Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440

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

Noticeboard archives

User:Hiram111, again[edit]

User:Hiram111 removed two large paragraphs, one of which is heavily sourced, calling it "absurd unreferenced info" in his edit summary. He did the same thing here using misleading edit summaries, and has been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs in Druze, which is now protected. When he was warned the first time, he removed the warning shortly after. He was warned a final time here. He has since re-deleted the sections here and here, labeling the reversion of his edits as "vandalism". GreenEcho (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't he be blocked by now? GreenEcho (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anything requiring an immediate block--the only thing that seems untoward here is the labeling of those edits as vandalism, for which I'll leave a note on his talk page. (That being said, it does seem to be going around.) Once again, this seems like a content dispute over neutrality, which should be handled by standard editing means including the dispute resolution process. If things heat up into a full-blown edit war, feel free to request page protection at WP:RFPP.
I should also add that users are allowed to remove content from their talk pages--if anything, it shows very clearly that they have read them. --jonny-mt 03:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This raises the issue - sure, it's not prohibited, since it's their talk page, but in the case of recent warnings about ongoing disputes, should this be a protected activity? Unless a user has been blocked, there will be no evidence of adverse action in account logs, and it seems unduly burdensome to expect a third party reviewing such a talk page to also review the history and recent changes.
Removal of warnings is certainly evidence that they have been noticed, but unconvincing at best in conveying that the user has paid attention to them.
This isn't the forum for me to initiate a policy debate on this issue or threadjack the existing matter at hand, but it strikes me as the right forum to get people thinking about this. A cooling-off period sufficient to make the dispute old news prior to removal doesn't seem to harm anyone, and would help keep the record straight.
User:Adrian/zap2.js 2008-07-01 08:42Z

So, deleting large sections that conflict with his political beliefs is not considered disruption, because he left edit summaries? GreenEcho (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If I were to delete every criticism and controversy section I didn't like, it wouldn't be considered disruptive? You allowing this user to do whatever he wants is a precedent set. GreenEcho (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I do respect the cumbersome work the users and administrators are doing to keep Wikipedia going, but for the past three days User:GreenEcho formerly 77.42.178.249 and 63.216.113.124 had been engaging in juvenile and malicious activities on the site with a stubborn totalitarian attitude. I tried to be as polite as possible with him I even didn’t use uppercase letters or harsh language because of the Wikipedia policies of “not disrupting vandals” but it seems such policies are only suitable according to western standards.


  • This user and others are transforming Wikipedia as a propagandist site for Hezbollah and other totalitarian movements.


  • I know that a messed up region as the Middle East and a tiny country as Lebanon and a small community as the Druze might not be a priority to many users but as a Lebanese who refused to be intimidated by terrorism I will not be intimidated on Wikipedia and I will not allow users to force Wikipedia to protect their edits which claims that the Druze are Pagans, Walid Jumblatt a deranged corrupt politician, and Saad Hariri an American agent and a supporter of terrorism.


  • I was wrong to label the reverts as Vandalism but this user is stalking my contributions and reverting many of my edits while labeling all of them vandalism and sending 3 wrongful vandalism warnings to me and other users.


  • I hope that such actions would be discouraged by Wikipedia and that totalitarians will not be endorsed to use Wikipedia’s tolerant and democratic policy to force their propaganda.


  • And for the totalitarian User whom ill not us his talk page, I would like to tell him that he should stop his annoying behavior and juvenile wicked totalitarian actions because “till now” I have more important things to do. Hiram111 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me clarify. This board is for notifying Wikipedia administrators that immediate actions need to be taken. You two are clearly having a content dispute. I examined each of your contributions both as they relate to this thread and as they relate to thread I dealt with yesterday and found that, as an administrator, there was no immediate action that I needed to take.
Now that Hiram has posted, however, I will go ahead and warn you both that personal attacks and incivility will not be tolerated. You need to comment on content, not contributors--I can tell you that attacking each other or your motives will only serve to inflame an already volatile situation. I strongly suggest (once again) that you look at entering into the dispute resolution process, because once incivility starts moving towards outright disruption, I will not hesitate to use the tools at my disposal. --jonny-emtee 14:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Saab Lofton (again)[edit]

  • Saab Lofton -- still a tendentious BLP, attracting lots of hate speech for whatever reason from various IPs after semi-protection expired this week, including this IP which has only vandalized this article (the image they inserted several times was pornographic) and/or harassed the subject of the article (who is also editing talk pages -- though not the article -- anonymously, and is rather upset about the whole business). A two-week block did not deter them. Requesting semi-protection again for Saab Lofton, since there are apparently several IPs involved, and another block for 74.4.179.205. And if someone could keep an eye on the article, that would be super, as I'm going on vacation this week .... thanks, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion. It's mostly blog sources, self-promotion, and so on. Standard problems with borderline (at best) BLPs. ThuranX (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Something really ugly happened with the formatting of that page. I fixed the double tags, broken references, and removed the redlinked image, but there's almost no substance there. Lots of references, but quite a number of them are not appropriate—the first is to an online "magazine"—essentially a blog, complete with a cafepress "store", and a couple of others are simply listings which include Lofton's name. A couple more mention Lofton in passing. The two "real" newspaper articles are also the only two substantial ones; they are about Lofton, and they meet the criteria for reliable sources. I don't know that he's notable, but I'd likely not suggest deletion at AFD. Horologium (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And based on their edits I just gave Dudley the angel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) an indefinite block. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Blocks[edit]

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

Has anyone tried to upload an image lately? No matter how well you know what you're doing, you have to go to one form, then another, and then fill out this other thing, then hop on one leg, and then spin three times. It's amazing. It is now easier to block a long time and productive user than to upload an image. For example, user:Peter Damian is blocked... indefinitely for "harassment of another user." Is blocking someone also harassment? I've been harassed by loads of users. Should I have been blocking them?

You see, friends, we are supposed to follow procedures when we block. Those procedures include, but are not limited to,

  1. Warning the user, if a clueless or nasty one;

Else:

  1. Negotiating with the user,
  2. Seeking peace with the user,
  3. Calling on an outside review of the situation,
  4. Posting about the matter on AN/I (here),
  5. Moving from shortest possible block to longer by regular intervals.

Ryan has blocked straight out indefinitely without a word here, without a word on the user's talk page, and without a justification offered. I am reporting it here. Since no one knows why he did the block (forever?!), it's hard for me to unblock, but I have to wonder if perhaps we might ought to take the block button away from everyone until people learn to follow process. Geogre (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Background for this issue is partly found at User_talk:FT2. Ryan's comments there imply that Peter Damian has had more than enough warnings (including a previous block) for this same problem. Avruch 18:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Pshaw! You can't "have been plenty warned." That's called a grudge, and we don't block for grudges. I have no opinion of Peter Damian. In fact, I'm not really a fan. However, we don't say, "You irritated me before, and now you've done it again, and so I will ban you from Wikipedia." You do get the point, don't you? Blocks have procedures, and it shouldn't be easier to block someone than upload a picture, and it damn sure shouldn't be easier to block a long time contributor. Finally, though, there is a vast difference between escalating blocks at regular intervals and banning someone via the indefinite block. Death penalty for being annoying? Death penalty for not getting along with someone? Really? Not in my book, and not in Wikipedia practice. Geogre (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry - death penalty? Can do we that now on Wikipedia? My point was just that there was history here, and apparently a long term or indefinite block prior to this one (in contrast to your implication that Peter was never warned). Whether the history warrants the indefinite block I don't have any idea - Ryan seems to think so, and he is apparently aware of a history of which you were not apprised. Did you ask Ryan about that history before you reported this issue to AN/I? Avruch 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
See related block of User:Hinnibilis and discussion here. Avruch 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the indefinite block. If he harassed another user he should be block for 7 days or maybe a bit longer. But an indefinite block is rather extreme. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a hit-and-run block. No warning, no communication, no explanation, no block notice, no attempt to gauge for the community input and no attempt even to ask for a review after a block. --Irpen 19:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning. Warning. Block notice. Look first, protest second. Avruch 20:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
[1] Looks like we are looking at different pages. I see no notice. --Irpen 20:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you... didn't take my advice. Avruch 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


Hold on a second everyone - it seems you're ready to shoot this block down without knowing the full facts. Peter has been blocked previously on a different account for a harassment campaign against FT2 off wiki. See the block log of his previous account. Now he resurrected a new account to evade the block and ended up getting blocked again by Thatcher - after discussion, Thatcher decided to unblock. Now, Peter has continued this off-wiki harassment campaign, turning to soapboxing his ideas about FT2 on WR. It's been going on for a while - check his posts there with just about every single one being about FT2. Today he decided to bring the harassment back on-wiki, claiming FT2 made a CU block to "support the efforts of paedophiles" - the gravity of the harassment is large, coupled with the fact that he has a previous account blocked for exactly the same thing. And to Irpen - I did notify him of the block on his alternate account here. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Ryan, why didn't you explain it here, first, and get some consensus? Also, the indefinite block? That I cannot support without official review and time taken. I think you're far too close to the issue, myself, and the most important thing is that no one should be throwing indefinite blocks of content contributors without more behind it than personal discretion. Geogre (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block/ban - Thanks for clearing it up, Ryan. D.M.N. (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ryan, I was waiting for your comment. No unblock at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this, it does look like there's a problem with harassment, though the warnings being placed on FT2's talk page instead of that of the editor involved makes it a bit iffy. If there's enough concern about the block that results in an overturning of it, might I suggest that Peter Damian be placed under an editing restriction to stay away from FT2? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ryan, stating what the effect of an action will be is different to stating what the intent of an action was. Peter was stating the former, not that latter. His comments on WR are irrelevant; I don't like them but they are not actionable onwiki. Naerii 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nope, they really are actionable here, given the level of harassment Peter has been pushing on that site - off wiki harassment is extremely serious, especially when you've already been indef blocked before for it on another account. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Bah, some of our policies are so full of shit.. are we going to start blocking people for what they've said on IRC now? Or in any other forum for that matter? Criticising people (whether the criticism is justified or not) off Wikipedia should be completely irrelevant to whether you get blocked or not on Wikipedia - it is rather ridiculous to suggest that we can control what people say on other areas of the internet. Naerii 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You obviously aren't aware of what Peter's real beef is will FT2, and the problems that got him blocked first time round so I'll elaborate here. Since December, Peter has been promoting his ideas that FT2 has been having sex with animals (zoophilia) simply because of his editing habits. His original block was because he was going to take his case to animal welfare authorities. Instead of doing this, he's turned his attention to making these baseless accusations on WR - that's serious harassment and when you look at the scope of all his posts, they just about always revolve around FT2 somewhat. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The idea that you can dodge the prohibition on harrassing other uses simply by doing it outside Wikipedia is similarly full of shit; the negative impact of harrassment, the driving of users off the 'pedia, the discouragement from cordial discussion...these exist regardless of where the harrassment takes place. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While the policy does allow blocking solely for off-wiki harrasment, in this case I beleive it was used to take into consideration the presence or absence (in this case) of AGF and the severity of the harrassment, which appears to be rather old and span multiple ID's. YMMV. -- Avi (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support unblocking after say 24 hours and an edit restriction to keep away from FT2, indef blocking is not going to be helpful to anybody, let alone dealing with any issues re editing of pedophilia/pederastry articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support this too. PD really needs to leave FT2 alone, regardless of the merit or lack thereof. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Um. I'm just a passing editor with no knowledge of this case, but I don't know why Ryan feels it's cool to be deliberately dishonest. What the editor claimed supported pedos was the effect of FT's block. That's the language in Ryan's diff, and that's the language Ryan blocked for, so I dunno why he feels he needs distort things in order to make his case appear stronger here. This is quite serious stuff, Ryan, don't misrepresent things in this way again. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For all this interested, here is the discussion on the original account block. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is support for leniency on this block, based on the fact that the user in question makes constructive edits outside this area, I'd propose a 6 month block and two community restrictions: restriction to a single account, and a permanent ban on edits directed towards or about FT2. Avruch 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure 6 months is exactly "lenient" is it? The community restrictions make a lot of sense though. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, its lenient compared to a permanent ban. An indefinite block has already been applied to one account, so a 24 hour block seems unlikely to make much of an impact. If he returns after 6 months (without having used a sockpuppet in the mean time, or continued with his pattern of harassment elsewhere) then it would amply demonstrate his serious commitment to appropriate behavior. Avruch 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
By ban on edits directed on FT2, I would also hope that if he wished to have his editing rights back, he would be banned from discussing him off site. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There should be an absolute freedom of speech. Harrassment on the internet is only a problem for oversensitive people. Words don't hurt, that's one of the first things you learn in kindergarten. So, I really don't see why someone would be banned for something like this. The only reason why you would ban/block someone if he/she is continuing to cause damage to wikipedia after repeated warnings (e.g. in case of POV edits, edit warring, vandalism). Count Iblis (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely wrong. There is no freedom of speech on Wikipedia - site owners are not obliged to publish everything someone wants to say. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not right, and those who destroy our collaborative environment by harassing our contributors should expect to lose that right immediately. Such attacks have no place on Wikipedia, regardless of whether they hurt their target or not. We are an encyclopedia, not discussion club. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest you read about cyberstalking, its a serious problem. Words certainly can hurt. Have you forgotton where Wikipedia's content comes from? If we allow a toxic atmosphere, we lose established contributors and scare away new ones, that's far worse than vandalism. Mr.Z-man 23:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Block - Due to the increasing disruptive nature and loutish behavior of these anti-pedophile activists, including running off very respectable editors who have never edited in a controversial area (except perhaps removing incorrect child abuse categories from classic works of literature), it is my opinion that they are a net negative to the project. They think Wikipedia is a battleground to fight sexual predators when, in fact, it is not. We don't need their kind of help, quite frankly. They should be shown the door and allowed to come back only after a 6 month to one year block and only if they are serious. They should be topic banned from all sexuality related topics. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur, pretty much per User:MaxSem; we don't need a poisonous atmosphere here and we still more do not need vendettas being pursued off-wiki. I might say differently if this had been the first such occasion. But it isn't, and lessons have apparently not been learned. Good editing elsewhere does not atone, in my view, for gross breaches of collegiality. Enough of these troublemakers, we've lost too many constructive editors at their hands in recent months already, and I think it's time attitudes were hardened. --Rodhullandemu 00:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I support at least a short block. Wikipedia is for informing, not cybervigilantism. Geogre's analogy with image uploading is obviously false, since only admins can block, but any registered user can upload (and also because blocks do not involve legal issues). Dcoetzee 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support 24h to 1 week block with community restrictions on discussing FT2 both ON and OFF site. Do not support permaban per discussion above. Obviously, I agree with MaxSem that Offwiki attacks are punishable offwiki, still there user seems to have misunderstanding about this part of the policy and was not sufficiently warned before Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Not warned sufficiently? He's been blocked indef for exactly the same thing on a previous account - I can't think of much more of a previous warning.... Ryan Postlethwaite 00:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, a shot across the bows is one thing; being holed below the waterline is entirely different. --Rodhullandemu 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Was he blocked for the offsite attacks before? I have not found references to this in his block log or talk pages. Indeed a few minutes spent by the blocker on linking the current block with the previous warnings and blocks of other accounts would save a dozen of busy people quite a time Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, blocked for off wiki harassment of FT2, as seen (and documented above) in his block log on his previous account. Last time, he accused FT2 of having sex with animals, now he's accusing him of supporting pedophilia, both here and on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Change to Support indefblock per additional information provided by Ryan. Labeled the account accordingly. Still wonder what have prevented the blocker from putting the information there on the first place. Would support unblocking if the user promises to behave Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the block on the previous account of Damian was lifted by a secret decision of Arbcom (see User_talk:Thatcher#Damian). The user could see this decision as a vindication of his behavior. Restored my original support for a medium-length block. IMHO Arbcom should not make secret decisions but this is beyond the point Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second, this doesn't look like a secret arbcom decision - it just looks like he's talked to a couple of members about it. I don't for the life of me understand with why the block log says "after discussion with arbcom" - it's certainly clear that it wasn't after collective discussion and a vote to check the consensus - I doubt anyone else other than Flo and FT2 even knew about it. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
On May 1 I emailed Arbcom-L proposing two unblocks that I thought might be controversial; one was Peter Damian. I received an email later that day from FloNight informing me that both blocks were already under discussion by Arbcom. I received a second email from Flo at about noon on May 2 asking me to unblock Damian. I assumed that Flo spoke for Arbcom as a whole; these days, who knows? Thatcher 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I really think we need to find a different kind of solution to such problems. Note that this is only a serious problem because some people have not immunized themselves against personal attacks. If we simply ignore such attacks then most attackers will stop, the few who continue will simply waste their time. But if you start to cry if some nutcase insults you, then that nutcase has succeeded. Also, you invite more attacks. So, I propose the following measure:
Instead of banning an editor who engages in personal attacks/harassments, we should punish that editor by putting a notice on his talk page and user page with the statement: "this editor frequently behaves in an uncivil way". More specific details about the nature of the personal attacks can be given, of course. So, when someone is insulted and sees that notice, he knows what kind of person he is dealing with. If the editor in question wants to get rid of this notice, he'll have to prove that he can edit without insulting people. If he can behave himself for, say, a few months, then that notice can be removed.
This is exactly how we can deal with creatures who are unable to behave in a for humans normal way. Cats, dogs, many wild animals can be handeled by humans. This is not a problem because we know a priori what type of behavior we can expect. It is only a problem if we don't know this, i.e. if we are dealing with a person who behaves like an animal. So, by tagging the person to let everyone know that the person in question is not normal, the problem can be solved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't gone to WR to see if Ryan's description of the situation there is correct, but assuming it is: I support an indef block for repeated harrassment of FT2, ignoring the very big "final warning" of an indef block on his previous account, and contining the attacks on and off-wiki. See some meta page somewhere called "Protect each other" (can't find it right now, I'm sure someone can supply the link); I don't get why this is even a question, and why some are blaming the target of the harrassment for not having thick enough skin. If for some reason this block doesn't stick, then I grudgingly support a 1 week block, followed by a complete moratorium on commenting on FT2 anywhere, on- or off-wiki, forever. And if for some reason that doesn't stick either, then I give up; we'll have gone completely down the rabbit hole and thru the looking glass then. So-called "anti-pedophile" editing is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing you to do anything else you want to everywhere else on-wiki. --barneca (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC) I think there may be enough going on here that I don’t know about, and that I don’t have time (or, if I’m being completely honest, a desire) to find out about, that I’m more comfortable removing myself from this conversation. --barneca (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support eminently sensible block. Being indef-blocked on a previous account for a similar pattern of harrassment is more than sufficient warning. Why on earth have we been getting lynch mobs going after our good admins this weekend? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that someone above linked to Hinnibilis's user and talk pages ... I thought, however, I should add a note that Hinnibilis has added a "Statement on [their] block" and repudiated some statements made on this page. Additionally, they alluded to conversations with the Arbitration Committee ... perhaps a couple of Arbitration members could comment? --Iamunknown 01:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No bans by any administrator without 1) community consensus (that's community) or 2) RfAr that concludes with one. Secondly, no blocks for off-wiki discussion. I completely agree that Peter Damian's statements were odious, and, as I said above, I'm absolutely no fan, but once we crack the door to "off-wiki" being justification for on-wiki actions, then we will get not only a person at WR, but a person's blog, a person's comments at Slashdot, and who knows what else. This is not new. When Kelly Martin's blog had some really vicious stuff, I argued that it couldn't be considered, pro- or con-, at arbitration. If we are going to say that IRC can't be handled on-wiki, then we damn sure can't say that someone's comments at another website are. If we say that comments elsewhere are fair game, then all comments elsewhere are. Therefore: support regular increment of a block, and, most of all, gaining consensus for it. No vigilantes, please. If it's just a single admin throwing the block button, then another single admin could do the unblock: let's get social consent, and then we have force. Geogre (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan's descriptions of the situation have been partially accurate, and partially inaccurate. What he has totally omitted is Ryan's own personal responsibility for the situation. During the December Arbcomm elections, Damian's former account posted some challenging and offensive questions for FT2. While WJBscribe was trying to settle this down, Ryan inflamed the situation and drove Damian off-wiki.[2] [3] [4] [5] I've believed that Ryan lacks sound judgment in this matter since December, and tried then to warn Ryan that he was making the situation worse with what were at best extremely clumsy attempts to help WJBscribe.[6]

Ryan wildly exaggerates the amount and nature of the off-wiki conduct. Following Ryan's threats to block him if Damian attempted to continue discussing the mess on wiki, Damian made a blog posting about FT2. This blog post was live for about 14 hours prior to Damian deleting it. (But did get picked up by an aggregator in that period, and hence was incorrectly thought by some to have been multiply posted, and the aggregator was slower to get rid of it than Damian was himself.) That blog post was not has Ryan has described it - the claim about FT2's sexual habits is not Damian's and has never been Damian's. Why Ryan misrepresents Damian's claims as worse than they actually are I do not know. While the blog post is no longer available publicly, the Wikipedia Review postings clearly evidence that Ryan is misrepresenting the truth, and I remember the blog post well enough to know that what Ryan said it claimed is not there. The later postings by Damian at Wikipedia review are not particularly unusual for a blocked editor who believes that they were unjustly blocked, and I find Ryan's characterization of them to be well below any reasonable standards of accuracy and unbiased review.

I believe that the recent action by Damian was lacking in wisdom, and that a short block is appropriate. I also think that 1) telling Damian that he may not discuss FT2 is a good idea (other than bare support/oppose in future elections) and 2) telling Ryan that he may not discuss Damian is a good idea. So, is there any consensus as to what block duration is appropriate? I see above suggestions ranging from one day (already past) to one week. I'm inclined to the one week end of the scale myself. GRBerry 21:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think my evaluation of events was pretty darn accurate. I must admit, I don't remember the content of the blog post completely, but I'm sure it explicitly stated that he was planning on contacting animal welfare officials about FT2. So what evidence is there on-wiki? Well, here he refers to FT2 as a "dog lover", he also stated that he had contacted animal welfare officials about FT2. Here is where he brought his blog post on-wiki so others would know about it. He put up a section of groups against people having sex with animals, just after saying he was contacting welfare officials about FT2. He then emailed WJBscribe making his intentions even more clear about taking this off-wiki and was swiftly blocked indef for this harassment, and what did he do? Took it to WR where he still comments every 5 minues about FT2, he still hasn't dropped it since December. There's been no exageration here, not one bit, and considering he's still at it now, I see no reason at all to let him back. And no, if someone calls another editor a dog lover, or suggests they're making blocks to support pedophilia I won't refrain from commenting. I've been reasonable in all this, Peter hasn't. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone was wondering: To upload an image, click this, browse for the image name, put in a short summary/justification, click on the appropriate lisence, and then you are ready. Depending on my internet connection, I can upload images in 10-15 seconds. That should save any time or hassle. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

George was being sarcastic and the amount of paperwork required depends on the image you are uploading. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support short block per Geogre and GRBerry and others. Suggest that an indef block is not really the best approach here. The user needs to be told that they need to keep off-wiki matters off-wiki. But their on-wiki behaviour does not warrant an indefinite, in my view. Also support the topic bans mooted, this user not to comment on FT2 or Ryan, Ryan not to comment on this user. ++Lar: t/c 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm missing the rationale for a restriction on Ryan. Please explain? thnx - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Per GRBerry "2) telling Ryan that he may not discuss Damian is a good idea"... But see my talk. I think just a word to the wise for Ryan is all that's needed... that and a suggestion to leave future blocks to others. The user, though... banned from FT2, Ryan, Pedophilia and NLP topics for either a good long while or indef... (there are others to handle any issues there)... better? ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little at a loss to understand the direction this thread has gone in. I blocked this editor's original account indefinitely at the end of last year for a serious campaign of harassment against another user. It was decided to allow him to resume editing under a new name following an appeal to ArbCom. My understanding from a discussion with FloNight was that the unblock was conditional on him leaving FT2 alone. In my view an apology to FT2 was also needed, but I acquiesced to the unblock. If he has violated his agreement by harassing FT2 again, then the restoration of the original indefblock is appropriate. Has Peter Damian undertaken to drop his vendetta against FT2? If so, terms of an unblock can be discussed. If not, he should remain blocked. WjBscribe 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Was he harassing on-wiki from this account ?? I just skimmed this thread again and I didn't see the diffs. If he is, I agree. But, if this animus is confined to elsewhere, then unless it's OK to block because someone says something bad on IRC, it's not OK to block in this case. Do I think he needs to drop this? Do I think he needs to apologise? Do I plan to indef block myself if there's further disturbance on-wiki ??? Yes, yes and yes. But maybe I'm missing something. Please help me out here. What I saw was snippets of conversations by others (thatcher, for example) commending him for some of his edits and efforts to clean things up. Not harassment. He's acting the prat elsewhere, yes. But here? ++Lar: t/c 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep the indef, it's about time you guys got serious about protecting Wikipedia's editors. An apology is just the beginning. . .frankly I see Wikipedia getting along just find without PD's edits. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one more thing, a restriction on Ryan? Ridiculous. R. Baley (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we block people because they comment/harass/stalk/criticize/whatever on WR, lets block Alison, Lar, Viridae, and every other user who has posted there on that matter. Hell, lets block Jayjg because he obviously has canvassed off wiki for support. Secondly, I have to echo Lar's comments in that where's the beef on-wiki? All I see is one comment saying that a block was bad, directed at FT2 because apparently he ran a CU and made a block off that. If another CU made that block, PD would probably complain about that CU too. If there is no on-wiki evidence of harassment, then let him off already. If there is evidence, post it. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't looked at the scope of his comments on WR (just about all on FT2, for the past 6 months), nor looked at the fact he was blocked on a previous account by WJB for serious off-wiki harassment. It's not just one comment, it's an accumulation of things, most notably, as WJB says, the fact that he was allowed to edit on his new account by some arbs on the understanding that he left FT2 completely alone, which he hasn't, neither here or on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, his comments on WR have not been "just about all on FT2"... he talks about FT2 way too much there, yes, but not nearly exclusively. But here? Diffs please... Ryan, if I went and wronte a blog post about this in which I point out that maybe you're a bit invested, would you block me for it? Look, I just reread WP:HA, (since it seems pivotal it seems like it might be a good read) and if you read it closely, the level of stuff PD posts on WR can indeed be argued to be over the top... If there's wide consensus he went too far there, fine, so be it. But maybe, Ryan, you should step back. Remember meatball:DefendEachOther... let others do so. ++Lar: t/c 01:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
When people stop suggesting editing restrictions against me - I'll take a step back, but until then, no. I've provided diffs, especially for the block of his first account - WJB mentions that he believes that when PD was unblocked on his new account, he was told to stay clear of FT2. He clearly hasn't done that; he's continued rants about him on WR and then brought it back here suggesting FT2 was making blocks to support pedophilia - sorry Lar, I'm not sure what else you want me to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm suggesting you walk away and leave this to others. Call that an edit restriction if you like... whatev. To everyone else... Let's back up a bit on trying to understand this. I see diffs from you that relate to things from last year. I see Thatcher's comments about stuff that happened in May... doesn't that supercede all those diffs from last year? If there truly was a deal in May, agreed to, that he had to stop saying things offsite as well as on, then I would say yep, he blew that. But if there was no such deal, then I don't think the offsite stuff is open and shut. Have to see just HOW egregious it is. (I'll opine it's bad... but bad enough? someone else's call, not me.) This page is a mess, but if the pieces are all there already, one post that pointed to them all would be good. Otherwise I still think there's some confusion here about what exactly the current deal was or wasn't. Maybe Thatcher has a better handle on it. I dont' want to hear about anything that went down prior to the unblock, it's all past history to me except as background, it's not justification for a current block. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Terms of an unblock[edit]

I'd certainly be willing to unblock PD, but only with some form of ban on commenting on FT2 here, or on WR. To be honest, I'd like him not to comment on me either, because after looking at his WR posts a little deeper, he's commented on me a little too much for my liking. If we unblock, I'll walk away on a voluntary basis and stay clear of him, no comments or blocks whatsoever. The most important thing to me is that should he comment further either on or off wiki on FT2 (or me) then he should be reblocked. Apart from that, if we these restrictions are ok, I don't see why he shouldn't be unblocked right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If it didn't work last year, how can we be sure it'll work now? Are we going to be back here in another six months' time? I'd leave him blocked and let him justify his actions to ArbCom. --Rodhullandemu 02:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to come to a compromise as some people believe that a block is inappropriate. Lar also mentioned restrictions on some article topics - I'd be interested to hear them. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned you, FT2, pedophilia and NLP, I think. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If somebody's already demonstrated that they're unable to comport themselves with the level of professionalism and self-restraint required for editing in certain areas, why should we expect them to do so in all others? PD's proven several times that he possesses a demeanor incompatible with a collaborative project and should be told firmly to go kick rocks. east.718 at 02:59, July 1, 2008
I don't believe he's ever edited NLP. He believes FT2 has a conflict of interest, and certainly FT2 and HeadleyDown were going at it long before FT2 was ever elected to Arbcom. It's just part of his "FT2 is the root of all evil" mindset. And he only began editing related to pederasty after noting some dodgy additions to Jules Verne and suspecting an agenda to normalize pederasty by adding it in dubious manner (cherrypicked sources and undue weight problems) to number biographies of historical figures. The problem is not that he can not edit articles related to pedophilia, the problem is that when his wiki-colleague Phdarts was blocked as a sock of HeadleyDown (which Damian admitted he was aware of) he accused FT2 of unclean motives in doing so. It's not a problem with NLP or pedophilia, its a problem with FT2. Thatcher 06:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Should he also be prohibited from posting the The Register, WeLoveHamsters.com? Chatting to friends in a pub? Writing a successful screenplay? Trying to punish for off wiki posts is a dangerous precedent to set; glass houses, stones etc. Everyone writes things at times they'd rather forget, so it's a massive can of worms you'd like to open. Minkythecat (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Last December, Damian (under his old account) objected to FT2's Arbcom candidacy because of a prior dispute that Damian felt FT2 has mishandled (diffs on email request, they tie to Damian's former account name which he has privacy concerns about). About 24 hour later, after digging through FT2's contribs, he posted further objections accusing FT2 of making inappropriate edits to Zoophilia and do we really want a person like that having such a high position, it might look bad for us. And he canvassed a number of people. He was blocked, unblocked, posted to an off-site blog, and was blocked again. Even as august a person as Giano told him he had gone too far. By May, I don't recall how I got interested in the matter, I was ready to propose unblocking, when I was told by Flo that it was already under discussion, and then later I was asked by Flo to unblock. I am not aware of any conditions or agreements but I do not know what was discussed by Damian, FT2 and Arbcom.
This week, Damian objected to FT2's blocking of User:Phdarts, and made allegations that FT2 was acting to support pro-pedophile editors [7] [8] who have an agenda of normalizing pedophilia, in this case by adding information to bios of historical persons that they were pederasts. Later, he admitted knowing that Phdarts was a reincarnation of HeadleyDown [9], which shows that his initial objection and allegation was in some measure specious--he knew or should have known that sockpuppets of banned users are subject to immediate blocking, no matter how much he might favor their recent edits. Since FT2 was involved in an editing conflict years ago with HeadleyDown, I would expect him to recuse from any de novo reviews of HeadleyDown's ban. But as long as he is banned, there is nothing controversial or tainted about FT2 blocking his checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets.
What I see is a troubling pattern of accusation and allegation. Damian objects to FT2's candidacy on unrelated grounds and tries to smear him with his edits to zoophilia. FT2 blocks an account that Damian views as helpful on the issue of normalizing pederasty, and Damian reacts by making accusations that FT2 supports pro-pedophilia editors [10].
In the normal course of things, a second block for harassment might be a week, with Damian/Hinnibilis strongly cautioned to confront edits but not editors. Having gotten the back of Damian's hand once already, I am reluctant to go out on a limb for him a second time.
On the other hand, as I pondered this situation, something in my subconscious dragged up a line of poety, Do I dare disturb the universe? which I take to mean, stop pondering and analyzing and just do something. Unblocked, the worst that will happen is that Damian will, at some future date, once again decide FT2 is the source of all that ills him, and he'll get banned for good, having used up his last chance and his remaining supporters. Thatcher 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks Thatcher - and good on yer... off to continue talking about Michelangelo... Privatemusings (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, please walk away. You, in the past have posted on Wikipedia Review. Indeed, you've had a few arguments over there if memory doesn't fail. This could lead to people questioning your partiality, justified or not. The WR aspect is a total red herring. If on-wiki punishment is advocated for WR posts, then that opens a massive can of worms. Involving admins and checkusers. On wiki punishment should apply to on wiki actions only. Minkythecat (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Block reduced to 7 days. Thatcher 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


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

Repeated incivility by User:WorkerBee74 (also a SPA)[edit]

At Talk:Barack Obama (where I am attempting to mediate resolution of a disputed paragraph that was previously the target of an edit war), WorkerBee74 has repeatedly made personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against multiple editors. Examples include [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. That's just going back through 25 June; let me know if you need me to go back further.

User was warned for his behavior multiple times, including [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

It's also worth noting that user is "predicting" problems when two blocked users return from their blocks. This user was suspected of being a sock of one of those users (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth) and the result turned up inconclusive. There is also an open report against this user for IP-socking (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74) which as of this writing is still open but with what I consider to be WP:SNOW-worthy evidence.

I request that an administrator review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and determine if any action is needed. I know that one administrator with Checkuser access, User:Lar, has looked into this. He hinted that if we suspect an existing user is sockpuppeting, we should look at behavior to make the links. It may be worthwhile for whatever administrator reviews this to see if he suspects anything. I further request that an administrator review the above WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL violations, in light of the massive number of attempts to guide the user's actions in the right direction, and to take whatever action is considered appropriate. While I am loathe to file this report as I do not wish to create the appearance of censoring a minority viewpoint, it is User:WorkerBee74's method of engagement, not his views, that threaten a finding of consensus. --Clubjuggle T/C 04:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 (which references Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). Those in turn link to earlier incidents and other sockpuppet reports. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
WorkerBee74 is being censored for his viewpoint, which will be a minority until more editors who are interested in a balanced NPOV article (as opposed to a Barack Obama hagiography) participate in the process. He has called them "Obama campaign volunteers" and certainly their obstinate refusal to consider including anything resembling criticism in the biography, no matter how prevalent and widely published in reliable, notable sources, makes that a possibility. Every trick in the book is being used in a campaign to rationalize this whitewash. I'm sure it is very frustrating for WorkerBee. It is clearly very frustrating for User:Noroton, User:Utahredrock and User:Justmeherenow, a trio of exprienced, non-SPA editors who have been beating their heads against the wall trying to introduce NPOV into the article.
I took a 30-day voluntary topic ban from the article; one of the reasons was the obstinate refusal of the obvious Obama fanboys to consider making it anything approaching NPOV. I am a workaholic, but people like that make me need a break. Review the page Talk:Barack Obama and its recent archives, consider the circumstances and the extremely mild nature of the expressions of frustration which are being reported as personal attacks, and consider also that the same accuser has made false accusations against me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

see his complaints on my talkpage. He ran me off all the Obama articles with his tenditious editing. i would support a tpoic ban for the reporting user as there has been enough gaming the system by him to censure disagreement .Die4Dixie (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

I've had a Checkuser run on me twice so far and the reports were "unrelated" both times. There is a very real problem with that article. Don't let its Featured Article status fool you. Just within the last four months, some very real and well-grounded criticism has arisen against Obama throughout the mainstream news media. WP:WEIGHT and WP:WELLKNOWN are more than satisfied by, and WP:NPOV demands, inclusion of this criticism. But it is being systematically excluded by a small, determined group of editors. User:WorkerBee74 is clearly frustrated. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll skip the content dispute. After an ongoing level of background incivility (the last part of which is reported in the diffs above), WorkerBee74 made a dig involving another editor's wife[30], and when called on it said "get over it" and taunted that people would be laughing at the target of the insult if he complained.[31] In normal circumstances this would be what it is. However, all editors on the Barack Obama article are on notice from the earlier AN/I reports and administrative intervention (linked here) that further incivility will not be tolerated. WB74 was one singled out for warning, and almost topic banned, so he surely knows better.
I also suggest examining Kossack4Truth's behavior. He too was warned and nearly topic banned. The self-imposed break is laudable, but a bizarre groundless report filed here a few days ago to accuse an editor on the page of lying[32], and renewal above of the "Obama fanboys" and "campaign volunteers" taunts that were in part the subject of the proposed topic ban, show that he may not be ready to edit constructively. There are, alas, some serious unresolved concerns about sock puppets too. Wikidemo (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account" in the above users comment under the section he started below on me would seem to be a veiled allusion to my having more than one account. That, coupled with the compulsive behavior to report every editor with whom he disagrees as a sock puppet or uncivil has become for me , an all too troubling pattern. I took a break , kossack took one. I think it might be time for you to take one too, Demo. Please believe that this comes from a sincere place. The complaints are becoming less based in the real activity, and are beginning to affect good faith editors abilities to contribute with out the constant misguided policy complaintsDie4Dixie (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop making personal attacks? My editing and behavior is not in question - please don't disrupt this report to complain about me. Wikidemo (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, Wikdemo, but your behavior is in question. See below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the above claims by User:Wikidemo and User:Clubjuggle are a tempest in a teapot compared to the constant obstruction, distortion and (yes) misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, and general POV-pushing by the pro-Obama editors who have taken up residence on that page. User:Scjessey, after being "warned and nearly topic banned," promised to take a two-week voluntary topic ban which lasted only four days. The difference between Scjessey and me is that I keep my word. I am currently in the 16th day of my 30-day voluntary topic ban.
Please review the diffs provided by Clubjuggle. Scjessey and other pro-Obama editors have repeatedly (yes) misrepresented the facts and Wikipedia policy, WorkerBee74 has repeatedly called them on it, and for that he's being singled out for revenge. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not productive to turn this into a story of revenge, going back on words, POV pushing, etc. Again, that kind of contentiousness demonstrates lack of readiness to constructively contribute. As was explained the last 3 or 4 times K4T attempted to accuse ScJessey of prevaricating over his decision to return early from a self-declared wikibreak, it was not a deal or a promise, and there was no obligation that ScJessey stay away. He changed his mind and returned, after announcing he would do so upon learning that other editors proposed for topic bans were not in fact going to be banned. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. It is productive for the Wikipedia project to expose the tactics that are being used here by the pro-Obama faction: (A) obstruct, distort, deny, misrepresent both Wikipedia policy and the facts, (B) hold a reasonable discussion hostage to your demand for both finality and immediate resolution before two of your opponents can return to the page, and (C) whenever you're called on it, or someone responds to you out of frustration at your tactics, come whining to WP:ANI and WP:SSP with exaggerated reports. I've had a Checkuser run on me twice. Both results were "unrelated." WB74's ISP has now been exposed to the world by a Checkuser, so I can see how a Checkuser could destroy my privacy, and it's been done to me twice. So I don't like it. I submitted without complaint the first time. But I'm getting sick and tired of it, Wikidemo. I do not appreciate these whining exaggerated reports. You and the rest of the pro-Obama cadre, with few exceptions, tell half-truths. And I will be vigilant to ensure that the other half of the truth follows quickly wherever and whenever your half-truths are told. Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"...come whining to WP:ANI [snip] with exaggerated reports."
You mean like this? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Wisely, Wikidemo immediately admitted that you, SCJ, had "been participating on the main and/or talk pages more aggressively than one might hope for given attempts to diffuse tensions." [33] He's a master of the understatement, SCJ. The two of you have been tendentious. You mention talking about the article with your wife on multiple occasions. But the moment I suggest that you "talk it over with your wife," without anything at all more that that, you claim that it's a personal attack, or perilously close to one. Yet in the past, you have repeatedly made snide comments about those who disagree with you.
You are substituting false accusations for a reasoned and calm discussion of the proposed content changes on their merits. I have consistently sought a discussion on the merits and there has been excuse after excuse from you for dodging or delaying a discussion on the merits. Wikidemo openly holds the discussion hostage to his unreasonable preconditions. I have repeatedly exposed your false claims (and Shem's) concerning Wikipedia policies and well established practices here it Wikipedia. Both of you need a break from the article and we need a break from both of you, your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics. I suggest a two-week topic ban for both of you.
The version of the Tony Blair biography, on the day it achieved Featured Article status, proves that harsh criticism is not incompatible with FA status. Your distorted argument about policy was thoroughly refuted by simply citing and quoting WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:WEIGHT, at which point you resorted to yet another false accusation because you've run out of policy to distort. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned my wife just twice:
  1. Crediting her with helping write a new proposal text
  2. Follow-up humor related to the first edit
Your comment was at best facetious, but given the tone it came across as sneering jibe designed to provoke a reaction. And referring to my edits as tendentious is a remarkable piece of fiction by a master of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that diff, SCJ. It shows all interested admins the typical sequence of events: (A) you claim that policy or well-established WP practice (in this example WP:WEIGHT) compels all editors to accept your version; (B) I quote the policy or examine the practice you cited and demonstrates that it actually means the opposite of what you claim, and (C) without even stopping to catch a breath or admit that you were mistaken, you move right along to your next false statement.
Everybody here can see what you're doing. If they care about NPOV, what you're doing isn't going to work. We can't show favoritism to Obama. Like Tony Blair, there's a loud chorus of criticism from notable, reliable sources and we have to give it proportionate space. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another unnecessarily hostile post: [34] --Clubjuggle T/C 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that's the kind of "hostility" worth reporting here. Look to the previous edits and the next one. Scjessey makes a partisan, over-the-top statement with a not-quite-solid relationship to the truth (knowing it would annoy WB74), WB74 responds, calling it "misrepresentation", Scjessey says he's being called a "liar", although the word does not necessarily mean "lie", just as Scjessey's statement is not necessarily anywhere close to the truth. Each side goads the other, needs to break off, doesn't. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • recent revert warring up to 3RR on a related talk page, after report filed (I have no opinion on the content here):[35][36][37][38] Wikidemo (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And again, we see Scjessey distorting WP:BLP to pretend that William Ayers, after donating $200 to Obama's 1998 State Senate campaign, and launching Obama's career at a fundraiser in his own living room in 1995, couldn't reasonably be described as a "supporter." Again, we see Scjessey twisting and distorting policy as an excuse to delete any negative material about Obama. And again, we see Wikidemo telling only half the truth, because Scjessey edit warred too. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you too accusing me of misrepresentation? That wasn't meant as a content issue, just a simple report of another present example of WorkerBee74 edit warring on Obama-related articles. The other half of the revert sequence is that WorkerBee74's attempt to insert disputed content was reverted by two editors citing WP:BLP concerns. Wikidemo (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I now see what Kossack4Truth is up to. He figures that by repeating my username here as often as possible, he can make it appear as if this is a two-way thing and get whatever sanctions are applied to WorkerBee74 applied to me as well. Let's be clear about this though, this incident report was filed because of WB74's lack of civility, and not because of any content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ongoing incivility[edit]

(heading inserted to make clear this is not response to K4T, above)

Yet more attacks after this report was filed: [39] - says I'm lying and makes generalized insults about other editors on the page of "hypersensitive, quivering, fragile little egos". We really ought to deal with this - please don't let these editors muddy things by making counter-accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (struck part of complaint because editor has now retracted part of insult)

Admins are invited to notice also that WB74 immediately thought better of it, without any prompting from anyone, and retracted the very language Wikidemo has put into quotation marks: [40] Wikiemo omitted this evidence for some reason. You keep leaving out evidence like that, Wikidemo. Why do you keep leaving out all the evidence that undermines your exaggerated accusations? Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Wikidemo made his post at 12:14 UTC [41]. User:WorkerBee74 did not make his edit until 12:47 UTC [42]. --Clubjuggle T/C 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I note that WB74 has retracted part of the insult (stricken, above, and greatly appreciated), but as of now the text still accuses me of lying. I've asked him to reconsider and revert that, and if he does I would be more than happy to strike or remove this subsection. I don't really want to get into any more drama and arguments here, just reporting what happened. Wikidemo (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It's probably also worth noting that "immediately," in this case, means "an hour and 16 minutes after the original edit." [43] --Clubjuggle T/C 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I have no opinion on how awful or mild WorkerBee74's behavior has been because I haven't been paying attention to all the arrows flying on that page except for the ones I've been pulling out of me and a few I've launched myself and later retracted with apologies. Admins and editors looking into this should discount anything just mildly impolite and should recognize that everyone experiences some rudeness on that page, making it more difficult not to be rude in return, even if it's a little later and even if the new target may not have been the original instigator. I've noticed that WorkerBee74 has tried on a number of occasions to be more polite than the editors responding to him and has made constructive comments. So has Wikidemo. Clubjuggle has been extremely helpful and we've slowly gotten to the point where we're close to consensus on one difficult topic. My sense is that the page is not as bad as it once was. Noroton (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Noroton, that I've "tried to be more polite than the editors responding to [me]" and that when they're rude to me, it's "difficult not to be rude in return." I have done my very best not to respond in anger to their supremely frustrating tactics, their avoidance of discussion on the merits, and their false accusations.
But when they make false statements and misrepresent Wikipedia policy to rationalize the whitewashing campaign, I can't just silently tolerate it. I have to speak out. What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh. They object here at ANI, carefully gathering diffs and even deleting my comments, when I use a term as mild as "misrepresentation."
Should I use a code phrase when referring to their false statements and their many distortions of policy? Do you think they'd be offended if I use a code phrase like "gilding the lily" or something? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? You've said three or four times that I lied, and alluded to it again above. Did I? You also say I've been tendentious, and that I'm holding the page hostage. Am I really? Refraining from such accusations would go a long way to returning the talk page to civility. Wikidemo (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
...and again[44] - half an hour ago, calls another editor's comments untruthful. WB74, do you really not know after all this time what is problematic about making comments like that? Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? He's not accusing you of lying. He's accusing you of misrepresenting the truth. This is a subtle but significant distinction. When a false statement is made, are page participants supposed to just allow it to stand unchallenged? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note here from a mildy involved editor. Leaving aside who makes the statement, and who its directed at (insert any editor in either). I think we all know things are misrepresented here by people, either in good or bad faith, or on accident. Stating this fact is not a cause for AN/I discussion. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not start this discussion. However, now that this editor has been brought here for the nth time for his behavior, I am presenting the facts. His repeated accusations that I am lying are just one of many issues, but being accused of lying is irksome and poisons the atmosphere. "Misrepresentation" can mean either of two things. First, a lie. Second, a deliberate misstatement of the truth. Both are inappropriate given that he is on notice to reform his uncivil behavior. But he makes it clear that he means lying:
  • "claiming that he did is another misrepresentation".[45]
  • "calling it a lie, while accurate and fair, would be awfully harsh"[[46]
  • "your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics....[47]
  • "What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh."[48]
  • "there you go again, misrepresenting the facts...kindly limit your statements to the truth"[49]
  • "everybody here can see what you're doing"[50]
  • "you must be a disciple of Saul Alinsky...that is yet another in your endless stream of misrepresentations."[51]
  • "misdirection...misrepresentation...unapologetically false statements are your trademark here"[52]
This is just a sample of the editors edits in the last three days. How is this not accusing other editors of lying? Wikidemo (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This is just a sample of the editors edits in the last three days. If the shoe fits, wear it. Try to be more precise about the facts and your description of policy. Then he won't be able to complain about your inaccuracies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
??? those are diffs of accusations of lying by WorkerBee74 against 2 or 3 editors. By "if the shoe fits", K4T, are you repeating your own accusations of lying? Wikidemo (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The editor in question is now under a 3-day block for edit warring.[53] I'm wondering if that means we ought to archive this discussion, perhaps to the "obama pages" sub-page. Given the history, I don't think that block is going to resolve the issue but I'm not sure how much more there is to be said or done here for now - no specific administrative action required, but an ongoing need for some help and supervision on the pages (see Noroton's appeal below).Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a committee of admins with their own AN/I page just for this circus[edit]

Admins, I think this is something like the sixth report in the past six weeks. You can either have a new report every week on the ongoing Obama Talk Page Soap Opera or gather a group of volunteer admins to form a loose committee who will pledge to watch the Flying Wallendas, the dancing donkeys and elephants and even the clowns, and within about seven days, when the next editor decides to post a complaint, direct that editor to the AN/I-Obama page where the committee members will be familiar with the storyline and don't have to reinvent the wheel. Just my opinion, thought it would save you all some time; and it would be a lot easier to identify real troublemaking vs. heated comments that typically come up in long, heated debates. There was a temporary AN/I page about two weeks ago that discussed special remedies and the behavior of certain editors, and that worked pretty well (if I can find a link to it, I'll add it; found it). Even though few restrictions, ultimately, were applied to the page and editors, it was useful in sending a message, and behavior calmed down for a bit. But that page was ultimately archived and the problems are ongoing, so make that kind of page permanent up to Election Day and save yourselves some time and effort. Noroton (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (((added the link -- Noroton (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC))))

The page, and especially the talk page need some oversight. I have to recuse myself due to my own political beliefs. I'd like to ask that some non-US based admins help with general oversight and civility patrol on the page. As the election gets closer it will be very difficult for US based admins to act as unbiased moderators. Even if they don't have bias, whichever one is on the loosing end of a dispute will claim a bias. Having non-US admins will help to calm the situation. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
StuffOfInterest, your political beliefs don't disqualify you from anything here. We all have them and are supposed to check them at the door. I'm suggesting that admins deal only with behavior, not content. Your user page asks anyone who detects bias in your edits to bring it up to you. You seem perfectly qualified. Noroton (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UT
Actually , there is a certain editor who lurks around the Obamma pages that really needs a AN/I page all of his own , one in which he could report everyone for sockpuppetry, psuedoincivility, and in which he could threaten everyone with whom he disagrees with banning. It would likely reduce the work load of admins, who would be able to more easily spot troubling patterns of disagree/ provoke/ report. Just my two cents worth.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Another wildly uncivil editor there - we could certainly benefit from some oversight. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:CarolSpears redux[edit]

There are still 50 articles that need either stubbified, deleted, or completely rewritten. All the articles not crossed out on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears are about 95% likely to contain copyvio or at least severe plagiarism. We need help - it takes at least three minutes per article to do the minimum (stubbifying), if we're expected to rewrite them completely, to avoid the copyvio, then that's at least 15-30 minutes.

There's also the problem that a sizable percentage of the information in them is wrong - CarolSpears did not copypaste very carefully, so, a description of a leaf might be a description of the stem misplaced, or a description of a plant's habitat in one country might be treated as its habitat in general - notably in the (now deleted and redone from scratch) Agrostis gigantea, the description treated it as if the situation in America - where it is not a native plant, but an invasive one - was the typical situation of that plant. She's also treated Isreal as the world, the Alps as a different mountain range, and a description of one species as if it applied to another. (This is from memory, there's been a lot of articles to go through.

I cannot do this alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend turning them into stubs instead of full rewrites. Full rewrites can be done later. Right now, we should just focus on getting rid of the copyright violations while still maintaining an article (however stripped down the article may be). If you wish, you can assign me a group of them and I'll work on them this week. I don't mind helping. Enigma message 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side issue ... unless I missed something, Carol hasn't participated in the RfC. I find this a bit troubling, considering the magnitude of the problem and the fact she was nearly banned. Blueboy96 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, that bit might be my fault. :-) I'd advised her to take time to chillax before responding on it so that she was calm when doing so. I didn't specify how long though! --tiny plastic Grey Knight 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
well, she's now commented on her own RFC..."Does anyone know a word that rhymes with "species"? -- carol (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)" Exactly the sort of thing that got her there to begin with. You ever feel like some people don't want the help offered to them? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am beginning to marvel at the apparently limitless patience that we are showing here.
  1. Carol has been involved in large scale plagiarism that is taking a lot of effort to fix.
  2. Her response to this has been to repeatedly attempt to minimise or dismiss the relevance of her plagiarism, by arguing about other people having plagiarised her.
  3. Any attempts to deal with problematic editing are met with word play, point scoring, sarcasm, and argument. She doesn't seem to be interested in getting things right, just in winning arguments.
  4. Carol is repeatedly rude to those who take issue with her problematic editing.
  5. Her reaction to a user RFC has, yet again, been rudeness.
Just how far can this be allowed to go?
As far as I can determine, more hours of editor time are going into solving problems that Carol has caused than she spent putting stuff into the encyclopedia in the first place. On any simple measure, her continued editing is not a net positive to the project. This is before we even begin to consider her poor attitude to her fellow editors.
Unless we see a dramatic shift in style and content, a block/community ban is inevitable Mayalld (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've not been involved with this editor, but have been watching developments from afar since stumbling across CarolSpears some time ago. In my view, Mayalld has hit it on the head. Editing here is a privilege, and one withdrawn from many individuals on a daily basis... and on far less provocative grounds. It certainly looks like her contributions have been a net detriment so far, and have wasted the time of many excellent, productive editors. Most worryingly, she seems to have some sort of cognitive or behavioural issue that prevents her both honestly evaluating her own actions, and responding constructively to other users' concerns. It speaks well for the patience and tolerance of those editors who still believe she can be salvaged, but I've seen similar problems with other users until eventually they've ended up banned. The pity is, it causes so much unnecessary aggravation before we reach that point. EyeSerenetalk 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have to agree with this now, too. If she doesn't show some sign very soon that she is taking it seriously and stops fooling about, I will be endorsing the next community ban proposal. Sarah 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I too have been watching this from afar and have to agree that a lot of editors have been working real hard to clean up many articles only to find more articles in the making with no help from this editor at all to help repair what was already done. The responses that have been given are not at all helpful and are very hard to understand the reasonings. I too would vote for the community ban if that would come up again. I really think the new articles and new editing at least should stop until this is resolved. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User Wikihw / Georgetown, Washington, D.C.[edit]

Resolved: Wikihw blocked for 1 week by Satiori Son. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like a low-grade fever, this issue has persisted long enough to require some additional attention. The problem is with user Wikihw, who for several months has been re-inserting the same block of text into Georgetown, Washington, D.C. without comment, while ignoring repeated entreaties on his and the article’s Talk pages to discuss it. Here is a diff showing the text at issue.

The background is this: In March I removed the foregoing addition to Georgetown, Washington, D.C., explaining my thinking in the edit summary. (The gist was, too much attention to a single person out of all the famous or important people who've ever lived in Georgetown. The original contribution came from an IP and I have no idea whether Wikihw is the same person.) A week later Wikihw restored the text without comment. I re-removed it, with a request to take the disagreement to Talk, where I amplified on my reasoning. (See here.) Two days later Wikihw again restored the text, again without comment. I removed it again (3d reversion), added a request on Wikihw’s talk page to discuss the addition, here. After yet another uncommented re-insertion, I was reluctant to perform what would be a fourth reversion, and sought Editor Assistance. In response to my request for assistance, a couple of other editors visited the article, seemed to agree with my assessment that the disputed text was not appropriate as written, and we all made some tweaks to weave in the bits of it that did add value. User:Aude added a further request on Wikiwh's talk page to discuss the matter. We hoped that would be the end of it, but Wikihw persisted. In all, he has re-inserted the disputed text seventeen more times (by my eyeball count). For a while these edits were fairly infrequent and it seemed that simple reversions might finally get the point across (I performed most of them), but his activity has stepped up lately and so, with no end in sight, I’m seeking comment and possible intervention.

It’s perplexing. Wikihw is not a vandal, he’s not pushing POV, or doing anything else in Wikipedia that could fairly be described as disruptive. By and large his edits are sensible and useful, and he appears to be a responsible, if intermittent, editor. But he has made the same reversion more than twenty times since mid-March, without comment, while steadfastly ignoring the requests of three editors to discuss the issue. As I said in my original request for editor assistance, I don’t want to engage in a silly edit war; but at the same time it’s not right simply to acquiesce in an edit because the editor indefatigably reinserts it while refusing any attempt at discussion. Thanks in advance for any comments or help. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording of that section reads like an essay someone else wrote. Consider this item from 2001 [54] in which the quote about "cherishing three things" appears. It's clear they're taking it from someplace else. I wonder if the user is copying-and-pasting the longer version of the article from which this reference quoted - or whether it's an amalgam of different quotes? In any case, the wording of it looks fishy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Baseball Bugs about the paragraph being added, but in any case, that's a content dispute and not really to be decided here (although, FWIW if the user engages in dialog and still insists on re-adding the content, I would back you up in removing it, as per Bugs' reasoning).
The real issue here, though, is that an otherwise good faith editor is edit warring (it may be slow motion edit warring, but it's still edit warring) and is unwilling to engage in dialog either on his talk page or on the article talk page. I have issued the user a very stern final warning.
I fear the problem is here that maybe the user just doesn't understand talk pages and user talk pages (I have not seen a single edit outside of article space). It would really suck if it came to this, but if the user continues to ignore your pleas for dialog, a very short block may be the only way to get him/her to start responding to these messages. I really hope it doesn't come to that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if someone won't talk to you, you can't stop him. A block might make him "open up". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Even if it’s not a copyvio, this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. I have come across this type of editor numerous times over the years. They know that by persistent but sporadic reverting of an edit, they keep from technically violating WP:3RR and are likely to eventually wear down the majority who disagrees with them. And since their edits are not vandalism or harrassment, they are rarely, if ever, blocked. Reports to ANI such as this are often dismissed as content disputes.
This behavior is especially troublesome when accompanied by a failure to engage in dialogue, even when solicited by others. Wikihw has made zero article talk comments and zero user talk edits, even though they have been specifically asked to discuss this issue on several occasions.
I think JohnInDC did the absolutely right thing by bringing this here, and I respectfully disagree with his charitable observation that Wikihw’s edits are not disruptive. These edits are quite disruptive to a collaborative project such as this, and are directly violative of the official policy WP:CON. Assuming Wikihw once again refuses to discuss this issue, I submit a short block would be warranted to prevent further disruption. — Satori Son 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hah, perhaps I am being too charitable. I imagine it's a form of self-conscious restraint against my general tendency toward impatience. In any event I'm glad that the consensus is that this is a problem. I would add though that if the decision is made to effect a block, some consideration should be given to its length. While a relatively long block may not be warranted in substance, Wikihw doesn't seem to edit very often, and a shorter block might simply escape his notice. JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, only JohnInDC said the edits weren't disruptive :)
I think we are unanimous here: Despite the slow burn of this edit war, if he reinserts the text even one more time without first engaging in dialog, he gets a block -- even if he doesn't reinsert the text until 2011. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway. added my disclaimer here because, you know, I can't do the block myself should it come to that...\
Nothing wrong at all with JohnInDC going a tad overboard on the WP:AGF. I’ve just seen this way too many times, though I’m trying mightily to not be cynical.
As far as the infrequent editing goes, based on recent contributions it looks like a week block would be about right. Personally, I think there’s enough to block right now, but I won’t do anything until others have time to comment here – and I would really like to hear Wikihw’s side of things. — Satori Son 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, perhaps there should be a corollary to the 3RR rule -- call it the 10RR rule -- that says if you make 10 reverts of the same content without another editor backing you up, you get blocked regardless of the duration in which the 10Rs were made. In theory the 3RR rule already covers this, but in practice what do you think the chances are of a WP:ANI/3RR report on Wikihw succeeding right now? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with JohnInDC. He's been great in monitoring this, and mainly on his own. I've reverted it a few times when I've seen it. Wikihw has not been willing to engage in debate, and JohnInDC has been very civil. SDC (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The red-link did it again [55] so I reverted it, based on this discussion and also my concern that the entry, even if factually true, could well be a copyright violation, and even if not, it's POV-pushing and undue weight about one guy, Herman Hollerith. A sentence or two would do; the essay is way too much. Of course, Herman himself might just laugh at all this. He was a card, especially late at night when got punchy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And I should point out that the red-link did this several hours after being issued a "final" warning by User:Jaysweet: [56] So far User:Wikihw remains unblocked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Given his reasonably savvy use of wikipedia editing over the last year (doing page moves and such), I think it's very unlikely he can't figure out how to post to a talk page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Blocked 1 week by Satori Son. Good show. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Was just coming here to update. I'll leave a notice on his talk in a minute. — Satori Son 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. (I'll be interested to see what happens in a week and a day -) JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If he does it again, we'll be back here again, and probably he'll get a longer block. At some point, he might get the message. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Admininstrative attention needed at Lyme disease

There are multiple new accounts successively editing at Lyme disease and off-Wiki canvassing to introduce fringe theories to the article. If regular editors need to file the 3RR reports, checkuser requests, explain policy and so on, might as well give up, no time left to edit.

Recruiting here and here.

MastCell is doing his best, but it is these kinds of circumstances that lead to admins snapping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough for a checkuser? I would suggest that most if not all of those accounts will be the same two people. That article is going to be an ongoing problem because those editors have the truth and we all involved in a cover-up of the the truth (for example, Mastcell, myself and others are all medical researcher involved in bioresearch or something...). --Allemandtando (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
And those are only the accounts from the last month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, trying to get others to see the seriousness:

  • Grann, David (2001-06-17). "Stalking Dr. Steere Over Lyme Disease". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-30.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats rather scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also at Lyme disease controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and now User:Freyfaxi has explicitly threatened an edit war in his edit summary [57]. I would normally be willing to block that account, but I am involved in previous discussions. My personal opinion is that we should treat this matter as we did CAMERA. Off-wiki calls for POV editing should be met proactively, DGG (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked User:Freyfaxi 31 hours for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not often that I beg, but I'm begging outside admins to look at this group of obvious single-purpose meatpuppets attempting to warp the article to their agenda. I'm reaching the point of frustration at seeing new accounts pop up to revert the article left and right spouting personal attacks and half-baked conspiracism. And the only administrative action taken thus far is that Will Beback fully protected the page. While I greatly respect Will, this is not the right approach. There could not really be a more clear-cut case of abuse of Wikipedia. Checkuser is not necessary for obvious, disruptive sock/meatpuppets, and since these are likely all solicited from a specific agenda-driven online forum, they are likely not checkuser-related anyway. I'm asking for review and assistance from any and all uninvolved admins (thank you, Gwen Gale). I am literally this close to simply blocking all of the named accounts as obvious, disruptive agenda-driven meatpuppets, despite my involvement in editing the page, and let the chips fall, because this is simply ridiculous. MastCell Talk 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Shine a lite (talk · contribs) for attempting to conduct an offsite campaign of meatpuppetry and Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs) as a blatantly disruptive single-purpose account. Freyfaxi (talk · contribs) is already blocked, and I reckon on their last chance to shape up; Blakeusa (talk · contribs) has received strong guidance from several other editors and will be shown the door if they don't change their stripes. Shahmoney (talk · contribs) is already indefinitely blocked, and Mcpucho (talk · contribs), Uits (talk · contribs), Bnk wkpd (talk · contribs), Charanti (talk · contribs) and Dath (talk · contribs) all appear inactive. The last account, Jotunn (talk · contribs), appears to be neither disruptive nor focused solely on Lyme. east.718 at 02:18, July 1, 2008
A new account: Wanaqueling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
What a surprise. Anyhow, east718, thank you for looking at the situation - your willingness to review it is much appreciated, and I'd like to invite you (and any other admin reading this) to watchlist the article as we've clearly not seen the last of this meatpuppetry. MastCell Talk 07:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Watchlisted. I would suggest indefinite semi-protection on both articles. Neıl 09:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Another new account, Rosyatwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), first edit is attacks here. RetroS1mone talk 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wanaqueling (talk · contribs) is an admitted meatpuppet of the just-blocked Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs), created a few hours after Foundinkualalumpur's indefinite block to carry on the same arguments, and should be indefinitely blocked forthwith. Rosyatwiki (talk · contribs) should also be blocked as an obvious meatpuppet/recruit to this mess. MastCell Talk 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wanaqueling has been indefinitely blocked by Neil (talk · contribs). MastCell Talk 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero[edit]

InternetHero (talk · contribs) is disrupting Internal combustion engine. S/he is displaying too much ignorance of policies and guidelines for an editor with more than 1000 edits.[58] Moreover, his/her contribution rate increased abruptly and dramatically in June after no edits in May. An increase in the fraction with no edit summaries occurred at the same time.[59] This suggests to me a compromised account. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing EB as a reference, claiming that it is not appropriate is just not on. They are sitting right on the 3RR threshold,[60][61][62] have made some bazaar comment about other editors ending up in jail, and is completely ignoring input from other users. I hadn't considered the possibility of a compromised account: I just assumed this was a new user unfamiliar with the way things work around here. I'd say either Wsiegmund's appraisal is correct, or this user is feigning ignorance to game the system. -- Mark Chovain 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In their defence, however, they are currently seeking a third opinion,[63] so this may be a genuine mistake. -- Mark Chovain 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a minor content dispute. The drop in the number of edit summaries can be explained by their tendency (judging from past contribs) not to use edit summaries on talk pages--they're simply using a talk pages more than usual right now. I agree that they're right on the cusp of WP:3RR right now, so I'll add a warning to their talk page letting them know. --jonny-mt 02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I (only just) beat you to it :). -- Mark Chovain 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw >.< --jonny-mt 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this edit[64] which was a bit odd. The user may be drunk or something, or it could be a group account, or compromised, or the user may just have an unusual personality type I suppose. They've been blocked before, twice, including for edit warring.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, before this closes, note should be taken of this edit, in which the editor refactors Wolfkeeper's talk page comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to thelp and make things neat. I don't see how Britannica is GFDL compatible as the websites' terms of use prohibits commercial re-use or redistribution. If he gathered the primary source used, I'm sure he can use that in sequence. As for the edit to which seemed immature, I can say that it wasn't me. I accidently used the show preview button before letting my friend use the comp. I was cooking oatmeal before going to bed, and he did that. I feel my account isn't "compromised" as I have contributed with over 500 non-talk edits in the last year and a bit. I'm sorry for trying to refract Wolfkeeper's edit in the talk page, but I seriously don't understand the animosity towards me. It seems as though since I have no1 to help me out, I am automatically "guilty" provided by this unofficial 'consensus'.InternetHero (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wayang kulit: suspected unblocked sock account of banned editor[edit]

Dear admins, I just noticed another account that appears to belong to banned editor Davenbelle that is not at present blocked. Please look at:

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like Jack has tried to do with all accounts he had created, he self-declared that this was an account operated by him. Account is blocked. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast effort! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for reporting it. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome and happy editing! (Hopefully, there aren't any more of his that he hasn't yet revealed.) Sinceely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Nicehuy[edit]

Resolved: Articles deleted. Account blocked for a short time to see if I can get their attention. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This user is creating a bunch of pages that are blatant copy and paste jobs from other sites. I warned the user, but he/she shows no sign of stopping. Enigma message 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse & RadioBerlin sock circus[edit]

checkuser results are in: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove as of now only User:Saintsarecomingthrough has been blocked indef as sock. Request to block the other 10 discovered socks indef as soon as possible. (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove for the list of socks). thanks, --noclador (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The good captain is undoubtedly playing his mandolin, as he hasn't edited for a while. If the account reactivates then it may become appropiate to say "ciao!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations and original research by user:Frank Pais (If it walks like a duck?)[edit]

I have already posted this to the BLP noticeboard with no response here. User:Frank Pais keeps adding material to a number of Biographies of Living Persons making statements that they are white supremacists and neo-nazis without offering adequate sourcing. The article in question is Alex Kulbashian (Edit warring in violation of BLP: [65],[66],[67]), but I am also suspicious of the other articles he's added this information to including Melissa Guille‎, Glenn Bahr‎, and James Scott Richardson‎. I tried to suggest to him to examine this policy on WP:BLP here. He responded with adhominems saying my "degree of involvement in denying the obvious is cause for concern" and "if it walks like a duck..."[68]. I don't remember reading anything in the BLP policy about "if it walks like a duck". Please advise.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that the source cited at Alex Kulbashian is somewhat dubious. It refers to a 2006 court case before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal where the subject and another individual were charged with operating hate websites. While the article on the case does indeed refer to Mr. Kulbashian as a neo-nazi, the source (the court case itself, found here) does not. Given that it's BLP, I don't think that source meets reliability - though the court case does, I think, for details on those proceedings. I also warned Frank and another editor for 3RR on Rich