Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive574

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Something wierd at the article Mullazai[edit]

I came to this article via the recent changes page. A new user, AurangzebMarwat (talk · contribs) has been making large amounts of edits to the article Mullazai. There is also an IP, complaining and opposing AurangzedMarwat's edits, 119.153.78.131 (talk · contribs) When I reverted one of their edits based on an incorrect blanking tag here, they asked me to intervene and stop the other user. There is something wrong with these edits, but I can't quite put my finger on it and I don't want to become any more involved. So what's going on and what should be done about it? Logging off now- A little insignificant Help, it's almost Halloween! AAH! 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably some kind of spillover from Marwat. There's a few eyes on the article now. --NeilN talkcontribs 17:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at List of online dating websites[edit]

Resolved: Blocked Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See the edit summary of this diff. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy avoiding sanctions[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved. See you all in six months, then. Master of Puppets 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing a 3RR report filed by Radiopathy against me, it was discussed between two admins that RP should be sanctioned to 1RR, in that he had previously been blocked for 3RR, and had agreed to avoid edit warring on contentious articles, only to begin doing so again once he was unblocked on different articles. See the 3RR report(it ended as no vio, btw). Following the alert of this sanction, the user retired, stating that they plan on returning when the sanction is over. This, to me, entirely defeats the purpose of the sanction. Radiopathy does not seem to understand why he was blocked(re: edit warring). This is troublesome to me. I do not think that users who have been blocked for edit warring, are unblocked with a promise not edit war, and then edit war again should be given the ability to evade sanctions intended to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Given the lack of alternatives, I propose that this sanction be either extended to indef until the user shows he will not edit war. If any of you have any better ideas, please, state them.— dαlus Contribs 06:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC) User notified.— dαlus Contribs 06:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest just leaving him be. The conclusion he's arrived at is only going to be reinforced by any further sanctions, and given that he appears to be abandoning Wikipedia, there's no damage to prevent. If he does return in six months, and edit wars to the same extent, we can deal with it then. But I don't see that he's evading anything, except the project itself, which he is free to do. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Some users have a strange relationship to the concept of retired. This one went directly from adding the retired template to his talk page, to reverting edits in article space. This was not the first revert there had the edit summary "1976 is correct asshole". i wouldn't take the user's declaration at face value (especially as he lied about not edit warring to get unblocked). Extending to indef would force the user to at least confront his behaviour in an unblock request, rather than returning later to exact revengeYobMod 11:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If Radiopathy abides by 6 months of 1rr through not editing at all for 6 months, that's ok, it's not "avoiding sanctions." Meanwhile he can put up and take down "retired" tags in his user space as he pleases, they're harmless, their meaning is drawn only from the ongoing contribution history of whomever posts them. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The 1RR limit was applied to prevent further disruption to wikipedia. As such it does it work irrespective of whether Radiopathy is active or not, or acknowledges the problem with their editing. Also, many users lash out at being blocked or sanctioned, and their conduct in the immediate aftermath is not necessarily reflective of what they'll do later. So unless there are further disruptions, lets see how the user edits over the next six months before deciding whether the 1RR limit needs to be modified or extended. Abecedare (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Oki doke. It seems to me that declaring oneself retired, then calling an editor an asshole but not getting any warning is problematic. But maybe it was a last gasp, so doesn't need action.YobMod 12:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Radiopathy didn't get a templated warning for that, but both User:Master of Puppets and I did make it clear that such edit-summaries were inappropriate. See the conversation at my userpage. We always have the option of tightening sanctions and imposing blocks if needed, but usually we are better off if we try to de-escalate such situations, and giving the user some space. Abecedare (talk) 12:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
If he comes back and starts edit-warring off-the-hop, we can deal with it in turn. Master of Puppets 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks for the opinions and eyes. I'll hit either of you two again if I spot him edit warring.— dαlus Contribs 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And by hit I mean hit you up.— dαlus Contribs 19:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of Jacurek[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Wrong forum. Since the block is labeled as an arbitration enforcement action under WP:DIGWUREN, any appeal discussion must take place at WP:AE, as directed by Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  21:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people might remember that 2 days ago I filled a request on this page against user:Varsovian for edit warring at the London Victory Parade of 1946 article against myself and Jacurek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). The discussion is now archived here: [1] To my total disbelief I have now discovered that administrator user:Future Perfect at Sunrise issued a 1 month block to Jacurek!? Since nobody in that discussion felt that Jacurek should be even blocked I think it's a highly problematic block to say the least, and specifically:
a) IMO it was the user:Varsovian who was causing problems on that talk page by refusing to compromise on the issue on the lack of Polish participation in the parade. In any case if Future Perfect thought that Jacurek's actions were problematic he should have warned him first, giving the editor the chance to change his behavior
b) IMO, Future Perfect could have indicated in that ANI thread that he intends to block Jacurek for 1 month seeing if there is consensus for such a drastic measure. IMO there would not have been any.
c) the length of the block, 1 month, is IMO opinion a complete overkill, if I'm not mistaken usually admins block for 24 hours first
d) Future Perfect inexplicably completely failed to address Varsovian's calling Jacurek an idiot
I request some non involved admin re-examines the situation and possibly reverse the 1 month block to Jacurek. Loosmark (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is User:Jacurek requesting an unblock? If he does not contest his own block, why should anyone else care? --Jayron32 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion loosing a good editor due to an unjust block is bad for the project. Loosmark (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
A perfectly good and necessary block IMHO. We gotta be cracking down on this kind of nonsense. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Re the length of the block, AFAIK, there is no set scale. It is down to the blocking admin to set the length of time. This can be from 1 second to indefinite, depending on circumstances. If Jacurek requests an unblock, the request will be dealt with via the usual channels. Mjroots (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Could the blocking admin please provide some diffs please of the inappropriate comments and of any discussion that took place regarding them? I didn't see anything that looked blockable. Also, Jayron deserves a trouting for suggesting that improper blocks can't be discussed by concerned third parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Varsovian's comment at 17:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC), along with the number of bad faith assumptions/accusations I read along the way, suggest that there were some chronic problems here. My preliminary view is that I am inclined to agree with Deacon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Admin's comment: I blocked Jacurek principally for this exchange (with beginnings in the immediately preceding thread), where I believe he was engaging in serious harassment of his opponent. This in connection with the observation that his edit-warring behaviour on the article and his conduct on the talk page over the preceding weeks was an expression of a stubborn "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT"-type refusal to engage in meaningful discussion, that it was distinctly less constructive than that of his opponent (although Varsovian also got a warning from me), and that he showed an overall hostile battleground mentality. The length of the block is also influenced by his prior block log, with several blocks even longer than a month, by prior observations of aggressive and unconstructive conduct in other related disputes, and (secondarily) by my knowledge of the disruptive role he played in the EEML fiasco. Fut.Perf. 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes Varsovian got oh so harrased by that question and he was making big drama about it. But now that Jacurek got blocked for a month suddenly Varsovian doesn't feels so harrased anymore by questions and in fact even ask Jacurek on his talk page to ask him more questions!!! [2].

Loosmark (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


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

LotLE violating WP:EDITWAR and WP:CANVASS[edit]

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

This is about Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters and his conduct at Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation . Engaged in edit warring here: [3] [4] When he realized he had reached 3RR, he then canvassed two like-minded editors [5] [6] to join the fray. This is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, while not technically violating WP:3RR, it is a violation of the spirit of WP:EDITWAR. There has been similar conduct at another article, ACORN. I believe this conduct has earned a block. Since he has already experienced 24-hour and 48-hour blocks, this one should be a seven-day block. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have conveniently left out the fact that you've been edit-warring too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The difference is that my edits seek to restore WP:NPOV, while LotLE is POV pushing; and when I attempted to engage him in discussion on his User Talk page, he deleted my comments and went canvassing. Every quote in the article that is more than three words in length supports Churchill. We have extensive quotes from socialists such as Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, but none from conservatives such as Ann Coulter or Eugene Volokh. It gives the inaccurate impression that the entire academic community believes his firing was a miscarriage of justice. Policy even trumps consensus here, and NPOV is a fundamental principle. I did not violate WP:3RR nor did I violate WP:CANVASS. Rather than be drawn into a continued edit war, I came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you have edit-warred, and NPOV does not excuse your conduct. Therefore, any sanction on the others will require a sanction on you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)WP:NPOV does not mean that every perceived "positive" entry must be matched by a perceived "critical" one. This is a fundamental error that trips up far too many editors these days, especially in political articles. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I have not violated WP:CANVASS. LotLE has violated WP:CANVASS. I never even tried to match "every perceived 'positive' entry [with a] perceived 'critical' one." If I had, I would have had to introduce about six or seven quotes rather than just one. I'm just trying to satisfy WP:NPOV. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but as the article stands there are three lengthy direct quotes from Churchill supporters and zero from those who though the decision was balanced. This certainly seem to go against WP:WEIGHT. WVBluefield (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)There are more than just three, Bluefield. Look higher on the page for quotes from Emma Perez, a supportive Colorado University faculty member, and from Noam Chomsky. Aside from the findings of the investigation and the judge's ruling in the lawsuit, this is a Ward Churchill hagiography. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit-warring on its own does not become excused because of edit-warring and other conduct issues by another party; any sanction on the other side will mean you too will be sanctioned - that you feel satisfied you get less charges of misconduct on your list than the other side suggests that you are battling. Sorry, that is not acceptable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
A quick review of your edits indicates you've supported LotLE's POV pushing in the past. As a like-minded editor, I'm surprised that he overlooked you in his canvassing expedition. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Now you're adding gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith to your list. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others, who have not supported LotLE's POV pushing in earlier cases, to make that determination. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Supporting or not, edit-warring is edit-warring. There's only one excuse to break 3RR, and that's vandalism. We have a bold, revert, discuss cycle ... note, it's not a bold, revert, keep frigging doing it cycle. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Very true. In particular, "but my version is NPOV" is one of the lamest excuses for edit-warring ever. I don't think the relatively mild warring by both sides so far merits blocks, but if this continues, WP:AN3 is thataway. And please stop discussing the content dispute here, that's what the article talk page is for.  Sandstein  17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I agree that we have a "bold, revert, discuss" cycle but when I tried to follow it, my attempt to discuss the matter on LotLE's User Talk page was deleted. At that juncture, I chose not to continue the edit war, and came here. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Article alk page, IP. Got to settle content disputes at the article talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)LotLE has also engaged in edit-warring and other misconduct at the ACORN article. This should be investigated before dismissing this matter. I suggest we give it some time for others to step forward. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Or you could just put the stick down. Either. Or. Whatever "ip." Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, in light of Ncmvocalist's distaste for "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith," I will observe that LotLE has also engaged in "gross unjustified assumptions of bad faith." Specifically, he's accused me of being a sockpuppet,[7] with no evidence other than this content dispute. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah. I'd bet my last dollar that you're either a returned banned user or a sock for an ongoing user too. Your behavior has convinced me of that. You'll just have to live with other people's suspicion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
And you'll have to live with my suspicion, without even checking your edit history, that you're another like-minded editor who has supported and defended LotLE's edit warring in the past, like Ncmvocalist. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This complaint by a sock puppet is silly. But I would note one minor thing that editors may not have noticed in 64.208.230.145's mischaracterization. S/he posted an article content matter on my user talk page, so I moved the comment (verbatim) to the article talk where it made sense to appear (and noted my action there). After this notice, I saw that WVBluefield made a good edit to the article in question to provide balance to the section the anon was trying to edit. I mention on the article talk that I agree with that improvement. LotLE×talk

It is exactly as I suspected, LotLE is the "attack dog" for a large group of editors who have been POV pushing for years. They eliminate negative material from WP articles about progressive (and radically left-wing) persons and groups such as William Ayers, Barack Obama, ACORN and Ward Churchill. I suspect User:Ncmvocalist and User:Bali ultimate are members of this group. It is painfully obvious that User:Scjessey, now serving a one-year topic ban from all politically related articles, is another "attack dog" for the group. They provide cover for each other at WP:ANI and ArbCom. They use tag team tactics to avoid WP:3RR violations during edit wars. User:Noroton, a respected and long-established editor here at WP, has gone into great length on his User Talk page regarding this group. Admins evidently ignore misconduct by this POV-pushing group, while harshly punishing anyone else who speaks out against the group. I urge any admin with any sense of self-respect and genuine NPOV to step forward and join me in fully investigating this matter. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Hey! Everyone knows there is no cabal! HalfShadow (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ. Noroton was very thorough. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
That is rather chilling given Noroton's history here, his attempt to intervene in the Obama arbcom case, and 64's attempt to wake him from the wiki-dead.[8] Let's nip this sock in the bud before it causes a real fuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC) stricken in light of subsequent statements by all concerned - Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Um... tangential point - Noam Chomsky is an anarchist, not a socialist. Furthermore not all lefitsts support Ward Churchill. The guy is a plagiarist. That he is saying correct things doesn't make that less academically dishonest that he claims credit for it. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) I agree with the 64 sock's POV here regarding article balance so I can't quite say I'm "like minded". However, I find LotLE's argument persuasive that the specific content 64 wants to include is redundant and not pertinent to the section. All this can and should be discussed on the article talk page. For anyone who needs context, Ward Churchill is an incendiary subject both on and off Wikipedia, one of the most militant Native American rights supporters who accuses the US of ongoing genocide and wrote an essay basically saying that American policies caused 9/11 and that the victims at ground zero deserved to die because they were agents of financial imperialism. Alas, he was by most serious observers' accounts unmasked as a fake Native-American, and found to have fabricated much of his most noted academic research. That he has supporters at all in the US is interesting, and they are very strident. Some of the content that gets added to the article in support of Churchill seems very pointed and fringe-y. It's a good article to avoid if one values one's wiki-sanity. Against that context we have an IP editor who has edited a number of high-profile political articles lately, jumping into the fray of accusations, and who is clearly familiar with many old Wikipedia disputes and the players in those disputes. They seem to be carrying a grudge from past interactions with LotLE - rather than AGF we have escalation and complaints. Many to most of the editors who were antagonizing LotLE in months past are on permanent involuntary wiki-breaks for socking and/or tendentious editors, so it is a reasonable question whether this editor is a sock. Further, established editors getting together to ask each other whether an suspicious IP account is an old sock is not canvassing - if editors couldn't compare notes on socks we wouldn't be able to deal with them. I've edited the Churchill article before, it's on my watch list, and I'm no pushover for requests made on my talk page - in fact, I initially agreed with 64. And here I'm solidly on 64's side regarding the POV of the Churchill article. But this page is not for POV battles, it's for administering the encyclopedia. If 64 is going to hurl accusations, edit war contentious articles, and start administrative complaints, we're going to have to settle sooner or later whether it's a legitimate account. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
(after EC) - 64's latest post is WP:QUACKing. Nearly all the accounts that wrote in those terms about that particular group of articles, and who made those accusations against that group of editors, are all indeffed as parts of one sock farm or another. Most are logged at the Obama article probation page sanction list. We let them troll far too long during the election and wasted thousands of hours of productive editing time. We shouldn't let them cause so much disruption this time. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, go ahead. Your attempts to shoot the messenger, like the criticisms against the Colorado University investigation of Ward Churchill, do not invalidate the complaint I'm lodging. There is a group of editors who are POV pushing. Several of them have block histories for edit warring, so I'm not making this up. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, as do others who have apparantly resorted to socking. Grsz11 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The solution is simple. Stop edit warring on both sides, and work out any POV problems on the article's talk page. I'm actually on 64's side here and would support their attempt to update the article, if not that specific proposal. My comments go to a different issue that is relevant to this page, that we have an old-timer editor ("sock", "messenger", take your pick) aggressively attacking other editors with the same sweeping accusations that caused so much disruption among the sockosphere in 2008 and early 2009. If 64 is willing to go to the talk page and work things out in a civil way without edit warring I think we should just close this thing as not actionable at this time. But any more stirring the pot on either side and we're going to have to deal with 64 as a likely bad hand account of another editor who may or may not be restricted from editing under their main account at the moment. I hope we won't have to deal with other old timers getting too rambunctious in their anti-sock patrols, though, that only flames the fire. Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
At the risk of being falsely accused (again) of being a sock, I'll add that LotLE's behavioral problems at ACORN and elsewhere are profound: hostile and needlessly abrasive edit summaries, edit-warring, and a generally combative demeanor ... except with his friends, who are accurately described by 64 as "like-minded." I suggested a six-month topic ban for LotLE on the article Talk page days ago. I go farther than 64 in reviewing not just edit histories, but also block logs and Talk page histories and archives; and I've been around long enough, using different IPs, to watch WP:ANI and WP:3RR (and take a peek at a few ArbCom proceedings when my curiosity is piqued). LotLE is a problem editor. His misbehavior has occasioned no less than nine 3RR reports, three ANI reports and six blocks. One thing that WD is correct about is a need for everyone on this thread to stop assuming that all IP editors are socks or SPAs, that we have ulterior motives, or that knowledge about problem editors is conclusive proof of sockpuppetry. Currently I'm using three IPs (work, school and home; to anticipate your question, 64 is not one of them) to edit three different subject areas at Wikipedia. No malice is intended. I just like to keep them separate (and I have some other personal reasons to keep my real life ID concealed). I'm not banned or blocked. This is the worst controversy I've encountered been involved with at Wikipedia. LotLE's behavior is far from collegial or collaborative, and he hasn't learned anything from his repeated blocks, except how to push the envelope (and his POV) without getting blocked. A block and a topic ban are well-deserved here. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The value of an anon IP's call for topic bans or blocks or whatnot is precisely nil, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It's worth a million razzbuckniks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Well, you made them stop and think for 11 hours, 71. In much the same way that BU shut up and ran for cover when I mentioned the possibility that he was part of LotLE's posse. Thanks for your support. For the record, LotLE's comment above was originally posted while he was logged out. I checked the edit history of his IP address, and found a previous post he'd made in response to one of the many, many 3RR reports that have been made against him. That, in turn, led me to the person who made the report: Noroton. And to his User Talk page. Noroton's contributions over the years have been nothing less than spectacular. Everybody at WP should be ashamed to lose him. And his diagnosis of the systemic bias here at WP is deadly accurate. LotLE and Scjessey are the attack dogs for a large group of editors who WP:OWN the political articles, POV-pushing on behalf of the left. Admins are POV-pushing through them by proxy, by letting them get away with murder while quickly coming down like a ton of bricks for minor infractions by anybody who stands in their way.

It's despicable. And all of you should be ashamed. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not ashamed here. You're pushing your version of The Absolute Truth, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Tone down the melodrama and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Shooting the messenger

cmt it's blindingly obvious at this point that the ips are connected to this banned user [9].Bali ultimate (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of socks[edit]

Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked for a week for operating at least three alternate accounts:[10]

These are nearly a year old, and collectively have made well over 10,000 edits, not all of them innocent, at least one of them contentious.[11]including during periods when Noroton was blocked or supposedly retired. I note that Noroton posted a long screed here similar to the accusations made above,[12] shortly before announcing his retirement,[13] and shares[14] with the 64 IP editor[15] a fondness for Goya. What to make of this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What to make of it? That I may have been wrong in my guess as to who the ip socks belong to. Does any of it really matter? 86 the lot of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You can whac all the moles but the game won't stop until the machine is good and done, or you find the off switch. At least the mechanical moles don't mess up Wikipedia articles then file AN/I threads accusing the players of being a POV-pushing cabal. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
My guess in light of 64's subsequent statements and registration of an account after all these years, and Versageek's statement that 64 is unlikely to be Noroton, is that editors of like mind about what they perceive as Wikipedia bias and other editing problems tend to borrow each other's turns of phrases, explanations for what's going on, and Wikipedia iconography... In real life two people having the same talking point seems to convince people. On Wikipedia it's seen as evidence of socking or meatpuppeting. Anyway, I've modified my comments above somewhat based on assurances from these editors, and I'll assume good faith here.- Wikidemon (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Oof. JohnWbarber was the initiator of the eDrama that is Wikipedia:Deletion review/David Shankbone. That may throw a kink into the works. Tarc (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why. It would've probably been initiated by someone else otherwise. –xenotalk 18:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I've asked the blocking admin[16] to help us understand what's going on there. Wasn't there another incident lately of a long-time content editor around the American politics articles who created sock accounts in response to a block? I'm trying to recall. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Given Noroton's intense antipathy to David Shankbone and the actions of the JohnWbarber account, I wonder if a longer block for Noroton is not in order. It's also intensely ironic (and telling) that the account most prominently supporting the retention of the David Shankbone article and the overturning of its deletion is a Wikipedian who is "appalled" by the article subject and who, I'm forced to assume, probably intended to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept. Of course this is exactly the kind of thing those supporting deletion were worrying about—agenda based editing in a barely notable BLP of a Wikipedian which we as a community could probably not do enough to protect. I would again suggest to David that he simply ask for the article to stay deleted, both for his own good, and also to put an end to the endless discussion about this, but of course that's up to him. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum. There's too much of an assumption of bad faith here on my part toward Noroton, and as I noted here I accept as true his statement on his talk page that he did not intend "to edit the article in a negative fashion if it were kept" as I suggested above. It would have been far better for me to wait to hear Noroton's side before posting speculative comments like the preceding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Any recognition I have received has come from work I did on this website. I believe in its ability to adhere to policies and guidelines to determine notability, to write NPOV articles and to protect those articles. Out of thousands of photos, I took a handful (most of which are deleted) that show nudity; whereas some people don't like my politics. I am aware I have hardcore detractors for whom nothing else I have done or will ever do will change their opinion of me one bit. That's fine. You can't live life without crossing somebody's line. I believe in this website, its policies and its people. I don't see how I could possibly argue otherwise. -->David Shankbone 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

←I just stumbled across this thread that appears to mention me. I don't believe I am familiar with this IP, but he/she is making attacks upon my character, and also incorrectly stating I have been topic banned from all political articles for a year. That's "complete cobblers", as we British like to say. I'd appreciate it if this obviously-socking, POV-pushing liar was blocked/topic-banned/nuked from orbit post haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the language of the posts above, and the style of edits, it would not surprise me at all if it turns out that Bali ultimate is right and this IP is User:BryanFromPalatine. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Scjessey wasn't topic-banned for a year from all politics-related articles. Instead, he was topic-banned for a year from all Barack Obama-related articles. Since the 64 IP editor wasn't seeking any additional sanctions against Scjessey at this time, a notice on his User Talk page was not required. ("Nuked from orbit"?) 71.57.8.103 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
That is also inaccurate. I was topic banned from Obama-related pages for 6 months. If someone is going to come to WP:ANI and make false statements and accusations against me, they should have enough common decency to notify me so that I can defend myself. And "nuked from orbit" is a reference to the movie Aliens. And why are you defending the socking IP anyway? Are you also a socking IP? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, Scjessey. You do retain the right to edit articles about the politics of Kyrgyzstan and Sri Lanka, if you don't pick any fights or violate WP:3RR. But it wasn't "complete cobblers," was it? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are still wrong. I am free to edit any article that isn't related to Barack Obama. In addition, I self-extended that to cover articles that were somewhat tangentially-related to Obama, but did not mention the man by name. This was a purely personal choice, and not mandated in any way. I made this choice because I edit Wikipedia for fun, not for a political agenda. I don't know who you are, but it is clear that you should be blocked for not assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Versageek stated that (s)he does not think Noroton and the 64.xxx IP editor are related; Noroton has said he did not mean to violate policy. Opinion seems to be running in favor of unblocking Noroton, but other than that we're done here, right? Wikidemon (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

<-This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. I leave it up to the community to decide how they want to handle the issue. --Versageek 06:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reason why BLP's on arguably non-notable subjects should default to delete. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) The technical violation of WP:SOCK is clear. Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Some of the edits under the Noroton account were very controversial - long term disruption to the Obama articles and extreme incivility (often against me, in the spirit of disclosure) leading to a series of blocks. That abuse was intentional, and assuming good faith about them is not at issue. Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. But all that is water under the bridge. Accepting Noroton's statements at face value, he violated the sock policy unintentionally in the sense that although his intentional actions were against policy, he was unaware that they were against policy. In real life ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. But on Wikipedia the goal is to avoid future disruption, not to punish for past acts. Assuming that Noroton sincerely believed his actions were okay at the time, and accepting the assurances that he will not break policies he is aware of, an ongoing block serves no purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover the misbehavior of an abusive editor ... named LotLE. False accusations are made against the reporting editor, and enormous amounts of energy that could be devoted to improving articles are instead wasted by investigating these false accusations. People become discouraged, and start cutting back on the time they invest in editing (or abandon editing entirely). The damage done by LotLE spreads outward and intensifies exponentially. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just created this account. All edits by 64.208.230.145 are mine. Let's try to AGF and move forward in a constructive way. There are a lot of articles here that need all the attention we're investing in Noroton. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Great. Now we're extra-done. A little rocky but a good outcome. Move to close? Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. Both LotLE and the Wikipedia project deserve, at the very least, an extremely stern and very unambiguous final warning to LotLE: his next display of tendentious editing or accusations against any editor, for anything except provable WP:3RR and/or provable personal attacks, will be interpreted as prima facie evidence of WP:DIS or WP:AGF respectively, and result in an immediate seven-day block and reconsideration of a topic ban. This warning should be in template form and placed on LotLE's User Talk page by an admin he trusts and respects, with instructions that it must not be removed, until the admin agrees that LotLE's misconduct problem has been resolved. This is not punitive. It is for the protection of the project and other editors. Agreed? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
No one is going to do anything but laugh at your pot-stirring here. Put a sock in it sock.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well that certainly is an interesting form of punishment. Tell us more, Nathaniel Hawthorne. Tarc (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Love these two responses. Not. Please review WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Regarding the sock accusations: I cordially invite you to post your smear campaign at WP:SSP, followed by RFCU, which are the proper venues for smear campaigns of this nature. You'll be thrown out of there with a reference to fishing expeditions, and neither 71 nor I will ever get an apology from any of you. Regarding 71's suggestion: it is constructive. It protects WP articles from the many edit wars started by LotLE. It protects new users, particularly IP editors, from being unfairly attacked by LotLE. And it doesn't impose a block or a topic ban (at least not immediately), so LotLE can keep pushing his POV if he's more careful about it and stays well within WP policy and guidelines concerning his conduct. Win-win-win all around. Regarding the cute little reference to The Scarlet Letter: unlike Hester Prynne, LotLE deserves it. It won't be on his User page, unlike the SSP template which I'm sure several of you are preparing for 71 and for me. And he can get rid of it, just as soon as he's proven that he won't misbehave again. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Look -- you've edited under another account before, one i'd bet my eye teeth is banned (User:BryanFromPalatine is my bet -- every time his socks are run to ground he comes up with this "topic ban my enemies to protect the encyclopedia from them" shtick.). You and your "friend" the IP are on a campaign against an editor you disagree with here rather than discussing content there and you won't put the bone down. Assumptions of good faith are replaced, in time, with evidence of faith. The evidence here so far is that you're yet another MMORPG game player with an agenda, nursing old grievances. CU? What the heck for? It can't do anything to clear you. And the quacking gets louder still.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
This IP is not a newbie, and AGF is not a shield for what is perhaps the most absurd form of wiki-punishment I have ever seen proposed here. We're not going to hang a template around LotLE's or anyone else's neck until some appointed admin decides he's been punished enough. And in case you haven't noticed, not a single person has voiced support of your calls for LotLE's head over his editing. Safe to say that this An/I report has been rejected, and it should be marked as such so we can move on and stop making up fantasy punishments against users we don't like. Tarc (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Then you agree that an indef block under WP:SOCK for "users we don't like" is a "fantasy punishment," and I trust that you won't be seeking one. Thanks for that at least. LotLE continues his false accusations and his incivility here, so doing nothing only means that his abusive behavior and edit-warring will continue indefinitely. I'm convinced you like it that way, as long as it doesn't target you or your friends directly. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Response from JohnWBarber[edit]

I need to respond to some things said about me in the subthread just above about my supposed "abusive" socking. My block led to a ton of abusive and incorrect statements about me here and elsewhere:

  1. When I set up this and the other accounts, it was not forbidden by WP:SOCK to do so. This is the version of the policy at the time: [17] It's my fault for not keeping up better with the changes on that page, but I wasn't purposefully going against policy or being abusive in any way by doing what I did, and any statement to the contrary should be checked for wikilawyering. If anyone had just told me I was violating the policy, I'd have looked at it and fixed it, no block necessary.
  2. Versageek says: This case sits astride the fine line between abusive socking & alternate accounts. No, Versageek, actually it didn't, and if the line is that "fine" it calls for questioning the person you suspect, not blocking that person for a week on a policy you've misapplied and which you should know has been changed greatly in the past year.
  3. V also says: Using an alternate account for aggressive debates IS disruptive, The weakest word there is the one in capital letters. I was mistaken in using the JohnWBarber account instead of the Reconsideration account, and therefore violated WP:SOCK policy, but unintentionally (I didn't realize that would be a violation -- again, because I hadn't kept up with changes in WP:SOCK policy; my bad -- Reconsideration was my main account after Oct. 5). Also, "aggressive" debating is only disruptive if it's the type of thing that falls under WP:DISRUPT, and that just doesn't characterize my edits with JohnWBarber.
  4. V also says: and being disruptive with an alternate account IS abusive - even if you've recently marked your main account 'retired'. Given Versageek's definition of "disruptive", that just isn't policy. Period. See WP:CLEANSTART. Versageek's statement is simply incompatable with it. If I'd made the same edits under the User:Reconsideration name, there would not even have been a technical violation. There's no other way to look at it. Facts are facts.
  5. V also says: IMHO, using an alternate account for debate tends to lead to incivility since people don't worry as much about the 'reputation' of a throw-away account. In general, yes. But it matters that I wasn't uncivil, and JohnWBarber clearly wasn't and isn't a throwaway account.
  6. V also says: I don't think it was User:Noroton's intention to be abusive - he just stumbled into that trap. That's an odd statement for someone who imposed a one-week block. Perhaps that's why it got no support.
  7. Wikidemon says: Segregating multiple accounts so that some of them can make controversial edits without casting the others in a bad light is what the policy is all about. Actually only one account is allowed to engage in controversy -- the main one -- when you have more than one; any others are necessarily segregated from that. One thing I did wrong was contributing to AfDs with two accounts instead of one (explicitly disallowed by WP:SOCK since Oct. 3). Oh wait, there was 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. That was an experiment on a controversial page where User:Reconsideration edited sections that were hotly disputed. My edits stuck and seemed to calm the disruption, and the article still looks not much different from the way I left it, I think. It was a controversial subject, but my edits don't seem to have been all that controversial. I'm pretty proud of that one.
  8. W also says: Some of the edits under the Noroton account [...] were in response to outrageous behavior by editors including Wikidemon, but it's water under the bridge. I resigned from that account on Oct. 5.
  9. W also says: Some of the edits under other account names were controversial in their own way but in different topic areas. Incorrect, unless some rather innocuous edits by Reconsideration in a few recent AfDs are "controversial".
  10. Tarc says: Once again WP:AGF is stretched to its breaking point to cover an abusive editor's bad behavior, as this looks like one giant spin job by Noroton to me, to cover his ass. There comes a point, even at ANI, where an editor should be blocked for constant incivility. I never attacked Tarc, and he has no reason to be spewing out most of those adjectives. It's time an admin looked over his recent history of comments on his talk pages and give him a civility warning. He's constantly over the top and lowering the level of civility in the discussions he participates in. Notice that there's nothing for me to refute here because the entire sentence is hot air.
  11. Sorry this is long, but so was the amount of abuse hurled at me for being wrongly labeled an "abusive sock" by Versageek. I made some technical violations of WP:SOCK because I didn't monitor the changes to that policy enough over the past year. Not one of those violations was intentional, hurt anybody, harmed the encyclopedia or avoided legitimate scrutiny under the terms of that policy. My edits at the Shankbone DRV included some sharp criticism of the closing admin for the AfD, but they weren't uncivil. You need something more than expressing strong disagreement to be disruptive.
  12. I don't think anyone has brought up the idea that some of us on Wikipedia have a WP:COI problem regarding David Shankbone. It probably hasn't occurred to anyone because we think about the WP editor, but the article is a subject that we can have a conflict of interest over if we're either very close or very antagonistic to Shankbone (or somehow would benefit or be hurt by the existence of the article, although I don't see how). It's worth thinking about in these cases. I may have a COI for the DRV and I'll post a message about that there. JohnWBarber (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • My comment at the Shankbone DRV is here, although it might be moved to the talk page there. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

User:Zencv harassing anyone who prevents the vandalism of the article Love Jihad. According to the consensus reached over the edit war here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yusuf.Abdullah/Archive, both me and User:Zencv should refrain from editing article Love Jihad. I complied with the request, but was still blocked for one day as see here: User_talk:Yusuf.Abdullah#Talkback. But the real vandal User:Zencv continued his page blanking even after the warning and no action has been taken against this. Further he has been constantly harassing me by putting up two sockpuppet allegations and one block request in the space of two days. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I have notified the user of this thread. Basket of Puppies 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The first sock investigation(started by me) had a merit on its own and the user Yusuf.Abdullah agreed that he had edited with an IP account here. He was pardoned there(after he confessed it was a mistake here) and the admin who pardoned him mixed the sock case with an ongoing edit war. The second investigation was NOT started by me and you have been dragging me there and have been engaging in personal threats as here calling me names like "Jihadi" and another respected user a "radical". The edit war investigation had a merit on its own and you were blocked, but another admin again pardoned you again after you apologised. The latest investigation was NOT started by me, rather by User:Sole_Soul. Take your issues with him and stop abusing me in these forums. I recommend the admins to look into the edit history of this user Yusuf.Abdullah to see how disturbing the edits that he is making with blatant disregard for core policies of Wiki and how blatantly he violates WP:NPOV, WP:EL, WP:CIVIL and WP:CANVASS Zencv Whisper 08:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I will also say that your claims are not entirely accurate, Yusuf.Abdullah. Nobody stated that the two of you should refrain from editing the article. What was said by NuclearWarfare was that the two of you should refrain from participating in an edit war in the future. That rule applies to everyone in Wikipedia on every article though, not just the two of you, so there were no special sanctions given. If you voluntarily refrained from editing the article that was your own choice. You claim to have been blocked incorrectly, and that seems to be true, but you were also unblocked early so there seems to be an acknowledgment of that mistake by an administrator. Zencv has reverted the page after the warning, but has not even approached three reverts in one day and so seems to have complied with the admonishment made by NuclearWarfare. Your claim that Zencv created two sockpuppet reports against you is incorrect, the second request was initiated by Sole Soul. That investigation has yet to be concluded, but Checkuser has been endorsed so it clearly is not a baseless claim. Your accusation of harassment, on the other hand, does seem to be a baseless claim. -- Atama 23:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User re-uploading images under different file names to evade deletion[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by User:Abecedare, copyvios nuked and free images reinserted <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Frickintony00 has uploaded a number of images to Wikipedia that have been tagged as being potential copyright violations. He is now replacing all these images with identical images with slightly different names. See [18], [19], [20], and [21]. (There are others.) All images are identical and have the same copyright problems; most don't have any ownership information, and the ones that do have no information other than "Photobucket". He has been warned about uploading non-free items; if he hadn't, I'd have simply warned him.

At first I assumed his edits were blatant vandalism as he appeared to just be putting a "1" in front of file names, which is something vandals do. Looking into it further, though, it appears that he's not actually vandalizing but he does seem to be trying to prevent these images from being deleted in a less than upfront manner. I've removed the vandalism warnings on his talk page and I've notified him of this message.

Let me know if there is a better place for this. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This is as good a place as any. Even if they're not committing deliberate vandalism, they ARE being highly disruptive. And you'd think they would notice something was wrong considering their talk page is loaded to the hilt with deletion notices. I have issued a final warning but I think this account needs to be blocked until they demonstrate they understand our copyright policy. I'm tagging the uploads for no license. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
These are all obvious copyright violations. I've tagged them for no license and removed some of them from pages, but the sheer number of them is really too much for me right now. Someone else will have to deal with it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have a bit of time; I'll remove them from pages. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
They're gone from article pages (at least they all appear to be orphan files). I'll put the articles on my watchlist. --NellieBly (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I spot-checked a few images and they are taken from UFC, Myspace and other websites and are all copyrighted. I have blocked the account till the user is willing to comply with the WP:Image use policy, and will delete the uploads. Thanks for bringing this up here. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost every article he edited had either free or CC licensed images which he replaced with copyvios. I'm restoring the free/CC images now. Thanks for your help. --NellieBly (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:193.200.200.64[edit]

193.200.200.64 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

This user is the same person as Njirlu, who is being blocked for long-term disruptive editing, threats and personal attacks (and blocked also on other Wikipedias for similar behavior). Now he edits anonymously and keeps vandalizing the same pages as before, with a vengeance, since now he adds jokes in articles such as claiming that Romanians are in fact Chinese who speak a dialect of French.

He has already been reported here twice, [22], [23], and was blocked on both occasions. Obviously he has no intention to stop this disruptive behavior, despite promising several times that he understood what Wikipedia was and that he reformed himself. On the contrary, he displays a blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules and a total lack of civility.

I don't have time to keep undoing his edits. Others and myself have already tried countless times to explain what he does wrong, but all that went to waste. I don't see any sign that he will ever be a constructive editor. I definitely believe he needs some more vigorous measures. — AdiJapan 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute to me. We cannot just block an IP address because we don't "see any sign that he will ever be a constructive editor." I see edits that are misguided but not obviously vandalism or even disruptive. Frustrating, yes. Vandalism? Highly questionable. For example, this edit indicates a real content concern, and also indicates to me that English is not the native language of the editor. Perhaps we can try to focus on the content? I realize the content dispute is more difficult, and in fact the editor may be on the wrong side of that dispute, but I don't (at least on that talk page) see any attempt to determine that.  Frank  |  talk  15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And, regarding the idea that the IP is the same as Njirlu, we may need a checkuser to weigh in here.  Frank  |  talk  15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure a Checkuser is needed; reading the comments of Njirlu and 193.200.200.64, it is painfully obvious they are the same person, and Njirlu is clearing evading a current block. At the very least, the IP should be blocked; if you want a Checkuser before extending Njirlu's block to avoid a Joe job, OK, but it really, really looks like the same person, and it would take quite a bit of effort to recreate that distinctive style. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot emphasize this enough: this is far beyond a content dispute. Njirlu (like the IP) edits those pages to push notions unheard of by anybody but him - it is his POV that he defends, something extremely fringe and utterly concocted, without any source whatsoever backing any of the notions he pushes. He does not understand wikipedia policies, no matter how many times they were cited for him, and doesn't even seem to understand English to a decent level. He broke consensus so many times it's not even funny, and every time came back with mass xenophobic accusations targeting Romanians and Greeks en masse. To cite this edit as evidence of "a real content concern" is absurd. Look through it: it's an attempt to depict editors of other nationalities, who respect wikipedia policies, as his personal enemies (something Njirlu has done in the past, over and over), and claims that they oppose him because of their origin: "The Romanian State must respond for this genocide. Europe recognised as a distinct people with a distinct language, but Romania still sleeps."; "I repet to you Mister AdiJapan! Stop these criminal attitude because has no future for Romania." etc. The funny thing is that I for one don't even object to the fact that Aromanians are a distinct ethnicity, and that nothing in his edits ever added rational content that would endorse that POV, and that the POV isn't even marginalized on wikipedia - he just believes it is, because other users won't let him invent his own terminology and symbolism for Aromanians, or because they won't let him add claims of Aromanian origin to all people he admires. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    To clarify (expand?): When I wrote "a real content concern" I meant exactly those words: the concern over content expressed by the editor is real. I didn't say it is legitimate; I'm not informed enough at this point to judge that. I do think we need to understand that, behind every edit, no matter whether helpful or not, sourced or not, correct or not...is a person. This person clearly has an agenda, and whether or not that agenda is consistent with the article(s) in question is, to me, a content dispute. Having said that (and of course I may be incorrect about it anyway), if said dispute has been adjudicated in other venues already, then a block may well be in order.  Frank  |  talk  18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    No, the concern is not real. Far from it. The editor in question manipulates info by introducing data which is not (not just!) incorrect, but which does not reflect any terminology in the real world. And this kind of edits is simple vandalism - "Chinezi" means, as Adi Japan pointed out, "Chinese people" (note the question mark at the end of the sentence); same here. Even if his others edits would count as "content disputes" under some definition or another (though I respectfully disagree), those show that he is being simply disruptive. This guy doesn't understand wikipedia (even though he has repeatedly claimed to have understood the rules and guidelines) and will even resort to this kind of bluff. Dahn (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked through the article and talk page edits of the IP and User:Njirlu, and IMO they meet the WP:DUCK test. Hence I have blocked the IP for 48 hours for block-evasion. If the user wishes to discuss a content issue, they need to either wait for the block on their account to expire, or request an early unblock. Abecedare (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

admin Future Perfect at Sunrise[edit]

Resolved: WP:LETGO Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 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.

Please stop... all of you. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

ok the previous thread got closed coz according to Sandstein this is not the appropriate board for an DIWURGEN unblock. Fine, so now i'm not requesting Jacurek be unblocked but I request review of user:Future Perfect at Sunrise admin conduct. In the thread above, now closed, he claimed that he blocked Jacurek because of this exchange [24] allegedly because Jacurek harrassed Varsovian with questions. It is now totally clear that Varsovian did not feel harrased by Jacurek because now he went to Jacurek's talk page and asked Jacurek questions about Warsaw and now both of them are discussing in friendly tone [25].

Above user:Future Perfect at Sunrise also stated that of one the reason for the long block to Jacurek is quote: my knowledge of the disruptive role he played in the EEML fiasco. I find this comment highly problematic for 3 reasons: 1) The EEML case before the ArbCom is still progress 2) In the proposal decisions by Arbitrator Cohen there are no sanctions against Jacurek 3) this unjust block of Jacurek will for sure at one time or another be linked back to the EEML case giving the impression that Jacurek is a problematic user.

In my opinion admin user:Future Perfect at Sunrise was too trigger happy and made a horrible block but I'd like to hear other opinions. Loosmark (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Yada yada yada. Jacurek was making a series of highly provocative comments (read "trolling") designed to unsettle and piss off the other editor in the dispute. Such misuse of discussion pages is not permitted by WP:TALK, although the violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND is far more serious. I do not such tolerate such things, nor should any admin, and FPAS has far too much common sense to do so. If this had been me, I might possibly have blocked for 3 months, rather than just one, but then I am known for being a shade draconian at times. Moreschi (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's an opinion Loosmark. 1) We just did this conversation. 2) Admins get paid exactly tripple what you get paid for working here 3) If editors are now attempting consensus through reasoned discourse all looks good.4) Drop the WP:STICK. I'm not saying my opinion is right or wrong but you did ask for some. Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, yes, and Jacurek is quite clearly a problematic editor, or at least one with a problematic history. This was a very good block: in fact, we should have a lot more of them, but we don't, unfortunately have enough admins enable to distinguish genuine good faith from trolling. Moreschi (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I request the thread be re-opened, so far only 2 editors had the chanche of expressing their opinion. Loosmark (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page: Jacurek has not requested unblock, nor is he able to participate in this discussion. Given the nature of the dispute -- which I know well -- it will be very easy for an onlooker to spot partisanship all over. Users on side X, Users on side Y, and Admins on the admins side. All sound and fury signifying... well, it could be nothing, but it's likely just to make matters worse. Wait until Jacurek requests unblock. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:30, 30 October 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.

1989 Rosie[edit]

User never responds to request for discussion. Did a bunch of uncited changes and unnecessary formatting changes which where inconsistent with his/her previous changes, seems to change his/her mind every time. 1989 Rosie was banned for disruptive editing only to be unbanned for wrongful naming of the reason of the ban. From the few lines that where actually typed by 1989 Rosie it't clear that the users English is really poor so maybe he/she just doesn't understand the requests. No idea what to do next as every attempt for dialog or dispute resolutions falls on deaf ears. Xeworlebi (tc) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The user was previously indefinately blocked and then unblocked by User:Cirt. You may want to contact him, since he has some familiarty with the case. He may see reason to issue yet another indefinate block. --Jayron32 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I unblocked after a comment by Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs) at my talk page. I would support a longer block. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to put some context on this, because the full story hasn't being revealed here, Xeworlebi was recently involved in an edit war at List of Castle episodes that resulted in the article being protected for three days. During the edit war both he and 1989 Rosie made constructive and unconstructive edits. While the article was protected there was no discussion towards consensus. Instead, after the protection was lifted, Xeworlebi announced that he was going to make an edit that could have started the war again,[26] prompting further comment by another editor who had been trying to get the war stopped so he could make some constructive edits.[27] My involvement with the article came about because of a request by that editor for assistance and I've been trying to give some advice and clean the article up a bit. Today I made some edits that I've now had to detail at Talk:List of Castle episodes#Thwarted attempts to clean up the article because I've been thwarted by Xeworlebi who seems, by his actions and words, (albeit indirectly) to be asserting some ownership over the article. The long and the short of this is that, while I've certainly had issues with several of 1989 Rosie's edits, I feel that Xeworlebi is not without blame. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I reverted 1989 Rosie's edits because they where unconstructive and the page was fine as it was. Which doesn't count for all the other pages he changed. The announcement I made abouth changing the page was about something completely different, it was about an addition to the page under the promise of addition of sources which where never added. Eventually I did it myself, as the person in question (a different one) kept making excuses to not do it. The discussion for the new edits made by you should have been made before you added them. But nearly nothing of that has to do with his previous ban and other edits he made. Xeworlebi (tc) 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The complaint that you've made here relates to edits made at List of Castle episodes, not anywhere else. Not only that, the complaint was made 3 days after the edit war there finished. 1989 Rosie's only edit to the article since the protection was lifted was this, which was a quite reasonable and appropriate edit to make. As for my edits, they weren't overly significant and didn't need to be discussed as they were primarily maintenance and error correction. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem on the Castle page is only a small portion. And now he/she changed the Castle page again, and again does not feel the need to engage in the discussion. You yourself placed a low level warning yesterday on his/her page, not about Castle. The reason he/she was banned was not just for the Castle page but for the unwillingness to respond to discussion and conflict resolution and disruptive/unsourced addition editing abroad. The complaint made here is that he/she was unbanned because of a formality; the wrongfully naming of the reason of the ban. Xeworlebi (tc) 09:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot? Scam? Phishing? Just nice?[edit]

189.217.171.135 (talk · contribs) So far today, has posted this message on 50 user talk pages and counting:

<big><big>Thanks for your recent edits!! - </big></big> 
There should be more people in the world who do something constructive like this.

Seems to be running at a rate of about one ever 15 seconds. Whatever it is, it's new to me.--Dbratland (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly automated. Chillum 02:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours as an unapproved bot. Hopefully that will be enough time to allow the operator to realize and adjust accordingly. If the edits resume, a longer block will be necessary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I am fairly convinced that this is an IP sock of User:BACON EXPLOSION (cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BACON EXPLOSION/Archive). MuZemike 03:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

67.164.149.77[edit]

Resolved: --Jayron32 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin look into the situation surrounding this IP and adjust the block so that it isn't indefinite? -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

So done: [28]. --Jayron32 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus inappropriately indefinitely banned.[edit]

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

I ask some uninvolved administrator to review this block. thank you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please request unblock in the usual way while logged in. This kind of evasion will do you no favours. Verbal chat 10:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
i am not Ludvikus. Please stop implicitly accusing of sock puppetry. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
No, it just so happens that your 3rd edit was reverting Loremaster, and nearly all your edits relate to his dispute with Ludvikus. WP:MEAT, anyone? Moreschi (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
hahaha. why don't you run an IP check, and you will find out we are even from different countries. (i doubt he is from serbia). let me cite beginning of meat policy: Do not recruit meatpuppets. either you think someone recruited me (a.k.a. conspiracy theory), or you know you are talking nonsense. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It's quite plausible he did. IPs rarely jump into revert wars in their 3rd edit. Any reason why you did? Moreschi (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
because i have a dynamic IP. so previously i had other IP's. i didn't "jump" into anything. if you think it is normal for registered users to be persistent and go into revert wars, while we (anonymous and unregistered users) should simply back off, or as you put it above "shoo", you are terribly wrong. I've been editing wikipedia since 2003, and i am quite familiar with its evolving rules. if i think i am right, i am going to show it with my edits and arguments, even if you are administrator. your privileges do not threaten me. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Not at all, but I query why this article, why right at the moment when Ludvikus and Loremaster were starting to kick off. It can hardly have been on your extensive watchlist, can it? Any other IP's you've edited under "since 2003", so we can get a rough idea of your good faith? Moreschi (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
why don't you ask my ISP provider why they changed my IP at that moment? maybe Ludvikus asked them to, i don't know. and also, you might know that IP's don't have a watchlist. so what i do is i type into my Firefox browser few letters, and Firefox search suggestion algorithm brings to the top some frequent and recent pages that I've looked at. you see, a logic and reason can be found everywhere where you look for it, and no need for conspiracy way of thinking. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for the usual avenues of appeal, as I would have told you on my talk page, had you not decided it would be more dramatic and impressive to run to ANI. Moreschi (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
the blocked user decided to quit Wikipedia due to your action (instead of appealing the block). i am not him/her, nor can i request the usual review process the way s(he) can, so i am asking here for his block to be reviewed. i am sorry if you find the consequences of your action dramatic and impressive. i don't find it impressive at all. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Unblock requests are normally only acted upon when made by the blocked editor. This thread is a waste of time, and I'm archiving it.  Sandstein  11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Block review request: JohnHistory[edit]

Resolved: A month extended to indef, as literally and figuratively requested by the editor in question (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for one month for personal attacks. Even though he dropped one on my page, I'm by no means an involved editor, as I've never (that I recall) encountered him before. It seems like a wikicide to me. I'm not sure that a month is a sufficient, but I'm unfamiliar with this guy. Some of you may know him better. I have no objection whatsoever to another administrator adjusting the length of my block. The immediate point was stopping the tantrum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, his last post (and the edit summary) were particularly vile. Agreed you're effectively uninvolved, and block is valid. Although, he says he's off to Europe, so a month might not even phase him. Good block, well-deserved, sadly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Since he's clearly said that his behaviour won't change in a month, I've changed the block length to indefinite. If he wants to come back and try to convince us that his behaviour and attitude has changed at any point, he is welcome. Black Kite 11:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if a connection to Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs) should be explored here. Same level of POV-pushing, though John seemed to keep it on simmer for longer than Orange did, but when it does boil over the finale language is almost a cut and paste. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Redneck[edit]

Resolved: ip blocked after uncivil response to talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone help at the article. User:74.250.13.4 is removing information, reverting edits and trolling. Repeatedly insults other editors and is making a general nuisance of himself. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Alerted him to this thread and gave him an NPA warning.--SKATER Speak. 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.. I kept getting an edit conflict. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he's right. It is an ethnic slur. HalfShadow (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
In your opinion... - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is vandalism. Seems more like a content dispute to me, from the bits I checked. Equazcion (talk) 19:49, 30 Oct 2009 (UTC)
Actually the individual in question appears to be purposely baiting the editors of the article, with no other purpose than to disrupt. Eastcote (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin please review this case. I am in danger of violating 3RR, but the editor in question is still up to no good. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, User:74.250.13.4 and User:74.250.3.74. Obvious sockpuppetry.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that some disruptive editing has been occuring, and I've encouraged the IP to stop such actions and discuss civilly before reverting again. They're well over the 3RR, so further reverts are blockable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
After an unsavory response to Tony, I've blocked the editor. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be an ethnic slur, but is also often worn as a badge. Jeff Foxworthy is the obvious case. And I've known plenty of folks who use that term on themselves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I believe the disruptive individual is back, this time as User:68.18.201.254. The oddball and political nature of the newest post implies it's the same person. The issue here is not whether "redneck" is or is not a particular type of slur. The issue is the disruptive behavior of the individual. Let's leave debate about the article on the talk page. Eastcote (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruption, 3RR, vandalism and insult from User:Shmayo[edit]

Resolved: Shmayo blocked 24 hours for hounding, Dejwono blocked 24 hours for continuing edit war/disruption. indefinitely as a sock of AramaeanSyriac (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has been warned before for Vandalism and 3RR [29] , and has recently called me for an "idiot" [30]. He does not help with anything, and the only things he does is guarding the articles [31]. He adds "Assyrian" to all the articles. I use neutral term on Aramean-Syriac-Assyrian related articles, to get both sides satisfied. But he keeps reverting my edits. Dejwono (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read all discussion about what names we should use first, and stop putting "Aramean" everywhere. You are not neutral! You are changing everythin that is neutral! Suspected sockpuppet of User:Aramaean-Syriac. Shmayo (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Definitely appears to be a case of WP:Hound and a WP:Civil issue with Shmayo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Shmayo, calling an syriac speaking Syriac orthodox priest for "Assyrian", isnt that insult and non-neutral?Dejwono (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, Floydian and Colloidal Silver[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Editors are aware of WP:Edit warring, and the topic ban proposal does not seem to have gained any traction. Please take this discussion to Talk:Colloidal silver unless additional issues requiring administrator attention arise. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble with an editor that is consistently making accusations against me, and turning a talk page into a soapbox rather than discussing the article in question. This is further amplified by the fact that they are now taking it upon themselves to close discussions of mine rather than addressing them.[32] This user is not contributing anything or discussing anything, just making fly-by-edits and accusing me of verbal abuse (which though I will not admit verbal abuse, I will admit I am becoming extremely frustrated with this editor).

I will start with my post that has been used against me in place of answering the discussion:

"Removing the rest of the about 11 sources that claim an antibacterial effect is the biggest fucking piece of point of view pushing I've seen on this website."

You will note that though I accuse Verbal of POV pushing (the "biggest fucking piece of it"), I do not make any personal attacks on the user, I am merely using emotional adjectives.

Verbal has on occasions twisted my words, accusing me repeatedly of verbally abusing editors,[33] and of owning the page,[34] to which he has yet to provide a diff for at my request.[35] (In fact, his response to this request was to threaten me again with being blocked.[36]

I was not aware that consensus was formed by linking to the hive mind, but I have seen little to no discussion, and no answers to the points I have brought up. After the editor in question reverted back and forth with me he quickly reported me for 3RR (Which though I admit I reverted 3 times, I was restoring to a version that had actually been discussed and had consensus (Essentially any version prior to October 20th) I have made attempts to be civil,[37][38] often getting a response that shows the editor didn't even read my message[39], or more accusations and what I would interpret as benevolent threat[40]

I have only insisted on the changes being discussed rather than forced. The editors who have made the changes have not once addressed my questions and arguments, and now the page is locked on their version, effectively meaning that they have no reason at all to discuss this. I find this horribly biased towards those editors and feel that the pre-dispute revision should be locked to actually encourage those editors to work towards a consensus.

I ask that no actions be taken without discussion by multiple editors, as fringe theory problems tend to be jumped on without a close inspection into the root of the problems. I have not notified Verbal yet. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


You can write a bit about alternative medicine applications of colloidal silver in this article, but you have to understrand that an article like this will be written from a firm scientific point of view. If there is a peer reviewed article suggesting that some treatment may work, then you could write about that in detail in an article about alternative medicine, but not in this article as that would give too much weight to a fringe issue.
Insisting to include such edits in this article will always cause trouble. Then, when that happens it is fruitless to investigate who reverted who first, who insulted who first etc.. Count Iblis (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thats the thing though. I'm insisting on keeping the status quo (at least until some consensus is formed amongst the editors who have been long term contributors to the article and its talk page) - It is not my edits that are controversial, its the edits of half a dozen fly-by-editors who didn't discuss anything, and now Verbal insisting on them staying without any sort of discussion. Rather than respond to me, he has made accusations, beat around the bush for a while, and now pulls out WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT against me, which is ridiculous, considering I was never given a response in the first place. When i ask what point I'm not getting, I'm told to stop or risk being blocked, by Verbal (They say this, they don't threaten to block me themselves). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Colloidal Silver.- Sinneed 01:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its gone stale, as with the discussion elsewhere that I have attempted to spur. All of it dubious, the editors who made the changes will never discuss them, only revert back to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ask for protection. If you have fly-by editors who don't discuss and who just revert, protection works to force them onto the talk page. After that, they'll either learn to act appropriately or find themselves blocked. I've gotten other articles to work similarly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Floydian, you could also stop uncritically promoting fringe theories. People might take you more seriously then. Just a thought. Skinwalker (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you have proof for this declaration or are you just blindly categorizing me? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Since when has it become acceptable to not notify the subject of an ANI thread? (I have just done so.) In any case, Floydian is in the wrong here -- edit warring to insert fringe views into an article against the consensus of other editors, and being uncivil in discussion. We should not be supporting the principle that disputes can be won by simply refusing to ever accept defeat. It is very disturbing when admins function as enablers of disruption -- this is not what content-neutrality is supposed to be. Looie496 (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm only trying to show things as the sources show. Right now I am trying to get the controversial changes discussed before they are implemented. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why I am being uncivil to ask for editors to discuss such edits. Yes, I broke 3RR, I have admitted to that, and I admit to it being a mistake, but nobody has assumed good faith on my part because they've instead assumed that I "uncritically promote fringe theories". I've repeatedly asserted that I'm also representing its historical usage. I do not believe colloidal silver does work internally as it is promoted to (apparently it cures cancer, who knew?), but I do believe that if no studies have been done, then the article should say that no studies have been done. I've once represented homeopathy in trying to get an article represented as a source, but still discussed it on the talk page first without ever placing it on the article.
I did not notify the author because I was in a rush at the time. I apologize for that, but I have generally notified people I am bringing up on ANI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 04:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the sequence of events, you will see that Floydian was involved in a cooperative discussion of trying to solve one of the ongoing causes of problems in the article in this section: Talk:Colloidal_silver#proposal to end the constant reverting caused by the conflicting interpretation of "colloidal silver". It was during this discussion that Verbal made 3 reverts on the article with absolutely no discussion of those reverts: [41][42][43]. Verbal's first post on the talk page was here, AFTER Floydian called him on the reverting. Verbal's next post was after Master of Puppets posted to stop edit warring. Verbal's post was to deny any culpability in the edit war, and to complain about the disruptive contributing editors, mainly Floydian. If you look at Verbal's total contributions to this article, they are all reverts., [44]. The 2 reverts on October 22 are almost exactly 24 hours after Verbals 2 reverts on the 21. After Master of Puppet's post about discussing changes, Verbal made a couple of posts commenting about his "reverts", but most of his posts on the talk page are complaints about Floydian and threats about how Floydian will be blocked. I would call Verbal's behavior disruptive, and certainly not conducive to trying to reach any kind of consensus. stmrlbs|talk 05:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Recommend Floydian take a long wikibreak from this article. He's very riled up, making wild accusations, running afoul of 3RR, and generally behaving like someone on their way to a block or ban. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Stmrlbs and Floydian have a problem in that their version of events is misleading, and their preferred version of the article has several policy issues and is opposed by consensus. I have asked Floydian to stop his disruptive behaviour and abusive, off topic, comments. Master of Puppets has warned Floydian that if he continues with this behaviour he will be blocked. We tried to unprotect the article, by Floydian insisted on his preferred version being restored against consensus. Any discussion is quickly hijacked and taken off topic by verbal attacks and insults (telling others they are behaving like "scum" and should "fucking" do what he wants, for example.) He also twice broke 3RR in attempting to force his preferred version, against multiple editors. The actions of these two editors, their general behaviour, and misleading comments as evidenced by this ANI report do probably deserve attention and possible admin action. In reply to the complaints that I have not entered discussion, I have been involved on the talk page discussing edits, and at the NPOVN post. I have acted properly, as have all editors on the "other side", despite extreme provocation, baiting, and disruptive behaviour from Floydian. Verbal chat 09:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Just a note that I address all of these accusations already in my first post. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid you misrepresent those in your first post. You were warned by an admin that further abuse, including a personal attack aimed at me and one at SA, or editwarring would lead to your being blocked - after you had already broken 3RR. Verbal chat 16:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Provide a diff of my personal attack at you, pointing out where I make the attack on you. I have provided diffs for every accusation I've made, I do not see you providing any proof. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The revert behaviour across the article is unacceptable by both Verbal and Floydian and I'm inclined to propose a revert limitation on both; this would also act as a warning for all other editors who have involved themselves less aggressively. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Care to point out which policy my behaviour broke? I can see quite clearly which policies Floydian broke, but only 2 attempts to restore a policy and consensus supported version do not seem out of line to me. I have followed correct WP:DR procedure, and reported the matter to AN3 before it became a problem, however Floydian's continued warring led to the page being locked. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
            • See my forthcoming comment below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A side note: It was locked after a 2R "war" between Mangoe and Strmlbs, not as the result of my behavior. I stopped reverting after the warnings - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
        • WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISPUTE - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
          • No, I haven't broken either of those. Sorry. Verbal chat 16:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Thats for this discussion to decide. WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building has it written pretty clearly:
              "Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages."
              Seems pretty clear to me. You did not seek consensus, you simply reverted edits made by Eublides being bold. Just because I hit 3 first does not mean that you did not edit war. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I would happily self nominate myself to be banned from editing the article itself, to take it a step further. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Before handing out any penalties please remember this mess came about because of a blatantly provocative edit by Eubulides(on 08:02, 21 October 2009) who seems to have 'hit and run'. Without warning he removed the single most important piece of information about colloidal silver in the whole article. (i.e. that in-vitro studies demonstrate an antibacterial effect.) He called this info 'relatively unimportant' and said he was 'boldly' removing it. Clearly Eubulides knew he was lobbing a hand grenade into the article. (Is that some kind vandalism?). Admittedly there may be a fair case to be made for examining the context in which that particular info is placed, but it should never have been deleted outright. I share Floydians outrage about this.DHawker (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Those studies are not based on colloidal silver or its alt med use, which is where they were placed. Please tell us why they should be in the article on colloidal silver. Verbal chat 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I ask that we do not get back into discussing the content of the article here. There are plenty of venues for that, most of which nobody has taken the more than opportune time to discuss upon. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course I invite all editors here to join in on the talk page of the article, which is where I would hope he would have replied. Sorry for not being specific. Verbal chat 16:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I have replied to everything at Talk:Colloidal silver. Not one of the editors who made a fly by edit discussed the changes that were made. Yes, you discuss on the talk page, no you haven't discussed the changes that are controversial, only new changes that have come up since this issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bold suggestion: Topic Ban Floydian This issue (Colloidal silver) had already been discussed at the fringe theories noticeboards in September. When I noticed that, I sent out a test balloon there diff, which was shoot down almost immediately by Floydian, who called my source "clearly biased based on the wording" and went on to state that argyria, i.e. someones skin turning gray, "is cosmetic, and harmless". diff. Just a friendly reminder, Floydian. This case is from the 1950s, and during that time people were usually classified as white and black, and black people faced some obstacles (well, that's an understatements, but we don't need to get into the details of historic racial segregation in the U.S. here). And the person, whose homepage I had quoted, explicitly says somewhere that the skin discolouration caused by argyria can't be covered with make-up, so it is not a cosmetic issue. But more importantly, Floydian completely missed that the homepage I quoted in turn quotes 17 academic works and articles on the issue; the statement: "Colloidal silver (CSP) is not a new alternative remedy. It is an old, discarded traditional one that homeopaths and other people calling themselves "alternative health-care practitioners" have pulled out of the garbage pail of useless and dangerous drugs and therapies, things mainstream medicine threw away decades ago." appears well sourced. So, if you want to call this statement biased, then this appears to be another case of the usual medical bias against alternative medicine, or, more to the point: This "biased" view is the mainstream view, and the other view is the fringe theory view. Fortunately, we have a guideline for such a case: Wikipedia:Fringe theories, but unfortunately Floydian doesn't accept this, and is now apparently trying the use of confrontational tactics to promote a fringe theory. As far as I see it, we have three options: 1) Let him have his way, and have another bad article. I certainly would find this unacceptable, but on the other hand, I find this issue rather boring and wouldn't personally need the hassle of fixing. 2) Keep on fighting until either Floydian gives up or the whole issue goes to the arbitration committee. Since I've had previous experiences with Verbal, I think that he stands a good chance against Floydian, so let's get it on! 3) Or, and this would be the preferable solution: Topic Ban Floydian right away and save us all a lot of stress.
  • P.S. If someone finds my cynicism offensive, I'll apologize, but I think I've figured out how Wikipedia works by now. - Question: How many administrators does it take to deal with an edit war concerning NPOV? Answer: Five. One to block/warn one of the involved editors, and the other four to figure out that they've blocked/warned the wrong one. - If you would now excuse me, there is an edit war on the German Wikipedia that I might want to attend. Zara1709 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I will only point to a peer reviewed source that describes adverse reactions to silver (including colloidal) in detail. You'll find it never once states argyria is anything more than a irreversible pigmentation of the skin.[45]. However, the changes to the article are less important than the conduct of everyone around it, myself included (I'm no angel).

Once again, I'm not concerned with its modern usage as an alternative medicine. I'm concerned that it was an anti-biotic before the discovery of penicillin, and that it should be discussed as such, and that its use for decades as a topical wound dressing is just now winding down as they find better solutions that don't turn you into the tin man. And does nobody else see how hard these people are trying to not have to discuss the changes that are disputed? They'd rather have me banned. Seems like the simpler solution than following the dispute resolution process. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"These people" asked for you to be blocked because you broke WP:3RR twice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I broke it once, for which I've apologized and would like to move forwards from, by discussing the changes on the talk page and avoiding the need to make edits and stonewall them. A fourth revert doesn't count as a new 3RR violation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline: conduct problems[edit]

This outlines why I found problems with both Floydian and Verbal's approach, among other other editors:

  • On 21 Oct, Eubulides (talk · contribs) made a series of bold edits [46] [47] between 8:20 and 8:30. He noted that it was in response to a suggestion made about 1 day earlier on the talk page. Floydian (talk · contribs) reverted these between 16:31 and 16:36. This was permissible in accordance with WP:BRD; Floydian also commented which should have started the discussion. 10 minutes later, Verbal (talk · contribs) instead of attempting to seek a consensus by commenting at that discussion, broke WP:BRD and reverted. This was highly inappropriate; at that point, even the NPOVN discussion only had 2 editors responses that had differing views to Floydian. Floydian reverted and made an aggressive comment at the discussion directed at Verbal.
  • It was after this revert that the third editor commented at the NPOVN discussion, after which Verbal reverted again (again, avoidable) and endorsed as the forth editor. However, Floydian should have considered avoiding any further reverts at this point as it was potentially inappropriate, but nevertheless, did revert. Verbal then made a response at the discussion, to which Floydian responded 10 minutes later. No responses were made at the discussion after this time. Shortly afterwards, Master of Puppets (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) appropriately made a general warning to stop this cycle, and discuss it on the talk page to avoid the main page being protected. Floydian and Verbal made responses [48]. Meanwhile, a fifth editor also endorsed the differing position at NPOVN.
  • On 22 Oct, Verbal made an edit [49], which was reverted a bit under 1.5 hours later by Floydian [50]. 5 minutes later, Verbal reverted again. Floydian partially reverted. Simonm223 (talk · contribs) made a partial revert without discussion, which was reverted by Floydian under 15 minutes later. Hipocrite (talk · contribs) partially reverted 5 minutes later, and Floydian made partial reverts 3 minutes later. Simonm223 again reverted.
  • On 23 Oct, Mangoe (talk · contribs) boldly removed a section from the article. This was reverted by Stmrlbs (talk · contribs). Mangoe then broke WP:BRD and reverted. Mangoe finally opened a discussion and the article was then protected by Master of Puppets. Simonm223 and Verbal endorsed Mangoe's view; Floydian and Stmrlbs did not. Was this sufficient to form a consensus to remove the section?
  • Later, during one of the discussions later, Verbal closed part of one discussion in which he was involved with Floydian, where Floydian asked a question. Floydian reverted the close and Verbal edit-warred to maintain it, even though he should not have been closing it off to begin with.
  • Accordingly, it appears that a 1RR on Verbal and a page ban (and possibly 1RR) on Floydian is warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As stated above, I would have no objection to a page ban on Colloidal silver. However, I wouldn't doubt it if Verbal and Scienceapologist tried to persue having me banned from the talk page to completely bypass relevant discussion. Nevertheless I think you for providing a timeline to show the faults of both sides.
I only wish to object to one point though Ncmvocalist, and that is the number of people with a differing view on the NPOV noticeboard. Some of the comments weren't clearly endorsing a side and were merely comments. For example, Steven Schulz. Only Verbal, Baccayak, and ScienceApologist give differing views, and two of those are editors involved in the questionable reversions - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I see no reason for any sanctions on me, I have acted properly and well within wikipedia norms throughout despite abuse, provocation, and baiting. Nothing in Ncmvocalist's timeline, which is incomplete, shows me acting improperly, so I don't see what problems it supposedly highlights. I don't see why this is still even being debated. It's pointless now Floydian has been given his final warning. Let's go back to the article, go back to improving the encyclopaedia. The "discussion" I closed was a violation of WP:TALK and merely consisted of more baiting and off topic, misleading, accusations - I asked Floydian to continue in a more appropriate venue. Other editors have also reverted Floydian, and we can assume that they woud voice this opinion on the talk page were it not already clear that he didn't have consensus. Verbal chat 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect for Ncmvocalist's analytic skills, it would probably be far more helpful to hear the opinion of an administrator like MastCell who has some idea about the medical content and editors involved. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would we need to discuss content? This is ANI. A 3rd party analysis is exactly what this needs, neutral of any previous knowledge. (talk→ BWilkins