Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526

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

Noticeboard archives


Vandalism and sockuppetry at Daniel Westling‎[edit]

Resolved: ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Westling‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Folks, a few of us seem to be fighting a losing battle to deal with vandalism on this one. RFPP has been filed, but speedy action is required. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I semiprotected it for a few days, and added it to my watchlist in case the problem persists. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Loss of an editor[edit]

Resolved: Account indefed and user page fully-protected. Thank you for your contributions here; I'm sure you will be missed. MuZemike 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I am not following proper procedure. bibliomaniac15 can confirm that I at least asked him first. We've lost editor User:Nitelinger from our ranks, and I have placed a memorial star to the best of my ability on the talk page. I just thought I'd drop a note here in case anyone would like to sign. The official notice is here, and the visitor's book is here I've done my best to avoid any wording that would offend anyone of any particular belief, and if someone feels something different would be better, please fix it for me — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

An admin needs to indef block the account and full-protect the user page out of respect for the person (unless someone in relation to the former user would like it deleted for any reason). Make sure everything in the corresponding entry in WP:RIP is verifiable. My condolences go to his family. MuZemike 01:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Bilblio did protect the user page, that's why I asked him, I didn't know who else to ask really. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I just saw that. Thanks. MuZemike 01:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Francesco Carotta[edit]

Would an uninvolved Admin please take a look at this page? I've removed some comments [1] but they keep being made (and I missed some). I've warned Populares (talk · contribs) twice, but that's had no effect, and another editor has warned (talk · contribs). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Abuse by the User:Anwar_saadat[edit]

I feel that this User: Anwar saadat has been a nuisance to Wikipedia and his civil behaviour, edits and conduct is very inappropriate.

You may check his recent edit history, where he has altered GAs and long-term stable articles causing edit wars involving several users. Furthermore what comes as a shock, is that he is going against Wikiproject:Indian cinema and deleting whole sections of GA articles, claiming they "are unneccessary to him".[2] More recently, he has been stalking my edits and has been trying to frame me out in every single way possible through images.(check my user talk page - all that I've removed within the last 24 hours) I find it shocking, how this can continue!

In a personal claim, I find it quite shocking to see why he is still editing, looking at his edit history - he has been blocked twenty one times and has been allowed to continue to stay on and edit inconstructively. [3]

Moreover in his time, he has been blocked for : disruption, stalking, WP:3RR, gross violations, racist abuse, trolling, anti-Hindu remarks in extremist favour of Islam, [4] straight reverting and sockpuppetry. I cannot believe, why he is still editing.' I'm sure that racism alone is enough to get one permanently blocked, and with over 20 blocks, I'm very shocked.

Moreover, I think this edit sums this character up. Here, try not to laugh!!!

His behaviour has to be halted. Thanks, a permanant ban must be issued. Universal Hero (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, not to comment on the rest of your post, but the edit above where you say "try not to laugh" was from 2005...The Seeker 4 Talk 21:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the two recent diffs you provide, I can't see any prima facie blockable disruption. If you don't back up all these accusations with convincing diffs, this section will be closed as not actionable.  Sandstein  21:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Huh, isn't twenty counts of being blocked and then returning and causing similiar trouble bad enough? Universal Hero (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
It is, if you can provide convincing diffs of such trouble, which to date you have not.  Sandstein  22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh sure, I just didn't understand what diffs meant. Sorry. Well here.
  • Changing an article established as a GA, by introducing his own ways: [5]
  • Blatant Abusive Vandalism declaring his support for his fav. actor Ajith Kumar over the opposition actor Vijay: [6]
  • Removal of Image licenses [7]
  • Goes against the Wikiproject by introducing dollar signs: [8]
  • Adds money details to filmography details, despite being warned not to: [9]
  • Edit warring and subsequent block: [10]
  • Adds his own opinions: [11]
  • Threatening chants in Tamil: [12] and [13] and here when he means you should shut your mouth (informal) [14]
  • Bad enough to get blocked: racism [15]
  • Personal attack on an Admin: [16]
  • Hundred of his edits, defend Islam and criticise Hinduism: Two here [17] and [18]

A not so extensive list! =D

Deal with it please, Cheers Universal Hero (talk)

It should be noted these two are involved in an ongoing SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universal Hero. KnightLago (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll review this later.  Sandstein  13:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Many of these edits are years old, others appear to be content disputes rather than disruption. As to the Tamil, I can't read it. On the whole, not something that seems to be immediately actionable. In the event of ongoing new disruption, please report it to the appropriate noticeboard.  Sandstein  20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Bambifan101 is back again[edit]


All accounts blocked J.delanoy :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He's up to his usual crap, vandalizing various Disney articles, then appears to have deliberately checking my contribs to vandalize an anime talk page just to get my attention.[19][20] Can we get some new range blocks as I'm guessing the last set expired?

Some recent IPs and user names used (within just the last week on Lilo and Stitch; didn't check other pages):

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101 history there for those unfamiliar with it. (from his comments above, it appears his school blocked Wikipedia...can't imagine why) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of these were already blocked, and I blocked the remaining one. J.delanoy :  Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
He changes IPs daily, though, which is why I wondered if a range block could be reimplemented? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've suggested at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter‎ that it may be possible to block edits from Bambifan's IP ranges that attempt to edit articles on Disney/Teletubbies related topics. -- The Anome (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be great, especially since semi-protecting his favourite targets is not working out so well for us (what with the gazillions of Disney-related articles). — Kralizec! (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed...he just changes targets when they are locked and there are just way too many to catch them all. Here's hoping on those filters :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

IP user adding same content to article after block[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was blocked less than 48 hours ago for edit warring on the DeKalb High School (Illinois) page (block log). These are the edits for which he/she was blocked: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I reverted two of these edits myself and the second time advised him or her to use a blog ([27]). After the block the user came up with this ridicuous explanation: [28].

Now that the block has expired the anon has made the same edit to the page: [29]. Please place a longer block and/or semi-protect the page. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, posting phone numbers of other people on their talk page and continuing to edit war. I'm not sure whether the talk page history needs Oversight or not, so not marking resolved (and another Admin might want to adjust the block, I will not dispute any change in the block). This is a company address, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)



Someone might want to take a look at the massive WP:BLP violation on User talk:Kirlikovali. Taner Akcam is a Turkish scholar who recognizes the Armenian Genocide and is a frequent target of ultra-nationalist Turks. Few years back he was arrested by Canadian border patrol who used a printout from a vandalized wikipedia article as evidence that he was a terrorist. VartanM (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clear case of disruptive tendentious editing. Talk page blanked, short block (48h), warned of possible topic ban. Fut.Perf. 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support topic ban, if there's any further BLP violation. I'd already warned that user about their edits to the article. I honestly don't know why I failed to do anything about what was on their Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I warned the user too, and I probably should have blanked their talk page, since it contained BLP violations up the wazoo, with POV violations and an unambiguous legal threat to boot. I think the account is probably a throwaway, but if the user returns and makes similar edits, I think I would just go for an indef block (although I suppose with tendentious editors such as this, a topic ban is effectively an indef block anyway). --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As a further preventative, I have deleted the problematic versions and restored only the version with the block announcement. I think this is resolved, now, so marking it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by Edokter[edit]

I originally posted a similar topic on AN regarding some bad behavior by Edokter, and have decided that the situation has grown more urgent and in need of immediate attention (by definition, AN is differentiated from this one in that this one is for more emergent problems). Thus, I am posting here.

To recap, in Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica), Edokter kept adding/reverting back into the article two different subsections of material entirely devoid of citations. When this was pointed out a number of times, Edokter refused to discuss the matter towards a consensus. When he saw he wasn't getting his way, Edokter nominated the entire article for deletion, an action that was seen by everyone, including Tony Fox, Sheffield Steel, JulesH and LinguistAtLarge, as utterly POINTY and own-y; even Edokter admitted that he had done so out of frustration to make a point. Tony speedily-closed the AfD.

However, Edokter is still edit-warring his preferred, uncited sections into the article, and is completely dismissive of using the article discussion to build a consensus. As this user is an admin, I think that Pointy, Ownerish, edit-warring behavior needs some addressing by his fellow admins.

In the interest of full disclosure, Edokter inappropriately blocked me back in July of last year, a block that he reversed after being lambasted for it at AN. As noted by that prior complaint, if a patten were to display itself, the behavior of Edokter would have to be treated more seriously. We cannot have admins openly edit-warring, gaming the system and generally using the mop to roger articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, two editors have reverted you. Obviously, you have a problem with consensus. I also see full well what your intention is. You keep hammering on RS policy, even thought the information is verifiable. It is clear you do NOT do this to improve the article, but to butt heads just for the fun of it, as is a clear pattern in your behaviour. It is VERY clear this is not a content dispute, but a pure disruption on your part. I have managed not to block you myself this time, but you are none-the-less hoping for it. It won't work...
This game he playes is based on an argument *I* held with another editor over the inclusion of unreferenced information about a ficitonal ship. Now Arcayne is doing the *exact* same thing to me... with the difference that the information I added back referes to real-world items and literary works, making it inherently verifiable. It is also clear that Arcayne's plea to discuss is futile, as he keeps warring to remove the information and pays no attention to arguments brought forth by other editors. I have lost every grain of good faith in Arcayne, and my only recourse is to ask that Arcayne be blocked indefenitely. EdokterTalk 15:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edokter's pointy AFD was disappointing, especially for an admin, and I highly suggest he not do it again. I don't see a need for an indefinite block of Arcayne; if you feel there's a behavioural problem there, I'd suggest starting an RfC. (That suggestion might go both ways, if there are further issues with Edokter's admin actions, as well.) I've dropped some potential cites for the information that Edokter wants to include in the article onto its talk page, so hopefully that helps to reduce the emerging drama; I usually hate to get involved with the mighty wars of the television episodes arena, but I'll keep an eye on the ongoing discussion there and encourage others to do the same. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This does indeed looks a lot like an edit war. I'm not going to take sides in it, or sanction only one involved party. I will say that both parties need to stop reverting. Whether you want to discuss on the Talk page or not is up to you, but either way, this isn't a good way to pursue dispute resolution. Having said that, I support Tony Fox's position. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am glad that Tony added some sources for the uncited material, but this wasn't a content dispute, nor an edit-war. I am a little frustrated that the same behavior is coming from Edokter again, and that I was told when this last occurred to give it a pass unless it happens again. Edokter is not even bothering to use the discussion page, and his threats to block me are pretty much telling of an admin who has not picked up the jumbo-sized clue to not use the admin tools on other editors you are involved in a dispute with.
I am not convinced that giving Edokter a pass here is the best course of action. He hasn't apologized for his Pointy, own-y behavior/tantrum (and it bears pointing out that he has never apologized when he's screwed up before) when he didn't get his way. Granted, I am not anything close to perfect, but I am not in the wrong here in the slightest. I kept out uncited info that another editor - and admin - refused to cite, and I did not even approach 3RR when doing so. Additionally, I took the time to discuss the matter, and Edokter has pointedly said that he will not discuss his edits.
When I complain about it, the admin calls for my indef block? Now, I have heard that the best defense is a good offense, but Edokter is clearly trying to save his ass by attempting to deflect attention away from his own established pattern of bad behavior and abuse. I am not calling for Edokter to be de-sysopped, or blocked (even though I feel that one or both options should be seriously considered, given his history of bad faith behavior) but I do feel that he needs to clean up his act and pronto; admins are not supposed to act like this. Being an admin is a position of trust, and when we have admins who act as poorly as this, it reflects poorly on all admins.
I am willing to give this a pass again, but I think we need to be clear that this sort of behavior by an admin will not be tolerated in the future. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not advocating "giving it a pass;" I've expressed my disappointment in his actions, and would encourage other admins to review how he's been acting. Let's let some other admins into the conversation and see how it goes here for a while. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, Tony. I think it also bears mentioning that Edokter's further attempts to game the system included seeking to lock the uncited info into the article via RfPP. I mean, what the heck ever happened to just discussing the dispute, rather than edit-warring or seeking to end-run our policies/guidelines? I don't get his behavior. I don't oppose the info being used eventually - I just think we need to have citations for the statements. I am unsure why Edokter is so reticent to provide what the wiki requires for inclusion. The bad faith being directed at me by him was expected (which is what prompted my call for assistance in AN) but not hoped for.
That said, I will also wait to see what other admins say about the situation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Your behaviour is pissing people off, it's that simple. You should not have reverted a second time per WP:BRD. Every time you do, you will piss someone off. An edit war takes two. Your problem is that you hold policy way too tight. There are circumstances where an immediate cite is simply not necessary, yet you continue to demand that RS be followed to the letter. You are not helping improving any articles that way. You pissed me off, and I am not going to apologize for that. Until you see the errors of your way, there will be nothing to discuss. It is your time to apologize this time. EdokterTalk 17:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I've not looked into this specific dispute, but as someone who knows both editors well, I have to say that Edokter has been unfailingly well-mannered and polite, with good working knowledge and use of IAR, for the several years we've been involved on the Doctor Who WikiProject. Arcayne can also be, and at times has been, a very good editor; however, he has been disruptive, has engaged in edit-warring (which does require two, and though it's always easy to blame the adversary, both must share the responsibility, really), and has been repeatedly incivil. I picked him up on one instance last week, though this sadly didn't seem to have any effect.
Obviously none of this gives anyone carte-blanche to revert war, and an indef block of Arcayne does seem excessive (though yes, Edokter, I can see that he's pissed you off, and do recommend him to apologise - even if the pissing off wasn't intentional, it's still happened, and he should just make a civil apology about it) - however, I suggest that an uninvolved admin watches Arcayne's civility and editing-habits particularly closely, they've caused me concern for some while now. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
As requested, i am awaiting other input by admins, but I would like to point out that TT isn't a "neutral view" here, having been on the losing side of a discussion in a Doctor Who article months ago. TT was quite...vociferous in his lack of neutrality towards me, my edits, etc. and came within a monkey's eyebrow of being blocked for their behavior. I am not going to go on about TT's prior conduct (the comments in the second failing RfA's supply most of the more-informed commentary about that), but I thought it should be made clear that (s)he isn't the neutral party they are playing at. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You can wait until you weigh an ounce... No admin is going to come here and take action when the instigator is just as wrong. Anyone can see what went wrong, and who is the diruptive party here. You do what you do best, dredge up every nasty detail on anyone who dares to comment on you. Content is not an issue here, behaviour is. And I do hope that this time something will be done about it. I am resolved to see this to the end. EdokterTalk 21:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Until we get some further discussion in here, I'd appreciate both of you backing away from each other and going to neutral corners. The back-and-forth sniping does nothing for either of you, so kindly leave it and let uninvolved parties look over the situation for the moment. Please. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
...anyone? Bueller? Bueller? C'mon, folks, I'm on multiple deadlines, I don't have the time for a full mediation case myself... =P Tony Fox (arf!) 15:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at the disputed edits, all I can say is... "What a stupid waste of time." I didn't really look at either Edokter's conduct or Arcayne's, but the "disputed" material is exactly the sort of obvious stuff that should be cited to the primary sources--the fact that a line matches up with a particular song lyric should be V'ed by citing both primary sources and allowing readers to use their own brains, and I commented to that effect at the article talk page. Thus, I'd say the root cause for the dispute was an overly-restrictive view of WP:V that defies common sense. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked 24h. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgeperez (talk · contribs) either doesn't get it or is celebrating today's holiday. He has repeatedly created Magnet Renewable Energy (which advertizes a perpetual motion device), even renaming it other things when it got speedy deleted (multiple times, resulting in salting). He also repeatedly copy pasted the same text to the talk pages of several articles, only to repeat the same text and SPAM links when asked for an RS[30]. My favorite part is "Oh, and if you connect it to a photonic lazer thruster in space and let magnet renewable energy continue to power it you can reach a lovely speed." Well beyond final warning on his talk page for tendentionsly repasting the "information". Can he have a "vacation" until April 2 so we can see if this guy is actually unable to follow WP policy, or just faking it? NJGW (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) It looks like he made a replied to his 24 hour edit ban on his talk page.

He said this,

"This is not vandalism, sir. I posted this information on pages that are relevant and in pages that are the different names of this technology. There are new sources available on each page. Can you not delete this page? This is real information" - Quote by Georgeperez RandomGuy666 (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)RandomGuy666

|}:Blocked 24 hours. (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Extensive tagging of images[edit] (talk · contribs) has been tagging several images with the no-permission tag [31] for four days now. I find the pattern suspicious since in each session, the time between each tagging is 1 - 3 minutes, hardly enough time to determine whether there is permission or not. Please review. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked a half dozen or so of his edits, and every one of them was correct. That IP is doing very useful work. Fut.Perf. 06:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
He must be a bot because justifiably tagging more than 40 images in an hour is just not humanly possible. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's easily possible if you know what you are doing and what you are looking at and looking for, especially with the right tools at your disposal. Mfield (Oi!) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about the patience one must have to repeat a tedious action for 2 hours straight at a rate of every 2 minutes. That is crazy --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
That is of course another issue entirely. Sorting lots of images can be quite cathartic though, but only in the same way as washing the dishes can be. Mfield (Oi!) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Circumvention is trivial with this setup, and it was only a matter of time until deliberate vandals learned to game it. DurovaCharge! 18:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Bot blocked pending fix. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Can an administrator look at possibly blocking this bot. It is apparently malfunctioning, reverting articles to weeks, even months old versions while adding the th interwiki links.[32][33][34][35] Its owner, User:Jutiphan is rarely online here, so not sure the report on his talk page will be addressed in a timely fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Looking at its contribution history, it's clearly malfunctioning.Iridescent :  Chat  18:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy tag edit warring at Emotop[edit]

Resolved: Deleted, sockmaster blocked 1wk. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The above-linked article appears to me to be a decent candidate for either an A7, G3 or a G10 speedy deletion. It's been tagged as one or the other at least five separate times, and an enormous amount of edit-warring by brand new user accounts keep removing the tag over the past few hours [36], with many users re-adding it. I have suspicions that these new users are simply the article creator; but either way I'd appreciate it if an admin would make a decision on this and possibly deal with the article creator. Thanks! ~ mazca t|c 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree IMO they are all socks of the creator. BigDuncTalk 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted under G10 by Sandstein. Thanks. ~ mazca t|c 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Processing the socks.  Sandstein  20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Socks blocked indef, sockmaster Verbinsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 1 week.  Sandstein  21:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick resolution. ~ mazca t|c 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes good work Sandstein. BigDuncTalk 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by User:Populares[edit]

Could someone please have at least a word with Populares (talk · contribs) about his behaviour on Talk:Francesco Carotta? I removed some [37] and warned him, but he continues to be abusive. As I've been involved in the article and talk page (and had abuse thrown at me), I can't do anything. Thanks. I'll notify him of this. Dougweller (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This probably would've been better at WQA....but then again, that is a lot in just one talk page. As I'm short on time, I'll abstain for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

April showers[edit]

Last week I manually archived one thread from this board, and three more today, per WP:BEANS. Mainly that was because last year's fun turned sour when several people went overboard. Received one complaint at user talk about one of the archivings.[38] It's mostly been a smooth holiday, thank goodness, so posting here proactively to gauge whether the community sees merit to the complaint. If so, please state so and I will restore the thread. Best regards, DurovaCharge! 22:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the thread in question. I honestly cannot see how anyone ever thought it deserved to be on this page in the first place. John Carter (talk) 22:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi requesting unblock[edit]

Resolved: The consensus of the community is to retain the ban at this time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Martinphi - Don't know the backstory on this in full but I do know it's a long, drawn out, and unpleasant one, so I send the unblock request to the only place suited to dramafests of this nature for community review. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For convenience here is the ANI thread in which the ban was imposed. Looie496 (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
For further convenience; the ArbCom to which Martinphi alludes and which made a decision upon his actions specifically can be found here; it should be noted that the Arbs decided to return to the community any decision of what restrictions might be applied should the indef block be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to unblock him, I would ONLY support doing so if we he is placed under editing restrictions such that he is banned from editing any articles and talk pages related to "Fringe Science" topics (homeopathy, chiropractic, astrology, witch doctory, and snake oil sales, etc. etc.) as broadly contrued as possible. Seriously, I (and I think many others) are well tired of all of the bullshit that has gone on around this topic, and I think if we let Martinphi back into the fold, he should prove that he can be a contructive editor in some other topic than this one. As long as he doesn't edit the articles, talk pages, or attempts to discuss or in any way reference these topics I would support an unblock. However, any unblock which does not place strict restrictions on him against editing in this field will only lead to more of the same crap we just got rid of. 04:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Unblock From what I could see MartinPhi managed collaborate well with OrangeMarlin who is not the most fringe friendly editor around. MartinPhi seems to be genuinely contrite regarding the 'outings'. From what I have seen MartinPhi has been a valuable and sane contributor to wikipedia as a whole before becoming embroiled in the SA drama. See this for an example. I honestly do not see any problem with him being involved with fringe or pseudoscience articles, I think the underlying problem is that some other editors think that there should be flashing lights, loud sirens and 2 layers of 'are you sure you want to read about non-mainstream topics yes/no ' along with disclaimers declaring that reading such material may rot your brain. There is nothing keeping us from blocking him again should he prove to be genuinely disruptive in the future. Unomi (talk) 05:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Dispute that veered off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • As a relatively new user with far more knowledge about the inner workings than a new user should have (hence previous RfCU on you), you can be partially excused based on lack of knowledge of the history, but you share Martin's fringe POV and tendencies to edit war, and that waters down your input here. Even Martin knows better than to make statements like yours. They say alot about your tendencies, which have been apparent in your persistent and slow edit warring. It's simply exhausting. SPA accounts should be prohibited. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge I have not had an RfCU raised against me I have however had an ANI here and a SPI here. The recurrent allegations of 'fringe POV' are unfortunate and I thought we had discussed that sufficiently here. I also don't think that eidt warring is an appropriate way to characterize my actions. If anything I was the victim of disruptive editing, not the instigator of it. As for 'knowing too much' I think the blame has to fall on having to constantly counter those that 'know too little'. The allusions to 'slow edit warring' are baseless, slanderous and I would recommend that you back them up or strike the comment. Unomi (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Fyslee, it appears that you are very nearly a SPA and one that has been cautioned about your questionable use of sources in health related articles. Finally, admins, please have a good thorough read of all of Blocking policy. Consider that this is not a vote, but a forum for establishing consensus regarding policy interpretations. Unomi (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You apparently don't know what SPA means. You have been a classic SPA on the Aspartame controversy issue, even refusing to follow the advice of several editors and admins to edit other articles for awhile. I edit many different articles and therefore have well over three thousand articles (excluding talk pages), on my watchlist. I just happen to edit primarily on alternative medicine subjects, which is a huge area. As to the "caution" (to do exactly what I had been doing, since no evidence to the contrary was provided), that case has been amended and I have been vindicated. It's not everyday that an ArbCom case gets modified. Quackwatch is no longer deprecated (it was never forbidden as a source), and I was absolved of a false accusation, so using that old ArbCom against me isn't proper. Keep in mind that my accuser was banned by the ArbCom (for a year) and indef banned by the community. You're choosing the wrong side on the issue of my ArbCom, as well as on this issue (birds of a feather do flock together and sometimes get banned together). Keep in mind the expression "look who's talking". Participants here do take into account the source, and when an SPA and defender of fringe POV like yourself defends Martinphi, you weaken his case and alert admins to start looking at you as well. Since this matter is getting good coverage, I'm out of here. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Interesting interpretation. Arbcom agreed that they wouldn't rule on content; a quick search on RS/N shows that quackwatch is considered an RS, but only for the opinions of the authors. The caution to you regarding proper sourcing and complying to NPOV still stood but seeing as how you are able to parlay their subsequent amendment into a 'vindication' I fear it is for naught. This is not the place for it but hit me up on my talk page if you want to discuss further. Unomi (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Hi, please keep discussion focused. The Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration closed two years ago and Martinphi played no role in it. As ScienceApologist's mentor, I recuse from comment on the proposal to restore Martinphi's editing privileges. DurovaCharge! 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Fyslee's attacks against Unomi amount to a character assassination and cannot remain here uncontradicted. An SPI against Unomi was opened on very flimsy evidence (he was told he was "approaching tendentious editing", which prompted him to quote an old Arbcom case that is linked from WP:TEND#Characteristics of problem editors) and came out with a strong negative result. Fyslee: If you retract your attacks, please remove this comment as well, to reduce the noise. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep him banned. The trouble he caused far outweighs his useful contributions. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned or at least a topic ban from anything fringe It will only end in tears if we don't. And if we topic ban him that should include related policy and guideline pages. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • @Raul654, @Dougweller, For those that have not followed the entire drama, could you point to what 'trouble he caused'? From what I understand the arbcom rulings already point to him being restricted from editing policy pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unomi (talkcontribs) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of Martinphi's edits are to pseudoscience topics, especially to paranormal topics (he's very nearly a single-purpose account). His edits are biased, and he frequently edit wars with other contributors in this area. The other people who have to clean up these articles are tired of dealing with him. In short, he's a crank, and he shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. After his bad editing got him hauled before the arbcom - I admit here that my understanding is less than perfect - he started "outing" others who edit on paranormal topics. Raul654 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned or topic banned. Not worth it if there isn't some form of control. Who wants to be part of a 24-hr babysitter posse who won't be able to do anything else constructive? Any volunteers? -- Fyslee (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • We are all babysitters anyway, that is the result if not the point of community editing. Doesn't matter if it is MartinPhi or any other editor, we are free to bring them here should trouble arise. Unomi (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned: Unless the issues that lead to the indefing have magically gone away, then it's only a matter of time before another indef is applied. Does the Community want this? Shot info (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned, Martinphi has wasted enough editors' time, and has made enough of their wikipedia experience unpleasant. Bishonen | talk 08:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Keep banned or topic banned. He has wasted many people's time (even during the Fringe science ArbCom) and there is no indication that this will change. Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sustain ban. Even a cursory examination of Martinphi's history shows he uses Wikipedia as a platform to further his fringe beliefs. Wikipedia can roll downhill on its own; it doesn't need any help on that path. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 09:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned Per all the above. He's had his chances. --Folantin (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any unblock. Mr. Phi edit warred, repeatedly attempted to change policy to support him in these edit wars, claimed Arbcom decisions vindicated him when they clearly did not, and affected an obnoxious martyr complex in order to paint himself as the innocent victim after being restricted by Arbcom. He sockpuppeted during an arbitration in order to character assassinate his opponents while evading scrutiny. Finally, he outed several editors on his talk page post-ban, which required oversight and page protection. Really, Jayron, if you're tired of the bullshit, do not allow this editor back. Skinwalker (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Interesting [link] regarding what he used the 'sockpuppet' for. The link also shows the extent of community patience that is normally extended to errant editors. Unomi (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned: Drew up far too much drama. The pseudoscience articles are actually manageable, for the most part, because we aren't playing tit-for-tat games anymore. seicer | talk | contribs 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned - I think Skinwalker says all that I'd want to say about it. Maybe after rather longer, with a topic ban to start, but it's too soon. Frankly, I think the only reason he wasn't banned long ago is that he "retired" any time anything looked to be going against him, then unretired once things had blown over - for instance, he said he was retired all through the events that led up to his ban. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned for now - a ban commuted to two months? That's not enough time. Maybe, at some point in the future it could be considered, but from his statement on his talk page, he doesn't seem to think he did anything wrong. I'd consider (and probably endorse) unbanning after a year provided that there is a willingness to admit that he was wrong and to change, but two months is not enough. --B (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks to Skinwalker for notifying me of this discussion, and a finger wag at the rest of you lot for not informing me. As the blocking admin, I'll note that I blocked Martinphi essentially because he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground - and will be disinclined to unblock him myself unless I am convinced he will actively create a productive, collegiate and safe editing environment. I would be inclined to unblock if he has a proven track record of such collaboration on another wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. He was blocked for disruption stemming from the view that he was treating Wikipedia as a battleground in a personal dispute with ScienceApologist and showing a battlefield mindset with opposing editors. I am satisfied with Martin’s statements, his recognition of what the issues were that led to his block, and his positive affirmation that he will be seeking true consensus in a very civil and non-battlefield way. Dreadstar 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but I've read his statement on his talk page and it sounds like a defense, not an apology. So long as he is interested in defending his behavior, I don't know how he could be said to have demonstrated recognition of the issues that led to his block. --B (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I think where you see defense, I see explanation. He said he's going to be doing things differently from here on out - which I think is clear indication that he sees his former pattern of behavior was wrong and he is going to change. He also explains how he's going to change; and I don't see any belligerence or statements along the lines of “I’m right and all of you are wrong”, I see a genuinely contrite statement and a willingness to change to become more of a consensus-building editor, and instead of engaging in “long winded” disputes, making more use of the appropriate processes. I say we extend him a little good faith and give him another chance. If he pursues a course that is the same that led to his banning, then we can just simply ban him again. Dreadstar 00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned too much drama in the past with the guy, so how could we convince a similar degree of dramas not happen in future.--Caspian blue 16:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wait another month or two and bring it up again. Keep banned, didn't know about the outings. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned -- his edits were extraordinarily disruptive, and he has a long, long history of uch behavior he was also a party to an arbitration case that kind of punted on him once the community ban came down, so unbanning him would mean he dodged the potential consequences of the arbitration. He's never shown any remorse for this agenda-advancing edits and coordinated WP:Civil POV pushing. He's gamed the system for years, and this looks like another attempt to do so. If he does come back he will need to be under some severe editing restrictions. DreamGuy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Unblock. This edit seems genuinely remorseful for the actions which lead to his/her block and has pledged not to do such actions again. I'd say that the indef block has worked to correct behavior. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Unban A truly collaborative community of editors is meant to guide and help other editors. A knowledgeable, experienced editor who acknowledges the concerns that led to his ban, and makes a strong comment and commitment to correct those concerns as MartinPhi has done should be given a chance to become part of the community again, to contribute. As per WP:AGF, we don't assume future behaviours. To unban and allow an editor to have another chance is in the spirit of Wikipedia. To not unban runs counter to that spirit.(olive (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
  • Keep banned. People with such a clear agenda, and who have caused this amount of disruption, should not be editing, no matter whether they make promises to try and be nice or not. If you perceive of Wikipedia as a battlefield, it makes little difference whether you promise to be fair in battle or not, it's the battling that matters. Fut.Perf. 21:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Nyet. Old Russian saying, "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned and this disruptive, unrepentant POV pusher from causing more trouble.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned - why are we wasting our time? He was permanently banned and people think he has magically changed in two months? Come back in a year. And as SBHB was saying: fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool us several dozen times and use a sockpuppet while doing so? Shame on everyone. //roux   22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • CommentUnban - whatever the outcome of this, it ought to be shared equally by MartinPhi and ScienceApologist. MP was not worse than SA in this war (in many ways he was more civilized about it, IMO), but as it stands he's getting a dramatically worse punishment. What I would personally like to see is both SA and MP come back under appropriate restrictions, with a very clear impression that neither of them won. if SA comes back to edit while MP gets banned (or if the tables were turned, and MP came back while SA got banned), it would send the message that this is a useful and effective way of ridding wikipedia of opposing points-of-view, and we'd set a precedent for editors taking kamikaze runs at each other. not good, that. --Ludwigs2 02:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Please reread the findings of the recent Fringe Science arbcom, which apply here, like it or not. It was MΦ, not SA, who was attempting to create a place for unencyclopedic content on WP, not SA. SA was subsequently blocked for violating the terms of the arbcom findings; that was not the case for MΦ, who, during the arbcom case, was blocked by Tznkai for long-term disruption. Mathsci (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Sure, and SA has demonstrated a loooong history of sockpuppetry and markedly uncivil, aggressive tactics to push his own POV (tactics he used on MΦ in excess, which is a big part of the foundation of this debacle). we're not talking about an old-style western here, Mathsci, where there's a guy in a white hat who you know is noble, good, and kind. This is more like a 70's western, where everyone's hat is dusty gray, and both sides are obsessively, arrogantly bent on violence. MΦ's biggest problem here is not that he's pushing a POV (at least not more than SA is), but rather that he's pushing the wrong POV (where SA is pushing the right POV).
I mean, let me be frank about my concern here (I'll provide diffs for all this if you like). a good while ago (when I was just starting out editing here), SA and I had been having a really mindless content dispute over something. He decided to log out and log in as an IP in order to make some very contentious edits and some rude comments towards me (I'm guessing to try to bait me into a 3rr violation). when Elonka left a note on my talk page pointing out that the IP was SA, he laid into her at ANI for 'outing' him. so here's a guy who thinks that he can break the rules about sockpuppetry because it's an effective way to break the rules about baiting, and feels so entitled about it that he bitchslaps the admin who catches him at it. now I'm more than willing to give SA his due - he's apparently done enough good stuff on wikipedia to generate some loyal supporters - but it would be just plain stupid to encourage him in this kind of behavior. If you treat him like the white hat in this conflict, that's what you're doing, and wikipedia is going to suffer for it. --Ludwigs2 19:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
More off-topic stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here's a radical idea: consider MartinPhi's case on its own, according to its merits, and consider SA's case on its own, according to its merits. If you want to start a separate thread on SA's current status by all means go ahead but the present topic is whether to unban MartinPhi. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
here's a better idea: see this as a dispute between two editors - each of whom has his own problematic issues - and reach for a fair and balanced resolution. I commend your loyalty to SA, but I respectfully suggest you look at the bigger picture here. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
P.s. before the other members of the ScienceApologist fan club chime in here (and we all know who you are...), please note that I've made my comment, and I think it's reasonable, and I'm not inclined to be swayed by partisan logic. I mean, I'm more than happy to keep addressing the same point as different editors bring it up, but that's going to get boring for everyone else, very fast. so... --Ludwigs2 21:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Two things - 1. Who are these "ScienceApologist fan club"? 2. Who are the "we" in "we all know who you are"? Shot info (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg I knew you couldn't resist that. consider it an early April Fools'. --Ludwigs2 22:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Face-grin.svg And I knew you couldn't answer a straight question. So care to have another crack at evading it? Shot info (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
sure! --Ludwigs2 01:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Coming from a completely disinterested spectator to this morass but I tend to agree with the above observation by User:Ludwigs2. Both protagonists seem to have used Wikipedia as a battlefield and have caused more distress than it's worth. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Maintain Ban or, at minimum, ban from all fringe topics and all policy pages. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sustain ban per SheffieldSteel. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep banned as we should for most long-term nettlesome editors who have been community banned. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Unban and sysop - as Ludwig above alludes, MartinPhi has behaved much more in line with what an encyclopedia is all about (an encyclopedia being a place where people go to make friends and feel welcomed) than the unapologetic tyrant of the scientific method with whom he locked horns. To put it most bluntly, MartinPhi has been unjustly attacked by those who would bludgeon our delicate whimsy with oppressive fact and appeals to the scientific method - in a nutshell, "verifiable and objective truth" (in an encyclopedia, of all the fucking places!). He should be commended, not lambasted, for his noble actions in furthering the goals of this project, and his detractors should be strong admonished - make that speedy admonished and salted - for their aura-damaging mean-spiritedness. Badger Drink (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maintain Ban Too much wikilawyering, too much drama. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • only with topic ban covering policy pages and anything to do with fringe/paranormal. As an opportunity to show that he is not here just to argue endlessly about fringe stuff. Last thing we need in those pages is another editor arguing that mainstream is wrong and that it's unfair to call fringe stuff for its name. (sorry, Martin, but I'm just tired of circular arguments over SPOV, I want to get some real work done at those pages. If I wanted to argue to argue endlessly over interpretations and not get anything done then I would go the Spanish and Catalans wikipedias to edit History of Catalonia articles) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seems we are blaming one editor for all of the "cares" on the fringe articles. Is that an accurate view? How many does it take to Tango? I wonder what would happen if Martinphi was given a probationary period of time to edit a fringe article with one or two very neutral admins to oversee the article and looking on. Science Apologist was given one last opportunity to redeem himself. Why not this editor? Why would we not extend the same the same good faith to Martinphi. I can understand the frustration that comes up with long discussion but that's Wikipedia, and is hardly the fault of one editor. If you have an knowledgeable editor who would like to try again, why is WP:AGF being ignored. There is no WP:SPOV as far as I know.(olive (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
  • Maintain full ban - I am not aware of any undertaking by Martinphi to change the underlying behavior that necessitated the ban. All the usual pro-fringe accounts are lining up to support unbanning. Nothing to see here other than garden variety disruptive editing. Everyone, go edit an article. Jehochman Talk 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
    • and all the regular skeptic-cruft accounts are lined up to support the ban. let's not belabor the obvious, Jehochman; this is an entirely partisan dispute, with few people displaying anything remotely like common sense. that's the main reason I support unbanning - it's just a disgusting and obnoxious double-standard, otherwise. --Ludwigs2 21:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
ROFL - the irony! Shot info (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Maintain ban not a benifit to the project. Edits with an agenda that is contrary to our aims, causes drama, and repeatedly outs other editors. Should be made a permanent block. I endorse Jehochman's analysis (with the exception of BD). Verbal chat 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I suppose is part amusing and part distressing in equal measure is the fantasy world that lies behind much of the nonsense stated above. This is most clearly demonstrated in Jehochman's post where he says "all the usual pro-fringe accounts are lining up to support unbanning". What? All three of them! And yet this 'stout lone science candle in the dark editor stands against marauding horde of rabid fringe lunatics' fiction seems actually to be believed by many above as in some way representative of wiki, when a cursory glance at what is written above reveals a very different reality. What the above actually shows is a large group whose shrill and sniping posts betray a hatred for anyone who does not share a fanatical anti-fringe view that goes well beyond a simple desire to have articles fairly cover fringe topics. This is hardly suprising when the high priests of the fanatical scientism that many above appear to subscribe to openly espouse bizarre conspiracy theories where watching a few episodes of Buffy can lead to the collapse of civilization as we know it. When the leadership of the movement embraces such nonsense openly it is hardly suprising when the followers follow suit. However, given that the actual situation is so badly misjudged by those opposing the unban, and that their arguments rest on an obvious bogeyman style fiction, it is clear that martin should probably be welcomed back on this basis alone.Landed little marsdon (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Who exactly are you calling shrill? Skinwalker (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder who the "All three of them" exactly are? Shot info (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably best to remain focused on whether or not the ban stays or doesn't. Shot info (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I propose that this thread be closed. There's strong support for continuing the ban, and keeping this open isn't going to generate useful discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an administrator kindly notify MartinPhi of the disposition of this discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent him an e-mail informing him of the decision and providing a link to the discussion. I tend to think that he'll probably get that first, but I will also leave a message on his talk page regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Instances of circumventing semi-protection[edit]

I've been seeing this more and more often lately. A new account is created. The new editor subsequently makes 10 minor edits to somebody's talk pages, inserting and then deleting a single character. At that point, the editor can edit semi-protected articles — and invariably the purpose is for vandalism.

See the contributions of contributions, for example, whose first act after circumventing semi-protection was to vandalize the Virgin Killer article.

I've seen this on other semi-protected articles too. Perhaps the semi-protection rules should be changed, enforcing a waiting period rather than just a minimum number of edits.

I suggest that these editors do not come to Wikipedia with good-faith intent, and should be blocked on sight. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - obviously these editors know exactly what they're doing and should be treated as a 100% vandalism account. Rklawton (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this editor just got indef-blocked. Thanks! ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi protection does require a time delay - the account must be more than four days old. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the account was actually created on the 24th [39] and was not used until today, hence he could edit semi-protected articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
His 10 test edits were to a similarly straight-laced used named Quintessent. Could be a sockpuppet or someone pretending to be. "Quint" = "V", right? I don't know what "kau" means, though. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
His user name style is also similar to the username of a previous vandal who committed an identical pattern on the Virgin Killer article. I think we have a case of somebody creating a bunch of throwaway sockpuppet accounts, to save them up for vandalism when needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Possibly German? The German verb "to eat" is "essen", the German verb "to chew" is "kauen". Tonywalton Talk 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you've got a Tile join infestation: same semi-protection circumvention technique, same short meaningless usernames, same habit of repeating the same action ad nauseum. Persistent type who has not grown bored or felt a sense of futility in over two years of attacking Evolution, Northwich Victoria F.C., Witton Albion F.C., and Winshill. J. Spencer (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to ask for an abuse filter concerning this behavior.— dαlus Contribs 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been requested, please see here.— dαlus Contribs 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Block review, sockpuppet?[edit]

Resolved: Blocked indef. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just blocked User: EchoofReason for 24 hours for repeated incivility. He now appears to be admitting to sockpuppetry, but as a sock of whom, I have no idea. Could someone else please take a look at this, review my block, and see what, if anything, else should be done at this point. The threads he has started off-wiki (with links on his talk page) seem rather threatening to me and another administrator. Aleta Sing 19:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, suggest extend to indef - I am removing attack/outing links, too. Suggest deletion of revisions. — neuro(talk)(review) 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd appreciate someone else perhaps taking the lead on those suggestions if folks agree with them. Aleta Sing 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This is almost certainly Don Murphy back again, from the looks of those links. Be advised, anyone taking action will likely get the same treatment. You'd think he'd be too busy making movies to do this kind of thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice guy. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to repeat myself or anything, but I would still suggest an indef based on the user's behaviour. — neuro(talk)(review) 20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. His methods (as well as those who apparently jump when he says "jump") are disturbing, to say the least. Aleta Sing 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Aaaaand indef. No point spending any longer dealing with that account. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment, agree with SheffieldSteel's indef block of EchoofReason. Should the talk page be deleted/protected? R. Baley (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I blocked the user from editing it. That should do for now. No objection if anyone wants to tag it as {{indef}} or just delete it. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Tagging. — neuro(talk)(review) 21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Make sure its the right tag! Some editors get them confused. :) Synergy 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly Don Murphy. His MO is to use a swarm of sockpuppets; I'd strongly recommend doing a checkuser on User: EchoofReason to root out any more that might be lurking. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(slight return) After an email communication from a checkuser, I've also indefinitely blocked User:LivieInIndiana. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

disruption via mass unsourced categories in BLP[edit]

could someone look into He's been adding 'People of Basque descent' and 'Basque People' categories to random people without any sourcing or explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that they are of Basque descent. He refuses discussion and I count at least 7 warnings, and multiple final warnings on his talk page from various editors asking him to stop adding unsourced categories: . here are some of his unsourced additions: [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]]. There are literally hundreds more. Some of the random people he's adding might actually be Basque, but without evidence and refusing to discuss it, it's just disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking his multiple prior warnings/requests to stop into account, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Hopefully this will alert him to the fact that he's doing something wrong. I notice that he's been doing the same sort of thing with vocal ranges for singers too (there seems to be an abundance of WP editors who appear to thrive on this sort of thing and never, ever stop to discuss their edits - no idea why). We definitely need to review this user's previous edits and remove anything that's not adequately sourced. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley Kennedy's recent edits[edit]

Recently the user Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) created an article that was a clear WP:POVFORK, and promptly AfD'd and deleted. At the time, I considered it a regular content dispute (very common in this field) and ignored it, but it appears that Ashley is now making a series of improper WP:DRIVEBY page moves and taggings:

After I reverted these inappropriate moves, as all those lists included Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis as well, Ashley saw fit to revert (with the incorrect capitalization) and remove the Palestinian deaths from one of the articles, which I believe is a clear violation of WP:POINT (not using edit summaries is not helpful either). If any administrator is unsure of how to proceed here, please take the time to read the AfD and what most editors said there, as well as the relevant WP:ARBPIA. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Here's another two edits, which are clearly incorrect because the articles have in these versions numerous cases of Palestinian casualties, including deaths. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Note to administrators: After trying to explain to Ashley why exactly I filed an ANI report, I was answered with personal attacks and insults. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The titles were inappropriate..the whole string of articles needs dePOVing....It is not drive by it is putting the articles in the correct category of factually inaccurate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I randomly clicked one of the articles and found the following text pretty close to the start:
moved to Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2007 - Ashley kennedy3, 14:36, 31 March 2009:

February 26 - 1 Palestinian civilian, Anan al-Tibi (41), is killed by shots fired by from a passing Israeli army jeep while attempting to escape a surrounded house. Dozens of Palestinians are injured as they clashed with troops.[9]
IDF bombs two houses, including the home of a senior al-Aqsa commander.
February 28
* Residents of Nablus are confined to their homes as Israeli troops move house to house in search of wanted militants.[10]
* Ten people are wounded as youths throwing stones clash with troops. Fifty people were detained, although most were released, and troops surrounded hospitals to check people going in and out.
* Israeli army arrests five wanter militants suspects and uncovers three explosives labs.
* Undercover troops in a black car shoot and kill 3 militants in a Jenin parking lot, including the chief spokesman for the Islamic Jihad.[11]
* A total of 26 Palestinians are arrested during the operation.[12]

There's clearly content about Palestinian casualties so title changes seem to be a bad move.
Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but only writing up Israelis killed and alleged Palestinian terrorists killed when Betselem is available is making wiki somewhat of a Israeli mouthpiece. In your random wandering did it never occur to you to place POV tags or inaccurate facts tags on said articles??? compounding POV by displaying inaccurate details purporting itself as reliable...But you are correct I should have moved 1 them to Israeli version of History with a note warning of extremist propaganda...or alternatively gone for delete article as they are to far gone for recovery...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All those pages are a disgrace to the project. Extreme selective editing to produce a one-sided account of violent incidents to the advantage of one party. Ashley is right, and wrong. He should have just posted a request for deletion. Perhaps this is an incident, but is he up on charges for snipping at wiki trash? Illustration, in just the first, which AK renamed Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000, check September. Israeli soldiers being shot at, 2 of them, and a few Palestinian casualties on the temple Mount. In that late September week, in 5 days, 47 Palestinians were killed and roughly 1,850 shot and wounded. You'd never guess it. Sergeant Biri's murder gets a mention, but nothing about the slaughter as the IDF ran amok. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, let us please discuss the merits of the content of these pages elsewhere; this is not the forum for it. I see these page moves as disruption of Wikipedia to make a point, and am of a mind to impose sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. Could anyone tell me whether Ashley kennedy3 has already been warned as provided for by Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions?  Sandstein  21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, according to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications, he has been. I would appreciate input by other uninvolved administrators. A topic ban of moderate duration might be appropriate, given the level of emotion displayed in Ashley kennedy3's comment above, so as to allow him to cool down for a while.  Sandstein  21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I have looked this over and Ashley Kennedy3 seems to me as well to be editing disruptively. Their response on Ynhockey's talkpage is upsetting and doesn't help make a collegial editing environment. I support a topic ban if Sandstein wants to implement it. I have to admit that I voted delete on the AfD which may have sparked this though. DVD 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
A months vacation for Ashley? PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the two articles to their original names, and removed the obviously false "Note" inserted by Ashley. If people want to edit them, NPOV them, whatever, that's fine, but putting false statements into articles is completely inappropriate. Jayjg (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley has overstretched himself covering quite a few number of articles and finding(and rightfully so) the state of most of those articles unacceptable. Ashley perhaps thinks that the articles are going somewhere and that attention should be poured upon them. Just a simple warning that there is sufficient time to work on these matters will suffice. If these articles(which are his concern) have stood up for quite some time at their current state, surely they could last some more time. It was a case of WP:BOLD on his part and perhaps emotions from a academic head that he is. A month ban might prevent him from coming back and let us use him and his knowledge. Thank you board. Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone perhaps describe the process Ashley should have followed ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The procedure should have been AfD and userfy the article until appropriate action could lead to the articles being reinstated at a standard that was useable...but as the wiki project has left those articles on line for some time, I would not know who the article could reasonably be userfied to...

an alternative is to remove them completely....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, Ashley, there are two possible motions. One for deletion of the article, another for the temporary (?) deletion of AK. Now, you're a military man, dislike going AWOL, preferring to make a public infraction or two when square-bashing's boredom gets the better of you and you start dreaming of a term in solitary. But the scenario reminds me of Mishima Yukio, wonderful writer, who decided to go out in a flaming act of self-immolation, by recourse to traditional suicide. In the art of seppuku, the technical problem is how to cark it efficiently by disembowelment, which otherwise is quite slow. A short deep thrust just left of the left-side of the six-pack musculature of the abdomen, then a twist in the bodkin as you draw it through the thews and sinews down to the visceral peritoneum, so the gut pokes out (the early maestri clutched the bowels in their hands and threw it at their enemies), then a quick vertical cut up to the appendix. Being somewhat groupish and empathetic, the Japanese technicians thought it would be a good idea to get some of your mates in on the job, so they developed the 'kaishakunin', the office of decapitator. A chosen friend would stand by, wait for you to operate self-surgically, and then with a rapid snip, slice your head off.
There are very efficient kaishaku services available for the suicidal editor in wiki. So it's unlikely you'll have people like Masakatsu Morita rolling up for the final thwack. (Masakatsu was inept: Mishima, perfectly self-disembowelled had to keep holding his neck at an angle while the joker hacked away, hitting bone instead of slicing between the vertebrae). The problem is, you don't really disembowel yourself efficiently: you dither with a penknife, jabbing at yourself (making noisy minor infractions that are bound to tickle the ear of the many kaishaku in the neighbourhood), and it's death by a thousand blows. So chum, if you really do want out, do it with elegance, in harmony with the ready help. No frigging around with minor dabs: go for the huge infraction, something like the famous Elelandic commendation, and admin will put you out of your misery with a neat guillotining. I will of course, weep at the tumbril, and write the epitaph. But surely the smart things just to take a break, or challenge Phil Knight's suggested sentence as too light, and ask for 6 weeks sentence. I know it's intensely arduous, painful, trying to insist on intelligent editing and sensible articles in the I/P area, but, son, a minor tragedy, multiplied in the aftermath, risks becoming a soapoperatic series of major farces, what Signalman Freud called a 'repetitive compulsion' and while the game is enjoyed by those happy to assist you in your tormented exists, repeated complicity does look somewhat masochistic. After all, what you or I think is trivial: what you or I may do, to stay on and get articles fair and balanced, with a steady eye on the silent Palestinians, isn't. (Or of course, you could apologize, and promise to pull your finger out, which is rather difficult for seppuku aficionados, since a preliminary requires the moriturus to stuff his rectum with a ball of cottonwool in order not to soil the scene) Regards to a fine, studious, and dedicated, but fucking irresponsibly irascible fellow editor.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked Nishidani one week for making the above post. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I am blocking Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for one year for disruptive editing as an enforcement action under WP:ARBPIA. The account was previously blocked one week for arbitration enforcement, and then one month for sock puppetry in the same locus of dispute. A one year block is the next logical step in escalation. Should the editor wish to edit again, they can first explain how things will be different. Do not unblock without my approval, or following the appeal process described at WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman Talk 13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict with Jehochman:) In view of the discussion above, I have made Ashley kennedy3 subject to a one month topic ban with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles.  Sandstein  13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There were two previous topic bans. The most recent was 60 days, placed by Shell Kinney in January 2009. Topic bans have not been effective deterrence. I am sticking with the one year block. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No objection to your block, but my topic ban will remain technically in force and may become relevant if your block is lifted for any reason.  Sandstein  13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don´t think anyone will call me an "uninvolved" user here, but I hope I can still give my 2 cents: Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is one of the more knowledgeable users in the Israel/Palestine area; one of the relatively few who actually read and use academic sources. Unfortunately, he has a very low tolerance for rubbish. And he express this lack of tolerance in no uncertain, and often, in rather undiplomatic ways. (In a conflict between A and B: if A has 90% of the fatalities, what do say about an article on WP which makes it look as if B had 90% of the fatalities, and A 10%?). User:Sandstein has placed a one month topic ban on Ashley. I agree with this. (Yes, Ashley: if you read this: you need cooling-off time). It might even be extended to double that. However, to deprive WP off one of its more knowledgeable editors for one whole year seems to me draconian, compared to "crime" committed. Would someone please reconsider this block? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to reconsider the block, but I'd like to discuss it with the user directly, rather than with agents third parties. They can reach me by email. In particular I'd like to understand why a topic ban would work this time, when the last two topic bans were followed by an immediate return to disruptive behavior. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What means agents ? Is this some irony as the one you considered that is deserved 1 week block to Nishidani ? Maybe a 12h holiday will help you to read back wp:civil and wp:agf ? I suggest you take some distance with this topic.
Basis of conflict resolution is to discuss with some intermediaries to conciliate points of views and explain with some neutrality the issues.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Just for the record: I am nobodys agent, and nobody has asked me to come here and ask for a shortening of Ashley´s block. Also; Ashley has had some 2500-3000 edits in the Palestine/Israel area since he came back from his last block, and that includes writing, basically on his own, the much needed 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine. Just for the record. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As I will only be online briefly over the next few days, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to handle unblock discussions with Ashley kennedy3. My advice is to determine whether they will return to disruption, or not, if the block is lifted but the topic ban remains in place. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm an uninvolved editor as far as this incident goes, but I have worked with Ashley numerous times (sometimes we collaborate and other times we argue, but my discussions with her are always cordial). I've noticed plenty of times, however, that Ashley, like many if not most of the core editors in the I-P subject area, tends to get combative and forgets the rules (pillars, guidelines, rules of thumb) of Wikipedia such as NPOV and civility when a conflict of some sort erupts. His behavior is unacceptable here and he must understand to keep cool or suffer the consequences, like this block for instance. However, Ashley is by far, one of the only editors in the subject area, that contributes tons of quality info backed with reliable sources. His recent edits at Palestinian nationalism and the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine are particularly impressive. He's also been useful in adding coordinates to hundreds of WP Palestine articles and is responsible for starting hundreds or articles on Palestinian localities. All in all, Ashley kennedy3 is a very valuable editor to the project who, unfortunately, has indeed violated topic bans and previous blocks by continuing inflammatory edits and/or becoming uncivil in discussions with fellow users. Another topic ban is an obvious choice, but I think the year-long block is too harsh. I will not unblock him myself because of our generally friendly relationship here on Wikipedia. Instead, I'll explain to him (as I've seen Huldra do) the strict rules of NPOV and civility among other guidelines. Hopefully, he will get the picture and how things work on Wikipedia, and another administrator will unblock him after a definite assurance from him that he will not return to disruption. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The key phrase is "not return to disruption". No matter what the length of the block, a return to disruption will only result in another block. I would prefer to remove the block as soon as possible, but I do not want to return here tomorrow, next week, or next month. With that goal in mind, a long block may convince the editor of a need to change, rather than allowing them to sit it out and go right back to what they were doing before (as has happened with multiple previous blocks up to 30 days and bans up to 60 days). Ashley kennedy3 needs to provide a reason why things will be different if they are to resume editing. Jehochman Talk 06:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


AshleyKennedy is a good contributor concerning content matters in the articles related to the I-P conflict. But his behaviour vis-à-vis other contributors who do not share his standards or his views is not acceptable. And he has already been warned several times for that. Nishidani wants him to apologize. I personally did the same by emails and warned him about the consequences.
I would personnally suggest an undefinite block until he admits he was wrong, gives his point of view, and agrees he will take the highest care not attack so harshly other contributors anymore, for any reason. That is a suggestion to be discussed. I don't measure all the positive and negative consequences yet. Ceedjee (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Ceedjee's suggestion. He disagrees with both Ashley and myself on overall interpretation (but that's not, as we all recoghnize, our job) but we three and a few others have had a very productive working rapport ('across borders'). Admins judge first by the behavioural record (in AK's case, two suspensions were cases of stupidly allowing himself to be gamed), not by the editing record for substantive work. AK has always replied with speed and precision for any request, from whoever, on things like coordinates (where he has strong talents) to details (he has accumulated at his own expense a large library on the area. He is, like Ceedjee, basically an article builder from academic sources in an area where most seem to edit, from page to page, just on words, or phrasing, or a sentence or source, in terms of their pereceptions of POV, and without much regard to the whole subject of the page. He's clearly to blame for allowing a good record to be stained by infractions: he should learn to ignore provocation, be more patient even if antipathy closes in, not personalize his conflicts, etc.
Perhaps he should take a month's break, and figure out while reading whether he's committed enough to wiki, as opposed to understanding the history of the area, to curb his views (which I happen to share) and just stick to the technical labour of ensuring good material gets on page. If he decides 'yes', he should then ask for a reconsideration of a reduction from one year. If I recall, Sandstein's 1 month was too lenient. Phil Knight's 2 months fair, but, as Jehochman noted, he'd already copped (I think unjustly) a two month suspension, and therefore, within the wiki system (which we must accept however weird it works out instance from instance), you should be looking at something from 2 to 3 months. As any lawyer will tell you, law has nothing to do with justice. It's just how the paper evidence lines up, within a system of rules. Personally, I don't think Ynhockey should ever have even troubled to note the so-called Drive-by edit infraction, which occasioned his suspension, and his improper outburst against Ynhockey. Those pages are a POV disaster, and rightly elicit contempt. A good many in the I/P area should learn to use reporting technical infractions only as a last recourse, when there is a real stalemate on a page.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have initiated a discussion on Ashley on his talk page regarding this matter, as Jehochman suggested an uninvolved admin might do. I also sent him? an email informing him of the new thread there. I welcome anyone interested to observe the discussion, and take part as they see fit. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


DawnisuponUS (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This editor has been borderline disruptive at Talk:September 11 attacks for a little while. They've been warned of the arbcom sanctions by several editors. Recently they decided to argue the toss with myself and User:Tom harrison about whether they'de been edit-warring on the article itself. I decided I'd had enough and gave them a final warning against any form of disruption or personal attack. Their response has been to accuse us of "Defamation", "slander" etc etc. This is all very well, and I'm quite enjoying the chance to run amok in a berserk manner and feel the wind in my hair, but I'm wondering when it will end.

Review and considered action by uninvolved admins would be appreciated at this point. Most of the history is plainly viewable at User Talk:DawnisuponUS - I don't think there's been any blanking. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate this call for action by uninvolved admins, I've already made a call for informal mediation, and if it yields no result, I will pursue other venues.
SheffieldSteel (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) cannot hold his restraint. He has a history of such conduct and he is trigger happy when it comes to blocks and ban's. I'm not sure if he is suited to carry the "badge" of administrator. I would kindly ask the administrators to take their time and review case closely and thoroughly as well as history of the party which brought this forward. My page was blanked once, I've removed welcoming message. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I concur with the assessment that DawnisuponUS has been edit-warring and is, to put it mildly, unapologetic about it. It's a new account, and the actual disruption is too old to be blockable now, but if he continues, a block at WP:AIV with reference to this thread should be forthcoming, if you don't want to block him yourself.  Sandstein  22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
My opinion is that this recent edit is point-of-view pushing and also ungrammatical, introducing both anti-Israel bias and a run-on sentence into the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm certain it would had been far better if this ANI didn't come to play. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
"Would have been" is correct, for what it's worth. Better would be to say "Well, I'm certain it would have been far better if ANI hadn't come into play." As far as trying to deal with English grammar, you have my sympathy. For the conspiracy theories I have no sympathy at all. Tom Harrison Talk 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is this important, Tom? Grammar? Explain yourself. I wonder what's on your mind. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You brought it up [45]. If you aren't interested, don't let me detain you. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
No, FisherQueen brought it up, and I want to know why. Must admit, extremely amusing summary too. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
My primary objection was not to the grammar error, but to the pushing of a specific point of view, which, I think, is the subject of this discussion. I brought it up as an example of a recent edit that I thought showed you pushing a specific point of view. The other subject of this discussion, your aggressively unhelpful reaction to correction, I do not think I need to find examples of, as you have helpfully added several examples to this discussion already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd say you've made your point too, as for my mood, or aggressiveness, if you prefer. I'm really not in the good mood and you parachuting in and throwing judgment which you've based on single edit, in spite the fact I've kindly asked adminship for more careful review, well, it surly didn't improve it – the mood. DawnisuponUS (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, what is the purpose of this exam? Is it over now? If it is, here's a remark. So far we have one uninvolved editor here. I remember you FisherQueen, one look at your talkpage was enough. I'll invite you to stand in front of the ArbCom. This is the stage in which you always come to play. DawnisuponUS (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not certain what you saw on my talk page that made you think I'm in violation of any rules, but, like any Wikipedia editor, I am subject to the will of the community and perfectly willing to submit to the decisions of ArbCom. Remember to be specific about the rule I've broken, and include links and diffs, when you submit your complaint about me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of FisherQueen having violated any rule or guideline which would cause her to be brought up before the ArbCom, or retract your accusation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you be less uncivil? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can, but I see no point in this case. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of scary when a admin tries to justify a ban because a person added a fact about Israel that doesn't show the Israelis in a good light. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Also, the admins picking on the person for his grammar demonstrates the lack of professionalism here. It is bad enough for a person to be reported, but with admins mocking the person's editing, well that is just bullying. Excuse the bad grammar, I am not writing a paper.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is the question of whether User:DawnisuponUS has been pushing a specific point of view and interacting uncivilly with other editors; do you have an opinion about that subject? If you'd like to start a thread about User:FisherQueen and the specific rule she has broken, you should create a new subject header, so the two discussions don't become tangled with each other and difficult to follow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you broke a rule and I don't have an opinion on DawnisuponUS. But I have an opinion on the lack of professionalism by administrators like the unnecessary nitpicking on grammar. I just wanted to say something on the peanut gallery, that's all. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DawnisuponUS is certainly not a new user. I have not interacted with DawnisuponUS, having been mostly on a wikibreak for the past 1-2 months. Yet, DawnisuponUS is following my talk page and trolling. [46] It's very clear to me that DawnisuponUS is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Previously, we had User:Tachyonbursts (~May 2008) and User:Quantumentanglement (~December 2007), who were both banned. There are striking similarities in the behaviour of all three of these users. And, I'm 99.9% sure Quantumentanglement and Tachyonbursts were not new accounts either. I suspect that these users are User:Lovelight, who was banned in May 2007 and has continued to edit off and on with sock accounts and as an IP editor. Of course, the accounts are too old for checkuser to help, but take a look at the behaviour and language used by these accounts to see the similarities.

DawnisuponUS is simply wasting people's time. Please stop allowing this. Someone, please block the account. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, see how they surface? This is one of the editors I've named in my request for mediation, wonder who will surface next? Mongo? DawnisuponUS (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This proved the point I'm making today long, long time ago, so you had to delete it? Gone, is it? Where can I find these ol' pieces, I'll need those. What's the word? It is cover up. DawnisuponUS (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this recent edit should be excluded from this discussion as being irrelevant. It's a fairly typical edit made in IP articles by new contributors. It's neither point-of-view pushing nor does it introduce an anti-Israel bias into the article because it's consistent with the BRD workflow, was reverted and is now being discussed. It raised an important issue that perhaps isn't being given due weight in the article. New contributers often start like this but move on to discussing changes on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aude that DawnisuponUS is almost certain to be somebody's sockpuppet as well as trolling this discussion, and have blocked it indefinitely. Review welcome.  Sandstein  05:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Bravo. Thank you once again. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You're a sensible admin, why would you block a user simply because someone is suspicious that he is a sockpuppet? Doesn't a checkuser have to be performed first? Trolling is not an issue here. I hope this is some sort of an April Fool's joke, even the skinhead axmann received more leniency than this. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
A checkuser isn't required when the duck test applies. Dayewalker (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I will not pretend that I understand half of things you folks said here, but I know a foul play when I see it. I’ve been watching discussions of editors and DawnisuponUS with interest and I have to say that this sort of manhunt is disturbing and in line with what that person was saying at 9/11 attacks page. I’m not sure what is going on behind curtains here, but I’m sure that after following all this I will never be able to read wikipedia with ease. Shame on you folks. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, isn't it curious that Thingsrelatedornot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) found this noticeboard with its fourth edit, and spent its other three edits agreeing with DawnisuponUS on the 9/11 talk page?  Sandstein  07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
wouldn't it be better just to do a checkuser and then take the appropriate action otherwise it's just speculation. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Thingsrelatedornot, I don't think there's a problem. Existing sanctions should be sufficient to ban or block them in their own right (i.e. without any need for a sock check), if they are disruptive, and currently they just aren't that big of a problem.
Regarding DawnisuponUS, this is hardly a "foul play". Those who have voiced an opinion on the subject have said that DawnisuponUS is disruptive, aggressive, or tendentious, has engaged in edit-warring, continues to argue that they have done no wrong in the face of policy and diffs, or some combination thereof. The edit warring at 9/11 was sufficient for a block, and it could be argued that the soapboaxing on the Talk page was sufficient for a ban. The fact that I issued neither, I can only put down to a lack of trigger-happiness on my part (I can't speak for Tom harrison, but I think he engages problematic editors with commendable patience). Initial approaches to this editor were polite and informative. As for exactly why and how that went downhill so markedly - that is something that we can all reflect upon, but none of us should be under the impression that this was a productive, collaborative, respectful, polite editor who was here to help build the encyclopaedia but who just somehow slipped through the cracks and is now lost to us - nor indeed a lone voice of sanity in the Kafkaesque wilderness, speaking up for those who have no voice, challenging the Orwellian thought police and... uh... something about Nazis and Godwin. Sorry, lost my train of thought ;-( SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not wikipedia editor, I’m simply an editor. So have you done the checking? There is no way to misinterpret what happened here. Shame on you. Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You are making edits on wikipedia, so by definition you are a wikipedia editor. So how is that you, a supposedly brand new user, and whose grammar mistakes match those of the now-blocked user, happened to zoom in on all of this? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I ran into an edit conflict before I could raise the same issue. An SPA suddenly appearing here, clearly now a new user... a thing related, quite possibly. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Acts like a sock, but aside from incivility on ANI and here ([47]), it hasn't really done anything yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it must be conspiracy. Oops, look! One of your editors just made a mistake, it’s very suspicious, hitting now instead of not. Did you know that you can reach this place via 911 talkpage in just three clicks? Incivility? Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, User:Thingsrelatedornot is an obvious sockpuppet of User:DawnisuponUS. Does anyone object to my blocking her? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought you'd never ask. :) Gopher it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Obvious, what is obvious?! Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Her?! Thingsrelatedornot (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
"Her" being "Dawn". From "Dawn" to "Dusk", as it were. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Report to WP:AIV if another disruptive edit is made beyond the "final warning". —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

New editor Georgeringojohnpaul has made repeated nonsense edits to George Harrison. They have been warned once, but repeated the nonsense edit after the warning. I suggest a short block to show him/her we're serious.... — John Cardinal (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If the user vandalizes again after the level-4 warning, report it to WP:AIV. —bbatsell ¿? 03:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda/POV pushing re: