Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive641

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Jrkso[edit]

User Jrkso keeps edit warring at. He has been blocked for edit warring recently and just removed that from his talk page. I have ask him multiple times to make his point through discussion not to edit warring but he keeps going with misleading edit summaries for the last reverts. I am stopping here and i am soon offline so i would appreciate if somebody could have a look at it because i think the article Afghanistan should doubtless have a section about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present). IQinn (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Both have violated 3RR. Jrkso's been blocked for that before. I cannot find a diff of Iqinn being told about the 3RR rule. Anyway, both editors have stopped edit-warring and are now discussing on the talk page, so a block is not warranted. A neutral voice might help.--Chaser (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
First, I have not violated 3rr. That's ridiculous, not all of my edits are reverts. Please have a better look before you throw false accusations.--Jrkso (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you have. From WP:3RR, "A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word." Without looking too closely, all 4 of your edits today at least removed the same information that begins with "These steps have been reciprocated so far with an intensification of bombings..." You can argue that the first was simply an edit, but the next 3 edits "reverted" the restoration of that material. --OnoremDil 15:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok the first may be considered an edit and the last two should be counted as one because I was adding new info and some how (probably due to me being very frustrated at the time) I didn't notice the number of my reverts. I think I did 2 1/2 reverts, I'll try to becareful next time. Anyway the problem should be over with me and IQinn although he is still POV-pushing.[1] Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

A while back, someone created a blog on Blogspot under my name, in an attempt to discredit me by linking me to NAMBLA and communism: [2]. I informed the administrators about it, and we decided that the best solution would be for me to post a disclaimer on my talk page, which I did: [3].

Now, however, a newly registered user (User: Fairness4all, who is also a possible sockpuppet of User: TPCFanFor Facts, User: Sinekyre or User: FactsRFun2, all three of them being single-purpose accounts that have identical POV and editing styles, and only edit Political Cesspool-related articles), has posted a snarky comment on Talk: The Political Cesspool in which he asks me "By the way, "Mason", when are you going to update your Blogspot blog?" [4]

This leads me to believe he is probably the person who created the blog in the first place; the blog itself is so obscure that I doubt anyone but its creator (and me, of course) is even aware that it exists. Since the blog itself is a blatant, severe personal attack, I think an admin ought to block Fairness4all until he takes the blog down. Perhaps someone should do a checkuser on him to see which of the above accounts are sockpuppets of his, so they can be blocked too. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What happens outside wikipedia is not wikipedia's problem. That said on the grounds of being sockpuppets they could/should be blocked after due wikipedia investigations. (and not to mention, a warning/block for personal attacks)(Lihaas (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC));
It's not clear that they're socks - Fairness4all was actually created over a year ago [5], the others are newer. Seems likely that they're all fans of the site and discussing something elsewhere, but only one of them did something somewhat hostile.
We could checkuser them, but it's not clear if there's grounds for it right now.
If there are further issues on-wiki that rise to the level of personal attack, or they appear to be advocating for the site in some disallowed manner here, we should definitely intervene. But so far it's not clear that any of them (or all of them together) have done anything wrong.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Fairness4all has now been blocked by another administrator. Soap 15:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Closed. Enough. If there's anything left to work out, work it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2010 (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.

Re:Talk:John Birch Society: The following comment by User:Viriditas appears to be a personal attack on another editor:

Collect, that source does not say what you say it says, and I think you know this.... To go to such extreme, convoluted distortions of a reliable source, tells me that there is something wrong with your ability to read and comprehend, Collect. I want to apologize if you have special needs, perhaps you could request the help of another editor who can explain this to you. I hope Collect is mature and sensible enough to recognize that he has made a serious error in judgement and now needs to concede this point.

This is not the way to discuss content disputes and I think Viriditas should withdraw these comments. It is also offensive to people who have special needs.

TFD (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see any attempt from you to discuss this on Viriditas' talk page. Why are you bringing it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he's complaining about the content dispute ... but about the somewhat unparliamentary language (your parliament may vary).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Correct, so why hasn't he discussed it on Viriditas' talk, which is the first step in dispute resolution? Particularly since a read of that discussion shows Viriditas trying to patiently push water uphill vs. Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Viriditas presents a clear reliable source on talk, and a long discussion ensues, in which it appears Collect doesn't comprehend. Bringing this one incident to AN/I, without talking to Viriditas about the language used on Viritidas' talk, isn't the most effective use of dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Has Collect complained about the language, since he was the intended recipient? If not, then I suggest the question of NPA is moot. As for "special needs" = illiterate; not all illiterate people have special needs (in the medical sense) and not people with special needs are illiterate, but we can hardly censure an editor for inaccuracy (otherwise the depletion of casual editors from WP would be startling!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am now formally complaining about repeated and iterated acts and words by User:Viriditas. He "userfied" [WP:Josh Billings]] sans any notification to me, and wothoput going through any actual discussion process of any sort. (Hard to post a diff of nothing, I fear). He routinely says [6] The body of evidence is huge, and for you to dismiss experts in the scientific community on this subject as "self published" is laughable. This isn't in dispute by any rational person, so it's probably time for you to "give it up". Rules, guidelines, and policies do not exist to be "respected" and, of course his own personal RFC/U [7] which splendidly exemplifies his outlook to anyone who disagrees with what he WP:KNOWs. TFD and I do not always agree, to be sure, but he has not gone to the lengths Viriditas has gone. Collect (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you're upset and angered that I moved a user essay that you wrote into user space per Wikipedia:Userfication. Is it true, Collect, that "essays mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, may be userfied"? It sounds like you have a personal vendetta against me, Collect. I moved that essay on August 31 after finding it had been created on 30 January 2010[8] by you, with no edits by any other user during that time, and little to no links.[9] In fact, all of the links found were added by Collect, and stem from other essays he wrote and spammed links to on talk pages. In the above response he spams another essay he wrote, WP:KNOW. If people believe that after seven months your essay should be in main space, then ask an administrator to move it back. Stop trying to copy and paste the material back into the redirect[10] as that is not how we move articles. You've been here long enough to know how Wikipedia works, so please follow the rules. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The procedure is to use MfD on any such essays. And notifying people is a grreat idea. In fact, it is required. The essay is now back in mainspace. If you wish to nom it for MfD, do so. Until then, leave it be. Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Routine housekeeping requires MfD? Viriditas (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas isn't alone in "having his own personal RFC/U which splendidly exemplifies his outlook", is he, Collect? I don't like incivility either, but more than a few users (scroll down from the link) have considered your behavior to be attacking, too, since you bring up the issue. Glass houses, you know?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting you found an RFC/U which the main proponent later apologized to me for, and where with 14 people CANVASSED before the RFC, they still did not make a majority <g>. And, of course, the 5 sock puppeteers who were later banned (including User:Ratel, who was quite vociferous, indeed). Sorry - no one charged me with personal attacks in that one at all. What I was charged with was being tendentious in pursuing WP:BLP rules - and where Jimbo agrees with my position on such BLPs. Now do you really want to go there? <g> Collect (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Collect's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, could someone address Collect's misunderstanding of WP:PSTS which he has now spread tendentiously to several talk pages? Collect is continuing to misrepresent the definition, concept, and usage of tertiary sources like reference works, claiming that tertiary sources are unreliable. In his latest series of edits, Collect has claimed over and over again, that sources like Encyclopædia Britannica and the Dictionary of American History (published by Charles Scribner's Sons and hosted by Gale online) are unreliable. Since this appears to be a stubborn, fundamental misunderstanding of PSTS, could someone set him straight? I've explained how the sources are reliable, but Collect won't listen to reason. Viriditas (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I "claimed" that the EB online uses "suggestions" from anyone at all -- and pointed out the "suggest edit" tab on every EB online article, and also showed where this had been shown to be true. More than that - how reliable is any encyclopedia which takes suggested edits from anyone? <g>. Collect (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The Encyclopædia Britannica article in question was written by Jeannette Nolen, social science editor for Encyclopaedia Britannica, not by a user suggested edit. The material you dispute in that article is supported by scholarly studies, such as Groseclose & Milyo (2005), Turner (2007), and DellaVigna & Kaplan (2007). Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Every reference work contains errors. Ones which have a policy of correcting errors are not automatically less accurate than those that don't. Newspapers are not inaccurate because they make corrections based on reader input. If there is a dispute over the accuracy of EB, that should be settled at WP:RSN. In general, tertiary sources are allowed though we should not based our articles on them. They can be especially valuable in providing overviews and summaries.   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No, the dispute is over the use of tertiary sources. In this case, Collect claims that the Encyclopædia Britannica is not a reliable source. On another talk page, Collect claims that the Dictionary of American History is not a reliable source and can't be used because he can't personally verify the information. The pattern here is one of opposition to any edit he personally dislikes, obstruction to normal talk page discussion to resolve the opposition, and deliberate obfuscation, where he tries to confuse the issue under discussion and prevent any resolution that is at odds with his own personal POV. Viriditas (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, though, that Viriditas would do well to withdraw the comment. Editors shouldn't address one another with condescension, and doing so would keep this from turning into yet another long thread of mutual recriminations that take up so much real-estate here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the comment and it is now struck out on the talk page.[11] Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since Collect has banned me from his talk page, could someone ask Collect to stop making copy and paste moves? He has now, for the second time, restored a copy and paste move.[12][13] I specifically requested him at 21:52, 27 September 2010, to stop with the copy and paste moves and use the appropriate procedures to request a move. As it stands right now, the essay in question is appropriately located in his user space. Collect has been here long enough to know that we don't move articles with copy and paste, since we want to preserve the page history. Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (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.

Unblock request of behalf of User:BlueRobe[edit]

Closed as inappropriate for ANI. The user can request unblock on their userpage. Unblocks "on behalf of" are generally only done for users whose Talk page is locked or whom require community consensus to unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:50, 27 September 2010 (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.

I am making a request on behalf of BlueRobe over his one month block. The blocking administrator has said he supports the proposals laid out for the unblock.

  • 19 September
    • warned by myself Does not appear to be a PA, certainly uncivil but it needs context, it was in response to this [14] Having an editor carelessly saying it would be better to just delete your proposal is going to get under your skin
  • 21 September
    • warned by Fifelfoo Certainly a caustic remark, [15] However it was borne out of frustration over the insertion of an obviously anarchist group The Workers Solidarity Movement into the article.
  • 22 September
  • 23 September
    • warned by myself Definitely an unneeded comment, telling an editor to sod of is not on, but again a comment born of frustration in being told that his talk page contributions are just OR and have no substance.
  • 24 September
  • 25 September 2010
    • warned by Born2cycle This is in response to BlueRobe saying get a life freak a definite PA but taken in the context of a constant stream of warnings (some for the most trivial matters) will lead to these sort of response`s.
From what I've seen of BlueRobe, the user appears to be actively trolling by intentionally being rude and insulting to try to turn factual discussions into arguments. In a AfD I started, he jumped in without having read the AfD (at least judgine from his comment), then went on to call me an "angry freak" [19] when I moved a comment by him to the bottom of the place to be able to answer, claimed that I'm "ranting and raving" [20] instead of answering my question why a copy of an article should be kept, and made rather insulting insinuations about my motive for nominating the article [21]. I don't know if BlueRobe is intentionally trolling (which I suspect) or just unable to control himself, but whatever the case, he is clearly a disruptive user.Jeppiz (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This one is quite interesting, the first diff which Jeppiz says Blue calls him an angry freak [22] has no such comment in it. The second Diff, Ranting and Raving [23] yes he does say that, but then again if an editor had moved my comments (a breach of TPG) and then said BlueRobe now claims to have read the nomination, which is great a clear provocation, given the opening comment from Jeppiz to BlueRobe [24] and his second [25] Very clear provocation from Jeppiz and it is little wonder BlueRobe responded in kind

Results of diffbomb[edit]

All in all the above diff bomb which was dropped on ANI is not quite what it was made out to be. A lot are duplicates and some are not as uncivil as made out to be. Some are the result of extreme provocation and a lot of the personal remarks are down to sheer frustration. I e-mailed BlueRobe and told him i would appeal his month long block if he gave his word that he would refrain from further personal attacks on other editors. He has given his word.

Proposal[edit]

As blue has given his word he will refrain from further personal attacks on other editors i ask his block be lifted with the following conditions.

  • He accepts a 1R restriction on Libertarianism to prevent any further edit warring or perceived edit warring. Time period to be decided on this by you.
  • An interaction ban (of sorts) User:Yworo User:Fifelfoo User:BigK HeX and User:The Four Deuces be requested to not post on User:BlueRobe talk page, this is to help fend off further antagonism. If they feel BlueRobe has made inappropriate comments they post on my talk page and i will mediate the matter.
  • This will give Blue the chance to prove his worth, i believe he is an intelligent person who is not used to wiki and is letting his frustration get the better of him. An unblock now while the RFC/U is running will give him the chance to show he can contribute to the project in a constructive manner. I am of course taking him at his word that he will remain civil, should he break his word the one month ban can of course be reset.
  • I will also offer my services as a mentor to BlueRobe and try to help him along. mark nutley (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments From The Community[edit]

  • oppose - I have little patience for 11th hour changes of hearts. He had plenty of chances to alter his behaviour before being blocked. He can serve out his month if he wants to prove he can change.--Crossmr (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Without comment on BlueRobe, I am not comfortable with a resolution placing Marknutley as 'mediator' or 'mentor' between a troubled user and the rest of the community. Marknutley has far too much recent and ongoing difficulty in constructive interactions with the community to fill this role. He is himself currently under a community-imposed civility parole ([26]), among other restrictions (summarized, along with conduct issues, in this open Arbitration finding). Marknutley also seems to have a poor grasp what constitutes a personal attack (see this spurious warning to another editor, given in response to this comment). It is of particular concern that this sort of error is being made in the same area where BlueRobe edits. Finally, Marknutley is not an administrator, and lacks the technical ability to restore BlueRobe's block if there is trouble. Requiring that problems be channeled through him is a recipe for failure. While Mark's intentions are good, he needs to demonstrate that his own house is in order before he tries to help other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
TOAT that was not a warning, it was a request to withdraw an accusation of disruption made towards another editor. I fail to see how trying to defuse a potential argument can be deemed a concern? mark nutley (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
You don't have a firm grasp of what constitutes a personal attack, which suggests strongly that you probably shouldn't be the one monitoring any sort of civility parole. As I said, your intentions are good, but you haven't demonstrated the skills to be an effective mediator. Your response here – which seems to entirely miss the point of my remarks – cements that perception. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- BlueRobe's latest bunch of RFCs/ANIs should make it clear that a block was warranted. Even if mark nutley were neutral in this dispute (and he's not), he'd be the last person that I'd pick for mentoring, due to his long history of incivil behavior and POV-pushing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- If he's repentant? he won't mind serving out his block. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose BlueRobe has not only shown poor interaction with other editors, but is unwilling to accept that articles must use reliable sources and that synthesis is not allowed. I find it indicative that BlueRobe will not change by his including editing restrictions on other editors as part of the conditions he is willing to accept. I have only posted to BlueRobe's talk page three times. Two times were to complain about templates he placed on my talk page (one accused me of vandalism) and the third was a polite mention that he had reached 3RR for the day. mark nutley's poor history of interaction with other editors as evidenced by his many blocks make him a poor choice for mediating. TFD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The interaction restrictions are not BlueRobes conditions, they are mine. He had no part in writing the proposal. The point of the interaction restriction is to help defuse the situation mark nutley (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (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.

Systemic bias by Editor Varlaam[edit]

Editor Varlaam appears to be using Systemic bias in editing some Africa-related film articles by changing the Manual of Stye (MOS) of the articles. He has unnecessarily added a flag icon template into the infobox of this article (Template:Infobox_film discourages the usage of flag icons), and also added a currency Wikilink into the infobox_budget section of this article. WP:FILM's goal is "to standardize the film articles in Wikipedia" - the currency data field in the infobox_budget section of film articles (e.g. here) is not wikilinked, thus the addition of a currency wikilink with this explanation in the edit summary is not in adherence with the standardization goal of WP:FILM and suggests systemic bias. I've asked Varlaam to revert his edits but he has decided to ignore the issue. To avoid edit war, this issue is brought to this board. Could an administrator please look into this? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold um horses, Amsaim. Disagreeing with a diktat of Wikiproject Films is not the same as systemic bias. As far as I can see, he has done two things - he has put a flag in an infobox, which I presume offends some edict of the film project re keeping infoboxes tidy, and he has wikilinked to the Nigerian naira, which I for one would find useful, as it is a less well known currency (lets face it, most currencies outside the dollar, yen and euro are less well known!). For that, you have dumped a wodge of text on his talkpage accusing him of systemic bias (do you even know what this means??) and reported him to ANI. I see no attempt at discussion anywhere. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hint, systemic bias would be converting all the currencies in the film infoboxes into dollars, so there was a standard comparison against the Hollywood box office. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This certainly is a novel way to avoid an edit war: ask an editor once to revert a change you disagree with so as not to "cause" one, and if they don't and ignore you, it's straight to AN/I. Whatever happened to Bold, Revert, Discuss? This report seems a bit "much"... Doc9871 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
And accusing them of "systemic bias" for one edit. Cracking :) Recommend Amsaim closes this now, before thatfootballerwhoshallnotbenamed comes into play. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Six-minute block of TreasuryTag by SarekOfVulcan[edit]

Formerly A six-minute block really is just taking the piss...

I mean come on, seriously? SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) blocked me at 15:03 for a petty non-3RR reversion against an alleged consensus – with which they were anyway slighty involved [27] Within two minutes, I proposed a perfectly reasonable compromise. Then Sarek unblocked me at 15:09.

So aside from the conflict-of-interest issue, I think it is absurd that I was blocked when a decent 'ceasefire' was so transparently within reach. So this either smacks of a poorly-thought-through block which almost immediately proved un-necessary, or a cool-down block designed to push me into making a compromise; and, as we all know, cool-down blocks are not allowed.

Sarek suggested that I refer the issue here for wider input. Note that I am not asking for any sanctions or any particular result other than the fact that admins in general, and Sarek in particular, should not be so trigger-happy with the block button where compromise is just around the corner. ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So, it looks like your "reasonable compromise" was actually proposed by Sarek, and you ignored him and continued edit warring. Then after he blocked you, you started to behave and abided by the compromise... seems like a good block. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Erm... can you provide a diff of Sarek first proposing the compromise? Because I'm fairly sure that that is not what happened. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 14:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
here - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So your diff proving that Sarek first proposed the RfC actually took place 12 minutes after I first raised the prospect of an RfC on this issue, did it? ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 14:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
See below. Either way the compromise was discussed before the block (not after as you suggest), but you choose not to do that, and instead to keep edit warring. After the block you suddenly seem to become reasonable and comply with the compromise. Then come here trying to make it look like Sarek is the one being unreasonable. It appears like the block is what made you actually file an RfC and stop edit warring. The block made you stop edit warring, so it was a good block, imo - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, it was proposed by TT, and I said I didn't think he'd get the result he expected, but he was welcome to try.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Either way, he didn't actually do this until after the block. - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Rule #1: protect first. TT took it upon himself to break WP:3RR and is unapologetic about it. This ANI report will generate far more heat than light. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    At no stage did I "break WP:3RR" – seems you're generating the heat! ╟─TreasuryTaginspectorate─╢ 14:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Much ado about nothing, though no one comes out of this smelling like a rose. Suggest we close.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
"...against an alleged consensus"; there you go - good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, fairly ropey as arguments go, but no more so than I expected... ╟─TreasuryTagCaptain-Regent─╢ 14:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Point of order: The block was 24 hours, later commuted resulting in a block of six minutes total. Admittedly a bit of pedantry, but this should be made clear as the (current) section header is ambiguous. –xenotalk 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the point of blocking someone for something they say on their own talk page? Exactly what disruption does that prevent if you aren't protecting it or blocking them from editing the same? Was TreasuryTag behaving inappropriately to some degree? Probably. Was this a good block? Not particularly. Should SarekOfVulcan be desysopped over it? No. --B (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    Um, the original block was for edit warring on Flesh and Stone, not for anything he said on talk. And WP:NPA applies on all namespaces; hence, the second block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    While it's true that no personal attacks applies to user talk pages, a block alone doesn't stop a user from making personal attacks on his or her user talk page. It's analogous to the police arresting a drunk and then leaving them in the custody of a liquor store. --B (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) This particular section concerns a block for edit warring; you appear to be talking about the more recent block, one that the editor isn't really disputing at this point. –xenotalk 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good block: TT was edit warring, and a six-minute block convinced them to discuss rather than continuing. I'd say that's about the most efficient block I've ever seen. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

David829[edit]

David829 (talk · contribs) creates legitimate, if unsourced, stubs on notable Top Ten hits by country music artists (example: Hey Bobby). I have warned him at least twice that he must put at least one source in the article, but all he does is remove the warnings and continue to make the same mistakes. It's clear that he's not paying any attention to what I'm saying, and he might need a bit stronger action to get his attention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I just swung by to see if my own concern had been covered and I saw yours. Yes, I think this individual needs a timeout. He's one of these editors who focuses on a single subject and never acknowledges the concerns of others. Thanks for posting this. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I find it hard to block him when he is actually creating usable content. After all, many thousands of our users commit the identical fault. Ideas?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:V is part of the 5P. This seems more like a refusal to work with Wikipedia's principles. Block seems appropriate due to the ignored warnings. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I had to walk David829 (talk · contribs) through step by step on how to create an article, because he genuinely didn't know how. If TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) had taken but a minute to show him how to add references rather than shouting at him the first time he posted on his talk page and attacking him in edit summaries, we probably wouldn't be here.
There are so few users who are trying to create and improve the country music articles the best way they know how. What are we trying to accomplish by blocking them all? Eric444 (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
While creating unsourced stubs can be annoying, as far as I know, it's not generally a blockable offense. Nor should it be. Plus, it sounds like he's likely to improve at this point. Nothing to do here... Hobit (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sock of recently blocked serial copyright violator?[edit]

Hello. Someone - but who? - was recently blocked (indef?) for uploading endless webscraped airliner pictures. I can't remember the username involved, but Verybluesky (talk · contribs) seems likely something feathery that quacks. So whose sock is this? Help please. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Last year we had ANigg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), now indeffed, who sockpuppetted for a while. I hadn't seen this newer one you refer to, but could easily have missed it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm...
Viper 265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Yattum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Chanakythegreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
...And a whole rats nest of IP users in 88.106.0.0/16, which I rangeblocked for a week about a month ago.
I'm filing a SPI for Verybluesky on the most recent, Yattum SPI thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks GWH, it was Viper 265 I was thinking of. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Magic 8-ball says no: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yattum. So this is a new user, who needs to have the copyright policy explained to them and have the images re-tagged appropriately as to where they really came from. Do you have time to / are you familiar enough with that to do it? If you're not sure, I can do it later today. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Complaint[edit]

Moved here from AN - Burpelson AFB 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I would like a proper investigation to be done(though I don't think it's likely to happen given my past experiences with this site)as the user Higgys is accused of being associated with a past account I had, Kagome_85. This account, Higgys, had nothing to do with me and was in fact made by another user which no investigation was done on this particular user, and this user is Blackmagic1234, who made a new account Mousykit but is no longer using it. The account Higgys was made to harass another account I had, after I stopped using the Kagome_85 account and made a new acount, Kagome_77, which the user Higgys harassed me on. I believed that you could make a new account as long as you did not use the old accounts, which is what I was doing. The user Higgys did accuse me on my Kagome_77 account of vandalizing the Kathleen article, which I had done in the past, and the Ruby Gloom article, which I never vandalized. I would like the accusation of the account Higgys being associated with my account Kagome_85 to be removed, as it was NOT an account of mine, and it was used to harass me with, so why would I make an account just to harass myself with? And the only reason I am pointing out about Blackmagic1234 and his new account Mousykit being Higgys is that what I said in the Kathleen article this user would only know, as at the time this user was someone I knew in person and thought was my friend, and the fact that I would randomly get a message one day on the account Kagome_77 that I was using by the user Higgys saying I made vandalism edits to the Kathleen article(which I had made in the past), however, I do not vandalize anymore, sice I am now more mature and not as stupid. So please remove the sockpuppet accusation of me being associated with Higgys since I'm not and I know probably many people would say they aren't associated with any accounts that vandalize but I'm making a different point: I'm admitting to the fact that I had used OTHER accounts to vandalize, however Higgys was not an account of mine, it was an account created by another user in order to harass me with. 142.177.43.186 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting how you choose to not insult people here, as you did me on my talk page, when I told you I got CU confirmation the account was created by you. It isn't just IPs CU's look at, it's also behavior, user-agents(your internet browser), editing times(when you log on and start editing), and so on.
Also, you are wrong on our policy regarding alternate accounts. If your prior account was blocked, and you created this new account to get around said block, then that is block evasion. If you do not wish to be blocked, the proper course of action is never to evade, but to request unblocking on your original account.
Lastly, the CU confirmation did not use any old accounts for the link, but one you recently created. Mousey2010 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)), to post a harassing message on your ex's new account's talk page(that they used to try and get away from you) over and over and over again(this time with Mousey). It linked the Mousey account with your Higgys account. No other past accounts were compared. It is quite obvious Mousey was yours.— dαlus Contribs 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threats[edit]

Resolved: Bearian (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to get some opinions on this edit and this edit, both on this article. These accounts may also be related. Are these legal threats block-worthy? My opinion is "yes", but I've been editing the article in question, so I will step aside for another admin to evaluate. TNXMan 18:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's a pretty clear legal threat and I've indef'd both accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
They look like legal threats to me. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags and POV pushing[edit]

User:JCAla, a heavy POV-pusher, not only fills articles with his own personal anti-Afghanistan POVs but also keeps removing tags. [28]. I warned him many times but he keeps removing the tags and giving nonsense reasons.--Jrkso (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser around?[edit]

Resolved: Editor granted temporary IP block exemption. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to address questions meant for a checkuser, so I'll do it here: I recently put up a block on an editor for WP:3RR violation on the IP. Another editor has shown up in the autoblock. You can see the threads at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Block of 217.157.202.160 and User talk:FunkMonk#Unblock request for background. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If you need a list of all CheckUsers at the English Wikipedia, they can be found here. HeyMid (contributions) 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 again - Can we make this the last time?[edit]

Resolved: ChaosMaster16 indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

A little over two weeks ago I reported User:ChaosMaster16 for persisting in adding content from pifeedback.com despite consensus that it's not a reliable source and numerous discussions including ANIs. He's currently blocked for a week for edit warring,[29] but I happened to notice this question on his talk page. Despite all the discussions, he's still adding information sourced from pifeedback.com in complete disregard of the community's decision regarding that website. Surely it's time to once and for all put an end to this even if it means a much longer block. ----AussieLegend (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I've been involved off and on with this, having originally argued him out of getting blocked on one of the previous ANI discussions, and subsequently being approached by ChaosMaster16 for advice a number of times, I should comment. In my view, the user's biggest problem is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. When asking for advice he seems only to be interested in advice that suits what he is about to do anyway, and fails to hear the uncomfortable parts. I agree that it's become painfully obvious that he really needs to understand that he needs to follow community norms. There is also a page at User:ChaosMaster16/Eclipse which seems to store only pifeedback.com data for insertion into articles. I'm sorry I have to agree with AussieLegend here, it means the time I spent trying to help was apparently partially wasted, but in fact I'm still trying to help, even now, since the only way he will avoid long term sanctions seems to be to wake up to the rules now. Perhaps a block until he can convince an unblocking admin he really understands the problems here is a "cruel to be kind" solution at this point. Since he is blocked, I added a note that any responses he would like to make in this thread will be copied across for him. I'd appreciate it if anyone else who has his talk page watchlisted could do that when I'm not around. Sleep beckons right now, actually.  Begoon&#149;talk 20:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ChaosMaster16's attitude has gotten progressively worse, at several places a strong ownership attitude is present. While he often participates and (re-re-re-)starts discussions the end result is almost always a refusal to get the point and he just keeps going. When in discussion he often gives the impression "that's fine" and then later just changes it back again, without edit summary, while normally one is given, followed by some extra edits. On the specific pifeedback.com issue, I think it's time to just blacklist the website, although it seems a bit overkill as it is only (as far as I can tell) this user adding the links. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I went to block ChaosMaster16, per the rationale provided here, indefinitely for disruption in regard to persistently backsliding on promises not to use the pifeedback.com site as a reference, per consensus detailed above, to find that they are already blocked 7 days. From a review of the brief discussion on their talkpage, it appears that this is again related to TV viewing figures. Is this related to the same matter? If it is, then I do not want to vary the blocking admins sanction without discussion. Under the circumstances I will not take any action until the blocking admin comments (which I will now invite him/her to do). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The block was for violating 3RR, about how many digits after the , to use for the ratings, the color of the episode list and some other nonsense. Last block had nothing to do with the pifeedback.com issue. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
      As the 3RR block is for 7 days from the 26th of the month I feel we can wait for the blocking admin to respond to my request to comment here - if no response within 36 hours please ping me and I will enact an indefinite block. I am also thinking that if there is only the one editor using the pifeedback site then blacklisting it when the account is blocked is pointless - or rather, it is a better point to keep it, because if ChaosMaster16 does sock around his block the darn thing will likely use the same site. It makes sock detection easier, and thus any appeal by ChaosMaster16 can be judged against it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks LHvU for the note. My block of seven days was narrowly limited to the 3RR violation about the rather petty issue of colours and decimal places on a TV ratings table. I have absolutely no problem with any administrator extending the block due to these other issues. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response, I shall enact the block. Per my rationale I am not going to blacklist the pifeedback site. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks anyone?[edit]

Pinknp (talk · contribs)

This user should be watched, per this edit, just in case they decide to come back using their sibling's account.— dαlus Contribs 22:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to "hint" at that in my replies to that post, and that account hasn't edited since - but nevertheless well worth watching under the circumstances.  Begoon&#149;talk 23:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Two users fighting[edit]

Resolved: User:Endofskull has warned editors against further flame wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

173.79.0.63 and Heavydata seem to be fighting. If you look at their user talk pages, it seems like both of them are flaming each other. I seems to me that both of them should be punished. Endofskull (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Too early to report them here - drop a couple of NPA warning templates on their talkpages; if they stop, then great, and if they don't then bring it back here or perhaps AIV. No criticism to you for wanting to sort this out, but there are a couple of steps you can try before bringing out the big guns. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 Done I removed the ANI notice, and added a personal attack notice. If it happens more, then I'll bring it back here. Endofskull (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Spamming by a large company[edit]

I've seen a lot of spamming by small companies; this is the first time I've ever seen a large company attempt to do so. User:MerrimackPharma attempted to place an article about pharmaceutical manufacturer Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. The article was then repeatedly updated and spammed by a series of sockpuppets. I invoked WP:BOLD, deleted the article and locked down the title. Sure enough, someone tried pasting a verbatim version of the deleted content under the slightly altered title of "Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc." This was done by User:Scienceiscooool, a user with no previous edits.

I believe that this is a serious enough situation as to warrant a formal complaint from the Wikimedia Foundation to the upper-level management of this firm. Never in all the years I've edited this site have I seen such a spam attempt from such a company of this size. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of an overreaction unless you have evidence that this was the result of corporate policy or directive. It's more likely that this is the action of one or two over-zealous employees than a corporation-wide conspiracy. ElKevbo (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The socking is a concern, but the company itself is likely to be notable. Admins can do whatever is necessary to prevent re-creation of an inappropriate article, so I'm not sure why the Foundation would need to be involved. The best place to work out issues like this is probably the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, since the people there usually try to negotiate with the promotional editors and get them to cooperate. No objection to the admin actions taken so far, but the sources of the deleted article were pretty good, and we might be able to use an article on Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
PMD is right that this is unusual: companies that large usually spam the mainstream press directly, so that WP can quote the spam as coming from reliable sources ;). I don't know whether the WMF is likely to actually formally protest but you might as well inform them. It has made some news when WP has gotten spammed by offices of US Congressmembers and the like. The admin actions were fine and I'd have no objection to keeping the redlinks protected for a while. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the spamming is coming from on high but rather from one or two employees. They might be operating from orders from highers-up, but with no proof, I thought the Foundation might be justified in alerting the company to the problem. The subject is certainly worth an article, but I was concerned about the unusual amount of spamming going on. I admit to being a bit leery deleting an article on a notable subject, but these were extraordinary circumstances. If anyone would like to unprotect the redlinks either now or down the line, I have no objections. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, while I can't quarrel with PMD's intent, a positive alternative course of action would have been to engage the (likely COI) editor and inform them of WP:COI. As the PharmaCorp is most likely notable, it might be wise to unprotect the redlinks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of that issue, shouldn't User:MerrimackPharma be indeffed as a likely role account? rdfox 76 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Never mind, I really should have looked before I posted there... rdfox 76 (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo[edit]

Block threat to expert contributor[edit]

Hi,

I'm an expert contributor who has just been warned of blocking, see User_talk:Optimering, because I have made a number of edit reverts to particle swarm optimization. I have explained in detail on Talk:particle swarm optimization my reasons for these reverts. Could an official administrator please investigate the matter?

I am a researcher and not an expert in wikipedia procedures.

Thanks.

Optimering (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see our policy on original research.— dαlus Contribs 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome! We don't immediately have a way to confirm who you are, so we can't rely on that. Your edits need to stand on their own. The best way to do that is to cite reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for publishing original research (not even accurate, brilliant research), as Daedalus969 has mentioned. Jehochman Talk 07:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I read through some of the diffs, and you seem to suffer from WP:OWN. Also, you argued in your edit summary here about not including a detailed explaination of a topic. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. In regards to the warning, User:MrOllie was perfectly correct in warning you for WP:3RR in a content dispute. Ishdarian|lolwut 07:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: I've put a welcome message on your talk page that has a bunch of informative links regarding the issues with your contributions. Perhaps you may wish to view it, check over the links, and let myself or another experienced editor know if you have any questions? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART[edit]

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.

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked by Fox. B.e.r.d. promises "little or no trolling" if he returns under a new name. Doc9871 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad edits r dumb (talk · contribs) User notified.

User:Bad edits r dumb is in violation of WP:CLEANSTART. Please see the following fact pattern.

User's account is an alternate account
  • The user's first edit summary supports: [30]
  • At least one involved Check User has confirmed that this is an alternate account (though not directly but by second-hand): [31]
  • The user admitted this is a secondary account in a self-filed RFCU: [32]
User's edits are disruptive
  • A cursory look at the user's talk page [33] shows multiple cautionary notes and warnings starting on September 14 [34], which began a mere 20 minutes following the new account creation [35] and an abundance of good faith has already been assumed.
  • The user did not heed any of these cautionary notes, requests, or warnings until the user was blocked on September 23[36] after receiving numerous "final warnings". AIV report can be found here
  • The locus of the disruption was the the user was failing to provide proper and accurate userspace warnings to other users following reversion, deletion nomination, etcetera. Additionally, the locus of the disruption was that the user failed to use proper English and grammar which led to a number of confusing situations due to bad edit summaries and messages on relevant talk pages. [37] [38] [39]
  • The user showed a willful disregard for Wikipedia policies and guidelines up until the point that they were blocked.
  • The user's disruptive behavior has generated much editor attention to the point that their talk page garnered nearly 300 hits on September 23. [40]
User demonstrates a willful intent to disrupt

The user's disruptive behavior continued despite having been informed that it was disruptive and a request for it to desist.

  • The user was asked on September 19 to refrain from using poor English when communicating. See: [41]
  • The user's poor execution of proper English and grammar is purely by choice. The user has demonstrated full-well the ability to communicate eloquently and without the use of the borderline nonsensical, idiosyncratic, and highly-questionable communication. See: [42] [43] [44]
  • The user's behavior therefore can be categorically characterized as trolling under WP:TROLL.
User ignores offers for personal mentoring

In order to help show a good-faith intent to improve their own behavior, several offers for adoption were offered to the user, which were each rejected:

User's disruption continues
  • The user contradicts his or herself, sometimes acknowledging their behavior as constructive, and sometimes as disruptive. [46] [47]
  • Cursory look at today's edits: [48] [49] [50]
Conclusions

Under WP:CLEANSTART, "...the new account is not merely continuing the same kinds of behaviors and activities." I respectfully suggest that given all of the activity since this new account was created that the behavior which likely led to the setting aside of the original account has clearly resumed. Further, even if that behavior pattern is not matching precisely with the original, I further respectfully submit, that whereas editing Wikipedia is a privilege not a right, that it is incumbent upon the relevant administrators and checkusers involved to ensure that NO disruptive behavior recurs under a CLEANSTART account. This user's behavior has garnered significant attention of a large number of editors. I submit that there can be no argument as to the disruptiveness of this user at this point.

Respectfully submitted,   Thorncrag  22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved Editors' Comments[edit]

Hi I cannot type a lot of stuff write now because I am on my iPhone but I would just like to say that I acknowledged (see the infobox on my talk page) that my behavior PRIOR to my block was dumb and it was a disruptive thing and I am sorry. However AFTER I got unblocked, my vandal fighting and new page patrol work has been very good. I cannot link to it right now becos I am in my iPhone but pls review the comments in the MfD discussion pertaining to the deletion of my barnstars. Users praised my contributions and noted my improvement. I feel I am being endlessly nitpicked AND unappreciated and maybe even wikihounded. Maybe i will write some more comment when I get home tonite unless I am TOO SLEEPY :-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

  • User thanked you for trolling - I suspect that was not a compliment. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I am not talking about the barnstar itself i was talking about the MfD disussion about the deletion of said barnstar. If someone could provide a link that would be appreciated. In that discussion I was not thanked for "trolling", but rather. My contributions were praises and I was called a NET POSITIVE.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's the link: [51] - nor does it state what you claim. Quite the opposite for the most part. The closest thing to what you claim is that if this is behind us, then let's let it drop. Sadly, you are the subject of the AN/I because it is not behind us. In addition, you may wish to try not to mischaracterize other's statements to form your defense. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
And one vote of support as a net positive. Dont confuse one such vote as consensus (hence my comment about misconstruing the statements as a whole based on it). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
as a sidenote, CLEANSTART doesn't exactly apply here. Clean start is for problematic editors who wish to return and contribute positively and avoid the baggage and scrutiny of their problematic account. My old account is in good standing but I don't wish to use it for privacy reasons and for various other reasons I dint wish to discuss. --Bad edits r dumb (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to further suggest, that CLEANSTART users must be fully cognizant of the fact that they are being given a second chance, and thus, they should be well-aware that their behavior should be top-notch and practically above reproach. Furthermore, it logically follows that a CLEANSTART user should painstakingly take into consideration the suggestions and warnings issued to them and have a desire to act on each and every reasonable request imposed upon them instead of continuing their perceived disruptive behavior. This user has—if even at all—only very weakly done so, and instead assumed a default position of arguing with and biting those who offer them advice.   Thorncrag  23:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The rest of my (involved editor) comments:
  • Continuous disruption, starting 20 minutes after creating a new account, will indeed bring attention to you. Numerous repeated disruptive activities will continue that attention. That is not wikihounding - that is the consequences of your own actions. In these instances, your responses have even sometimes been to tell the people (either directly in text or in edit summaries) to leave you alone. One cannot pretend their bad behavior did not occur by simply trying to prevent those who notice it from pointing it out.
  • You claim or imply more experience than very experienced editors, admins, abusefilters and more - yet your actions clearly indicate otherwise.
  • You claim admins and abusefilters (as well as editors, who through their track record, prove to be more experienced) are wrong - as one example: [52]
  • You have implied or stated that it is we who need mentoring and that we/others should approach you for assistance instead of the other way around.
  • You repeatedly try to push the limits and even ask (repeatedly), if you do (disruptive behavior) again, will you be blocked. You've been told yes, then proceed to do so anyway. [53]
  • If you are an experienced editor with a previous account in good standing, you should know better than to be disruptive, and to troll.
  • If you are on a cleanstart, then you should know better than to violate it's terms (much less in 20 minutes)
  • If you are an admin, you (all accounts) should (IMHO) be banned for life. Wikipedia editors are not such a person's personal plaything to be toyed with and tested in such a fashion. If that is the case (you are an admin), this is very disingenuous and a betrayal of the trust granted you when the community gave you the additional tools/powers granted (to me, that such tools are not linked to this account is irrelevant - all behavior on every account should be to the same or higher standard that they expect of every experienced editor and admin).
    • Of course, this last one may not apply, but as the nature of the previous accounts are hidden to the rest of us, I bring it up solely because it is a possibility.
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 23:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have been involved with BErD since I first noticed him. Throughout his time here, as this report says, he has been disruptive. After I posted a report at AIV regarding him and he was blocked, he came back. Although he is now (seems to be) using proper templates, he is still using "textspeak" after saying he would stop, then claiming everyone talks like that, and loves it. Then, he responds to a comment, not with an apology, but with this. The cycle just keeps going. Why are we letting him do this? It's crazy. He's clearly and blatantly trolling. I say, no more chances. He's stopped listening to us. This is his game. If he wanted to be productive, he would listen to everything mentioned here. MJ94 (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Aw, what the hell, I'll wade into this too. I'm the one who made the comment that at MFD user:Bad edits r dumb is a net positive to the project, and I'm standing by it, for the time being. He appears to be using the proper vandalism templates now, which is good. God knows that I'm no fan of text-speak, but I also acknowledge that I can generally understand it, at least as Mr. r dumb applies it. There's really no reason for anyone to get their panties up in a bunch over this editor's behavior. If you don't like talking to him, don't talk to him. Buddy431 (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect (to both you and your opinion), I wish to make the following points. That you understand textspeak does not apply to a large majority of Internet users, nor does it properly portray (in any fashion) the severity (or lack thereof) of warnings given or edits performed. Also, I would surmise that since numerous editors have problems with such, there is reason for concern. Consensus and all, and the way such actions are perceived and all. Additionally, there are guidelines about making one's edit summaries accurate and understandable - and since we can clearly say that not everyone understands textspeak, such should not be used in edit summaries. While (outside of this AN/I and notifying them of the decision at the MfD) I have stopped talking to him, that too does not end scrutiny (or consequences) for disruptive behavior. Nor does the implied "if you think it's disruptive, which I dont, then dont talk to the user" fit this scenario. If that were the case, we'd all simply have to ignore everything (and everyone) who we thought was disruptive. Thus, while you are entitled to your opinion, there are those who thing BerDs actions are disruptive and/or trolling - who should not simply be told to pretend it didnt happen or "go away" (as the editor in question has, on multiple occassions, responded with some form of). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Additionally, all the things he listed at a self request for CU for leaving his old account, he has done under this account. MJ94 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This also coincides with BerD mischaracterizing my statements and concerns, even after I went to great lengths to explain them. I do not dispute the validity of the additional (2nd? 3rd?) account. I wished to request clarification that (1) this was not repeat of previous bad behavior trying to be hidden by no longer associating with the earlier accounts, and (2) this was not something more egregious than that, and thusly (3) the severity of the repercussions were warranted (or should have been more extreme). As explained to BerD, (assuming good faith) and doing so would end the continued speculation they opened the door for by publicly admitting to multiple accounts right after others accused them of possible sockpuppetry. I did explain I did not like the fact that they grossly mischaracterized my statements and actions. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In BerD's defense (as the situation(s) behind the previous account(s) has not been made known to us), though there may be an implication made in their statement that supports previous "bad behavior", I do not see them clearly stating such, and thus cannot act upon/comment on what I see only as an implication - thus, as noted before, I hope for clarification by those with the ability to do so, to confirm or deny previous bad behavior as it applies to current activities. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have had a fair amount of interaction with BErD, and was on the fence about his use of improper English and refusing to use templates when warning other users of vandalism. However, based on this edit and this one, I find that this user is quite capable of using proper English, but simply chooses not to despite many warnings from other users. I have come to the conclusion that this user is most likely trolling the project, trying to find out how far he can go with disruptive behavior while still appearing to help the project by patrolling vandalism. Given how much time has been spent by other editors in policing BErD's work, I suspect that the disruption outweighs the assistance, and that it is time to put an end to the disruption. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editors' Comments[edit]

  • Obvious solution is obvious. Ban/indef block this disruptive user. MtD (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (Clarify (at 00:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)): Involved Editor's resonse (against at this time)): Without further information regarding (without outing, unless required) this user's previous activities, I would not and could not support an indef ban/block. I believe the only event (at this time) that would allow me to support such is if the editor in question's other account(s) are/were admin (or similar) accounts, in which case, I would fully support a permanent ban of all accounts for the reasons I stated above. Furthermore, at this time, without more information on how either (a) past behavior should/should not be a contributing factor in this or (b) whether or not the user's other account is a special status/rights account, I think it is too early to make any proposals of the sort. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Robert. The next time he is disruptive, I say we block. If, after that, he ocntinues, indef block. He obviously did this disruption under his old account also, or he wouldn't have left it. MJ94 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been watching this unfold since his block, so I'm thinking around the same thing as MJ94, but with trying to persuade him about adoption and how that is the right way to go. Buggie111 (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but even if we were to lay to rest entirely the question of this users multiple account activity, which in my mind still remains highly suspicious, the trolling here is so painfully obvious (note the "nagging busybodies") that it frankly surprises me that we would give the user any additional leeway whatsoever. The atrocious use of grammar which we have already established is purely by choice, which behavior continuing after having been politely requested to be corrected, COMBINED with the faux portrayal of child-like thinking clearly contradicted by some of the users actually eloquent and intellectual postings, can now only be attributed to be clearly trollish behavior. This charade, in my opinion, needs to end.   Thorncrag  01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To Buggie111: Adoption has been suggested multiple times and refused. Mentorship has been suggested multiple times and refused (because, BerD (or so he claims) is more experienced than all of us). In addition, BerD has made it very clear on their talk page as currently formatted that: "i do not want to be adopted, i do not want you to be my mentor, i know a lot of things about wikipedia so if u want ME to help YOU i can do that because i am nice, except when i am grumpy and mean (i will try not to edit when i am grumpy and mean)" thus I think that option should be removed from any proposed remedies, as I truly believe, even if a mandatory mentorship is proposed, BerD will fully disregard any advice given. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
At some point this user will be flushed down the dumper. The real question is how much time should be wasted before the inevitable is realised. MtD (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly? Hopefully never. Though their own actions will determine that (and the results of the checkuser and more info I requested below, if honored and acted upon). One of my adoptees was recently here (before I adopted him). He willingly confessed to his actions, promised never to do them again (and has been living up to those promises), accepted very strict sanctions, accepted me as his mentor (before having one became a mandatory requirement even) and has turned a stub into a GA article. Only BerD's contributions will determine which path they take; the proverbial dumpster or a contributing editor with no future incidents. I will not and cannot predict their future actions, so, will not make the assumption that they are "irredeemable" until they prove such - or a consensus is reached indicating the community (or portion thereof that responds here) believes such is true. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
@Rob. I didn't meen flat out offer it now, I meant offer it when more blocks and warnings have been issued. This is a bit of a gruesome example, but think of how the terrorists act in The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film), with demands being shown as the better option as each hostage dies. But, your comment about him refusing to listen is also wierd. I might ask for some offline help to aid me. Buggie111 (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only annoying thing this guy has done (since being blocked) is to use abbreviations on his own talk page, rather than spelling all the words out in full, and delete comments off his own talk page. I think that's really stretching the definition of "disruptive", although clearly it annoys some people. I really, really don't think we should be excluding people from Wikipedia based on the dialect of English they write in, unless they're writing stuff in the articles that's hard to read. I suggest an alternate solution: the editors who find his manner of speaking annoying should avoid him, as he is doing his best to avoid them (up to the point of deleting their comments from his talk page). Otherwise, his editing seems to be entirely constructive. Almost all of us were twelve years old once. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Then I suggest you review their recent contributions from when their block expired. In their defense, they have made an "effort" - but honestly, how much of an effort does it take to speak normally in edit summaries? While it is theoretically possible, I doubt anyone thinks in leet speak, meaning the use of such in edit summaries is intentional: "wut..... think u misspell something here pal", "wut! u added something that was not notable", and admission that "maybe" they will still continue to do such: "ok oops sorry i try not to do this type of thing, but maybe i will still do it, but not very much".

    Related note, when i see comments like that, or the previous ones in the vein of "LOL delete some untrue edits" and worse, I for one would not take the edit or warning seriously as the edit summary implies it is a joke. Surely we dont want that. Again, one must make a conscious effort to take mental thought and convert it to leetspeak - and doing so on edit summaries is against policy (you know... the whole clear, unambiguous requirement part). I could care less what they do on their own talk pages - I even would have supported them when they removed the most recent comments there during this AN/I (but chose not to in order to honor their request not to contact them there). On a related note, I find their username offensive. It assumes bad faith and generalizes virtually every single editor with an edit count of over a thousand as bad editors. A bad edit (AGF) can simply be an accident, as I am sure any of us who have edited frequently has made. I also find their userpage statement about such to be offensive in the same vein. I also find it ironic that they told an admin (and other experienced editors) that their restoration of warnings on someone else's userpage was correct and that the admin and others were wrong - all while they wish to have the right to remove warnings from their own page. Yes, they can remove such warnings, but there's an interesting irony there indicating they know the rules when it benefits them, and ignore them otherwise. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • @Kragen: WIth all due respect, I don't think you properly reviewed the above evidence or discussion. His failure to speak properly (again, by choice as has been established) in user warnings and edit summaries is what caused this whole charade to begin in the first place.   Thorncrag  04:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked them to consider changing their username. –xenotalk 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I am generally one who leans more towards AGF, but I think this is a case where it is time to escort this editor to the county line and say, "thanks, but no thanks." What policy supports this? None that I know of, but sometimes administrative discretion can be used for the good of the community, even if not directly supported by an explicit policy or guideline. In my opinion, this is either: an editor who is intentionally trolling, consciously switching between eloquent English and text-speak in a manner intended to provoke a response; a user in need of developing better skills for working with the community, but who refuses all suggestions and offers for assistance in a manner that shows disdain for this same community; or possibly some misguided experiment to test how Wikipedia handles and responds to such behavior (remember WP:NEWT?). In any case we need to put an end to this. I do not think the prior account is a significant consideration, as I think the actions under this account speak for themselves. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Time to drop per CU results which MuzeMike furnished. From this point on, this is a very dead horse. Collect (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
MuZemike refused to provide such results. He confirmed it was a good cleanstart; which means it no longer is a good cleanstart, and CU is permitted. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 16:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This also recently happened. Inka888 03:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
He has shown, on various occasions, especially recently (through AfDs, CSDs, reverts and numerous posts & other actions) that he does have a very good working knowledge of Wikipedia and it's policies and guidelines - but simply chooses to pretend (or imply through his portrayal of himself) otherwise when it suits him. So, I'd let that one go. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal so Further Informed Discussion can continue[edit]

At this point, I would like to request that an uninvolved checkuser verify/eliminate/elucidate on the following (each individually to ensure each is covered):

  • This editor is not part of cleanstart (and thus has violated it's meaning/intent)
  • This editor is not trying to hide previous bad behavior by deciding to utilize this account to hide actions under the previous account(s).
  • This user is not (nor was) an admin or has held any other position above standard editor.

I do not believe proposals of sanctions/repercussions can be fully determined in a fair fashion (for any party involved) without the answers to those questions. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support: as proposer, with it clear that WP:OUTING (IMO) need not occur during this process unless a certain procedure or guideline requires it. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. Quite sensible.   Thorncrag  01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support. It's the right thing to do. Buggie111 (talk) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

 Support I agree completely. If he's abusing cleanstart by hiding past bad behavior, that's obviously not acceptable. Sounds good. Didn't MuZemike already say it was an okay cleanstart, though? MJ94 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I am looking (cant find it, but the page has changed more than once), though I do recall BerD making some claim on their behalf. As he was brought up more than once (and notified by me via email of such before this AN/I), I will ensure he has been notified about this AN/I so he can speak for himself. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose User should be judged on their contributions. If he's being disruptive thats all that matters, not what his other account was. We have CLEANSTART for a reason. -- ۩ Mask 04:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose WP is not a place for fishing expeditions - MuZemike made a fairly clear statement which ought to be sufficient. Collect (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This echoes what User:Shirik (an admin and checkuser clerk) said when he declined my Sockpuppet Investigation that I opened on myself--that this is not an appropriate use of Checkuser. This admin also opined[54][55] that my edits "weren't really that disruptive" and that he doesn't see "what the big deal is".--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rationale behind this proposal[edit]

It is my belief that appropriate "sanctions", if any, cannot be determined without the community being aware of the information requested above. If BerD is not as experienced as he states, then more strict sanctions should probably not be requested (regardless of the falsity or misleading nature of such claims, I do not believe they should suffer greater repercussions for something not true). If they are, then somewhat more strict sanctions should be considered. If they are, and have shown a pattern of such behavior in the past, then I believe even more strict sanctions should be considered as they are possibly violating an official or unofficial cleanstart attempt, as well as actively and misleadingly attempting to hide such behavior (which my interpretation of cleanstart indicates is not the purpose of cleanstart). If they do have userrights (on their other account(s)) greater than that of a standard editor), then I believe their actions under this account should result in the strictest of sanctions for so grossly betraying the community trust and trying to hide such actions by doing them in a new account.

Inotherwords, cake, and eat it too. The editor has claimed they have nothing to hide (re: their actions on their previous account - see their "archived" talk page and the SPI that they initiated), thus (along with my rationale above) leaving my proposal as an opportunity that serves both the community as a whole or the editor in question; in a fashion entirely dependent on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on such repercussions while protecting the user from any false claims (if any) of experience they have made. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement from User:MuZemike[edit]

I have already ran a CheckUser on the user upon suspicions that were brought up by other users, and I know who this user is an alternate account of. Instead of blithely blocking for what would be extremely weak socking reasons (which I thought would have been more "abusive" and would not helped), I contacted BErD via email and asked what is going on. As he said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bad edits r dumb/Archive (diff), he is an alternate account, but for reasons of privacy, he wishes not to have disclosed of whom. Moreover, I feel that it would go against my ethics as a CheckUser to disclose that myself publicly and without his consent.

That being said, this does not mean that I condone BErD's disruptive behavior as of late; I already contacted the admin who first blocked BErD for disruption, and I completely agree with the block. As far as WP:CLEANSTART is concerned, I felt that it was OK for him to edit with the BErD account. Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny, I certainly understand that, and that is a valid point. Having communicated with BErD privately, I feel that I am not in the position to make that assessment and most certainly not to take any administrative action over. –MuZemike 03:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As I clarified above, no one wants the user outed (or if anyone does, I will vote against it, unless it is an admin being outed). But, surely a concise summary such as "4 blocks (for whatever), 17 warnings for (whatever), multiple bad reverts" (as simply stated as that) will not out the editor and will ensure that sanctions are justified.
"Now if the community (or another CheckUser) feels that he is trying to avoid scrutiny" <-- not sure how we can determine that without the summary of their actions as requested-->. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue for me is if the prior account was an account in good standing or not. If he abandoned the prior account for disruptive behavior, and this new account was doing similar behavior, that is NOT a clean start, this is a bad sock. If the prior account was in reasonably good standing, was not under a block when it was abandoned, etc. etc. then this one should stay. In general, I trust MuZemike judgement on this, but just wanted to state that, having just reviewed this, the issue is whether or not this is a true clean start, or if this is just someone who wants to reset the sanction meter on a prior dirty account, with no desire to reform his behavior. --Jayron32 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
My thoughts are the same as your's, Jayron. If he was disruptive on the last account, it's a sock, which should be brought to light. If he was a normal editor, this point can be dropped. If he was an admin, than, well, measures should be taken. Buggie111 (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. And this has happened before, done by a rogue admin, with the protection of other admins (I've been around Wikipedia since it started, back when IIRC there werent even real accounts in the fashion there are now - this is simply the first account I have edited under). I was not going to bring that up, but steadfast refusal or willing to ignore providing a non-identifying summary (unless it is an admin) kinda raises my suspicions and brings back memories of why I quit using Wikipedia for more than half a decade (and it wasnt what happened, it was how other admins handled trying to hide the rogue). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 17:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Remedies by RobertMfromLI[edit]

If this user (their other account(s)) is not a sysop or other higher privilege account[edit]

  • I believe the message has been firmly delivered and is fully understood (per their recent contributions as noted here: [56]).
    • I suggest elevated warnings (lvl 3?) for blatant repeat behavior (I also suggest an occassional mistake or two should be allowed for and acted upon based on it's severity; we are all human).
    • I suggest, regardless of their desires in this matter, that for clarity of the elevated warnings proposed above, that templates are allowed for this purpose only - OR clear non-templated wording to indicate the elevated warning level(s).
    • I suggest more severe repercussions on blatant recurrences (14 day or 30 day block?)
    • I suggest the editor continues to purport themself with the clarity and eloquence they have proven they are capable of in all scenarios outside of their talk page and userspace.
pls stop calling me "they". this is bad grammer. my first edit makes it clear wut my gender is.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Is "wut" good grammar, or even English? :-) ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
do as i say, not as i do.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If the user (their other account(s)) is a sysop or holds other higher privilege account[edit]

  • I propose a permanent ban (note, I very specifically did not use the word "indefinite") of all accounts they hold for betraying the community trust, using other editors as their personal playthings, and intentionally separating behavior they should know is trolling and disruptive from their account that holds the special privileges.

This just leaves a checkuser confirming that the other account(s) do not hold special privileges. This is solely my proposal, please feel free to make your own.

 Confirmed: other account(s) is/are non-admin (per MuZemike below). ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Proposed by ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Support all propositions. --intelati(Call) 19:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 Support: regardless of their mischaracterization of this attempt to let them off the hook and mischaracterization of other incidents (since that is not the subject of this AN/I) and since I should not use such mischaracterizations as the basis for creating a biased opinion, I support the proposal I entered above. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
  • COMMENT from Bad edits r dumb: I think RobertMfromLI and MJ94 are spending an undue amount of time and effort Wikihounding me and complaining about me when I believe that my contributions since my block have been EXCELLENT. I do not know why they focus so much time and attention on me after my block; I had to ban them both from my talk page because they would not leave me alone. My old account was NOT an admin account and I have never been an admin and never tried to be and admin and DO NOT WISH to be admin. I think RobertMfromLI means well, but he is way to consumed with minor things like my grammar and when I try to make a lighthearted joke and things like this. Again, PLEASE REVIEW MY CONTRIBUTIONS since I have been blocked. they are so good, that it staggers my mind (with some minor slip-ups, becos no one is perfect). RobertMfromLI is way too involved to be calling the shots here (I think he may be upset at me that I rejected his offer of mentorship and things like this). Some people nitpick too much. That is all I have to say on this matter until next time I have things to say on this matter.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Wow! It's always nice to see an editor in abject awe of their own contributions. Delta Trine Συζήτηση 19:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
LOL, sorry. Maybe I exaggerated a little to make my point ;-)--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's alright; sometimes I shock myself (though generally with my own stupidity). Delta Trine Συζήτηση 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • COMMENT to Bad edits r dumb: I was not the person who created this AN/I, and I just proposed NO sanctions for your previous actions and you decide to make false claims about me and my intent (as you similarly mischaracterized the whole SPI thing)? I'm baffled. I did not propose a block, ban or warning (unless you are an admin, for which I will not take your word - nothing personal, but that's what checkusers are for). And I clearly state that occassional mistakes should be allowed for. Perhaps you may wish to re-read my proposal. Once you clearly understand it, I will offer my support for it. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not claim you started this AN/I thread and I have no issue with the user who did. What I mean is that--far more than anyone else--you and MJ94 have been spending an extraordinary and inordinate amount of time and effort nitpicking my edits and trying (largely unsuccessfully) to drum up antagonism toward Bad edits r dumb--this effort could be better sent (pardon the wikicliché) improving the encyclopedia.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggested you find a mentor (as your behavior indicated you may need) - not that I become that mentor. I've spent a lot of time trying to defend you (including above where others read implications in your statements at SPI that I could not support since you said no such thing). I suggest NO repercussions for your previous actions, even though your recent contributions prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that you were fully aware of what your previous actions entailed. I compliment you on your recent edits twice. Please explain the antagonism in that. How is complimenting you and proposing no sanctions for an AN/I I did not start antagonizing? My only other option was to allow others to propose sanctions. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 19:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can assert that BErD is not an alternate account of any admin here. Hopefully, this puts some people who were concerned about this at ease, even if a little. –MuZemike 19:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it is, and I've commented over there. He's wasting their time at the Help Desk asking to see CU records because "wut if they r talking about me behind my back and saying rude things (e.g., Bad edits r dumb is dumb)". I am firmly of the "troll" opinion with this one (even though he does revert vandalism, which is helpful). Plenty of non-disruptive vandal fighters out there, too... Doc9871 (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to all parties[edit]

I'd like to request that all parties please review the ARBCOM's position on trolling located at: m:Troll and m:What_is_a_troll?. The fact that so many good-intentioned editors are still assuming good faith is quite frankly unbelievable to me (many of whom may not be aware of this thread and along with it all of the evidence presented). It is patently and uncontrovertibly obvious that this user is a troll by the clear and convincing evidence that has gone un-refuted. The sooner we can all agree that this person is a troll, the sooner we can do something productive about it.

Further, I would like to point out that when it comes to trolls, whether their overall contributions are a net positive is not relevant. Additionally, while this user has shown extremely weak amenability to reform their behavior, it should be weighed extremely carefully. It's not surprising coming from someone currently the subject of so much scrutiny.   Thorncrag  06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Addendum. Let's not also forget that by this user's self-admission, that he or she is "a very experienced editor" who does not meed mentoring. Assuming this is true, then the user immediately proceeding registration onto a campaign of disruption, then further proceeding to deliberately provoke other editors who interact with them in response to the user's initial disruption—if this is not trolling then I honestly and genuinely do not know what is.   Thorncrag  06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not think I am a troll. I think you confuse "troll" with someone who has a bit of wacky sense of humor and occasionally sometimes makes some bad decisions abt what is appropriate but on the balance is a good editor. And i disagree with whether someone is a net positive is NOT RELEVANT that's just silly. I will not name names becos it would be very rude, but I can think of SEVERAL editors who have been here a long time and have a history of saying outrageous and ridiculous things just to upset ppl, but most of the time they are productive and they r allowed to edit. I think u r very very very very wrong, but I still respect your opinion even though i strenuously disagree. :-D--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It is abundantly clear that we are being very skilfully trolled here. And we are indulging this because...? → ROUX  07:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Becos according to some (obviously you are not among them) i am, despite my flaws, a net asset to the community and a skilled vandal fighter and very knowledgeable about policies and things of this nature.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
  • To Roux: Because no one seems to want to take action? Because requests for non-identifying summaries of previous activities that may have been in violation of cleanstart were ignored? Because before we get anywhere, all sorts of promises to never do it again are made, taking up lots of space, even while things like this (during the AN/I) [58] take place? A previous consensus for the information noted (and clearly noted it could be provided without identifying information) still sits above. I think, at this point, none of us responding know how to actually end this, and need an admin and uninvolved checkuser to come in and address this. :-) But those are just my guesses... I've actually never ran into an AN/I like this before. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Formal allegation of avoiding scrutiny[edit]

I would furthermore formally allege that this user is deliberately attempting to avoid scrutiny under a new account. The fact that the disruption began so soon following creation of this new account is highly questionable, and sufficient cause for this question to be raised. Moreover, whereas it is not the place of User:MuZeMike to reveal the user's previous account as he is bound by privacy policy, it may also be true that he should choose not to confirm or deny the user's previous behavior under the same policy. I therefore demand the original account be revealed, or in the alternative, the editing rights of the new account be revoked either by agreement of the user or by force.   Thorncrag  06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with this proposal, it is a bad proposal. I am not try to avoid "scrutiny"; you can scrutinize me as much as you like--in fact u have been scrutinizing all my edits, and G-d bless you for that. My previous account is in good standing. While i am not trying to avoid scrutiny, I am trying to maintain PRIVACY and if my account is identified, that would compromise my PRIVACY so i would have to start all over again. I think the matters of privacy that cause me to start a different account are none of ur businesines, thx.--