Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive495

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

MOSNUM RFC drama, eyes needed[edit]

The discussion over the WP:MOSNUM RFC is starting to get a little out of hand, including what appears to be some slow revert warring on the talk page and calls for backup and accusations of vandalism. I don't have time to look into this any deeper than I just presented now, but some uninvolved admin eyes would certainly help. Mr.Z-man 17:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a subject more unworthy of edit warring--Tznkai (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. My bias may be the reason here, but the whole section looks like it deserves blanking, the application of a wet trout, and possibly even talk page protection. Please, another admin, chime in.--Tznkai (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai, my thoughts exactly. I looked, I hit "edit" thinking that I had something to contribute, and then slowly backed away. It's very hard to imagine anything good coming out of that "discussion."
If only a tenth of the effort that's gone into that would be put into coding an autoformat option that doesn't require wikilinks, we'd be past this by now. -Pete (talk) 17:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Update. I've blanked the whole RFC and used a big ugly {{notice}} to get their attention. I've received a fair complaint about that action. That is my attempt to solve the problem, and if it doesn't work, I have no better ideas that I am capable of fulfilling.--Tznkai (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I will not take action (I am an involved editor) but seriously some admin action is needed (if not a form of larger mediation). The situation (besides all the various arguments since the "DA is deprecated" addition around August 2008) is that several editors (including myself) were pushing to get an RFC to completely settle the issue if the "DA is deprecated" part as well as other issues that result when Lightbot et al strip dates from articles. The RFC was developed via community draft and was close to being made live when User:Tony1 put up his own RFC on the main page which, while more to the point, has a very different tone and direction to it. Now personally, I feel that the RFC that was being worked on was going to be much better in the long run to achieve stable consensus for several issues and that Tony's wording is in disagreement with how the scenario developed, but given that people have responded, and it is an RFC (something that hasn't been seen there yet on the issue), I feel we might as well let it run, as we'll still get the answer to if "DA is deprecated" has consensus.
Now, what's been happening after that is that various editors, who see Tony's RFC language as being a problem (in the vein that it would be like an elected official writing up the official ballot for his reelection), have edited it as well as initiated talk page discussion of various accusations, with has been met with similarly borderline uncivil responses. I don't think any side is clearly acting in the best good faith here, but beyond watching for edit warring, there's not much more that can really be done here that doesn't invoke mediation. --MASEM 20:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, more like the author of disputed legislation writing the arguments for a referendum which would negate it, but the analogy seems somewhat apt. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As a note, I've reverted Arthur Rubin's addition of a nested template in the RfC that he opposes, since it had the unforeseen effect of removing this from the list of active RfCs. I left him a note on his talkpage to clarify my reasons (see diff). Just an unfortunate accident I'm sure, but it might happen again if a different editor tries to modify the RfC template, so I thought I'd note it here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't think Tony's RfC was done properly, nor the questions posed in a manner which could produce an undisputed result, but I didn't intend to delete it from the RfC list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User impersonating an administrator (URGENT)[edit]

We have us one User:StevenBuxton who, after logging on for the first time today, has declared himself an administrator and has stolen someone's user and talk pages. He's created at least one sock account. Possible compromised account as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked and deleted. This is the second one of these today, there was also User:BuxtonStephen earlier--Jac16888 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to block User:StephanBuxton as well as a sleeper account created by this last one. Thanks.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tan | 39 00:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Who did they impersonate? I want to know if I should be trying to be just like them too :-P BMW 00:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
User:StephenBuxton, user and talk copy pasted--Jac16888 (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that the user twice replaced pages with the IP "134.240.241.2" (see here and here). 134.240.241.2 (talk · contribs) was the subject of the above resolved thread Anonymous vandals gaming the system. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 00:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • An edit by BuxtonStephen (talk · contribs) on the same page replaced letters with similar-looking letters from other alphabets, which is what the IP had done on other users' talk pages[1][2][3] before being blocked (the IP was blocked anon only, so accounts can still be created). StephenBuxton (talk · contribs) is the user who started that AN/I thread. —Snigbrook 00:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Good enough for me, have reblocked the ip with no account creation, [4]--Jac16888 (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think the block worked properly, it still appears to be anon only. —Snigbrook 00:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Damn damn damn. Ok, it took me three attempts, but I've got it now I think, [5]. Wow, that was stupid of me--Jac16888 (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of that. I believe we haven't seen the last of this one...he'll be back soon.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Ah, you know when you are doing something right, when you inspire vandals enough to imitate you and they try to emulate your actions. Quite flattering really, being a role model :-) Seriously though, I've checked my contributions, and I can't see anything in there that I haven't done. To be on the safe side, I'll change my password. Thanks for letting me know! StephenBuxton (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Help, User:StephenBuxton is impersonating me. Someone needs to stop him BuxtonSteven (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And here's another one at talk. Whack-a-fake-Buxton time, I guess. Dayewalker (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Whack. Tan | 39 22:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In the future, let's save "URGENT" for truly urgent things. Impersonating an admin, while wrong, isn't going to cause any damage. John Reaves 22:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange edit war[edit]

On User talk:Simulation12 with User:Elbutler. Sim12 is not a child as s/he claims to be and pushing disruptive after being warned.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Update...User:Elbutler has filed at WP:AIV.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Were I not involved, I would have blocked this infant back to the preschool from which she claims to have escaped. This is easily one of the most duplicitous, un-helpful users I've ever encountered. Three editors--myself, Elbutler, and barneca---have counseled this user on her behaviour (see her talk page); she's had one short block already; nothing has changed, except maybe for the worse--and she has ab-so-fecking-lutely no intent of acquiring a clue. The edits she's made outside her user page, user talk, or other peoples' user-talk, are...I would say they're 90% unproductive. She says she's 6 years old. If she is six years old, I am an Emperor penguin. Then, today, she added this to her user page: [6]. Needless to say, I'm too involved to block, but I submit that if ever there was a user we could do without, this is her. GJC 01:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree as I've watched him for a while. The claim to be American is also false (use of "favourite" repeated in today's edits is a telltale sign).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not that spelling is a very reliable judge of nationality, as I know several Americans that choose to honour their British heritage by utilising en-uk. However I should point out that the IP listed below (154.20.40.205) resolves to the Canadian ISP Telus. And of course the second definition on the American dab page says "an inhabitant ... of the Western Hemisphere," so it would not technically be false for a Canadian national to describe themselves as being American. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This is true, after all we describe Canada as being the 51st state! 8^D
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this ANI report but I blocked her after noticing the userpage edits on my watchlist. I put the account on my watchlist some weeks back when I became aware of the user pestering Elbutler and Gladys. I think s/he's been given plenty of warnings and had lots of advice and assistance from some incredibly patient editors and admins but continues making a pest of themselves. We are either being played games with or being used as a childcare facility and either way I feel the disruptive behaviour far outweighs the minimal mainspace contributions. I feel this user is a serial, chronic pest and so I blocked him/her and I recommend we preferably keep them blocked but at least until there's some indication that the games and disruption are finished. Sarah 04:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
She was also using IP 154.20.40.205, which she admitted on my talkpage. [7]. Not sure what we want to do about that, if anything--I'm happy enough having the named user out of the way. Thanks!GJC 06:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible legal threat[edit]

I could be wrong, but on re-reading it, this edit could be construed as a legal threat. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean
This is not the place to publish information that is in breach of the Data Protection Act of Great Britain.
Isn't that as simple as 'ware the BLP, or "obey the 9th commandment"? Now pointing them to WP:BLP to supply them with new verbs, and how better to caution might be reasonable. Shenme (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It's intended as intimidation, and it references a legal entity, so it pretty much qualifies as a legal threat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed- it sounds like an in-spirit violation of WP:NLT; the guideline exists to prevent the chilling effects of using legal threats and "legal advice" (i.e., thinly veiled threats) from interrupting the improvement of the encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Blocked indef for legal threat, asked them to retract and acknowledge the policy on their talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't dispute that naming this or that law as "why you are in the wrong" (in danger?) is potentially chilling, and meant so. The editor is apparently in peril of COI as being the subject himself. In light of that, it is not unreasonable to have some sympathy for them as the object of attack by means of the BNP tar+feather. What I meant is that three different warnings in combination with efforts by the same editor that to expand the perceived attack, might not have the most helpful, certainly when seen with the wrong version results. Hex and Scott MacDonald have cleaned up much that was fluff, and have mentioned the BLP and other concerns on the talk page. 'twould be nice if someone made some suggestions to the editor, who has not edited in some hours. Ah, too late, blocked minutes ago for the pile-on effect. Context anyone? Shenme (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good gosh. Referencing a law is not a legal threat. Saying you think something is defamation isn't a legal threat. Saying you think something is libellous isn't a legal threat. Saying you're going to do something about it is a legal threat. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • The wording of it sounds threatening, though. Maybe not to everyone, but it certainly looked to me like a threat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've got to agree here. There's a big difference between "I think this is potentially libelous" and "This is libelous. Libel is illegal. Do not reinsert that libel." The comment here was an invocation of a law to hammer home a position, and that's exactly what the prohibition against legal threats is meant to prevent. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Important comment: When people make implicit legal threats, before jumping in with a banhammer take a look at the context. Let me fill this in. The person apparently making the threat is a relatively obscure composer, who maybe just about merits an article, who has been "outed" by one single low-grade UK newspaper as a member of the far-right BNP. No other UK paper has shown any (as yet) any interest in that allegation (Google news only brings up the one story from one source - not even AP cares), and it has nothing to do with the chap's marginal notability. However, Pigsonthewing has been insisting that this negative allegation must be published in our encyclopedia against the subject's wishes. I removed the offending material under BLP, and now pigs is here trying to get him blocked. This is a variation on the WP:DOLT theme - and should be strongly resisted. A block may be needed here, but not on the subject.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The legal threat is unacceptable, no matter the "wishes" of the article's subject. The issue would seem to be the reliability of sources. That's a legitimate issue to raise, and it's the approach that the article's subject should have taken. There is no "context" in which making legal threats is acceptable. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I highly doubt he understands the relevant Wikipedia policies. To me, it doesn't read like an "I will sue you" message. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 13:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
    • (ec) No doubt that the legal threat was unacceptable--but considering the circumstances, maybe GWH should have given Mr. Glover a chance to better explain what was going on and retract the legal threat rather than drop the banhammer (though I won't wheel war). I'm going to direct Mr. Glover to OTRS. Blueboy96 13:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Unless his talk page was blocked also, the blocked user is free to explain and to retract. If he can read plain English, then he should now know what the issue is. And if he can't, he shouldn't be editing the English wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
        • The "legal threat" (which is pretty much on a par with writing that Wikipedia isn't the place to post information that violates copyright law — which is not only not a legal threat but in fact official Wikipedia policy) is an editor who isn't experienced with Wikipedia (as per the observations of xyr style of referencing) trying to get people to stop turning a biography into a scarlet letter. Stating that an inexperienced editor should be blocked from editing Wikipedia when all that xe has been doing is trying to prevent being lambasted by a Wikipedia biography is an appalling lack of judgement on your part, Baseball Bugs. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
My point exactly, Uncle G. When the subject of an article has a legitimate complaint, we don't whack them over the head with policies they more than likely don't know--we try to help them. Now what they do when we give them that help is another ball game ... Blueboy96 13:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

As above, It's time to point to Wikipedia:Don't overlook legal threats here. I can understand why someone would be upset when xe has made efforts to comply with Wikipedia policy, writing about xyrself using sources such as New Music Magazine, Village Magazine, and the Leeds Echo, only to have such material removed time and again and eventually replaced with a short biography merely listing a political affiliation that the subject has attempted to keep out of xyr public life. Worse, when the content is erased, Scott MacDonald goes and erases the citations for the sources that supported it, too. I think that our behaviour in interacting with this person in good faith has been less than stellar, and blocking has only compounded the fault. Xe made good faith efforts to write based upon third-party sources. That the article didn't use the <ref> tag, but used Harvard-style linking (e.g. "(Leeds Echo 1997)", and "(J. Lander)") was not a reason to erase the content for being unsourced. It was a reason to fix the citations. You are Wikipedia editors. You are more experienced with the markup. You are supposed to help when someone who is clearly not an experienced Wikpedia editor makes a good faith effort to cite third-party sources but doesn't quite get the markup right. You are not supposed to erase the content, erase the sources, and then block the user demanding a retraction of threats against Wikipedia when xe rightly complains that xyr biography is being turned into a hatchet job. Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could get back to us after you get your keyboard repaired. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you weren't joking (*grin*), I took it as an attempt to be gender neutral. Too hard to read, IMHO -- I'll still go with s/he and his/her.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If you pronounce Xe with a Greek "chi" sound, it still comes out "He", only with a guttural "H". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This was not a legal threat. It's an incorrect invocation of policy--WP does not necessarily respect that act or similar provisions in other countries, but operates under the law of the US & the State of Florida, and our own positions on BLP. It does seems the material is no in accord with our BLP policy if the newspaper mentioned is the only source. A legal threat is a threat to sue, or to report otherwise for legal action, and nothing less than that, unless the implication is obvious--I do not think it was here. We should be free to state an opinion, correct or not correct, that certain matter may be in violation of some legislation, Blocking is heavy handed interpretation of policy , with the effect of discouraging people from calling our attention to BLP violation. DGG (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I've unblocked. Agree with Jpgordon, DGG and others, this wasn't a legal threat. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thumperward constant personal attacks[edit]

Thumperward (talk · contribs) I am reporting User:Thumperward for constant Hypocracy and personal attacks.

on the following

Through all these template, he keeps making excuses for Template are not directories. When he is the only users having this problem.

And I would note that keep things to yourself. My scope toward that arguements is none of template are not directories at all and I never plan on intending it to be that way. Placing the right "topics" to present a better navigation is not a directory that is totally Chris own Original Research instances and should be blocked. Whenever I am involved in the template, as shown before he makes his own personal conflict gets in the way before allowing other to have a chance to contribute on anything. That is not the way how we do things at Wikipedia. If he has a problem with my editing, he should of use my User talk page, which he never did. notes 1

Topics clearly serve a better navigation, since a lot of Wikipedia article have (History, Implementations, examples and references) which focus on the study and expertise of topics rather than posting only notable products and being bias. I am not sure is he trying to advertise everything he likes by the philosophy of "it must be this way." A good example would be placing only IE, Firefopx and Chrome on a browser template just because they own majority of the industry market share. However, this doesn't make the fact Opera aren't notable and he doesn't even think before he acts. In Template:Sun Microsystems, he claims his own method are more correct, when he is inable to show any understanding of the topic at all such as workstations processors and later on he created the Template:Sun Hardware ignoring community consensus or agreement knowing the problem already exists.

Regarding Template: Sun Microsystems (3 template are involved)

  • Template: Sun Microsystems
  • Template: Solaris
  • Template: Java

Intro --> Now (repeating a bit, sorry) The problem arises, when increase number of links are placed at template. Chris made Template:Sun hardware ignoring community consensus and later on when I proposed 3 template Contributed at Revision as of 04:00, 9 October 2008 he and the community still tries to evade my proposal at all knowing that he and I had already had conflicts in 2 of the template before. I question his action accounts for any creditabiltiy and responsibility for he so-called "claims of turning template to directories"

Note: I really don't care how the template turns out to be, since I am not planning on any further involvement, even though I said I will create a version 2. But if the community is still choosing to ignoring everything than might as well delete the template.

notes 1 Other User such as George were willing to talk, but Chris choose to let his own immaturity get in his way. As to that how is that my problem on the previous WP:ANI.

I do apologize the personal attacks I made on Template:Linux today (Nov 24, 2008), because I am getting sick and tired of his immature actions constantly getting in the way of others. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • A comment. Chris's talk page is on ym watchlist, so I've seen more than a few of your interactions there. At least on his talk page (I can't speak about other areas), Chris is polite and calm. You two appear to be engaged in a long running content dispute and the particulars of that dispute are not likely to be solved on AN/I. Further, accusations like yours need to be supported by specific diffs of wrongful behavior, not general hand waving. Protonk (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ramu50 is the offending party here - see for example this edit where he violates WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF against Thumperward and myself for no good reason. Had he not insulted me there, I would block him for a month or longer for the insults to Chris, but I believe I'm in a conflict of interest over it as he's going after me too.
He's been repeatedly warned and blocked before for abusive editing. Much is now deleted off his talk page, but he's had ample warnings to stop.
Uninvolved admin requested to review and take appropriate action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
AFAICS, all of Thumperward's comments on the abovementioned templates seem to me to be entirely reasonable. If he's sounding increasingly irritable of late, that comes as no great surprise, given Ramu50's behaviour. As for Template_talk:Sun Microsystems, Thumperward received no serious objections to his proposal to create Template:Sun hardware from any other users (including myself), and it wasn't obvious if Ramu50's comment was an objection or not. Ramu50's proposed template was pasted into the talk page (along with two others for different navboxes) without any kind of explanation that it was intended as a request for comments. Letdorf (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

And so far as I can see, he is the ONLY Wikipedian users right now that uses constant excuses and making false claims on me. I have quite a lot of conficts in Wikipedia, but majority are already resolved. However, Chris himself choose to stick with the old story and be immature forever and his mental problem is mine problems to be deal with, a lot of crap your really got there.

Also to you Georgewilliamherbert stop making false claims once again, you made several personal attack me on personally on Template:Database and Template:Parallel Computing without focusing on the main problem, so you as an adminstrator started the violation and you as the same choose not to resolve the situation. Need I need to remind you that Racial Discrimination is not an acceptable actions of Wikipedia.

For Sun Microsystems template I am not going on any further, but a word of clearing what actually happen I think maybe in dire need. I was against the Template:Sun Hardware all the time, but since majority of the involved users choose not follow any of the guidelines, I abandon my decision and choose not to be involved with the Template anymore, even though I am still trying to work on a new version of Sun Microsystems template. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've got it all in that one - accusations of racism, accusing another editor of having mental problems. Looking at the history, I'm amazed at Thumper's politeness with your nonsense. Why you have decided to shine a spotlight on your behaviour is beyond me - but don't worry, I'm sure your interactions with other editors will get all the attention then need. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And so far again and again, ALL of you guys are teaming up because of your inability of acceptance or choosing to ignore totally what I just said before about how I believe article should be organized.

And let me ask you Did Chris did any of the following

  • Went to my talk for resolution since he is against my edits
not once
  • Did he stop from his hypocracy of twisting the talks submitted at Template:Sun Microystems
obviously not

You people load of crap and always trying to make a better image of yourself, really shows your innate lack of attitude care for Wikipedia at all, no wonder all of your contributions are all over the place, instead of having the passion to stick with one topics and be persistent. What a joke you guys really dramatize the situation. What are you trying to prove that you are better than anyone else and you only your "mental community" matters like Hitler. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely we must have a rule where we can close a thread when the person making the complaint "godwin's"? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not close this your thread, their constant evasion needs to be stop. Their constant actions of ignoring the truth and always walking away whenever their have commit an incident they don't want to admit needs to be stop. Not that I want to be involve with, but apparently they have let that matter interefere from Wikipedia policy. As to question this, if this is not your own mental problem, perhaps you guy should make a promise to correct that defects.

If this is the way how Wikipedian users choose to do things, than by all means I'll go with it and we'll see who will last longer, keep it up with your uncivil actions and ignoring me, so-called "adminstrators." --Ramu50 (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to represent your version of the "truth." And read WP:NPA: That's twice you've made aspersions against editor's mental abilities. Continuing to spout insults, especially on the admin notice board, is likely to get you blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize I didn't edit for 3 hours, my internet just crashed. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Block review: User:Devil Goddess / ex-User:Skoojal[edit]

Resolved: Declined by Trusilver, on what look like reasonable grounds William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Devil Goddess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has just admitted in an unblock request that she/he was Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I denied an initial unblock request due to an apparent duck test similarity and the user refusing to deny that they were Skoojal; they subsequently admitted it and have asked to be unblocked now that they're open about it.

I was somewhat concerned about Devil Goddess' edits before Will Beback blocked her/him. However, they were not seriously abusive. There was clearly block evasion, but also perhaps a sincere attempt to edit in a largely constructive manner, albeit with the same viewpoint as before.

It would be good to have another uninvolved admin review the second unblock request, in light of the totality of their edit history and their honest admission now that they're Skoojal. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive User:Downzero[edit]

Continually reverting against consensus on Obama and Biden articles. Downzero (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Those are semi-protected, but user came on in July, did a few edits, and then nothing until today. My guess is it's a "sleeper" account. Needs a block to stop disruption. [8] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted my caution[9] and continued to edit war,[10] after calling Wikipedia WP:V policy "asenine"[11] despite notification of possible block, WP:V, WP:EW, and other policies. I don't know if he needs a block or just a good talking-to. We've had 20-30 discussions, and a consensus, on this topic. Even though this is a non-POV technicality he needs to know he can't just edit war because he thinks he alone knows the WP:TRUTH about whether Obama is a president-elect or not. Wikidemon (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I see it as trolling, since he came from out of nowhere and "zeroed down" (get it?) on this pair of articles, then disappeared when the heat got turned up a bit. I do like this quote, which could be a classic: "'Edit against consensus...' is asinine. The truth shall reign over any 'consensus' that is incorrect." Of course, there's always the chance he decided to go read the policy manual. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
And it may be just a naming coincidence, but User:Zsero was also arguing against calling Obama the President-elect (as were a couple of others, I should point out) and was generally belligerent, though being established for a couple of years. Zsero got a 2-day block on the 17th, due in part to edit warring over Ketchup, of all things. He made 3 edits right after his block expired, and has not edited since, at least not under that name. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
He's back now, arguing on the Obama talk page, but so far has not tried to disrupt the article again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact, his constant endless-loop reasoning sounds more and more like User:Zsero. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
He has now taken this to a neutrality dispute page. [12] At least he's stopped reverting consensus in the articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The phraseology is sounding more and more like User:Zsero. I'm citing policy and he's challenging "my" argument, i.e. personalizing it somehow. In the case of Zsero, it was an endless loop over whether Senator Obama "had to" resign. [13] And his arguing tactic was the same: That the constitution says thus-and-so, therefore all the media are wrong and should be disregarded - and that "I" have failed to disprove his argument, therefore he's right. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin just give Downzero a friendly block for a couple days to spin his wheels. I think that's all it takes, it's really just a 3RR matter... or rather, a 1RR matter since the article is on probation. This isn't really a case where a lot of discussion is needed for a block that is an unambiguous page violation (never mind tone, demeanor, puppet possibilities, it's simply too many reverts). 10:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's now forum-shopping, having also posted at the Third Opinion page. [14] I advised him that he's running the risk of a block for the 1RR violation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting similarity, besides the attitude, is the unusual tendency of both them to leave 2 spaces (or more) between sentences. Most wikipedians leave one space. Just a style oddity that caught my eye. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
They took away the Third Opinion entry on the grounds that it was misused, i.e. it's not a dispute between just 2 editors. [15] Gee, I love talking to myself. I could do this all night. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll talk to you, Bugs! Actually, I came here to raise that point - I removed it on procedural grounds as there were numerous editors involved. For full disclosure I'll state I have previously been involved with one of them (Baseball Bugs, here on ANI) so would not have provided an opinion. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm so lonely. I'm not sure if Zsero and Downzero are lonely, i.e. I'm not sure if they're joined at the hip or if they're just one guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That guy is really on a tear. Now he's posted at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Barack Obama. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice try as characterizing me as a troll. This is clearly an issue between two editors, despite the 3O to the contrary. Let's leave the insults to real trolls and take this issue to mediation. I never heard of this other guy until you posted up about him, and I typically edit without logging in, thus why my contributions list was short before today, when I HAD to log in, in order to edit a protected page. Downzero (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like Zsero, you try to make it me-against-you, when in reality it's verifiable sources and consensus of many users against you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Downzero claimed to have read the archives, yet he claims to have never heard of Zsero, whose name is prominent in the archives, this for example [16] so something does not computer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like pretty clear pointy disruptive abuse of process. It's a mystery why anyone would socpuppet on such an unimportant technical edit to the encyclopedia. The editor has opened this trivial non-issue in a dozen forums, is belligerent, and showing no signs of stopping. We should roll back all the reports and get an authoritative warning, and if that does not work a block. Wikidemon (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I make no claim of sockpuppetry. I merely observed the similarities. It could be coincidental. In any case, the ball in his court now, as to whether to waste more time with this bogus issue, or to back away from it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know about that other guy. I do know that I read much of the archive, but not all, because it spans many dozens of pages.

I was hoping this dispute would be resolved civilly, but you have hid behind the status quo and refused to debate despite both of us having verifiable evidence for our positions. It is unfortunate for the sake of the encyclopedia that it has come to this and that no consensus can exist that encompasses legal and constitutional reasoning as well as pragmatic usage of terms. Downzero (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It was already resolved, you just don't like the answer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, the constitution does not define the term "President-elect". The way it's used is, in fact, totally pragmatic. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Downzero on this. Constitutionally recognized title or not, the Electoral college has bucked the popular vote before, there's a SCOTUS discussion on Obama's citizenship (laughable as that is), and we should be reporting the most factual stuff, not hte media hyping of the new ratings booster. Media outlets have to sell ad space, we don't. we can be circumspect. No one doubts he'll be the next president, but we can be respectful of the process. ThuranX (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The last time there was an issue with the electoral college was 1876, and there is no issue about Obama's citizenship. "President-elect" is defined to include the "apparent" winner, so there's no issue with that either. Zero's fundamental argument about the constitution made the assumption that "President-elect" is a constitutionally-defined term. It isn't. His argument, even if sincere, is bogus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
checking the history of those "two" editors, I can hear ducks going quack quack. Have we got enough for a CU report? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but they might not take it, as the editor's disruption has mostly been on talk pages once he stopped reverting the article, and it's only on this one topic. But I'm not sure what the thresholds are, for evidence, and for acceptance of the case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, he's back, continuing to flog this dead horse. I think it's time for a checkuser, however that might be requested. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually not. Hold the phone. Even if he's sockpuppeteering, he hasn't done it in such a way that violates any rules, that I can see. He's just a pest, a disruption. That's the issue here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
This diff [17] clearly states his position - that Obama is not entitled to be called President-elect yet. That's in defiance of everything he's been shown, so he's either incredibly dense or he's just trolling. In any case, he's been advised by others to cease and desist, and hasn't edited since, so hopefully that's the end of it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, Slowthy[edit]

I put this as a sub-section, as it is following a remarkably similar pattern. Slowthy had not edited since July (and only 7 edits from Jan-July), then pops right in 5 months later now with an immaculately wiki-formatted "Obama is a Muslim" section. Spidey-sense indicates a collective intent to disrupt. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any direct connection with Zero, but it looks like Slowthy has been working on this stuff for awhile. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I got a good laugh out of reading that essay. It's a typical conspiracy theory approach - Obama "should have" behaved a certain way in certain circumstances, and because he apparently didn't, therefore that supports the premise. And anything he does that looks Christian somehow affirms the premise, because Muslims are supposedly trained to deny their faith. Totally bogus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Which reminds me of this McCarthy-era joke. How do you know if someone is a Communist? Simple. Just ask him. If he says "No", he's a Communist, because Communists lie. And if he says "Yes", he's a Communist, because they're stupid enough to admit it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Slowthy's edit inserted a more-or-less direct copy of material from the delightful Conservapedia article on Obama - hence the detailed, if not exactly accurate, citations and so forth. If you haven't read the Conservapedia article, I highly recommend it. I've warned him and notified him of the article probation. MastCell Talk 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
As with Zero, he disappeared when the heat got turned up a bit. I don't think I want to go to the conservapedia site - it might infect my computer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Anymouse (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm requesting a block of Dr. Anymouse per the activities below:

Violations of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPA abound. I don't have the time to dig up every diff of his that violates any of these core policies, but all you need do is choose any of his contributions to find one that is rude or worse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you see the splinter in another editor's eye, but not the beam in yours? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Further personal attacks that go to your behavior as outlined in the next section. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing this user's talk page contributions, their tone and style is highly patronising which to my mind is very WP:UNCIVIL. The ridiculous sockpuppetry accusations and talk of "crusades" should also be reviewed in terms of civility and personal attack guidelines. I'd support a short educational block, and hopefully behaviour will improve. I'd also advise them to leave the single article they edit alone for a while and get some experiance editing elsewhere. It is possible though that this might be some kind of "bad hand" account, from my quick look (before this was filed actually). Verbal chat 16:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if the accused is supposed to weigh in, but the powers that be can reverse this addition if this is in any way a violation of wiki-protocol.
1) As regards the alleged accusation of sockpuppetry: I did not make such an allegation; I recorded an impression I got when I saw that OrangeMarlin had taken the initiative to reverse something like eight hours of editorial work to what is a highly contentious and not-especially-well-worded paragraph coupling 'controversy' and 'depression'.
2) As regards the characterization of my edit summaries as 'rude': I have, admittedly, incorporated my native acid wit into these proceedings, but that is what it was and is intended to be: humor. No character assassination or put down was implied or intended. If rough and tumble sport is inappropriate for this venue, so be it: I will refrain. But one man's insult is another man's hail-fellow-well-met. If tender sentiments were bruised, I offer my sincerest apology.
3) As regards the accusation of "refactoring someone else's edits"...well, someone will have to explain that one to me. I thought that's what Wikipedia was all about (?).
4) As regards the accusation of uncivil comments including reference to my esteemed cyber-colleague Dlabtot as "Blabdot": Again, this was an attempt at humor that was, no kidding, based on commentary that OrangeMarlin himself left on my User Page when I was just getting started as an editor, plus Sciencewatcher's referral to me as "Mr Anymoose", wch I think is actually very funny and in the spirit of comradeship referred to above. Again, if anyone's feelings were hurt (and it is rather clear from the line of edits that were subsequently erased by Mssr Dlabtot) then I am truly very sorry. I think I may have unintentionally stepped on Sean3001's toes as well by my allusion to the television series Kung-Fu following his (somewhat snarky) reply to one of my entries. Dr. Anymouse (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions for Dr. Anymouse:
  1. Don't accuse people of sockpuppetry, even implicitly, unless you are prepared to stand by what you say
  2. Don't try to be witty or sarcastic. It doesn't work in a text medium. At best one ends up looking supercilious, at worst one ends up looking like an obnoxious fool.
  3. Don't correct other people's spelling and grammar except in articles. It's patronising.
  4. See 2 above.
CIreland (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This seems like something of a joke. Dr A is a noob and needs to be helped to understand his errors. If Ahem...quid pro quo, cruxador. Or perhaps you will reconsider editorializing what is (ostensibly) a encyclopedia article. Or am I mistaken? is an incivil edit summary warranting blocking then we'll be blocking everyone. Refactoring talk comments is bad; that will be why you've explained this issue on his talk page... oh, wait. "Blabdot" was ill-judged, but as Dr A points out he is hardly the first to make silly jokes on other peoples user names William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you - if it weren't for the fact that he was already warned about this type of uncivil behavior just 48 hours ago. Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I did call you Mr Anymoose a few times (I correct one, but I think I did it again). This wasn't intentional. My brain just interpreted your name as a variation on "Mr Anonymous", which would be pronounced "moose" rather than "mouse", and that's what I thought your name was until I checked the spelling carefully. Anyway I'll go back and fix any other occurrences. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No worries, really. I do think it is very funny. The name derives from a program in the US Navy called "anymouse" whc is supposed to remind one of "anonymous", wch is what Wikipedia and cyber life is all about. Not that everyone adheres to this, natch. Not to worry: got reeeal thick skin. Cheers! Dr. Anymouse (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well amusingly enough on that occaision I *did* block Dr A, only to remove it when I found Deacon of P had warned him first. Well, Dr A has had all his warnings now and will be on tip-top good behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

user: Jan 25 1981[edit]

This user is "contributing" [[18]] a lot of new articles with one sentence about places. I left a note for them, but perhaps they need to be slowed down until they read up on article creation guidelines? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah, isn't the idea behind Wikipedia is that the users create new content? Or are we really all about just stirring up drama? Seriously, I see nothing wrong with what this user is doing... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, CoM's point was that this user is just going about adding stuff without any shred of reference or citation- such as this. They might actually be literally "creating" new content (not new articles), violating WP:OR. If they are refusing to even answer queries, then they probably should be blocked, at least until we can get some explanation. Tan | 39 22:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, I have blocked for 48 hours. Unlike Jayron, I see nothing but unsourced additions with no explanation, no response to comment/warnings, and no indication that sources or explanations are forthcoming. Tan | 39 22:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, and thanks for checking it out. Some of the additions may be about notable locations, but it's just really hard to tell with so little to go on. If it was just one or two articles or 3 or 4 I would have followed up with searches. But I didn't really know how to help the editor or steer them towards a more constructive approach (I tried), and their creation of severely limited articles (with not much substance and no formatting or citations) was prolific.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

hijacked RfC[edit]

This is the sequence of edits which are wrongly described by Caspian blue as harassment. A simple question about the need for a credible citation consistent with WP:V has been twisted into a Gordian Knot for which I am not to be blamed:

  • 2. diff: In less than one minute, I discovered to my surprise that Caspian blue had hijacked the RfC
  • 3. diff: I posted a disclaimer on this page ... and the subject was simple: whether a citation is or is not needed for the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital"?
  • 4. diff: I manually posted a non-controversial statement of the RfC subject on the appropriate page ... but this effort was subsequently hijacked as well.
  • 5. diff: Caspian blue defines the RfC as harassment, when -- as shown by the edit history -- this is naught but another self-created charade.

PROBLEM: Caspian blue alone deserves to be held accountable for disingenuous complaints which Caspian blue has created.
QUESTION: What about the initial RfC issue? Without credible citations supporting the use of the explicit phrase "Yonsei Severance Hospital," is it not "trolling" and not disruptive to delete the unsourced phrase after repeatedly asking for compliance with WP:V?

I do not know how to address this needlessly complicated mess. ---Tenmei (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if anyone else agrees, but I for one would welcome a request for arbitration at this point, involving everyone involved in the relevant disputes. Let's get this issue settled once and for all. //roux   10:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Roux's otherwise commendable suggestions about WP:Arbitration assumes that this is a mere conflict between two editors; but that mis-reads the broader scope of a battlefield in which my trivial involvement is somewhat insignificant. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I know it's a broad issue, and ArbCom handles broad issues. Several people are involved, and I've counted numerous edit wars, AN/I posts, a current MedCab, I think an RFC/U at some point... it's getting ridiculous. Someone please take this whole mess to RFARb. //roux   20:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Roux, I thought you have been retired from Wikipedia. Before commenting something drastic, why don't you do some research? --Caspian blue 21:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to do any research. I've seen forms of this dispute going on for ages, I was tangentially involved briefly, the whole Korea-vs-Japan thing needs resolution. I didn't comment in any way on who was at fault here, I just said that arbitration seems necessary to end the ridiculousness. //roux   04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Roux -- I doubt that your carefully bland suggestions have fallen on deaf ears.
Despite Caspian blue's attempted diversion, the fact remains that your non-confrontational, moderating language in the WP:Mediation Cabal-thread which unfolded on November 12th does stand out as a kind of hortatory illustration, albeit an ineffective one. I would have thought the tenor of this exchange adds weight to your expressed point-of-view. --Tenmei (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaf's ears? Tenmei, retract your personal attack here[edit]

Retract your attack here. I wonder how you're saved from every single chance from blocking. You made this hoax/false report that I hijacked your alleged RFC in 23 second. Why are you so quiet about your hoax allegation? You must prove it by diff. I saved your clear 3RR violation, but all you have done to me is constant harassments and personal attacks. I'm not tolerate about your behaviors any more. --Caspian blue 07:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue proffers examples of extravagant language:
A line from William Shakespeare comes to mind:
Gertrude says: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
-- Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230.
While Caspian blue may or may not appreciate the aptness of this Shakespearean quotation, it is reasonable to expect that many who read this thread will understand it -- which becomes a non-controversial point worth making. In this setting, I would have thought it axiomatic that every new posting is likely to be read, considered and evaluated by a wide range of thoughtful, engaged and well-motivated administrators and others. That said, it is also becomes demonstrable that nothing in this thread falls on deaf ears. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Answer the initial question. Why did you falsely accuse me that I hijacked your RFC in 23 seconds? You're certainly blaming that I rightly made the RFC on the talk page. I don't get what is your problem with my filing. Your tagging templates to the aritcle is trolling as other said so. This irrational fiasco should be answered. You're surely harassing me as turning several talk pages into personal attack site. Answer the initial question that you've brought up.--Caspian blue 23:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You're demanding a retraction of a personal attack? Cut this out. Both of you. This has been going on for far, FAR too long. Caspian, you've subtly (and not-so-subtly) disrupted Wikipedia for months now - it stops. Now. Any further disruption, accusations, demands, or harassment will result in a block. Period. End of story. We've all had fucking ENOUGH of this. Tan | 39 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Tanthalas39, you're ignoring the fact that this disruptive baiting hoax report is made by Tenmei, not me. I'm defending myself from the absurdity. That is my valid right. I did not know that retracting personal attack is disruptive. You're also responsible for your previous "false" accusation: you blame me of assuming bad faith on some user (actually long-term sockpuppers) are all blocked. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BlueSalo, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse[19][20] I would appreciate your insight than your current warning/threat ignoring real disruption. If you do not want to see this thread spanning further, please achieve this.--Caspian blue 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Tanthalas39 -- No. The POBYH approach is unbalanced, unfair, unworkable; and POBYH is effectively unavailable in a wiki-context. --Tenmei (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
To be unequivocally clear, the acronym POBYH comes from Shakespeare:
Mercutio says: "A plague a' both your houses!"
-- Romeo And Juliet Act 3, scene 1, 90–92
In this play, Mercutio's argues that everyone is tainted by association in the context of the Capulet-Montague feud, that both disputing factions are wrong and culpable. When Tanthalas39 declares, Cut this out. Both of you ..., the gambit assumes that whatever is going on in this thread is a lot like the classic Capulet-Montague rivalry in Romeo and Juliet. Quite simply, I don't think the edit histories will support this attractive solution to a seemingly intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 07:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Unanticipated counter-intuitive consequences[edit]

It is possible to summarize this thread simply: Wikipedia is a battlefield ... despite the obvious reasons for such contexts to be disfavored.

Does even-tempered reasoning help move us beyond this kind of problem? Or does moderate, thoughtful commentary only exacerbate the evolution of strife in a counter-intuitive fashion, as in this measured exchange? diff PLUS diff

Something isn't working out well.

In my view, Caspian blue has not been well served by previous dispute resolution processes: Far from fostering a trend towards moderation and restraint, the demonstrable effect seems to have been to encourage extravagant language? provocative comments? confrontational threads? escalating tactics?

The corollary question becomes these:

  • What could anyone have done to avoid this? ... ANSWER: Nothing.
  • How could anyone have mitigated escalation? ... ANSWER: Nothing.

This doesn't need to be construed as an intractable problem. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hijacked RFC in 23 sec.? No more personal attacks[edit]

Tenmei, you're still attacking me as depicting my RFC filing as a "robbery". Your behaviors are really out of line. I'm the one who should report you for your constant harassment and personal attacks.

As soon as seeing your absurd tagging again to the article, I filed the RFC with several lines at *2008-11-22T15:13:47

Unlike me, your RFC without any reason on the main page was at *2008-11-22T15:13:24 There is 23 seconds gap between mine and yours. You did not even put your reason. Do you reall think that writing several lines and putting the RFC and finding a fitting RFC category would take only 23 second? Be logical. Your constant false accusation and personal attacks constitutes "personal attacks" and "harassment". I gave you a chance to redeem your bad faith comments and personal attacks against me as not reporting your clear 3RR violation to AN3, but all you gotta do is this fiasco? Very good one.--Caspian blue 15:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Examples of extravagant language:
  • "... false accusation ..."?
  • "... personal attcks ..."?
  • "... harassment ..."?
  • "... bad faith comments ..."?
Why not de-escalating, non-confrontational, moderating language? --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The hoax report is a false accusation itself, personal attack, harassment, bad faith comments against me. Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? Think about it, why Taemyr removed your absurd tagging? --Caspian blue 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly clear in my edit summary on why I removed the tagging. The contested fact simply isn't in the version tagged. Please do not construe this as a statement about whether or not the fact should be in the article. Taemyr (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggested resolution[edit]

As Caspian Blue points out, there was less than a minute between Tenmei's RfC [21] and Caspian's[22]. As such it is extremely unlikely that Caspian launched his as an attempt to hijack Tenmei's.

However the text of Caspian's RfC[23] makes it clear that he intend it as a request on user conduct. He confirmed this himself[24]. As such this RfC should be closed as being in the wrong venue.

Tenmei's question[25], regarding the sourcing of the name "Yonsei Severance Hospital" is probably better suited for WP:RSN and should be pursued there. Taemyr (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The example of non-confrontational, moderating language is very valuable in this context -- far more important than any flaws in Taemyr's analysis. --Tenmei (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What the hell kind of backhanded insult is that?ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming that ThuranX's question was more than a rhetorical flourish -- I repeat the same thought in different words. There was nothing obscure, oblique nor offensive in this direct, declarative statement, i.e.,
  • FACT: The serial paragraphs of Taemyr's proposal do illustrate non-confrontational, moderating language.
  • FACT: Some of the substantive premises of Taemyr "suggested resolution" are flawed, unworkable ... but I'm persuaded that any mis-emphasis on transient issues is potentially short-sighted.
  • FACT: The ameliorating effect of Taemyr's use of language does present a focal point which transcends the specifics of this thread.
In sum, a seemly focus on Taemyr's use of language stands up quite well. --Tenmei (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
An additional upside is that my sentence evolved in response to a plausibly facetious suggestion made by Caspian blue, who wrote: "Why don't you "de-escalating, and non-confrontational, moderating language? at diff. It was worth trying to see what might come from taking these words at face value?
Taemyr's use of language stands in stark relief against the backdrop of Caspian blue's heedless invective at Talk:Severance Hospital (diff) and Talk:Yonsei (diff), which are inflammatory, gratuitous, and designed to be unanswerable. --Tenmei (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


User:Fru23[edit]

Back from a block for edit-warring, has resumed edit-warring on the very page that got him blocked, the O'Reilly criticism page. [26] He also blanked out his own user talk page, so you'll have to look at its history to see. Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky; on the one hand, I think Media Matters for America is questionable as a source for a WP:BLP, particularly when its criticism is unattributed in the text. On the other hand, this is probably within the gray area that needs to be resolved by discussion and dispute resolution, and Fru23 (talk · contribs) has shown himself completely uninterested in the process or goal of consensus.

I'd propose a 1RR restriction to cap the edit-warring but allow him to at least suggest changes, and I'll (once again) direct him to the BLP noticeboard, reliable-sources noticeboard, or some other means of dispute resolution as an alternative to continued edit-warring. Thoughts? MastCell Talk 18:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that he'll continue to remove the Hornbeck criticism from the O'Reilly page until he gets blocked again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
A distinct possibility. The 1RR would speed up this outcome if it is, in fact, inevitable. MastCell Talk 18:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Having been notified of this thread, he has now reverted his deletion. Resolved, for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Fru23 has taken to defend himself on Wp:BLP Noticeboards (in addition to arguing for the deletion of the article, despite 5 previous AfD) and considers the previous blocks as if they were unbased. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That would be this: [27] He's going forum-shopping, and he's getting pretty well shot down there also. For reasons known only to himself, he seems desperate to get that Hornbeck section out of the article. Someone had accused him of being an employee of the show. I don't know what evidence there is for that, if any, but it certainly seems like he's an O'Reilly crusader. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I am being "shot down" by you and Noian, everyone else agrees that with me. Fru23 (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You are not being victimized Fru. Constantly complaining of your previous blocks, why you were blocked for disruptive conduct will get you nowhere, especially since your previous unblock request was denied. Please stop attempting to garner empathy as if you were incorrectly blocked. In addition, Bugs, Fru admitted to being a employee of O'reilly on IRC before, but retracted the statement after being called out for WP:COI, which we can only assume his retraction to be true. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'm doing this here since I don't want to use the warning template as that'd escalate the issue, but, No Personal Attacks on wikipedia. Thanks. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Block request: User:Veecort[edit]

Resolved: Involved editors have agreed to cease hostilities

Veecort (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been engaged in edit warring on ITT Technical Institute [28] and Sockpuppetry [29] [30], and has already had a 24 hour block for disruptive editing[31].

The block occured on 08:35, 22 November 2008, duration 24 hours. Roughly half a day after unblocking, Veecort resumed his edit war, this time using multiple IP addresses (see Suspected sock puppets/Veecort).

Veecort also has one of the most serious COIs I have ever encountered on wikipedia, as seen by this edit from May 2008, in which he claims "I am obviously motivated by something other than making contributions to better Wikipedia. Whatever my motivations, the truth is on my side." This would make him the poster boy for WP:TRUTH as well.

My suggestion is a block of moderate duration for Veecort for disruptive editing and sockpuppetry, and a total topic ban on ITT Tech and related articles.

As a side note, Veecort has in each case he's received a warning chosen to revert it without acknowledging it. McJeff (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry. I don't deny any of the above accusations. (Except for sock puppetry. If anything they were meat puppets, but their opinions are their own.) McJeff, I think you are giving me too much credit as far as avoiding the 3RR. Nonetheless, the above notes would show that I was engaged in obvious edit warring. Furthermore, it is my fault that the page was locked to new and unregistered users. What should I do now? Veecort (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked up meat puppet and they were most definitely meat puppets. I'm a jerk. At least I am not good at recruiting meat puppets. (Effective meat puppets anyway.) If you look back at my "contributions" you will see that I have at least been genuine. (Genuinely stubborn, genuinely paranoid, genuinely disruptive, genuinely recruiting meat puppets, etc. But genuine nonetheless.) Also, was it wrong for me to revert my talk page? Veecort (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You're free to remove comments from your own talk page. However, meatpuppetry is not acceptable behavior, and is very strongly discouraged. Please see this portion of our sock puppetry policy, which notes that their actions will be treated as your own. Especially in this instance, one of your meatpuppets edited while you were still blocked, which would be treated as if you evaded a block (and thus justifies another, longer block), as well as edit warring since you're still at it.
If you're willing to self-revert your last edits to the page to show good faith and promise to seek dispute resolution in order to gain actual consensus for your edits, we can write this off as a newbie mistake and consider this a stern warning (since you seem unaware of our policies and guidelines). However, continued edit warring, including the use of meatpuppets to advance your point of view, will result in blocking of both you and your meatpuppets. --slakrtalk / 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Slakr here. If Veecort understands and agrees to revert and play by the rules from now on, we'll just call it a day. If not, everybody's been warned and the next step is a block. Dayewalker (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend Veecort's claims of innocence in regards to sockpuppeteering not be taken without his ongoing Checkuser request being cleared. Let's remember that he has admitted that the IP range starting with 151 is him, both it and one of the other two originate from Pennsylvania, and the third is either from Pennsylvania or Phoenix, AZ. Three different IP addresses all from the same state hitting the same article holding the same POV and using the same gramatical syntax does not exactly score well on the duck test. McJeff (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that one sentence. I don't know what it means for my "ongoing Checkuser request [to be] cleared." But I don't like the sound of it, so I thought I should tell you that I don't know what that means. I don't really know what an IP range is in the sense that I can admit to being one. And maybe it is just a matter of semantics as in the meat puppets for all intents and purposes are me. Again. I do not have a single sock puppet. Believe me; I wish I wasn't Veecort right now.
I admitted to recruiting meat puppets. More specifically, I went to an online anti-ITT Tech community and flat out told them to be my meat puppets. I just now edited my posts in said community so that they are not calling for meat puppetry or even mention Wikipedia. Not that it is proof of anything but these are the threads I used. Here and here. My moniker there is SheepToTheFleecing. Veecort (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Please note this personal attack laden edit by confirmed meatpuppet 70.190. As the post contains a lie about my block log and a ludicrous Hitler comparison, I would somewhat appreciate it if an administrator removed it. McJeff (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
What does "confirmed meatpuppet" even mean? You took two editors who are editing toward the same purpose and confirmed that they're editing toward the same purpose? That's an unnecessarily loaded phrase. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I believe McJeff is using the phrase because Veecort has admitted to canvassing for assistance on this article off wiki, as shown on his comments above [32] (and also his apology for doing so). However, the two editors seem to be getting along better now [33] and trying to seek consensus on the talk page, so I don't think admin attention is needed here. Dayewalker (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

since veecort has admitted to his wrongdoing, i think he should be given a second chance to make amends by editing better. i also have more to say, except mcjeff keeps removing my comments from this ANI as "harassment and personal attacks". Theserialcomma (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Mass Delete images?[edit]

Any admin want to delete all of the images uploaded by a spammer? There is a huge list and I can't delete them..and really marking all of them will take too long. They are all redudant images whose purposes are to advertise for a company Peterson_tractor which was deleted under G11. They are all missing the proper copyright and fairuse tags. Rgoodermote  02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that. I was about to get to it myself. Plesant surprise! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 02:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, always a pleasure to delete spam.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Now I know who to come to for a mass delete of spam. Happy editing and enjoy your lives. Rgoodermote  05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you all take a look at this Is it the same person? Theresa Knott | token threats 06:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Damnit..yes..that would be the same person. Rgoodermote  08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll report them for suckpuppeting and block evasion. However, I doubt we will see a very fast block at this time of night. Rgoodermote  08:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Theresa is an admin..she could just block them..--Crossmr (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
XD;; I failed to check...lack of sleep.Then Theresa can handle this if she wants..But in case I will leave the SSP up.Rgoodermote  08:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Xgmx at it again[edit]

More obvious socks of Xgmx (talk · contribs) adding spam links to xgmx.net.tc and igtour.pro.tc [34], [35], [36], and [37] (not to mention more obvious socking from the serial spammer in the recently-updated Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xgmx (2nd)). I'm sure the SSP case will take care of itself as the activity is clear, but I would also request that the two IPs also be blacklisted to possibly prevent further external-link spamming. MuZemike (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the huge catalog of spam in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive416#User talk:Xgmx, which is linked from the first SSP, it looks like we should routinely place these new domains on the spam blacklist. The IPs used this time are so dynamic I'm not sure anything but a rangeblock would make a dent. Blacklisting could be the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think, either; that's why a rangeblock wouldn't do any good. But if the main purpose is to spam certain domain addresses, then it seems that blacklisting the addresses would be more feasible. Based on experience, it's harder to come up with additional domains than additional Wikipedia (or YouTube, take your pick) accounts. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Network"[edit]

User:Horologium suggested I come here to report a constant issue him and I have been working on. There are a group of IPs from around the country attacking Camden, New Jersey and any related pages (so far, Delaware River, Cooper River (New Jersey), and Benjamin Franklin Bridge (the former 3 of which have been semi-protected for 3 months, while the latter has just started to see activity) called "The Network," a group of Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity members determined, in their own words, to publish "certain facts" about Camden (this page has also been semi-protected for 3 months). See some examples (though, definitely not limited to just these) from Camden (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and the first that I could find), Cooper River (1, 2, and 3), Delaware River (1, 2, and earliest instance), and Ben Franklin Bridge, with Camden being attacked for the longest period of time (since at least April).

They constantly use Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg as their calling card (trying to suggest that Camden appears to be like San Francisco after the 1906 earthquake) and use different IPs from around the country, anywhere from California to Maryland, Minnesota to Texas, and even as far away as Canada and the UK, so warning/blocking IPs doesn't work; it only encourages them more. They even tried (unsuccessfully) to impersonate me with User:EaglesFunInTampa; Horologium caught that right away, however, and I'm in the process of making doppelgangers to prevent that from happening again.

I'm not sure if anything can be done (without infringing on WP:Five pillars, I doubt it), but it's a good idea to get everyone on the same page to keep an eye out, should something ever arise again. If you need more information, please feel free to look at User talk:Horologium for our side of it or just ask me. Does anyone know what I can do to help prevent this in the future? EaglesFanInTampa 14:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a rather beaten-to-death practical joke of some kind. One could do the same thing for East St. Louis, or Gary, or any city just across New York to the west. Or Oakland, even. Any lesser city in the shadow of a big city, both geographically and economically. Semi-protection should simmer it down a bit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to add Image:Post-and-Grant-Avenue.-Look.jpg to the bad image list, as is done with all of the lovely penis pics that have been uploaded to commons? Since they seem to have a hard-on for this picture (wordplay intentional), limiting it only to appropriate articles might slow them down. I don't know the procedure/policy for this, and it's an odd case, since the picture doesn't fit the usual profile of restricted images. Horologium (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I did that once with images used by the former socker Mmbabies (who enjoyed using the Maniac Mansion box art in multiple articles), but got my hand slapped for it saying it wasn't an image that needed protection like the usual sexual pictures on that list. We might have to check to see if it was OK. Nate (chatter) 07:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The right response to a criticism like that would be, "OK, how would you handle it?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs)[edit]

I don't think this editor understands how to contribute to this project. Despite being blocked numerous times for essentially the same things, he choose to harass me with this obviously uncivil 3RR report where I was not in technical or other violation as commented by the admin who reviewed it. The only reason GdB made the report was because his article was being edited. This kind of behavior has got to stop if we are to have an academic atmosphere of writing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You reverted a large number of edits by several users, including ten by me, well within 24 hours, without any explanation or attempt to discuss. Enough said; I'd appreciate a review of user's editing behaviour. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe Guido could show good faith by striking his second frivolous 3RR report here, or at least correcting it so it shows evidence of over 3 reverts to the same article in 24hrs. Verbal chat 16:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that instead something is done about the editwarring, and that constructive editing gets appreciated more. But perhaps that is too much to ask; I've never found this page very stimulating. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
...and the main issue is dodged again. Hypocrisy at its finest. Tan | 39 16:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In light of Guido's response I feel some action should be taken due to the frivolous reports and harassment of editors. Verbal chat 17:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Do none of you ever read any policies?
For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages... (WP:EDITWAR) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You've yet to show edit warring on any of those pages. Verbal chat 17:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I had provided the diffs, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll reply on the 3RR page. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Going back to the original point, I feel action should be taken for the reasons outlined by OM. Verbal chat 18:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've warned G William M. Connolley (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, warnings are always appreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is abusive, especially for an editor that just completed a one-month block for a variety of negative activities. Again, can someone explain why GdB is allowed to treat fellow editors in this manner? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Guido den Broeder has filed two frivolous reports in less than 24 hours, I have imposed the following conditions on his editing WP:AN/EW. He is barred from editing AN/EW unless one of the following conditions apply:

  1. He is reporting a clear and unambiguous violations of the three-revert rule. At least four reverts must have been made to the same page, by the same editor, in a period of less than 24 hours.
  2. He may make a response in any thread on that page which directly refers to him or his edits.

These restrictions will last for approximately two months, until midnight on 31 January 2009 (UTC). I feel that these restrictions will limit the disruptive filings of frivolous or vexations reports, but will still allow Guido den Broeder to report on genuine, serious problems. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Since I have done nothing of the kind, I do not accept this ruling (by which you overturn another admin's decision, btw). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
How many blatant mis-understandings of policy exactly do we have to put up with? This is what, the fourth, perhaps fifth time Guido has shown up as a title on ANI, plus an RFC and multiple blocks with no change in behaviour? Does WP:UCS apply to bans as well? Guido is not contributing fruitfully to the project - for every debatably useful edit, there's three days worth of talk page time wasting and bickering. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 02:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the details of GdB's editing history. If additional sanctions might be appropriate, other admins can feel free. My remedy here is solely intended to end the disruption at AN/EW, and does not address article-space conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, his block log tells some of the story, although it barely hints at the level of drama. Note that he just came off a 1-month progressive block for incivility and edit-warring on Nov 23. The block log also doesn't show the lengthy list of sanctions he received on nl.wikipedia before coming here. looie496 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Judge him on what he does here, not on any history on another Wikipedia language. Fram (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
And we are. He recently had a one-month block on this wikipedia.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not happy, every time I come back after few hours there is a new complaint from Guido. Like these two consecutive addings at 3RR notice-board, Guido says people that oppose him do not know policy and WP is weak, and then sheesh I really don't believe it but he says I edit warred a sixth time after all these people try explain him what edit warring is. Guido i think is saying, edit warring is when any body beside him makes more then three edits in all of Wikipedia in a day!! I never reverted more then once on any article, I always explained my edits. I am very tired, being accused of stalking and 3RR and the rest. There's these guidelines MEDMOS and MEDRS, I am sorry i will follow those. Guido disagrees about the guidelines, he has edit warred, real edit wars, to try and change them but he could not. I think w/ his COI as a major activist and w/ his intransigent attitude to WP policy and guidelines it is an idea having a CFS topic ban where he can edit talk pages only is that possible or to harsh or should he have more warnings, just a suggestion. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 08:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I support TenOfAllTrades' ban on dubious or unclear AN/EW postings by GdB. Although that ban isn't accepted voluntarily by GdB, it still may be enforced with blocking, if any further disruption occurs within that period. Perhaps that is the best way to leave this matter, for now. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 71.35.158.93[edit]

I am requesting a ban or at least a warning for 71.35.158.93. His first edit was a questionable edit to a talk page, and since then all of his edits have been talk page vandalism. Cerebellum (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited after a warning, and that was six hours ago. The IP may well be reassigned to another user so there's little point blocking at present. In future, reporting to WP:AIV will get a faster response. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That certainly seems irregular and inappopriate, although as it's now stopped, I don't know that a block is justified just now. A mass undo might be called for though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC).
I'm happy to go through and undo the edits in question. Would that be appropriate? Cerebellum (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

COI and incivility on Scientology[edit]

Resolved: Topic is under ArbCom general sanctions. Referred to WP:AE. DurovaCharge! 18:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Closing, as discussion has moved to proper venue, per Durova. To continue, please see here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shutterbug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term single-purpose account that edits solely at articles concerning Scientology, previously under the name User:COFS, which is an acronym for Church of Scientology. Shutterbug openly admits to one conflict-of-interest, to his/her benefit, as a Scientologist.

However, after a long period of inactivity, Shutterbug has begun editing in the Scientology article again, as well as several sub-articles. In the discussions that have followed, an old ArbCom case involving Shutterbug has been brought up. The ArbCom case ended with some minor temporary topic bans and blocks, but little else. Part of the reasoning that lead to this result was that Shutterbug (or COFS, at the time) claimed a particular Church of Scientology-owned IP address he/she had edited from, 205.227.165.244, including this accidental edit, was a proxy used by various hotels and such. Shutterbug recently reiterated the claim here. During the ArbCom, this claim was apparently given the benefit of the doubt, as a checkuser revealed that several similar single-purpose accounts had all edited from the same address and other Church-related address ranges. The users in question were:

I haven't been able to figure out why this proxy claim was given credence, as I can't see any particular evidence one way or the other in the ArbCom, and the single-purpose editing definitely lends itself to an appearance of conflicts-of-interest, if not sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry. But until recently, I was happy to let the decision stand; I wasn't even involved in the ArbCom, and was inclined to defer to the administrators in that case.

I now think the decision was a mistake. This user, these accounts, and every IP address previously confirmed by checkuser as being associated with these accounts has been used overwhelmingly in Scientology-related edits and minimally in anything else. Were these IP addresses those of hotel proxies and the like, one would expect a host of non-Scientology related edits, but per these Wikiscanner results, there are few if any to be found.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary aside from Shutterbug's word, the bulk of the user's edits come from official Church of Scientology-owned machines, and the claim of an IP proxy used by "hundreds if not thousands" is implausible. Had these accounts and these IP addresses not edited so single-mindedly in Scientology-related articles, it would perhaps be more plausible, but as is, the evidence is pretty compelling that Shutterbug -- as well as the other accounts -- have conflicts-of interest affecting their abilities to edit neutrally, or at the very least the appearance thereof.

There is also an issue of incivility. In this edit, I decried the sudden battling over the article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular inappropriate edit performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said "Let's talk and no personal attacks, please." As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to retract it, and asked again on the user's talk page. The response speaks for itself.

My thoughts at this point, unless I've missed something that completely negates my COI concerns, is that Church of Scientology IP addresses simply shouldn't be used to edit Scientology-related articles, and accounts associated with those IP addresses should be topic-banned as probable WP:ROLE accounts. --GoodDamon 09:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a short-term topicban would illustrate whether or not this is an SPA. Ask the user to stay away from any content related to COS for a month, and see what they do. If they do it and contribute elsewhere, excellent. If not, obviously we are dealing with someone inserting biased info, and should be dealt with accordingly. Thoughts? //roux   09:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
My only problem with that is that if the user reads what you have just said, they have a clear way to 'prove' their innocence and continue however after. neuro(talk) 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Good point.. so... how about an indef topicban from COS articles until a couple of admins (to be named) agree that this isn't an SPA, topic ban to be at least a month? //roux   14:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
See the ArbCom results I mentioned. This has already been tried. Shutterbug was topic-banned October 2nd, 2007 for one month. During that month, Shutterbug did not contribute to a single article. Shutterbug did, however, contribute to a few incident reports and checkusers associated with other users who edit in the same area of interest. So he/she was actively involved in the encyclopedia for that month, but not in any content capacity. --GoodDamon 15:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Justanother (Justallofthem)[edit]

As a party to the original arbitration, I think that is is appropriate that I comment here. As much as I respect GoodDamon, he seems to be trying to reopen an arbitration in the improper forum for such an effort. The arbitrators were well aware of Shutterbug's POV and history of editing from a CofS-owned proxy server and made no remedy that restricted her editing. If GoodDamon thinks that they did not make the correct decision then he should present his evidence to the arbitrators and ask that they reopen the case, not make his case here. The other point GoodDamon brings up in incivility. Incivility is a much-disputed issue but if Shutterbug was uncivil then perhaps she deserves a warning though I see little in the way of objectionable incivility in the diffs provided. However, I cannot stress enough that GoodDamon should move his doubts about the arb outcome to the arb page. --Justallofthem (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe the ArbCom is actually the correct forum anymore. When there is ample evidence of a serious WP:COI, and the only credible counter-argument -- upon which the ArbCom result was largely based -- turns out to be rather incredible, it ceases to be a content dispute, and content dispute resolution mechanisms are no longer the appropriate venue for dealing with it. Believe me, I thought long and hard about this, and coming to the decision to file this as an incident report was not easy. But this is the proper venue for it. Shutterbug and several older accounts edit from Church-owned IP addresses, and those addresses produce, almost without exception, content in Church-related articles. The proxy argument does not hold up, so we can only conclude that what we see with our eyes is in fact what's there, a conflict of interest.
Note I do not propose banning the accounts in question outright. But I seriously doubt they will choose to edit in other areas. They are well-established as single-purpose accounts. A single-purpose account editing with a conflict of interest is not appropriate for Wikipedia. --GoodDamon 16:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

  • Cirt, as an anti-Scientologist with a long history of highly POV edits under your current and previous accounts, don't you think that you would be doing yourself as an admin and the project a service by recusing yourself here instead of leading the charge? (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt for material relevant to my point)--