Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Blatant case of administrator abuse[edit]

Resolved: Unprotected, both editors warned. Kwami should not have protected the page, and would do well not to repeat that stunt. Little point in blocking either or both when edit-war finished 5 hours ago.
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I'm currently involved in the most absurd content dispute with another editor (User:Kwamikagami) over at the Swahili language page. It turns out that the other editor is an adminstrator. I found this out when he locked the page in his preferred version -- a clear case of administrator abuse:

"Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

I've quoted for the offending administrator the same passage above from WP:ADMIN, and told him to unlock the page. However, he insists on keeping it locked in his preferred version. Can an uninvolved adminstrator who does actually respect Wikipedia's policies and doesn't abuse his or her own administrator privileges unlock the page and at the very least have a word with this administrator? Thank you in advance. Middayexpress (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the diffs on the article. It's very clearly a content dispute. No vandalism and no need for protection. The admin who protected it, Kwamikagami, is involved in the content dispute. Seems like ultra bad judgement on the part of Kwamikagami. Bstone (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Bstone for your feedback. That's just what I'd thought. Are you by any chance an administrator yourself? If so, in your experience, how does one go about dealing with such cases? Does the administrator get a warning of some kind or something else maybe? Middayexpress (talk) 08:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with this assessment, this is very poor judgment and he needs to explain it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This is precisely the kind of incident that should be taken to AdminWatch, but unfortunately it won't be launched for a few weeks. Are you interested in filing a notification? If so, please let me know and I'll think about how to use this as the first case. It's important that we start keeping records of regrettable behaviour such as this. Tony (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I placed the article under protection for 24 hrs to give Middayexpress a chance to provide some references for his repeated deletion of information from the article, and ones related to it. I think it's entirely appropriate to ask someone to provide evidence before blanking information that is readily supportable by numerous sources. He should at least use a [citation needed] tag. I'm not the only editor who disagrees with him; one of the others accused him of "acting like a child". There are multiple reliable sources as late as 2007 (such as Derek Nurse, a respected Africanist working on comparative Bantu) stating that Swahili is spoken in Somalia. It is entirely possible that they have all fled the country, and if they have, so be it, but Middayexpress has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever for this. He's simply going by the fact that the CIA doesn't specifically mention Swahili; if you look at their language coverage, you'll see it's very spotty, and in general they only mention the major languages of a country. (There are, of course, other languages in Somalia, such as Oromo, which Middayexpress is evidently also denying because they're not mentioned by the CIA.) If you look at Japan, for example, the only language listed is "Japanese". One can hardly infer from that that Ainu and Okinawan are extinct, or that ethnic Koreans and Chinese speak only Japanese; similarly, you cannot infer from the limited coverage under 'France' that Tahitian and all the Amerindian languages of French Guiana are extinct. Negative evidence is not a valid argument. kwami (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

First, note that you also violated WP:3RR on that page. Second, your explanation above doesn't explain in any way why you don't think the protection policy applies in this case. Your conduct has not been good, here; I recommend that you at least acknowledge that. That said, Bstone, please don't template the regulars, as you did here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Please unprotect the page yourself, immediately. Regardless of who is correct, this is still a content dispute. I'm still looking at whether any other action needs to be taken regarding 3RR. Black Kite 09:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't endorse unprotecting the page; while protecting it was a clear violation of policy, it's unquestionable that there was an edit war going on, and if I'd come across the page at WP:RFPP I'd have protected. Unprotecting because it was gamed by the protecting admin isn't going to solve anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it should be an uninvolved admin who does it. Or it should just be "I'm unlocking this, but one more blind revert from either of you and the banhammer comes out". Black Kite 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course it should be an uninvolved admin. But would anything really be gained if I headed over there and unprotected it with a rationale of "improper protection", and then reprotected with the rationale "edit war"? Your second solution works for me, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been bold and implemented that measure. Both editors informed. Black Kite 09:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds eminently fair. Black Kite, if there are any further problems, I'll come to you. Hopefully we can resolve this on the talk page. kwami (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
As expected, Kwamikagami is not telling the truth. The truth is that there was already a discussion going on my talk page on well before he ever took it upon himself to lock the Swahili language article in his preferred version. Instead of pursuing said discussion, Kwamikagami did exactly as I explained above and the uninvolved editors Bstone, Crossmr, Tony1, and Sarcasticidealist have all correctly deduced. Coincidence? I think not. If there's any doubt, please follow the links to said discussion and the article's history page and compare the time stamps to see that this is indeed the case. I have to agree with Tony1 especially given Kwamikagami's unrepentant attitude that an AdminWatch notification is definitely in order. Middayexpress (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There are only two editors involved, both have exceeded 3RR and are well aware that they are being watched now. I doubt either of them are going to do anything silly like continue the edit-war. I've left a note for requesting that user:Middayexpress confirms that they wont edit this part of the article for 24hrs. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (but it looks like BlackKite has gone and done it...which is good)
Would y'all mind keeping an eye on Barawa and Bravanese people, which are under related edit wars? kwami (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Black Kite shows again how skilled he is at dealing with such situations, and he knows I have great respect for his work. However, his very skill at stepping in and righting the wrong after the fact has swept under the carpet an issue that I suspect the complainant feels is anything but "Resolved" (the word that neatly adorns the top of this section). I have a fear that nothing has been learnt or acknowledged. Let me say now that I see on Kwami's talk page evidence of knowledge that is valuable to the project, and that he may be right in a content sense (I'm not going there—it's irrelevant). I also need to declare that my comments here have probably disqualified me from managing the case at AdminWatch, which itself has rules governing conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion trouble[edit]

It's not a bug it's a feature ^^. Selecting nothing has the same behavior than selecting everything there (or you wouldn't click Undelete in the first place). On big undeletions, note that the system is a bit slow sometimes and the restored revisions can take a while to show up again. It seems everything is OK now (I see no deleted revisions). -- lucasbfr talk 12:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Attempted outing By User:Bali ultimate[edit]

Bali ultimate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Evidence is here.[1]. I would reccomend a block of 24 hours with the understanding that this is never acceptable regardless of disagreements with editors over sources or content disputes.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a notice to assume good faith. --wL<speak·check> 04:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
While outing is never appropriate, we're not a promotional site. The majority of user:Syntacticus's edits have been adding citations or external links to reports written by one person. There is evidence that he has used an IP owned by that person's employer. If the user would stop being so single-minded about promoting that person then the concerns over his possible conflict of interest would be lessened. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
This user has a history of such like behaviour. He accused me several times wof being a sock of Brian of Palatine. There should not be two standards here, one for users whom we find annoyiing and distasteful and others whom we agree with . There should be something more than a warning to assume good faith . Speculation as to who a user might be is verboten and this user (Bali ultimate) should be sanctioned with more than a" please assume good faith". There are people here who I have deduced who they are in real life and i disagree with them on issues. If I speculate on who they are or ask them if they are who i believe they are on the talk page, will you both just tell me to assume good faith ? If so, I can't wait to get started as I believe that it will prove embarraessing for the two individuuals.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually ,this behaviour is harrassment and covered under WP:OUTING. Bali nominated an article for deletion of this user too, a harrassment. Let's try to be fair here, no matter how you feel about Syntacticus.Die4Dixie (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. "Outing" is revealing a person's real-world identity against their wishes, if not already disclosed on Wikipedia. Accusing one account of being a WP:SOCK of another and requesting an WP:RfCU accordingly, if sincere (i.e. done in good faith) is done all the time and is a legitimate part of running the encyclopedia. It is a suspicion of bad faith, not an assumption of bad faith. If you look at the "Fru23" thread currently on this page you will see a case of dozens of accounts found to be sockpuppets of a single editor gaming the system. At least three large sock families of various levels of sophistication were editing the article in question, ACORN, so it is a legitimate concern. Bali Ultimate is indeed one of the more aggressive editors around here doing what I call "troll patrol" - guarding against vandals, socks, trolls, POV pushers, etc. I have not looked in enough detail to see if he took that too far, but in principle there is nothing wrong with doing this. Legitimate concerns have been raised by longstanding editors as to whether Syntacticus is a sockpuppet / COI editor on articles relating to an organization on whose IP he is editing, and there is an active RfCU on that. Frankly, that CU ought to be performed sooner rather than later. If he is a sock it is a major breach; if not we should clear him as soon as possible and be done with all this drama. Die4Dixie seems to have taken him under his wing and is giving good and patient counsel on how to avoid all this trouble in the future... so the sooner we can put this all to rest the better. Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
the link is above in the complaint. Alledging a COI is OK. Asking him if he is Vadum, and saying that he believes that he is Vadum, is a clear breach of WP:OUTING, especially if it is not on the check user forum. I agree, do a check user, but speculating about the real world identity of this user is no good.(funny, the idea of me taking someone under my wing!)Die4Dixie (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see. I had assumed Vadum was the name of an account but I see that's the real-life name of one of the CRC editors and former fellows. Although if true this is a significant COI and a considerable ruse by the editor, it is also true that anybody is free to edit the encyclopedia if they want, without threat of outing, and people of all persuasions and occupations are free to check their COI at the door and enjoy the exercise. We should probably wait for some input from administrators familiar with this policy and its applications but it does seem quite wrong to name names like this unless it's known. A WP:TROUT seems appropriate at the very least - blocking is to prevent disruption and would only be appropriate if this continues or becomes a pattern after admonishment to stop. But the more serious issue is that attempted outings ought to be contained - at the very least deleting the offending comment, probably deleting this discussion, and conceivably, redacting the edit histories if that can be done so that the outing is undone.... Whether and how to do that is way over my head. Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What threat of outing? What outing? I asked what i thought was a reasonable question. Dixies claims of my "repeatedly" doing this or that are false. I guess we're done here, at any rate. I'll try to ignore syntacticus one way or the other.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your continued denial shows a lack of contrition, and editors like yourself are bad for this project. Hopefully an admin. who is willing to use the tools will come along before you are able to do any more damage. If you still cannot understand why your questions were not what you thought to be " a reasonable question" then you really don't belong editing until you do for the good of the project. IF after three admins have told you why you cannot engage in this puerile behaviour, then you are either a WP: DICK or WP:DENSE. What ever the case, your personal problem with this editor has gone beyond appropriate. You should find some other topics and leave syntacticus alone.Die4Dixie (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Outing is unacceptable in any circumstance, and irregardless of a possible conflict of interest. Bali ultimate: anonymity is one of the foundations of Wikipedia, and asking a user if he is person so and so is not a a reasonable question. So don't. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of banned editor PoliticianTexas, namely TeranceRamirez[edit]

Resolved

Blocked user. Orderinchaos 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is very likely a sockpuppet of community-banned user PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Evidence:

How about a block of TeranceRamirez (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked contribs, seems to be a lot of promotional stuff. The articles being edited are same content area and same or similar way to previous user. Have reversed all edits but for a couple which were minorly helpful, and blocked. If an unblock admin considers there is sufficient evidence that this person is not the banned user's latest incarnation, I have no objection to this being reversed. Orderinchaos 15:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Adminwatch?[edit]

Unresolved: Please take this elsewhere. See my comments below. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Desperate.[edit]

Sprogeeet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) please can someone have a look? Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :Possible sock or meat puppet of Putney Bridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocked Sprogeeet for blatant 3RR. Inferno and Duncan seemed to be good-faithedly reverting vandalism (or at least believing they were doing so), so I ignored their edits. --Smashvilletalk 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
And yes, I made up a word - "faithedly". --Smashvilletalk 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Hey Mr. Foxworthy, have you ever done fool 'round on yer wife??" "No, I done always acted faithedly!" BMWΔ 12:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Who says wikipedia doesn't originate information? OK, "faithedly" would be the adverb form. I wonder about the noun form. Maybe "faithiness"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Gogo, create faithiness before someone else does. We already have truthiness anyway :p -- lucasbfr talk 10:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
And to think that's a featured article :) VX!~~~ 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

LNER Peppercorn Class A1 Edit war[edit]

This article is a battleground between three editors - Biscuittin, MickMacNee and Tony May. The case is at informal mediation, and a request for formal mediation was rejected because MickMacNee refused to accept the request.

Issues associated with the edit war include WP:ABF, WP:OWN, possible WP:3RR breaches, and accusations of WP:SOCK without raising a sockpuppet case.

As a result of a discussion on WT:UKRAIL, I looked over the article. I downgraded it from B to C class and gave an assessment of where the article needed working on. I pointed out to all three editors the WP:CON needed to be gained over the main area that they disagree on, and showed an example of how to achieve this. To be honest, Biscuittin has shown the most positive response to my comments, and is working at improving the article. There has been no positive response from the other two editors involved. I did ask an Admin to intervene, but that admin has declined as he feels he is not able to address the issues for personal reasons.

Therefore, I'm bringing this to AN/I for discussion as I am of the opinion the MickMacNee and Tony May are not going to stop shouting at each other and start talking to each other. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved, with Mjroots, in attempting to resolve this informally by asking the involved editors to take a step back and remain civil, so far without result. I have also raised the discussion at two project talk pages in an attempt to bring neutral editors into the discussion. I support the statement above by Mjroots and believe the situation requires intervention from an administrator. ColourSarge (talk) 08:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This is about as lame as it gets. Seasoned edit-warrior MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (impressive block log) insists on including the text "50th A1" in the header to the section on Tornado, the 21st Century reproduction. He does this against clear consensus, and says that to have a section title that does not include this disputed claim is "POV" [2]. It's Mick against all comers, and I suggest that if he repeats this edit then he should be blocked for edit warring and being a tit. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "admin ... not able to address the issues for personal reasons" should really read, "admin who is unable to resolve disputes between himself and others in real life, and who has no business trying to sort out disputes between other editors on Wikipedia." And that's putting things very, very mildly considering recent events. If I phrased the situation accurately without sugar-coating it, I'd be given several WP:NPA warnings, even if I'm only talking about myself.
Getting back to the conduct of editors on this article, the edit warring is continuing with no attempt to resolve the situation. I'm starting to think that the article should be protected (even at The Wrong Version) until some consensus is made, but that may not be the best solution. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am at the end of my tether with this one - all I can do is appeal for calm, and this is falling on deaf ears with reverting left right and centre. It seems the discussion on the talk page is no longer about whether or not Tornado is the 50th or not, but into a "he said she said" kind of debate where users are stuck on their being "right" rather than what is best for the article. I urge an administrator to look at the debate and take some form of decisive action soon.ColourSarge (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy has totally screwed this one up. His definition of consensus appears to have been, go with the person who is reverting the least. He has totally ignored the talk page comments of others that went against the other parties, but they were not reverting so they don't appear to have been counted in his assesment, leaving me to be painted as the lone crazy here (discussion of the issue currently spans that entire article talk page, two mediation pages, an EA filing, a 3RR report, and two rail related project talk pages), which is annoying when both of the others do not even understand some wikipedia basics. Given his comments in here I have absolute no doubt that Guy did not even attampt to review those discussions to see who (outside editors) thought what. He has achieved what was wanted, that is that a minority of three editors (including one obvious meat puppet), wished to have their personal opinion of the subject ranked equal to sources. The crux of the issue: Not a single source has been provided that states that Tornado is not the 50th A1. The header stated: Tornado - 50th A1. Now, there was scope for discussion about RS etc, but this was not possible while two of the three parties were not willing to properly frame their arguments in policy, or even abide by the most basic standards such as WP:TALK. Most recently, Tony May dissappeared while I outlined what he had to do to justify his edits, and he merely reappeared to continue reverting, and in response to the last three outside opinions effectively replied I see what you're saying but I'm still right. All the more galling when he started the whole thing by gaming 3RR and reverting sourced additions as "vandalism reverts". Biscuittin went on to work on a totally different part of the article and somehow then got credit for being the most constructive recent participant. (To emphaises the problem, he has now stated he is leaving the dispute to move onto other articles as he has got what he wanted - his opinion counted equal with sources). And I am left hanging with Guy expecting me to prove I had consensus? Given the recent Cold Fusion case regarding NPOV, sources, and not letting editors add any old personal view into articles, this was a shocking act by Guy. To top it off he has basically continually insulted me in the process (while having the brass neck to criticise my block log). MickMacNee (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In reply to MickMacNee, I'd like to say that this concerns all three of you. As I stated in the opening post, Biscuittin has shown some positive response to my comments. However, that does not mean that his past editing history of the article will be overlooked. This case is about all three of you. I brought it here so that people who are more experienced than I am, and better able to deal with the situation than I can, have a chance to review the history of the article and take whatever action is deemed necessary to enable us to build a better encyclopedia - which should be the reason we are on Wikipedia in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Reading the various pages, I can understand MickMacNee's frustration, although quite frankly none of the three named editors come out of this looking good. However, the article is now locked down, disruption can't continue, and I suggest we pragmatically draw a line under the nonsense that's been going on.
Regarding the article content, ANI isn't really the place for discussing that. However, the only way to go has to be to stick to what can be reliably sourced. If the apparent naming controversy can be sourced too, including it in the article might be one way to get both viewpoints across. I notice User:Morven has made some very sensible suggestions on the talk page, and I'd strongly encourage the article editors to engage with these. EyeSerenetalk 09:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia's administrators should not escape criticism either because they acted so slowly. If the article had been locked at an earlier stage then much of the edit warring (in which I took no part) would have been prevented. Biscuittin (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Now THIS is the biggest load I have seen shoveled in a long time. Admins cannot watch every page at the same time. Unless someone does an RFPP (and even that has a delay), do not blame admins for your edit-warring or other actions. BMWΔ 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I made a request for mediation on 5 December 2008. At that stage there had already been a good deal of edit warring so I think the article should have been locked immediately. Wikipedia's inability to deal with disputes quickly is a serious handicap which could harm its reputation. Administrators should think about this and try to improve it, not just blame me for pointing it out. Biscuittin (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not blaming any administrator personally. I am just pointing out that Wikipedia's mediation process is not "fit for purpose" and needs to be overhauled. If something like this happens again I shall not seek mediation. I shall, instead, try to get the warring editors (on both sides) banned immediately. Biscuittin (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Mediation is an informal, good-faith based process, and not always suitable for resolving a hot edit-war. For future reference, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP, report on-going edit warring and three revert rule violations at WP:AN3, or there's always this noticeboard. No-one's blaming you for pointing out the disruption, but in the interests of fairness we're bound to look at everyone involved. I agree that this should have been stopped some time ago, but unless you bring it up in the right places it won't get the proper attention. I hope you don't mind me saying that you can't blame admins, or the system, for your oversight ;) EyeSerenetalk 19:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Your points noted. Biscuittin (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


MickMacNee has, I think, shown exactly why his editing is a problem. It is pointless to assert that no sources have been provided which show that this is not the 50th in the class, since the claim that it is 50th in the class is plainly contentious and can be covered perfectly acceptably without implying its truth or falsehood by the simple and tested means of attribution. He wishes to assert the truth of what he believes and not recognise the validity of any dispute or the confusion which it might cause the reader.
The trust which built the loco intend it to be the 50th in the class, but in reality there is no active production of this class, it is a one-off reproduction just as the reproduction Tiger Moth aircraft are reproductions not part of the production run. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that enthusiasts intended it as the 50th in the class (probably noting in passing that they also say it is an evolution of the class to fix some of the original's problems, which rather undermines their point), but for Wikipedia to state that it is the 50th in the class opens the door to a load of issues. The infobox, for example, states that the Peppercorn A1 was manufactured 1948 - 1949 and 2008. Really? Is it really the case that there was a production run of one? Or is that a project not a production run? As far as I know, nothing survived from the original production run to the new one. Location, jigs, tooling, people, all were different. Even the drawings were amended, with major and minor changes to the design both to fix running problems and to comply with changed regulations. The debate about how true it is to type can go on for ever in the ouitside world, but for Wikipedia it's much better to step away from the assertions of steam fans (among which I include myself) and apply the usual Wikipedia fudge. It was a class of 49 locomotives built 1948-1949, with a new example intended as the 50th in class, built by enthusiasts in 2008. A truly remarkable achievement, but not in any way a resumption of production of this or any other main line steam locomotive, and it should not be represented as such. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Commonsense prevails. At at last, Wikipedia is asserting its right to be authoritative and factual and NOT be swayed by political correctness, marketting hype or just pandering to egotists. All hail JzG for his astute reading of this situation. Bhtpbank (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Death threat on Isopropyl alcohol[edit]

Resolved

Reported to the town police and report has been generated. Bstone (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

User 74.179.30.67 made the following addition to Isopropyl alcohol "HI MR REVEALS 8TH GRADE IPS CLASS. I AM GOING TO KILL MR REVEAL BECAUSE HE IS A BIG FAT PAIN THE THE YOU KNOW WHAT, AND 7 DAYS TO DO SLUDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE! I AM GOING TO FLICK OFF THE HOMO THE NEXT TIME I SEE HIM". A threat..yes, credible...??. Silverchemist (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am looking into this. Bstone (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Threat, yes. Credible, probably not. Contact the school and have administration put the fear of God into whatever kid posted that. Probably will need a Checkuser to narrow down the specific computer used, if that's even technically possible. // roux   18:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am on the phone with one of their school admins, trying to find out if there is a teacher at the Indianapolis Public Schools by this name. The IP seems to be coming from Atlanta, GA, but google is not revealing IPS as a school system in Atlanta. Additional help would be useful. Bstone (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No teacher by the name of Reveals at the Indianapolis Public School system. Looking at Georgia. If you have leads please post them here. Bstone (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I have sent an email to the abuse email for the ISP and included a link to the diff and the IP it came from. I asked them to contact their authorities. Bstone (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The ISP is headquartered in Atlanta, but you are looking in the wrong place. Dnsstuff.com says that the actual user is in Frisco, Texas. --B (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule I don't take anything seriously that is written in CAPS LOCK, but please don't take my advice. Atlanta is Bellsouth HQ, so that means nothing. this link says Frisco, TX, and this one says it's asymmetric DSL. Plus they're probably not at school today. — CharlotteWebb 18:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I am forwarding this to the Frisco, TX authorities. Bstone (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not finding any staff named "Reveal" but there are at least three student with that surname, and at least one of them should be graduated by now. — CharlotteWebb 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have spoken to the Frisco, TX police and spoke to Sgt Fortenberry. Case # 08133204 and they are looking into it. Bstone (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I kind of missed this one, but I'm developing a form letter for these situations, and would always appreciate any help or suggestions you can make regarding it! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that "IPS" in the threatener's message probably represents "Introductory Physical Science". Deor (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ what happened to just blocking trolling IPs? As in WP:DENY? If we're going to call the police for every kid trolling Wikipedia, they will probably need to shut down all their lesser law-enforcing activities. --dab (𒁳) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

169.204.228.230[edit]

See the users history and block log, I looked back till 2007, oct. Only (mostly ordinary) vandalismn without exception. I think its time for very very long block. NobbiP (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked the IP for a year. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Chubby Brother is Back[edit]

A little while The "Chubby Brother" was banned for making disruptive edits to List of Arthur episodes, and some page called The Mystery Chase Kids. And later we determined that "The Chubby Brother" was "Martha Runs The Store". Now i've found an IP who added spec to List of Arthur episodes, and inserted nonsense about The Mystery Chase Kids. I believe this IP is a sock-puppet of "The Chubby Brother". What do you guys think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elbutler (talkcontribs) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That's him, all right. And he's now kindly given us his map coordinates, as well; mighty nice of him, don't you think? Blocked. GJC 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IP proving a point[edit]

Can someone take a look at Landing at Kip's Bay and the recent edits for me? An IP is trying to prove a point by inserting information about how GW was a slaveholder and the British were key in ending slavery. Regardless of the truth, these edits are far beyond the scope of a small battle article like this and it's clear the editor is pushing a personal agenda. I have heavily edited this article in the past, so I feel I might have ownership issues if I don't step back and let you folks take a look. Tan | 39 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, he's created an account to continue inserting his agenda into the article. VX!~~~ 00:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Most likely a sock puppet, but this IP needs to be blocked. Not only is he POV pushing, but he has violated WP:3RR (see here, here, here, and here). I am currently at three reverts and will go no farther; I leave it up to you... VX!~~~ 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I left a note on his talk page recommending that the dispute be taken to the talk page. I emphasized that the 3RR was taken seriously here on WP and that another violation would result in a block. Hopefully he will be dissuaded and decide to discuss his proposed changes on the discussion page. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sockofadix is User:Fadix evading one year block.[edit]

Resolved: blocked

By socks own admission. I've reverted its edits. Someone should block it. By both the sock's comments and Fadix's own comments it wants to be blocked "undefinitely" rather than for a year. So someone should probably just give it what it wants. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How cunning. Blocked. --fvw* 03:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

IP page-blank vandalism at Talk:California University of Pennsylvania[edit]

I am not quite sure if this is appropriate to report to WP:SSP or right to WP:AIV for all of them on this one. A series of IPs — all from Pittsburgh — are continuously engaging in page-blank vandalism on the talk page of California University of Pennsylvania (including calling my vandalism revert vandalism in itself), of which I have just requested semi-protection over at WP:RFPP. The IPs be

in order from earliest to latest. They are all very likely to be the same person doing the same page-blanking. I would say that blocks may be necessary. I report this here since I'm not sure what to do with a person using multiple IPs without a registered user involved in any of it. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion they're blanking appears to be about 6 months old. Maybe simply archiving it would satisfy them. --OnoremDil 03:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The RFPP was declined due to lack of recent vandalism (despite the last one being two hours ago). MuZemike (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Protection of any sort is not given based on when the last edit was. It is done when there is an acute period of severe vandalism. After I took a look at the history, even I won't semi-protect it. —kurykh 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the word "enough" should have been italicized rather than "recent." Or both. Maybe I didn't quite understand what was meant by "lack of recent disruptive activity." Apologies if I had not. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
(EC)I looked at it and threw it out, it seems to be an instance of non-notable information being inserted by a full wealth of SPAs that just managed to outtalk and wear down other editors who had to fear edit warring. The talk page had a poll on it, for crying out loud. If I'm in error, feel free to revert me. Dayewalker (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill[edit]

Well.. To start off, this user has basically, almost only contributed to the article Troy Davis case, in which he or she has removed large amounts of information, changed things to slant in regards to their POV, and added content in regards to their POV. Did I mention the removed content was sourced?

To clarify, I know that WP:SSP is ---> that way.

Two editors to my knowledge believe that this user is a sockpuppet, I have asked for evidence regarding this sockpuppetry claim, but I have so far gotten no response.

The other user involved is Jatkins. And for ease of evidence gathering, and ability to contact, SelfEvidentTruths's user link.

Please weigh in.— dαlus Contribs 07:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly believe this user is a sockpuppet because he has been vandalizing the Troy Davis case by re-introducing POV-words and phrases that existed in the article before I rewrote the article in an accurate, NPOV-compliant manner, and expanded the article to reflect all that has been going on in this case. In other words, it's a person who was originally behind some of the biased, POV-statements that existed in the article, and then, when the article was cleaned-up and edited and rewritten, he assumed a new identity (with the intent to hide behind sockpuppets), User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill, and reinserted the same phases and statements. He has no other contributions under this name, and it seems this username was invented to delete what other editors have written, and reinsert unsourced, biased statements that he originally wrote in the article (under a different name). User:SelfEvidentTruths (talk - contribs) 15:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
For example, he has reinserted the words "multiple corroborating eyewitnesses" and reinserted that Davis was convicted "on physical evidence" - these are unsourced claims, contradictory to many neutral and legal sources that covered this case (Amnesty Report, Time Magazine report, FBI Director's article, etc.). Because these specific claims (which violate WP policy) existed in the original article, and because he has been reinserting them, time and again, it is highly suspicious, and it seems he created new accounts in order to vandalize the article. User:SelfEvidentTruths (talk - contribs) 15:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Troy Davis, the convicted copkiller who unfortunately is the presently the focus of the article at the expense of the memory of the hero he allegedly smilingly and with deliberation assassinated, is identified [in sources supplied http://www.sundaypaper.com/More/Archives/tabid/98/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2441/Should-Troy-Davis-be-executed.aspx]. Bullets and shells from the shooting of Cooper (who identified Davis, solely, as his assailant) earlier the same day matching and/or not being distinguishable by type from bullets and shells at the murder of Officer MacPhail constitute physical evidence. By all means live in denial about, just don't represent the contrary on behalf of all of us to the public. There were multiple corroborating witnesses at the stage of the police investigation, at trial, and even now. At all occasions, the witnesses that resist definitively fingering Sylvester Coles corroborate those who explicitly finger Davis, in the same fashion that those who finger neither but allege the assailant of Young to be the murderer corroborate those who only finger Davis as Young's assailant. That all being understood and acknowledged as my as my final comment on this distraction, you are invited now to give it up.HonourOfficerMcPhaill (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
(the above statement has been refactored to remove probable WP:BLP violations SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

I guess this answer to the question I asked on HOM's talk page could be taken as more or less worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... single purpose account, nothing but POV-pushing and editorializing, labeling of fair statements on his talk page as "trolling", behavior echoing a similarly-named user... and threatening words at the checkuser request page. So why are you all still messing with this guy? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on his subsequent edits to Arthur C. Clarke and Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein‎ this is (yet another) User:DavidYork71 sock puppet. David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
One point of crossover is the Islam and children article, which York did some work on, and this current apparent-sock merely touched upon, but that's a giveaway as it seems totally out of context of this guy's current rant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone mind if I blocked User:HonourOfficerMcPhaill for block evasion? This seems to sail through the quack test with flying colours. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Lucasbfr has done the deed. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done. I aggree this is most probably DY. I filled a RFCU to see if there are any sleepers. I expect there are (I triggered an autoblock). -- lucasbfr talk 15:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good. Markallenmacphail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) remains unblocked. He had just 2 edits in October, to the Troy Davis article. The dilemma now is what to do about edits he made in his 4 days here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Paranoia[edit]

Well, either I'm just paranoid, or Tuzlar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a brand-new sock. The only edit so far is in defense of the now-blocked sockpuppet, HonourOfficerMcPhaill.— dαlus Contribs 03:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Roughly the same thing as above, Ovalscene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) created an account not but minutes ago, and the only contribution is to revert an article(yes I know it wasn't specifically a revert) back to a version edited by the sockpuppet this entire section is about, (re: HonourOfficerMcPhaill).— dαlus Contribs 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And now 62.99.163.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who reverts to the sockpuppet's version, and takes the side of the vandal on the talk page. I'm going to request an IP check.— dαlus Contribs 09:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

All three of these users have been  Confirmed by a checkuser as in relation to each other. The IP has been blocked for one year as an open proxy.— dαlus Contribs 19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ragusino, part #3[edit]

Hi all, let me draw your attention to the Ragusino problem once more. Namely, despite being indefinitely blocked after two reports, he simply continues to edit articles and engage in revert-wars with several users on Ragusa-related articles. (This has been going on for weeks.) His IPs usually start with 190. and 200. and can be noted from the history pages of affected articles, most of which have become completely unstable due to his vandalism and revert-warring. The articles are in desperate need of long-term semi-protection. These include:

His activities are also almost certainly going to spread to the following articles when the above are protected:

I know its probably a relatively lengthy task, but according to discussions on previous reports he can't be banned, and is more than likely to continue his activities for weeks (and even months). Furthermore, these articles are obscure and are almost never edited by IP users: no damage will be done by semi-protecting them. Quite frankly, I can't imagine any other way to stabilize these articles and put an end to his editing :( Regards --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume range blocks won't work for various reasons? --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The range appears to be too big, according to admin comments in parts #1 and #2 of the saga... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed no-one has dealt with this yet :P I've been through the first list and replied under each entry. For the second list, we can't really protect pre-emptively (frustrating though that is!). If these articles start to suffer too, please re-report (or drop a note on my talk-page, if you prefer). Regards, EyeSerenetalk 13:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP?[edit]

After filing a WP:SSP, I looked to see what the likely backlog is. There are 75 open cases listed, the oldest one going back over a month. I stopped counting unaddressed cases after 20. When I submit evidence to ANI, I'm told to use SSP. An open-ended question, hopefully to prod someone. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I try to get to at least one or two every few days, but I start at the top of the list. There are so many inactive or outdated cases at SSP. seicer | talk | contribs 21:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I share your frustration. What I normally do is locate an admin that has processed a sockpuppet report about the user before, and notify that admin of the report. Since they are familiar with the case, it usually gets handled pretty quickly. If that fails, I just beg an admin that I have a good working relationship with to process it. What's frustrating is that the report rate really isn't very high. If a three admins just processed three reports a day, that backlog would be go away and not come back. It hasn't got anywhere near the traffic of RFPP or AIV.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I'm just not sure if I have a good working relationship with seasoned admins. Either that, or I'm internalizing that I burned my bridges when I had a meltdown a few months ago... Well, I'll just wait and see. If the user I've reported gets too unruly, I'll just post it here and hope for the best. At the moment, it's fairly easy easy to contain, more like a splinter under your fingernails. Although, sometimes it seems like a CU in conjunction with SSP helps, but I might be just woolgathering on that. Sorry for my rambling :) Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP2? D.M.N. (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:SSP2 is the answer to these issues. FT2 along with myself had been working on this, but now in turn need the communities help in making the changes and enacting the merger. (Also see here). Anyone interested in helping with the merger can say so I on the WT:RFCU thread, or send me a email and I would be happy to delegate out some tasks. Tiptoety talk 22:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I always knew I should request Checkuser :-) BMWΔ 22:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing[edit]

Just wondering what would be the suggested course of action. The documentation at Template:Coor_title_d/doc was deleted by Pigsonthewing without much explanation ("emphasise deprecation") while the page itself and the template is kept.

After I restored it with an explicit edit summary, he removed it once more. I was wondering if I should just let him delete my contributions or shall I restore it once more? -- User:Docu

You could always try door number 3 - talking to him about it. I assume his reasoning is something like this: if the template is deprecated and should be replaced by {{coord}} wherever it's used, why do you need instructions on how to use it? So, in this case I think Potw's edit was probably correct, although I am firmly of the school of thought that says civil discussion should not take place through the edit summaries of reverts, even if THEY'RE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you should of discussed it with him first. That said I also agree with his actions; the template is deprecated, so why do we need instructions on how to use it? VX!~~~ 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing as this is another thread on WP:DRAMA regarding Docu and Pigsonthewing clashing over coordinate templates, I assume there will be a sub-thread about Docu's continuing refusal to abide by the community norm of putting a userspace link in his signature in a few minutes ? I'm beginning to think atomic clocks could be set more accurately by tuning to these things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a good reason for making it inconvenient for other users to visit Docu's userpage, talk page, and contribs. I just don't know what it is. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking the same thing. John Reaves 05:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
He doesn't want company. His doorstep has a "NOT WELCOME" mat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Err, has this been discussed before? I think it has. Feels disruptive to me. John Reaves 07:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it has. It should be somewhere in the black hole of the ANI archives. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Look under the heading of "edit war veterans". Bhtpbank (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A collection of socks, revisited[edit]

Resolved: User has been blocked. TNX-Man 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I reported the results of a RfCU here, which resulted in a number of socks being indef blocked. A new user has popped up, revering changes made by the blocking admin to some of the socks' user pages - here and here (their other edits seem to be in areas favoured by my socky friend). I suspect User:Closeupon is the latest incarnation of my quacking aquaintance. Could someone take a look?

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made to the talkpages, but I don't have the shiny red button so someone else will need to block this enormous duck. // roux   23:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that it's a sockpuppet; still, it wouldn't hurt to do a CU? VX!~~~ 23:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Done. Sadly, it's probably worth doing because past history suggests the next few days will see more socks appearing daily. Thanks for your advice and help, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's likely that if one appeared, more will follow. VX!~~~ 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jayron32 has indef blocked User:Closeupon. For future reference, can I mark this as resolved, or should a non-involved party do the honours? Cheers, and thanks to Jayron32 for wielding the big red button, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I've marked it resolved, but I wouldn't think there would be a problem with you doing it in the future, as you were the original poster and your concern was addressed. Cheers! TNX-Man 19:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:71.102.2.128 and the Church of the SubGenius[edit]

The user made a non-good faith comment on the article's talk page. I reverted one of the the user's edits as part of RC patrol. User told me it was none of my business reverting it. Your thoughts??? Willking1979 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The edit here[3] is a gripe, not an accusation of bad faith. I've been trying to make peace on that talk page all afternoon. A well meaning editor slapped a notability tag on an obviously notable but poorly cited article about a semi-serious parody religion. The editors there, largely devotees and newbies who do not fully understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, were startled and alarmed. They quickly came up with some references, then criticized the editor for applying a notability tag without doing his/her homework first. The editor defended the tag and told them it was their duty not his/hers to establish notability and they should spend their energies improving the article instead of lashing out. Both sides have been scolding each other ever since. Other than the taunt the comment looks spot on. In fact both sides are right in my opinion. The notability tag was completely according to correct procedure, but it could have been handled with a lot more patience and understanding. It's all moot now that notability is established, so both parties flogging each other over how they should have handled it will not accomplish anything. A little warm-and-fuzzy goodwill on either side would quickly fix things and they could all be editing buddies. This is a perfect application for WP:TEA.
Update: Cirt did block the IPer for his/her actions. Willking1979 (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yet another update: The IPer continues the gripes on his/her user talk page, despite the fact that the user is blocked. Willking1979 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
What a mess. I think somebody bit the newbie and he's trying to bite back. IMO an illustration of why escalating some things makes them worse. If someone would patiently and respectfully explain things it would probably do more to diffuse the situation and convince the IP that we're all just random volunteers typing things into computers rather than some nefarious inept bureaucracy. Wikidemon (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Lindale13[edit]

Lindale13 (talk · contribs)

What do you ppl think the very strange contribs of Lindale13 (talk · contribs) are all about? No, I have not contacted the user. Thanks. -- Y not? 18:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow...around 300 edits...all but 4 to userspace...--Smashvilletalk 18:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
S/he seems to be mirroring userpages and awards pages. WTF? // roux   18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed...(see below for examples)--Smashvilletalk 19:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking we speedy delete them all as GFDL violations? --Smashvilletalk 19:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You might as well humor yourself by asking first. Look almost like a bot copying and pasting code. Someone working on human-machine interactions might be using this somehow. I'll shoot a note. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a student researcher collecting profiles for analysis in an experiment. I wasn't aware of the GFDL policy and have now placed the pages offline. I've gone ahead and deleted the pages myself and apologize for any paranoia. ~ lindale13 (talk)

Ccd03003 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can someone take a look at the above user? I have RL-issues to deal with atm, sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked him as spam-only (it was taken to AIV). --Smashvilletalk 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23[edit]

Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Wikipedia since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. [4] He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse - user has been disruptive since day 1. Has refused to accept that sources are valid, has disrupted both here and off-wiki, and as an interesting data point claimed off-wiki that he works for Mr O'Reilly. Yes, off-wiki belongs off-wiki for the most part, but admitting to that level of COI is worth noting. // roux   17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Ignoring his politics, his behavior to this point has been unacceptable. He should be banned from editing all articles related to American politics or political or editorial figures, broadly contrued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - Our patience with single-issue crusaders who refuse to accept consensus should eventually run out. We should welcome their participation if they will join in reasonable discussion, but I think he has used that up that chance already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    Consensus is not set in stone, and if it's in conflict with policy - the consensus of the community - then local consensus must give. Projecting your personal frustration with their numbers onto a single user doesn't seem fair, btw. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • An alternative suggestion How about encouraging Fru23 to actually edit the articles in question, adding appropriate criticism based on reliable sources? So far all his activities seems to be on the talk pages. This low level of activity would not seem to be enough to justify a topic ban on all American politics. Fred Talk 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Investigation of the matter, using the checkuser tool, reveals that Fru23 is one of a family of socks who habitually make tendentious edits from a point of view similar to that of Fox News and Bill O'Reilly regarding controversial contemporary political issues. The edits are made by accounts from two ips not used by legitimate editors 151.188.105.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 72.192.216.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). My recommendation is to indefinitely block those ips and the accounts Fru23, KingsOfHearts, and Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe you didn't look far enough. His two blocks were due to his form of "editing", which was to delete stuff he didn't agree with, against consensus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I prefer a regular block for disruptive editing, all he did was disrupt these pages since he started editing a month ago and no other contributions. It's clear he's not wanted here. I'll do the block if there are no objections. Secret account 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Obviously I object, but would be quite willing to block if he is actually unable or unwilling to edit responsibly. Fred Talk 20:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      • A topic ban would effectively be an overall wikipedia ban, since this is apparently the only topic he's interested in. A week-long block might send the proper message, then see if he changes his approach, or if he simply abandons wikipedia, as belligerent users sometimes do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This editor certainly has a point of view of his own, as do most editors. His is apparently quite different from mine, but that is not grounds for a ban. He has committed some excesses editing in support of that point of view, and has had a 24 hour and a 72 hour block as a result. He has not been a mere vandal or troll, and his stated opposition to "POV pushing" on Nov 12 on his user page is in accord with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, despite seeming POV pushing in some of his edits. Rather than a ban against editing some overly broad unlisted set of topics, I suggest that the next block, should it be necessary, be extended to 1 week, as part of progressive discipline. Maybe he will figure out that collaborative editing is the way we do things here rather than unilateral actions, and will learn to edit collaboratively and productively with less drama. Sometimes it takes a person a while to figure out that this is an encyclopedia. Edison (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, what he said [5] was "I HATE POV PUSHERS", not "POV pushing". He regards US as POV-pushers. In short, he hates US. Nothing personal, of course. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No comment Fru23 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Not going to work. We'll have to see decent editing and talk page discussion. You say there is a "double standard", give some examples. Fred Talk 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      Media matters on Bill OReilly and newsbusters on al franken/Olberman, when I proposed the use of newsbuster as a source on the those articles it was shot down for the same reasons I stated on bills article for the removal of mediamatters. WP:own wp:tagteamFru23 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I was on the fence on this one, but Fru23's comment above seems to validate everyone's concerns about him and his ability to edit constructively. Dayewalker (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse per "no comment". Clearly he's disrupting to make a point and doesn't want to edit constructively. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now per Fred Bauder. Insufficient demonstration of disruption to merit a topic ban, although one might be down the road if current tendencies continue. Two short blocks and one rejected AFD are a bit lightweight as grounds for topic banning. DurovaCharge! 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Switching to neutral per sock evidence. DurovaCharge! 01:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Support at minimum, per checkuser. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ramsquire and Baseball bugs canvased in the afd. Stop accusing me of attacking others editors unless you are willing to provide a link to the incident. Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors.Fru23 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Stop accusing other editors of canvassing unless you are willing to provide links to the incidents. // roux   22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ramsquire#O.27Reilly_and_Fru23 Plus Ramsquire told 1 or 2 as well. Fru23 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Uh, that's not canvassing. Letting a user who was involved in a particular situation know that the situation has re-started is not canvassing. Please (re)read WP:CANVASS. // roux   23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for explaining that. I told Arzel, Jimintheatl, and Noian, because we have been in extensive discussion about that article. Also please note that Arzel and Jim are usually on completely opposite sides of most issues, so it's clear I was not trying to influence the result per WP:CANVASS. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Likewise, I was notifying 3 users who had been in discussion with Fru23 recently and I feared he was trying to slip something past them. I'll admit my wording was a little chippy. I consulted with an admin on the accusation of canvassing, and he basically laughed about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    Why is IP 72.192.216.42 making a comment [6], then the same comment being immediately after signed by Fru23? This is the infamous "poor man's check user" which happens when you get logged out. The edit history of 72.192.216.42 [7], now apparently revealed to be Fru23, gives new dimensions to this proposal. Edison (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose "He is not wanted here" is no valid reason for a topic ban. It is rather a sign that something is amiss with the motivation of the users that don't want him. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not the reason. Continued disruption and WP:POINTy edits are the issue. // roux   22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    It is a dynamic IP, it is the main reason I created this account, I said this when I first started editing. I am not responsible for any edits made before nov 16, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Bill_O'Reilly_(political_commentator)#Possible_COI.3F unless you want to ban me for something I have no control over, don't use that against me. Fru23 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Make that Nov 11 [8] which was his first edit under Fru23 and was to the O'Reilly criticism article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
    • A defiant tone is unlikely to earn the community's trust, though. Per WP:BAN it's a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians that matters in this discussion. So would you be willing to agree that perhaps you could become more familiar with site standards and work toward a more collaborative approach? DurovaCharge! 22:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • What Fred said. This user needs a mentor not a topic ban, at least to start with. Patient explanation of policy may fix the problem. And if it doesn't, well, we can fix that when it becomes apparent. Let's have a volunteer to convey some WP:BLP clue. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification I never meant to imply a request for a permanent topic ban. I was thinking a temporary topic ban may allow Fru the opportunity to get a better idea of how to work collaboratively, while working on articles he is not as emotionally involved in. My major problem with him, is his refusal to actually discuss what is bothering him specifically. He makes claims that "the source does not exist" when it does, or "the source does not say that" when a quick review makes it obvious he did not read the source. In sum, I do not support a permanent ban of any kind against Fru yet. However, I do think he should show some ability to work here in other articles to stop his disruption on the more contentious articles. I apologize for not being as clear in my initial request. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

    • BOLP Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors. I know a lot about the rules of wikiepdia bolp,coatrack, and npov. I admit that part of my recent contributions to the TALK Pages of olberman and Al my have been to make a WP:POINT. Fru23 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I once heard of an ocean liner that was so large it ran aground on two different beaches at the same time. It was double stranded. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - I personally see absolutely no constructive contributions from this editor, and only seems like he's here to service an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia in the process. I would endorse putting all of his editing privileges on probation pending constructive contribution elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. I have no interest in knowing, or debating, anyone's personal political beliefs. This is not why we are here, and simple decorum demands we leave such topics out of Wikipedia. However, when a user makes edits in such a manner that there political views become not only obvious but problematic, then some action has to be taken. Fru23 does not seem to understand why we are here, and shows no sign of wanting to improve as an editor. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?[edit]

  • OK, so at the risk of turning this into WP:SSP:
    • We've established (and he's admitted) that 72.192.216.42 was Fru23 at one time.
    • Looking at Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42, we see this "dynamic" IP's second edit, in July, was to Cesar Millan. It was a revert to a previous version by....
    • Special:Contributions/KingsOfHearts. Looking at the edit summaries of KingsOfHearts' September edits, it's clear that all the "LOL your sources suck" edits from the IP this summer and early fall were the same person as KingsOfHearts.
    • Looking at the articles KingsOfHearts has edited, we see that there's an amazing overlap with...
    • Special:Contributions/Fru23.
    • Quack.
I think the only question now is, are Fru23 and KingsOfHearts the same POV pushing vandal who should be indef blocked, or are they friends who have been socking on Bill O'Reilly and other conservative articles, and should be blocked? Luckily, per WP:SOCK, it really doesn't matter. Don't subject ban, Block indef.. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
That's impressive detective work. It does seem like we have sock/meat puppetry going on here, and that would call for a block. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec)As Gordon Ramsay would say: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear." Permablock, yes. // roux   01:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Check your facts, KingsofHearts has been editing for a year, longer than the ip which supports my claim that it is dynamic, I started editing on the ip but stopped after noticing its past contributions some which were on BILL OREILLY which is why I went there in the first place, I said all of this about a month ago. Barneca, do some research on my past edits before accusing me of conservative pov pushing so you won't look like such a .

So far I have edited the follow articles.

  • Criticism of bill oreilly Removing contentious nonnotable material
  • Michael Moore controversies Removing contentious nonnotable material sourced by only newsbusters or national review
  • Media Matters for America Removing Quotations from every other word in a section
  • Osama Bin Laden Removing terrorist accusations from the opening turned into a big argument that I avoided, in the end my edit stayed in place.
  • Fred Phelps Removing a list of God hates slogans from the opening.
  • Todd Davis Removing his social security number from the page
  • Life lock Removing Todd Davis social security number from the page
  • Jersey girls Changing 9/11 terrorist attacks to 9/11 attacks
  • Muhammad Rewording picture info on the page to say "an artist's depiction of Muhammad doing something" instead of just say Muhammad doing something.

The only edits of mine that could be even remotely seen as conservative pov pushing is some to Bills. If anything most of my edits seem to be pushing a progressive/liberal agenda. Fru23 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


After Looking through again I have not edited ANY page that kingofhearts has edited. Croctotheface stop praising him for this and what would I be blocked for? Fru23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd also recommend a comparison to Wikiport (talk · contribs), another short lived POV pusher who showed up to complain about sources[9] on the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly articles (also note the reference to Olbermann). My guess? Fru23 is yet another sock of the same disruptive user who has been showing up on the FNC related talk pages for a very long time. The quacking is getting louder. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) ::: Fru23 should NOT be lblocked right off the bat. quite rnakly, the phony "checkuser" induction reaosning used above seems dody; while its certainly possible that Fru23 is the same person as the origial vandal, the fact of tha matter is that there is a possibility that his issues/conflicts are likely to be unrelated and thus we should assess Fru23 as Fru23 and not as twhoiever he might have been in another increasquitian. I recommend the WP:MENTOR option and iwouldnt mind taking on that role is no one else has the time/icnliantion. Smith Jones (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2)I think I hear quacking as well--but just to eliminate any doubt, a Checkuser is in order. But in the meantime, endorse topic ban, pending acceptance of mentorship Blueboy96 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) (ecX3) i concur witht he above, asa reatlional conpromise. Again, a topic-ban temporary might be in order until i can hamer out a deal with Fru32 to manage contentiaos article editoring. Smith Jones (talk)

I just listed every page I have edited, NONE are the same as kingsofhearts, plus only one can be even remotely considered conservative, most are liberal. Please one of the people going OMG SOCK!!1! respond to this. Its is entirely possible that we at one point had the same ip that does not mean we are the same person. Even if we were that is not a warrant a ban or even a block, wikipedia has no rule against having more than 1 account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Fru23 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Fru23 is obviosuly not a sock, so lets dropt his line of ringworm snot right now please and ge back to the original content conflictSmith Jones (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"increasquitian" and "dropt his line of ringworm snot"--Smith Jones, WP would be a much less-cromulent place without you. (More comprehensible, perhaps, but definitely less-cromulent.) You should write poetry in your spare time. :) GJC 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I must say, I'm going treasure being accused of speaking "ringworm snot" for quite a while. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Let's go ahead with checkuser.