting on with something more productive. --neonwhite user page talk 00:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm...users are allowed to revert whatever they like on their talk page. Even non vandalism. Where, exactly, is there a problem (and where is admin intervention needed)? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have thought things through, and I think that Metros is just doing his job as an admin, even if it doesn't seem like it. I do not believe that anything is wrong here anymore. Shall this be resolved now?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Aye. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
While I do see many proper uses of rollback I do also see the use of rollback to remove several user's good faith comments. If I saw this from a non-admin I would most likely remove the rollback permission from the person. While you are welcome to remove content you find objectionable from your user page, the use of special tools to do so is not appropriate. I do not think any action needs to be taken other than urging this admin to use his/her tools with more discretion. (1 == 2)Until 00:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
See, this is the issue that I have with your argument: Rollback and Undo are, essentially, the same action. Rollback just tends to be much easier to use when undoing multiple edits. I don't have a dog in this fight, but there's something to consider. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing Metro's talk page as it stands I can see that he tends to be rather curt in a number of situations. I don't know him and have not had any interactions, but I can see why this might rullfle feathers in some cases, at least those of random bystanders that may not know what is going on. The only revert I see at the moment was reverting a comment from Uga Man rather than answering it. This leads me to guess that there are some minor bad vibes between these two editors for unknown reasons, but I presume they can work it out themselves. Given an editor can delete content from his talk page using Undo, and not leave an edit summary, I fail to see why using revert would be a problem. For a single post undo it is a precisely equivalent action. I think this business of reverting is a storm in a teacup. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as i know a user talk should be treated no differently to any other talk page. It's isn't owned by the user and rules about inappropriate editing still applies. --neonwhite user page talk 21:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Long standing rule that users can remove whatever they wish from their own talk page and it can be taken as read - see WP:BLANKING. Orderinchaos 08:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is the consensus anymore, i have seen plenty of experienced editors say otherwise and it makes sense that a talk page is not owned. --neonwhite user page talk 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is over. I overreacted, as usual. Editorofthewiki 01:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback should only be used for reverting vandalism or uncontroversially "unproductive edits." I've seen a consensus that an established, experienced editor can use it for uncontroversial reverts on their own talk page. I'm ok with the latter if there is a consensus for it but would suggest that using rollback on the good faith edits of any user can inadvertantly escalate misunderstandings. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do people really think "What?! He rollbacked that edit I made instead of undoing it?! I could have handled an 'undo' but a rollback?? That's just a slap in the face!"? Is that what people really think? Or do people realize that a revert is a revert? Metros (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think editors realize a revert is a revert. I'm not sure that administrators as a class do. They seem to have imbued Rollback with some mystical significance that is beyond me. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I think rollback's style of marking itself as a minor edit and not allowing for a descriptive edit summary makes it seem a bit cold and detatched to some admins. Redrocket (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a script where one can change what the rollback summary is. I didn't know about it myself until a month ago - you just have to add the line "importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary.js');" (with the semicolon, without the quotation marks) to your monobook.js file. Orderinchaos 08:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

User:R00m c and User:ScoutCruft[edit]

R00m c (talk · contribs) and ScoutCruft (talk · contribs) got blocked based on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/R00m c, but now we have Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/R00m c that says they're unrelated. Despite this both users are still blocked, Room for one week and ScoutCruft is indef. Considering the major factor behind this block is the sockpuppet accusation, which has no evidence to support it, I'm a little bothered that these blocks are still in place. There are concerns about both users going a little nutty with some article cleanup tags, but such activity should never warrant such harsh blocks, especially for "first time offenders". It's been a few days for both of them, and that's far more than enough.

Room in particular has stated a willingness to improve their understanding of the tags and a strong desire to avoid this misunderstanding in the future. I am saddened to see that both users are still blocked. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the blocking admin, User:Dreadstar, has stated that he will not contest an unblocking. [2] -- Ned Scott 05:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just declined ScoutCruft's unblock request because he's clearly not a newbie, R00m c has just been unblocked by Dreadstar. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 06:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Even though this is marked as "resolved", I thought I'd note that ScoutCruft does have checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets. It seems he was the puppet master all along. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
(To Max) using a second account is not a blockable offense, nor is it automatically a violation of WP:SOCK. If it wasn't for Hersfold's comments about additional checkuser evidence, I would be requesting this again. However, lets all be very clear here, we do not indef block users for sockpuppetry based on suspicion.
(To Hersfold) nothing is tagged on the account. Was there a request for checkuser, or was it just done outside of a request? Do we have a diff from the checkuser's comments? -- Ned Scott 04:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gulf war syndrome[edit]

Resolved: Page semi-protected

Please see the recent history of Gulf war syndrome -- there appears to be a dispute between multiple IP addresses, who may actually be two banned users, one of which is removing the dispute tag and other text that the other is replacing. Protect? (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a dispute between the socks of Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs) aka James Salsman and those of TDC (talk · contribs). Both very disruptive and very banned. (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: semi protected page, blocked user for 3RR Toddst1 (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has removed content on the page of Oakhill College, i reverted him, placing a uw on his talk page. He then removed the same information again, i reverted and placed another uw on his talk page [3]. He has now removed the information for a third time. Can we get a third-party to look at this. Thanks. Five Years 05:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet/troll disruption problem at child pornography?[edit]

Maybe page protection would de-magnetize the article for a while.-PetraSchelm (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian ribbon may be a reincarnation of indef blocked pro pedophile activist user User:BLueRibbon, another user called User:Daniel Lièvre wa sindef blocked this morning and may be causing disruption. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
These are on proxies, but are obviously the same person (share at least one proxy in the same time frame), as well as Thegreatchildpornhoax (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Is "Cocktailexpert" on a proxy also, perhaps? -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And hopefully there is no proxy relationship between and Onevictim, Brian_ribbon, Cocktailexpert, and/or Thegreatchildpornhoax...

-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A third SPA/sock created at the same time as the other two[edit]

This user was created within around 10 minutes of the two now-blocked users reported in this same section just above. The two other users are:

The user has disguised at least three controversial edits today with misleading edit summaries. The first is:

(deleted unsourced statements and a pro-pedo weasel word)

whereas... the actual edit at this diff appears to support the opposite by removing this phrase from the referenced text:

the production of it involves the abuse and exploitation of children,

Then in this diff, the user described another edit as follows:

(Moved paragraph. Removed the word "mere" and added the word "often". Added {{fact}} tag. Unpublished studies are not reliable or trustworthy; they are usually not published due to poor methodology)

however... the edit does not match the summary: in addition to moving one paragraph, the user deleted a full paragraph and did not mention that in the edit summary, making it less likely that the edit would be analyzed in detail.

Another misleading edit summary: 01:19, 28 April 2008:


however... the edit actually changed a footnoted statement directly attributed to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, from this: "Child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing business segments on the internet", to this:

The NCMEC, who receive funding to pursue people who commit offences against children, have stated that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry and among the fastest growing business segments on the internet.

Now,with all the edits, the content issue can be argued separately (it's clearly a POV-push, but that's not the purpose of this report and would be handled elsewhere.)

User:Cocktailexpert is the third new account created today within a ten minute period along with the two blocked users reported above, and is editing the same hot-button topic with matching agenda and disruptive approach. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


DavidPaulHamilton (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has made few edits, almost all of them to a policy page, including many reversions, a 3RR violation and straw poll votes. Could somebody wash the socks, please. CharlesFinnegan (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting this CharlesFinnegan account has been active for less than four hours, and already reported User:DavidPaulHamilton to WP:3RR. Redrocket (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
CharlesFinnegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef. Nakon 22:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
CharlesFinnegan is an obvious sock. Fnagaton 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What about DavidPaulHamilton who is an obvious sockpuppet of Fnagaton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knocklittle (talkcontribs) 22:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Man, the socks just keep walking in to announce themselves, don't they? That's Knocklittle's first edit. Redrocket (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope no one minds that I took the liberty of blocking that user. I hate to bite the newbies, but I had an inkling she might be a sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1 Nakon 22:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work Nakon, I think that your check user request needs to be listed properly though? (It is appearing in Category:Checkuser requests to be listed which might not be quite right?) (My mistake, it is listed.) Fnagaton 22:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What? Are you seriously suggesting that Tony is operating socks? That is an incredible assumption of bad faith, and I would hope that the Checkusers throw it out as fishing. I disagree with the inclusion of that section, does it make me a sock? Woody (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yet your second edit wasn't to remove the same disputed section that Tony1 removed. Nakon 22:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
oh, I can't wait to see who brought a checkuser on Tony1; clearly someone who doesn't know him. By the way, not sure if this is here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Caught up now; Nakon, looks like you think Tony is operating socks, and it appears that, not only do you not know Tony's ethics, but you've not followed closely what goes on at MoS. Fnagaton, can you clarify what the good work remark means? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That is correct, I do not know this editor nor this dispute. I am requesting a checkuser because from a completely outside view, there appears to be some sort of sockpuppetry happening. Nakon 23:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you might want to follow those MoS disputes a little more closely before you assume Tony is operating socks. Good thing Tony is likely asleep right now; I'm looking forward to his response :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
"Fnagaton, can you clarify what the good work remark means?" - It means good work by Nakon in reading the edit history and finding something suspicious about a new user being created that immediately does the same edits as Tony1 who was at his 3RR limit. You see when warned about 3RR Tony1 replied with this uncivil edit. Also note the uncivil reply. Then note the "get a life" uncivil edit comment. It's clear the user is angry, perhaps angry enough to create an extra account.Fnagaton 23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the MoS pages? Heck, if I could ever catch up over there, I'd delete that silly, disputed text too (along with all the others who have). So, add me to the socks already. Hint: Tony doesn't need socks. He's much too effective with words for such a low trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you understand the difference between your account and a newly created account that starts to make the same edits? Being uncivil, like Tony1 was, is not being "effective with words" by the way. Fnagaton 23:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Add Tictactoo (talk · contribs) to the mix: and all this while Tony is likely snoozin' Down Under. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And another one Gooddesk (talk · contribs). Fnagaton 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Is anybody ready to apologize to Tony yet ?? :-))) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I am :-) sorry Tony Gooddesk (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If Tony apologises for his personal attacks against me first then I'll consider it. I can't say fairer than that can I? Fnagaton 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Finnegan started editing at 19:53 UTC and made 10 edits between 20:00 and 21:59. Tony1 has no edits between 20:00 and 21:59 UTC this year. Last edits between 21:00 and 21:59 were in November 2007, and last between 20:00 and 20:59 were in Aptil 2007. There are quite a few editors opposed to this text with better-matching edit patterns. Gimmetrow 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. This is when Tony's asleep. Um, what's next? Gooddesk is still unblocked, and has a message on his talk page calling Tony a sock. What admin is going to get a handle on all of this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This Fnagaton's accusations shouldn't be dignified with a substantive response. Enough of my time has been wasted. TONY (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to take some admins back to admin school? We do not block editors for being knowledgeable about Wikipedia in their first edits, nor do we block them for simply using more than one account. For the love of all, actually read WP:SOCK. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire situation was very strange (and I'm unclear on policy here, it took me a long time to figure out who Nakon was and why s/he had admin tools ... no tag on userpage, no RFA, is that the way things are supposed to work ???)
Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive35#Naconkantari_.E2.86.92_Nakon SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Seems to be


- Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is involved in an Rfc as one that certified the basis of the dispute. He's engaged in a variety of unseemly conduct against me on the talk page, maybe out of frustration that no uninvolved editor (including myself) so far sees the Rfc as warranted.

I pointed out that I felt that there was insufficient evidence for the Rfc to proceed, and would be likely to result in the Rfc being deleted within 24 hours. Since then, the above editor has made completely unfounded accusations against me (in other words) of being a sock-puppet and/or meat-puppet, and other assumptions of bad faith. In-this-diff-he-says “I'm convinced you've never read this Rfc and you've been commenting on it out of ignorance. I’m curious, is "Ncmvocalist" your primary account or do you just use it for fun and games?”

I have told him twice that I do not wish to respond further on the matter and that he should consult the arbitration committee if he feels that I have another account or am involved in the dispute, as it would otherwise constitute incivility and assumptions of bad faith here and-here, but he refuses to do so. Instead, he makes further

  1. assumptions of bad faith "You are clearly involved, as you came her making false accusations about evidence - evidence that you never read, reviewed, or analyzed" in-this-diff
  2. personal attacks and continues with the incivility "nothing you say can be given any credence by any rational human are very good at playing dress-up, and I defer to your expertise in that matter. If I need a fake administrator or phoney arbitrator, I'll be sure to contact you immediately. Now, please, go brush your teeth and get ready for bed. Children should not be up this late." in-the-same-diff "Please go find somewhere else to play with your toys, as the "big boys" are busy here." in-this-other-diff

that is both counterproductive to discussion, as well as to the Rfc itself. It seems a blatant attempt to inflame an entirely separate dispute merely because he disagrees with the view of the majority of uninvolved editors that have commented on the Rfc.

It seems, earlier this year, the editor was also been asked by another editor to refrain from such counterproductive mud-slinging-type accusations [4], but clearly, it is becoming a habit for him when he disagrees with the view of another editor.

I request an administrator to at the very least, provide this editor with a formal final warning to refrain from engaging in such unseemly conduct again. Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have warned User:Viriditas about personal attacks and made the editor aware of this discussion as should have been done when it was posted. Toddst1 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry - I was meant to add to my request for the user to be alerted of this discussion by someone else. Thank you for being bold in alerting the editor promptly, and addressing this concern. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Falsehoods[edit]

Hi, the profile of Lieut.-Gen. Andrew Leslie is constantly being vandalized. The person changing it works for the defense teams in the Hague, and thus has a vested interest in creating a false (and negative) profile. Thank you, Stephanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merc-Steph (talkcontribs) 09:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected page. Edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please discuss on the article's talk page and use {{editprotected}} to suggest changes. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Both editors blocked for 3RR. Page unprotected. Toddst1 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Anon just re-added the disputed material that may be a BLP violation. (Hypnosadist) 10:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Several times. Persistent little devil. Loren.wilton (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Scientology-focused sock-puppeteer?[edit]

Resolved: WP:SOCK meets WP:BLOCK SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, isn't there a banned user with an anti-Scientology agenda who uses sock puppets? If I'm right, would someone familiar with this person take a look at the contribs of User:Childnicotine, who appears to be an aggressive SPA with an Scientology-focused editing program. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note that I'm not "uninvolved" with this editor, who filed two consecutive 3RR complaints about me, one of which was turned down while the other is pending. This isn't "payback", I've just gotten around to taking a look at the editor's contrib list, which look odd for a username that was just created two days ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No takers on this? This user was created on the 24th and immediately started by creating a Scientology-related article from scratch, complete with a quote from Scientology texts. He or she has a deep knowledge of Wikpedia rules and is clearly not a new user, presumably a sock -- but of whom? I presume the user could be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 08:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you really have enough evidence to get the user banned for sockpuppetry, especially as this could be a legitimate use of a SPA as per the "segregation and security" section of WP:SOCK. (Scientology isn't exactly nice to their critics in general. More specifically, they have an extremely well-documented history of pressuring friends and family members of ex-Scientologists to "disconnect" from them if they do anything critical of Scientology). That is an interesting edit history, though, and it's certainly worth watching. - makomk (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I actually had it backwards, this user isn't anti-Scientology he or she is pro-Scientology. The last handful of edits have been to add Dianetics to various psychology, psychiatry, and psycho-therapy articles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Childnicotine has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:DavidYork71 Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

something not quite right[edit]

[5] - a new editer made this rather odd, as far as i can see, unprovoced edit on someones talk page. Its quit odd unless im completely missing something. The editer has made a total of 3 edits, 2 are to that other persons talk page and the other was on the michael jackson talk page, where the user wants to know why he cant edit the semi protected article. He says he wants to remove lies, as im the main contributer to that article, im concerned about neutrality, i want the article to reach FA. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That is rather odd. Since the editor has not had the chance to make any edits which may be looked at as OR or POV, its just best to AGF this one for the time being (egads look at all that alphabet soup). But there is truly no need for administrative intervention just yet. However, even AGF doesn't pass the fact that it is kinda of strange that this person sent out their rally of support as if they were speaking to Michael when it was on a totally unrelated user talk page...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There was also that stuff about her own personal life and child custody issues, its all rather worrying. Well i understand and appreciate your advise, im not so much worried about the article, more the person who made those edits. Infact the more i read it the more disturbing i find it, im i die hard jackson fan but this is something else entirely. If these edits are serious.... Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, things are got somewhat worse, here.Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe the story in the first edit based off this edit. It just seems like the editor is a POV pusher using a sap story to try and illicit editors to add their POV to the article. 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Trusilver blocked the account for 31 hours by the way. Rgoodermote  15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Shes been unblocked again, i honestly dont mind so look as her self admitted person issues dont intrude further on the articles vastly improved quality. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sorry but it does not seem like this person is going to seriously edit Wikipedia and instead is going to try and push a POV. The edits so far say that. But right now I guess it is a watch situation. P.S. (edited this in after)I added a welcome with a plate of cookies. Rgoodermote  15:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, i agree, besides, we need other people who are dedicated to michael jackson here, in the long term she might just be a "net gain" for the project. OMG i so didnt get cookies when i joined lol. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, I am using all of my Good Faith with this one and it is going be a let down if anything goes wrong. Would it be best to have some one adopt this user? Neither did I come to think of it. Rgoodermote  15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well...what a let down. The account is suspected sock puppet. Rgoodermote  16:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Sock puppetry, still, its only an accusation. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
And if anyone cares to look at it, here's the accusation in full. It would be great if some sympathetic admin would push the case along and put a stop to the disruption that this type of recidivist trolling causes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry but I do see a sign that this user does indeed want to help. But if it is proven that the account is a sock..well...Rgoodermote  16:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
My trolling statement is in reference to Kristy22 (talk · contribs) and the original case, which I would like to see settled. It is entirely possible that SDLexington (talk · contribs) has no connection at all with Kristy22 (talk · contribs) and merely chose my talk page at random as the place to post a rambling message about Michael Jackson. It is only an accusation and the user should feel free to keep contributing to WP until the sockpuppetry case. I'm honestly curious to know what sign you see that suggests this user wants to help? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Im going to leave this now, not getting involved, thanx to all admins who took their time on this. Cheers. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 16:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to do the same as well. I am of course telling the user I am stepping out. Rgoodermote  16:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Biff714 editing of Sandra Lee (cook)[edit]

Biff714 has been repeatedly warned yet continues. Attempts to get help through BLPN has yet to result in any help. Can someone just block this guy already? --Ronz (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That really puts the S into SPA - every edit is to Sandra Lee (cook) or its Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Jmabel has responded to the BLPN with warnings and blocks. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Simpsons tonight advocates editing Dean Martin on Wikipedia[edit]

Resolved: Article has been unprotected —Travistalk 15:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's near the start, when homer and bart are driving to the beanbag chair stuffing place. He says dean martin did things in just one take, bart says wikipedia says that he did a lot of rehearsal, and homer says he'll fix it when he gets home. And he'll fix a lot of things... --TIB (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Balloonman semi-protected it. Enigma message 00:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
omg preemptive protect desysop immediately pls. Sceptre (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Already unprotected by Stifle. EdokterTalk 18:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


User has been warned for vandalism, now cutting and pasting barnstars from my talk page, adding to his/hers [6]. The sincerest form of flattery. JNW (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The appropriation of such material from another user's talk page to make it seem like one's own is fraudulent, but is it, strictly speaking, vandalism? An administrator's view re: protocol would be welcome. JNW (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the kind of copy pasting as vandalism but as misreprentation on a user page it may be a mild disruption. I would wait and see if he carries on with this kind of thing now that the barnstars have been rm'd. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Context is relevant, as the incident followed my reversions of what I perceived to be the user's disruptive edits. JNW (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncertain that the editors who took the time to recognise JNW's efforts would appreciate having their accounts appearing to commend this new editor - I consider it extremely bad faith to abuse other peoples consideration is such a way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There should be rules set in place to protect and respect the use of Barnstars, im sure this isnt the first time it has happened and certainly wont be the last... unless there is a deterant. Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not really - Barnstars are not prizes or rewards but just a way of emphasising a "thank you" or "well done". Their 'protection' is in the respect we are supposed to show everyone else on the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the issue is broader than that of 'misappropriation' of accolades, but is about the misuse of content, and a kind of violation of one's talk page, as well as, as has been suggested above, a misrepresentation of the contributions of a number of editors. As such, I submit that this is vandalism, in this case enacted as provocation. But it might represent an opportunity to address such actions on the policy level, with specific guidelines covering such plagiarism, if none exist already. JNW (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Matereaterlad is part of a small team of sneaky vandals active last night. The others are (talk · contribs) and Teksix (talk · contribs) (connection is obvious if you look at the history of JNW's talk and user pages, along with the barnstar-copying behavior). I think I have cleaned up most of the problems. "They" were making very, very minor changes to numbers and things ([7] which didn't verify when I downloaded the referenced documents. It wouldn't hurt if someone else had a quick look through all these people's edits. Antandrus (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

More of the same: User has reverted administrator's edits and restored my barnstars and commentary to their talk and user pages [8]. A little help, please. JNW (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked, and have also protected the user and talk pages (they copied the barnstars to the talkpage too) - thus I have suggested that they request any unblock by email. My actions are open to praise review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Matereaterlad? So what; he eats people's mothers or something? HalfShadow (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

User Continuously Blanking Archived Messages[edit]

User:Imansid is using her account and User:Saphiragold (and one time an IP) to continuously blank messages in my archive at: [9] after I have told her repeatedly not to at User talk:Saphiragold. -WarthogDemon 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Obvious socks, like you said. Check this and this. Hence the username. Advocate blocks for both. Enigma message 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I have warned Saphiragold, and I note that Enigmaman has warned Imansid. Any further blankings should now attract blocks for either or both accounts. I would comment that, in my view, while they are likely socks, and are vandalising, they are not using alternate accounts abusively - they are not pretending to be different individuals, eg gaining false consensus or operating as Good Hand/Bad Hand accounts. It may be that one person has different identities depending on where they are logged in - thus it is one user vandalising with two accounts. It is on that basis that I have indicated that further abuse by either account will likely result in both being blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll drink to that. Blanking archives is decidedly more "determined" than a stupid kid saying "ur gay lol!" on a mainspace article, and should be addressed in a more forceful manner. If they keep it up, bag 'em and tag 'em. EVula // talk // // 20:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The two accounts were deleting messages made previously by one account; it may be that they think they "own" their comments - I hope I addressed that point in my warning to the "active" account - so there it might be considered that there was a reason for them doing as they did, even if they were incorrect to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, clearly blockable. RlevseTalk 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Assistance with removing libelous material from editing history by User:Grawp-related sockpuppets[edit]

[See previous requests, now archived pertaining to [10]

Article on recently-deceased actor Heath Ledger has been continually subjected to blanking of page by User:Grawp-related sockpuppets. Here is a link to the recent editing history: History. The red-items Diffs. need removal by administrators. (I do not use "oversight" request because I do not use e-mail with Wikipedia.) This article does, however, need such oversight/removal of this libelous vandalism from its editing history. If an administrator could assist with this process of removing such material from the editing history and, if possible, protecting the article from it, editors working on it would much appreciate the help. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Took me a while, but I'm posting a link to section of previous archived discussion about this: Archive 140#Two ways to help prevent Grawp-related vandalism. --NYScholar (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cave and NPR[edit]

Teri Gross interviewed cave on Fresh Air today, and quoted fro mteh article. the offending passage (which was PEACOCK or OR, depending on your view of Cave), has been removed, and NPR listeneers are highly unlikely to randomly vandalize, but it might be worth a few extra eyes today. ThuranX (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh, I didn't know he was still alive. I'll add him to my watch list. John Reaves 21:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with JR above. He's still alive? Also watchlisted, partly because I enjoy his music, partly because of this post.......Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Eh, 50's not so old lol and I think he toned down his lifestyle a bit, so he has a while before people would ask 'is he dead yet?' :) Merkin's mum 23:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
new album Just hit stores, and I like it. Other than Teri's ripping on the crappy writeup we gave him, it's an amazing interview, and should be up on the website for Fresh Air. Well worth the listen, and hell yeah he's alive and kickin'. Red Right Hand FTW. ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC) and related[edit]

Resolved: pages protected

One or more users from this IP range have been making various nonconstructive edits to several articles, most notably North Georgia College & State University, Ted Haggard‎, and GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb‎. I'm not sure what the appropriate course of action is, but this person is being a rather persistent pest.--Father Goose (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

All protected for a short time for edit-warring, WP:BLP violations and unconstructive editing. here is a better place to report this type of nonsense. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fredrick day back for more mischief[edit]

Special:Contributions/ Perhaps it's time my user page is semi-protected, like my Talk page had to be due to this vandal/troll/generally nasty blocked user, socks of whom I have exposed. It's tragic, actually, that Sarsaparilla is considered community-banned (is he?), for, on the one hand, doing everything he can to improve the project, but making a handful of jokes, but two admins resisted allowing Fredrick day to be banned, when he is really about as nasty as can be, tossing any lie that he thinks is sufficiently plausible in appearance that someone might believe it, causing in one day, on many days, more disruption than Sarsaparilla ever approached. Sarsaparilla was last blocked for creating Easter Bunny Hotline, which was real and sourced, merely not notable by itself. (The owner of the Hotline is arguably notable, and an article now exists, I think. Last I looked. These things can disappear in a flash.) --Abd (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just go to WP:RPP they will automatically protect your user page (not talk) for whatever you ask. I would just do semi-protect. Rgoodermote  01:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the Hotline is arguably notable, and an article now exists, I think. Last I looked. - created tonight by Sarsaparilla! - isn't every edit by those two confirming the meatpuppeting? they are just taking the piss at this stage. -- (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not the article I was referring to. Looks like that article may have been deleted. Do I recall correctly that I created it? I had researched the Hotline originally when Larry E. Jordan, the legitimate continuation account of Sarsaparilla at that time, and when I found a reference for it I created the article, I think. Or did I simply read it from someone else having read it? Since it may have been deleted, I can't tell, I can't see my own deleted contributions, a serious defect in the system, in my view. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
yes watch my edits - watch them and wonder why I keep bring abd to the attention of the community - he and his meat puppet are working for commercial interests (proxy voting is basically a sockpuppet's charter to allow commercial articles to remain on wikipedia, you'll notice he makes constant appeals for people to contact him off wiki - this is so people can be worked on and they can identify those who could be easy to turn - similar to the recent CAMERA stuff) - I tossed my account because it served no purpose in exposing people like this. yes block me, but watchlist abd and watch out for when new editors show up to support his "ideas". -- (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to add a little more tinfoil to your hat. (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not a place to bring your disputes. Rgoodermote  02:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley[edit]

Seems that we are back to getting legal threats on this one: [11] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a previous thread on this from August 2007 called "Anonymous legal threats create an impasse". (i'm at work so i don't have time to look it up). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not blocking him for the moment per WP:DOLT. Recommend extreme care. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Have left a strongly-worded WP:NLT warning. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing this further it appears that most of User:Mofb's edits were acceptable or justifiable, whether rewording sentences or removing unsourced sentences and commentary. I've done a quick cleanup, made it a little more NPOV and added back links that should not have been taken out. I think we can put this to bed. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Well i personally think that we are now with a POV version - for instance the insertion of this (rather speculative) item:
[count rule] dismissed by the court, which, however, expressed considerable sympathy for the petitioner's position and would have found in his favour if the Government had not discovered, at the last moment, a line item in the EU Budget authorizing expenditure on the Social Chapter under the Maastricht Treaty that the UK Parliament had previously expressly declined to authorize. The Government took Monckton's challenge so seriously that it put up the Lord Advocate personally against him. The outcome was such that the Government was unable to recover its costs in the cause.
Thats a bit over the top isn't it? That combined with a large deletion of criticism, and whitewashing of sentences (such as a change that he is only sceptical of "catastrophic" global warming - which doesn't jive with either his writings, nor articles about it. And the complete deletion of criticism of his scientific views (not personal ones) from climate scientists as well as Monbiot.
Is that justifiable?
Can i again ask why the COI version was edited towards NPOV instead of the original version? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)And whitewashing continues [12]. Is the Scotsman article correct - or do we take the word of the person? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Received a further legal threat on this [13] - leaving to other admins to see how best to deal with this. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also protected Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley due to the combined issue of edit warring and this BLP problem. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Although I have frequently expressed dismay over the trend to give subjects an effectual veto over articles, I need to say that some (but by no means all) of the corrections made by the subject appear reasonable, and that the tone of the article prior to his edits might need some adjustment. The protected version at present is, incidentally, the version the subject edited, with some appropriate corrections by Stifle prior to the latest threat. I hope he will decide to remove the protection and continue editing, because he seems an appropriate neutral editor, and I think may be accepted as such even by the subject--the threat was not directed at him. The subject, of course, would have done much better to continue working with us, rather than against us. DGG (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Intend to do so after an appropriate cooldown. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

From Monckton of Brenchley: I have specified what is factually incorrect on my page by editing it to remove the inaccuracies. I have also now instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia a list of 16 inaccuracies, with reasons, and with proposals for their correction - proposals which are fully reflected in the edits which I have made. Please inform me of how to complain formally about Mr. Dabelstein-Petersen's long history of distorting my biographical entry. His latest tactic, after being thwarted by your restoration of my edits (for which I am most grateful) has been to approach other members of the "global-warming" alarmist community to invite them to restore his errors piecemeal. So I must also say how grateful I am that you have frozen the page altogether for the time being.

Provided that the page remains substantially as it now is after your kind restoration of my edits, there will be no need for me to proceed to the courts: though, for my own protection against further attempts at libel, I have instructed my lawyers to send to Wikipedia the list of corrections to the biographical entry as it stood before I corrected it.

I am afraid that neither Wikipedia nor Wikimedia will be able to escape their obligations not to perpetrate or perpetuate libels if I am eventually compelled to lodge a petition at the Sheriff Court for an interdict, followed by a petition at the Court of Session for libel. My solicitors will if necessary join as parties the (relatively small) number of internet trunk carriers in the UK, whom the Court may - if it chooses - order to block any Wikipedia content that mentions me by name, as a way to prevent further circulation of the libels. Since Scots law is constructed purposively, there would be little that the carriers could do except to comply, particularly in the face of evidence that Wikipedia had sought to shelter behind a not-for-profit shell corporation outwith the jurisdiction. Those providers, many of whom operate not only in the United Kingdom but also in the jurisdiction that shelters Wikimedia, might well then take action themselves against Wikimedia within its jurisdiction of convenience to prevent it from permitting or facilitating the circulation of further libels on the networks managed or controlled by them. If I were to succeed, thousands of other disgruntled victims of Wikipedia libels would follow the route which our standing Counsel in Edinburgh will devise.

On balance, therefore, Wikipedia may prefer simply to see the back of me, by removing my biographical entry altogether and preventing anyone from creating one in future. That is my preferred solution. However, as I have said, for as long as the page continues to be protected to prevent malicious and deliberately inaccurate alterations to the unreasonable and unfair detriment of my reputation, I shall of course stay my hand. Thank you for your kind and helpful attention to my difficulties. - Monckton of Brenchley. Mofb (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we will be removing the page, although that might be an option. On the other hand our forbearance on the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy is wearing thin. I would like other administrators to consider this case as a matter of some urgency bearing in mind the page complained of has been under WP:OFFICE previously. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. This is the 3rd or 4th time that we've had this legal threat from a person/persons saying that they are Monckton. Including some that ended up in the media Did Lord Monckton fabricate a claim on his Wikipedia page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC) is probably not a reliable source. Left a message on WP:BLPN. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Given all the problems that we have had with this article and subject, I believe it needs to go to arbitration. I will be posting an arbitration request shortly and will post the link to it below when it's ready. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be simplest to block the conflicted editor for legal threats and COI attempts to spin his own article. I'm not terribly sympathetic to any of this. We are protected under U.S. law, and if he wants to try embarrasing Scotland by trying to ban the Internet there he is welcome. He is of course welcome to submit complaints, suggestsions, etc., either through the discussion pages (assuming he is not blocked at the time) or via the OTRS system. Wikipedia has policies in place to develop truthful, unbiased articles, and we are as a whole more neutral and truthful than many other sources and news outlets. However, if the person in question is a global warming denier and upset over being portrayed as such, I'm not sure he and an unbiased reporting of the truth have a whole lot to say to each other. We should use our regular procedures on this one, which work pretty well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration is definitely unuseful here. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree with you, Wikidemo. I propose unprotecting the article on Monday (once everything has had a chance to cool down) and dealing with the article under standard procedures, and explaining very cleary to User:Mofb that he will be blocked on ANY further mention of legal action. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's definitely necessary. I don't know how familiar you are with the article or with this contributor, but I've been watching both for a long time. There are major conduct issues here that need to be resolved irrespective of the legal side of things. Please reserve your judgment until you've read the arbitration request. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will. I will shortly be going away and will be back on Sunday evening. I plan on leaving the article protected for the time being. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Monckton has, as far as I recall, a long-standing dispute with George Monbiot. I'd not use the latter as a source in respect of the former. On the other hand, where climate change is concerned, Monckton is, I think, in a tiny minority, and given the dearth of qualified experts who back his position, he is widely cited as a supposed authority, which he is not. This has been a problem before. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Right then. What I propose to do is:
    • Unprotect the offending page
    • Give User:Mofb a final warning that any further legal threats will result in an indefinite block (with no more second chances)
    • Remind User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (and everyone else for that matter) about WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:SYN — anything going into this article must be strongly sourced and we cannot add our own opinion of what the source said
    • Watch the page so that I can deal with anyone else.
  • If ChrisO wants to file an RFAr, he's welcome to, but I still don't see it as helpful or necessary. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    Ah. ChrisO has already indefinitely blocked Mofb for legal threats. That probably simplifies things. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for community review[edit]

I feel this issue needs a wider review by the community. There has been a long-running history of problematic edits to this and other articles by User:Mofb and anonymous IPs, some of whom have identified themselves as the subject of the article, from December 2006 to the present day. Key edits are as follows:

Edits by (talk · contribs):

  • 20:51, 6 December 2006 - article blanked and replaced with message "This article has been removed pending resolution of libel proceedings against Wikipedia. Do not alter this page."
  • 20:39, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning critic of Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"
  • 20:43, 6 December 2006 - article (concerning product by Monckton) blanked and replaced with message "Article removed pending resolution of libel proceedings"

IP address blocked for vandalism.

Edits by (talk · contribs):

  • 20:43, 6 June 2007 - IP editor identifies himself as Monckton and issues legal threats against Wikipedia.

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley semi-protected.

Edits by (talk · contribs):

  • 07:42, 7 August 2007 - adds inaccurate claim to have won £50,000 libel settlement from The Guardian

Edits by Mofb (talk · contribs)

  • 12:46, 25 April 2008 - major changes to article; some justified, other not (deletion of critical views, alteration of quoted sources, self-promotion)

User blocked per Wikipedia:No legal threats.

As far as I can tell, this user has never actually discussed with other editors any of the issues he perceives with the article. Virtually all interactions with Wikipedia and other editors have consisted of (a) deleting content he doesn't like and (b) issuing legal threats. To the best of my knowledge, this is the third occasion since December 2006 that he has threatened legal action.

As Stifle mentions above, I have blocked this user temporarily per WP:NLT while the latest legal threats are dealt with. Does any further action need to be taken? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the article. Viscount Monckton qualifies as notable (IMHO) but there is a lot more verbiage included in the article than I think is warranted.
How about deleting everything after the biography section. Then review point by point and put back only the information that is a) very well sourced and b) clearly important. I think we would end up with a better article, about 1/2 the length of the present one. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
This ringing statement of opposition to censorship written by Moncton of Brenchley is worth reading in the context of the complaints here. --John Nagle (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe it's worth pointing out that a lot of the unsourced verbiage was added by Monckton in his most recent edit. [14] -- ChrisO (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
we've indef blocked him & a trusted editor is watching over the article. I dont know what more the community might need to do--or can do, for that matter. DGG (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stalins enema[edit]

This user is really getting annoying, and nobody seems to be home at AIV. Can someone help? Loren.wilton (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly a vandalism-only account. Blocked as such. SQLQuery me! 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Another Runtshit sockpuppet - thanks for blocking him NSH001 (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw Stalin's Enema play the CBGB, back when it was still in the Bowery. They were badass. Or maybe it was the Dead Kennedys, but Stalin's Enema is still a great name for a mediocre punk band. MastCell Talk 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Charron Attack Article?[edit]

I've tagged this [15] for speedy deletion under criterion G10, but from reading the article it appears that this not the first time it's been created. Article author is User:Anoife. Might need to be salted. X Marx The Spot (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that we can wait a little before salting the's only the second time it has been created. — Wenli (reply here) 02:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Very good. The author claimed it was the third time. Be well, X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

apologies offered and hopefully accepted.I let my anger at his audacity at using Wikipedia as a 'reccomendation' for his activites take over my better judgement. It won't happen again.



Resolved: User blocked for 2 weeks by Pigman.

User:Robinepowell is continuing to engage in disruptive behavior, refusing to yield to consensus, and ignoring all warnings and attempts at dispute resolution. She continues to change the DVD release dates and make other false modifications to the featured list List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes, and its various season lists, claiming that because she lives in Canada she knows better than the reliable sources being used. She has been blocked six time, for this year alone for 3RR and her continual removal of references from featured articles and disruptiveness. Her last block was on the 22nd for 48 hours. She's already back to edit warring over the season pages, yet again, and redoing all of her inaccurate changes ignoring all requests she DISCUSS and refusing to acknowledge any evidence she is wrong, only claiming that she's right and that's that. She's already passed 3RR on Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) (as technically have I in undoing her false changes). The numerous attempts to talk to her, and the multitude of warnings left to her can be see on her talk page, and at Talk:List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes#Degrassi DVDs.

AIV considers it a content dispute, but at this point the editors of those lists see her more as a vandal and disruptive editor (and her edits are mostly being reverted as vandalism for deliberately introducing incorrect information). It seems clear that she has absolutely no intention of ever editing in a cooperative fashion, of acknowledging that we go by reliable sources not her personal knowledge, and that she can not just keep doing the cycle of edit warring, page protection & block, wait till both are lift, then back at it. I feel she has been given more than enough chances at this point and am hoping stronger measures will now be taken. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the DVDs, Robin claims that because the creator of is Canadian, that website is geared around Canadian release dates. It is not. It is a US website, owned by TV Guide, that happens to have been created by a Canadian. She figures that because he is Canadian, he would put the Canadian dates up there if they were different. The site does have a different date for season 1's DVDs, but not for subsequent seasons. Both List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4) have sources showing different release dates, but she simply removes all content because it is "incorrect".
At Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), she repeatedly changes the title of the episode "Jessie's Girl" to "Jesse's Girl", to reflect the name of the character, and CTV's website. However, the title is with an i, and this can be verified by watching the episode at (if you are in the United States). This has been discussed on the talk page (by a different Matthew that is not me).
At Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 3), and Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 4), She also changes episode numbers and states that they are two half hour episodes, when in fact they are special one hour episodes. This is false, and she has been directed to the references in the article which verify this. Also, if you live in the United States and have iTunes installed, this link has the episodes as broadcast. She claims that they are half hour shows because that is what is on her TV, but these are syndicated repeats which have been edited to half an hour timeslots.
Because the main episode list is transcluding the information from each season article, every time she messes up one, she messes up another. This is not good. Also, each of those articles is Featured. Everything on there has been verified by other Wikipedians, the format has been agreed upon by consensus at WP:FL, and not only that, but the Degrassi episode and season articles are part of a WP:Featured Topic.
Initially I thought she simply didn't understand, but people are dealing with her all the time, putting themselves in jeopardy of being blocked for 3RR by constantly reverting what I now believe to be purposeful vandalism. Not only is she a pest on the Degrassi pages, but reading her talk page will show that she also causes repeated problems for the regular and dedicated Wikipedians who take care of Smallville and Las Vegas tv show pages. -- αŁʰƏЩ @ 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've blocked User:Robinepowell for 1 week for the moment. Considering the amount of disruption and her apparent determination to disregard warnings and appeals to participate in discussion, this may be lenient but I'm loathe to extend it too far immediately. I strongly suspect she will begin again at the expiry of the block since previous blocks don't seem to have dulled her zeal. If it continues after the expiration, bring it back here. Cheers, Pigman 03:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I was too lenient. I really should have skimmed her talk page a little better and looked at her block log. I'm adjusting the block to 2 weeks. Cheers, Pigman 03:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack page to speedy and oversight?[edit]

Resolved: Page deleted by East718.

User:Turtletothecore vandalized the drugs and prostitution article, then put the same content on his userpage. Google reveals that the name of the person described on Turtle's userpage is probably a fellow high school student with a social networking account.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Request sent to WP:RFO. -- Avi (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP libeling editors who delete unsourced libels in BLP[edit]

Resolved: Summaries deleted, offending anon blocked, page semi-protected by FCYTravis.

See this entry and the recnet history of James Petras. Anon IP Feel free to delete the slanderous edit summary also. Carol Moore 02:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I've deleted most of the edit summaries that I could find, blocked the IP for a month and semi-protected the article indefinitely. Unacceptable behavior. FCYTravis (talk) 02:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman and the Homeopathy probation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion is wound out. It is degenerating into argument. I have reconsidered the situation and touched base with a couple of unconnected sysops for a sanity check. User:DanaUllman is under a three month topic ban from homeopathy articles, broadly construed but not prohibiting participation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy. This has been noted at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. A review of the situation and touching base with uninvolved admins did not dissuade me from upholding the topic ban, on the contrary, it convinced me it may be insufficient. However, an arbitration case is pending on the issue and three months should more than cover the time needed for ArbCom to reach its conclusions. Just to note, I have informed Dana of my decision not to overturn my action, beseeching him to reconsider his approach. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ullman has gone beyond simple tendentious editing into full trolling at Talk:Potassium dichromate. I'll deal with the most obvious stuff first: He's trying to insist that Scientizzle supports him, over Scientizzle's objections.

We now get to the really bizarre behaviour on Dana's part. He says there was consensus for its inclusion, and that Scientizzle supports him.

Scientizzle responds:

Ullman continues to say that Scientizzle supports him, despite his objections.

Scientizzle sees this, and asks:

Ullman responds... by arguing with Scientizzle that he, in fact, supports him.

Note: Ullman's link to Scientizzle's comment is wrong, it should be [25]

We've gone beyond parody into full scale trolling here. Ullman:

  • Argues with Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supports him.
  • Claims that Scientizzle did not provide a complete quote, while he... uses elipsis to change the meaning of Scientizzle's quote:

Ullman says Scientizzle says:

However, What Scientizzle actually says, in full, is:

The words Ullman deleted, while criticising Scientizzle for not quoting his full statement, COMPLETELY CHANGE the meaning of Scientizzle's remark away from being about inclusion of this study at Potassium dichromate.


We start at 15 January of this year,[26] in which Ullman is complaining that he was reverted. He claims the resons are unknown, but his edit [27] not only adds the study, but changes wording to add a strong homeopathic bias to the descriptions more favourable to homeopathy, and removes all critical content, claiming it is not specific enough to the particular homeopathic remedy.(See edit summary here).

He edit wars over its inclusion for a while: [28] [29] [30] [31] Arion 3x3 joins in the edit-warring fun: [32] Then the page is protected: [33]

Between the 15th and 26th or so of January, large sections of the talk page are spent discussing this. On 30 January, Ullman repeats his points, and insists it be included. [34] and is again shot down.

No further discussion on the talk page occurs between February 3 and 19 April. At which point... Ullman brings up the study YET AGAIN, claiming that a few socks that were active at the time meant all previous discussion should be ignored. [35]

He is short down again, by several people.e.g

21st April, he makes the same points again: [36]

He claims previous discussion is "inadequate" and that:

Consensus again goes against him, so he claims that the five or six other editors are "stonewalling"

Baegis eventually archives the discussion, using Template:hat to avoid further disruption.

Ullman objects to this, and tries to pull other editors in to continue to beat the dead horse.