Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive659

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

Noticeboard archives



I have just blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That's, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


I have just blocked (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 48 hours for personal attacks and harrassment. Could someone who knows about rangeblocks consider whether a rangeblock is feasible to cover other IPs that have evidently used by the same person to make the same kind of recent attacks against the same editor (Bidgee (talk · contribs)? The other Ips are:

Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would try it myself but I don't know how and WP:Rangeblock advises admins who don't know how to seek assistance. I don't want to accidentally block Canberra from wikipedia. Normally blocking Canberra would be good for the project but I'm in Canberra today and don't want to rangeblock myself.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That's, 32 IPs. Any objection to proceed, or is the collateral damage too big? KrakatoaKatie 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the /29 ranges under that /27 is already blocked, but there is a fair amount of account creation activity under that /27. If you want to block it, don't make it too long (like 1-2 days at the most). –MuZemike 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I did the /29 earlier, hoping it would be enough... obviously not. given 24 hours; short due to MuZemike's comments. Courcelles 03:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

[2] and similar URLs provide some guidance as to which IP ranges are allocated by country, if you're worried about blocking an entire region or country (Like I inadvertently did once). –MuZemike 03:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review a block I am about to make[edit]

TL;DR User warned to talk more and revert less, kept reverting first and talking after.

I'll try to present this in an objective manner:

As (in my opinion) there was a stark contrast between the standards being set for the new user's edits and the existing standard on the page, I then opened discussion on the other material on that page. See Talk:Political_prisoner#Other_entries_in_the_list.

  • Cecilex (talk · contribs) attempts to use the talk page, while also re-adding the material.
  • User:Bidgee twice reverts, and does not first use the talk page as warned was a requirement:
    00:32, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403621844 by Cecilex (talk) Per the reasons set out on the talk page about the sources also new sources a opinion pieces and blog)
    00:52, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Other entries in the list)
    00:46, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Requesting full protection of Political prisoner. (TW))
    00:43, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403623305 by Cecilex (talk) Per prev reason, see talk page. Also do not readd.)
    00:39, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Back to discussion of the sources and inclusion criteria)

Once I've posted this, I'll be blocking User:Bidgee for twenty-four hours to prevent further disruption to the page. I would have preferred a more gentle approach, but he's proven remarkably resistant to clam feedback. I'm not fussy about having my adminstrative actions reversed so anyone with the bit is welcome undo this block, with the caveat that I'd prefer they comment in this thread and wait a few minutes for comments/consensus first. But even if they don't, I'm not going to get my knickers in too much of a twist.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the block yet, I haven't gone through everything in fine detail. But given that no-one else was trying to edit the article in other aspects, would full protection not have been an alternative option? If the aim is to get people on both sides off the article and onto the talk page, full protection could be a more calibrated solution than a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not agree with the way this was handled. I don't understand why this admin opposed the request to protect the page with the rather odd argument that as it was a content dispute we shouldn't protect the page,(what else is full protection for?) [3] and instead chose to block but one edit warrior. Both users edit warred, they should both be blocked, or neither of them should be. Using the talk page at the same time as one is edit warring does not excuse it in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • My thoughts: the ideal behaviour would have been for Bidgee to revert once, but not again. But a block isn't necessarily warranted for failing to adhere to ideal behaviour. There are other important factors to bear in mind. First, Bidgee was unquestionably correct: the sources don't support Manning's description as a political prisoner. In fact, Quigley is right to remove many more entries than Manning. Being correct isn't an excuse to edit-war, but it should be a factor in whether a block is an appropriate solution. Secondly, it was the other side that broke the BRD cycle, by insisting on re-inserting contentious material after it had been reverted and while a discussion was taking place. Third, there were better options: full protection would have stopped the edit war and forced everyone onto the talk page. Here, full protection is a viable option because this dispute is the only editing activity happening on the page. Blocking one party means that party can't even continue to engage in discussion on the talk page. Fourth, he hasn't broken 3RR (of course, that's not determinative - edit warring can happen regardless of 3RR - but he hasn't even come close). Accordingly, I'd suggest a lift of the block and a lockdown of the article for about a week. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:BRD applies. The change proposer must get a consensus for his/her change. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Unblocking. I'm unblocking Bidgee, because (a) this has now been open for well over an hour and the block has been opposed by up to three editors (I take Beeblebrox and, perhaps, GoodDay to be opposed to the one-way block) and supported by none; (b) it's a short block so only a short discussion period for the purposes of unblocking is warranted; and (c) the blocking admin kindly indicated it would be ok for any admin to unblock after a short period for comments. I'll also full-protect the article for a week with the caveat that the unblock is not an endorsement of Bidgee's actions.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that everyone. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi Aaron, you seem to have involved yourself in the content on talk beginning December 17, so that would preclude you from using the tools. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I saw Aaron's involvement on the talk page as weighing in, in an administrative capacity, to stop edit-warring, rather than getting involved in the content dispute (although it is fine line and Aaron went further than I would have). That's something admins should be encouraged to do. I've found a few times that a few stern messages on a talk page from an admin who reserves the right to use their tools in the dispute can cool things down before the need to dish out blocks arises.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the involvement was clearly editorial. Aaron hasn't been an active admin for some time, so no one had reason to believe he was there as an admin and not as an editor, always a fine line in the best of cases. Arguing on RfPP against page protection during a content dispute, then blocking the regular editor who requested the protection, but not blocking the occasional editor causing the trouble—while being involved in expressing an opinion about content on talk—these are all the kinds of things best avoided. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman actions as an Administrator are questionable. He is clearly an involved editor, even if he never edited the article, as they are heavily involved in the talk page discussion. Aaron Brenneman also seems to have little understanding of the policies and guidelines in place, as an Administrator they should be able to understand them (doesn't have to know it off by heart).

Aaron Brenneman as an involved editor should not threaten to misuse their tools, I also question the amount of time it took them to block me which was just over one hour and twenty minutes after the undo when it was clear I wasn't going to do another revert (infact I had limited myself to those two undo/reverts) not yet breached the 3RR which is another reason why I had asked for protection. It has me confused as to why he has refused the protection of the article while there is a dispute in progress. He's latest comment on the talk page is also questionable and clearly has failed to assume good faith towards me.

I would have thought that past history he as to deal with would have given him an idea when to block editors. I'm sadly considering at taking this to WP:RFC/ADMIN since he has failed to apologise for the unwarranted block and has continued to act in bad faith (see above link about ABF). I also believe that block should be annotated since no once will ever look at the diff link and will be yet another block that people will try and use against me (and they have in the past). Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman has followed the wrong path. It's good to tell regular editors to not BITE newcomers, but such advice should be tempered when the newcomer is an WP:SPA making a political point by adding Bradley Manning as a political prisoner while citing two sources which merely describe the person as a prisoner (Manning's circumstances are disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs). See this discussion where Courcelles said "For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable." That was four days before the block under discussion here. Bidgee's first revert ('sources do not state that he is a "political prisoner"') was precisely correct, and Bidgee did not violate WP:3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The court system will decide what laws, if any, this Manning guy broke; wikipedia won't decide it, but only report it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the block was an error; the unilateral block and the refusal to use page protection are at the least out of keeping with current practice. I think, however, this should not be perceived as a threat to misuse his tools...since I highly doubt that he considered it might be misuse, what with his complete opennness about the situation and his recommendation that Bidgee seek feedback from other administrators if he disagreed. (cf. here.) "threat to misuse" carries connotations of intent to knowingly take improper action. The level of involvement here is borderline; the input at the talk page of the article does not seem strictly editorial to me, but it would have been a good idea to make clear that he was speaking in his capacity as an administrator. I've recently discovered that when people don't understand that you're wearing your admin hat, they can view your behavior in quite a different light than it is intended. I don't think there's any abuse of tools, but I'd encourage Aaron to immerse himself a bit more in the current culture of Wikipedia to make sure that his tool use is in line with current policy and practice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it is not the way I perceived it, they should have sought an opinion as their warning was out of line for an Admin who is involved in the dispute. Why block an hour after I undid the edit on the article when it was clear that I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia or the article and had not reached the 3RR (and just to clarify that I wouldn't had done any further reverts which is why I took the step of requesting protection)? As an Admin on Commons I would have, if involved, gotten a third party Admin and also protect the article as well as warn those involved (if not involved in the dispute) that they will be blocked if they continue after the protection has ended. Being heavy handed like Aaron Brenneman was, is completely out of line. I'll also quote he's comment on the political prisoner talk page "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal."", disruption? how was I disrupting the article at that time (when I was well away from a computer), I'm sorry but I don't feel it was in error with a comment such as that which was well an truly after I was unblocked.
Now I have a block log in which I shouldn't have. It was ok in the early days of Wiki but now it effects anything I do. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to add further to my comment, if any one still thinks that the block wasn't misuse of the tools then see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Misuse of administrative tools (RE: Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute). Bidgee (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, since more or less every block in your log was lifted or otherwise noted as not having bearing, I don't think it's much of a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have had the first block used against me, even though it was noted in the block log, on more then one occasion. Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A short block like that, which happened almost three years ago, means very little today. That's donkeys' years on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Well I haven't had the block used against me in the past year (partly due to not being as active on Wiki) but the point is the last one will be, especially those who don't bother to look at the link or plainly just want to use anything such a blocks [of any length (an editor showed me a recent example)]. People also use the block logs in RfA even though you really don't have anything to answer for. Bidgee (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Bidgee is quite correct and you are wrong Gwen; many editors just look at the length of a block log, nothing else. Do you recall blocking me for using the word "sycophantic" for instance? That was two entries, one for your stupid block and another for your reluctant unblock. Yet your own record of making similarly poor blocks remains unblemished. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As we both know, Malleus, I didn't block you for using the word "sycophantic." I blocked you for a long and wearisome pattern of incivility. If you would like to talk about your block log further, please start another thread somewhere, or you're welcome to bring it up on my talk page. That said, I do agree with both of you that there sometimes is carelessness in reading block logs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a pity that you and the truth are such strangers. Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Watch it. Drop the stick and back away. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you back away? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect to our friendly neighborhood administrators, I think this topic and the one from yesterday really invite us to revisit discussions over whether admins who are absent from the project for extended periods should really retain their admin privileges. Wikipedia changes quickly, and if someone is gone from here for nearly 2 years things like this happen. It's not about "punishing" admins, but about competency. I don't think someone who was absent for so long should be exercising their admin tools like this until they've become familiar with current policies and guidelines. - Burpelson AFB 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Being a non-admin intrigued to see the behaviour - I am convinced that Burpelson AFB has something there which should be built into policy - absence - specially when it comes to the way things change - even within 6 months - should either require update as to currency of some issues, or even a refresher on some of the intriguing shifts in the procedures and policies that can occur that even regulars seem to miss or misinterpret even. The fact that the rfa process has block logs as a stumbling block (forgive the pun) that in turn falls back on careless admins reflects badly all round SatuSuro 14:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand why Commons has that type of policy yet Wikipedia lacks it, see: Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. Normally Commons lacks the policies which Wikipedia already has but not in this case. Bidgee (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) De-adminship has been proposed here a number of times but it always ends up as a huge dramafest/shouting match with no consensus because many people characterize it as unfairly punishing admins (which is really a red herring, but I digress). I suspect it's unpopular with some folks the same way term limits are unpopular with some politicians. - Burpelson AFB 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Closer to Motion of no confidence, which can be used as a political tool to tie up important decisions while other things are going on. That's where most of the resistance comes from, IMO. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
But what's being referred to here isn't a general de-adminning policy or procedure, but something to deal with a specific situation: when an admin doesn't edit for X amount of time, they lose the bit. That part of it could be semi-automatic, and there obviously wouldn't be any ongoing conflict at the time, because the admin isn't editing. The question of regaining the bit is a little trickier, but not much. Requiring another RfA seems unnecessary and unfair, something on the order of getting the bit back after Y amount of edits over Z amount of time might be sufficient to ensure that the editor is aware of any changes in Wikiculture in the meantime. It could all be cut-and-dried. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, the Commons policy is nothing at all like a motion of no confidence. The criteria are entirely objective. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the Commons policy, it seems very fair for all while still expecting admins to retain a certain level of current experience. - Burpelson AFB 20:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the Commons policy put in use and it works well nor is it strict. A small number of Admins do return after being emailed that they are have a few weeks to do more then five sysop actions and do become regulars again, the others that have their sysops removed never return or when they do have no issues getting the sysops back. Aaron Brenneman's lack of comments or apology is leaving me with no other opinion but to list a RfC, as any other Admin I've dealt with has always kept commenting with the AN/I discussion. Bidgee (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As a general matter, it seems to me that if an administrator is unsure enough about whether to block that he or she decides to open an ANI thread discussing the block, then unless the situation is an emergency, the discussion should usually come before the block rather than afterwards. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my thoughts as well (as an Commons Admin) and I have seen a lots of discussions before on AN/I blocks are put in place but I have also seen a small amount of blocks put in place before the discussion (like in this case), though I do have to give those Admin's credit as they admitted fault, apologised and dealt with the consequences, however in this case none of that has happened. Bidgee (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Goodness, that's a lot of responses.

  • @Newyorkbrad - That's quite a high bar you're proposing. General discussion on ANI does not require that I'm "unsure" but simply that I recognise that there is a possibility of tenable debate. The blocked editor had also already brought the matter to this page, but it had not recieved much attention. I was being courteous.
  • @Bidgee
    1. Your suggestion that a request for comment based upon me not "ke[eping] commenting" is histrionic. I commented here last on 22 December 2010 at 05:54 and within half an hour I was done editting for the evening.
    2. I'm open to recall. I see that (since the category move) it's not obvious from the history, but I created recall.
    3. I'm a bit confused why you've linked my block log while at the same time you decry the use of someone's block history against them?
  • @Moonriddengirl
    1. The use of the phrase "unilateral block" is an unfortunate obloquy. What percentage of blocks are anything other than unilateral?
    2. I'm not sure how I "refused" to use page protection. No one asked me to protect the page, and while my input into the request for page protection was marred by not being explicit in that the requesting editor was involved in the content dispute, the current wording at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Content_disputes says "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed with blocks or bans, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others."
  • @Johnuniq
    1. I have not even suggested anyone violated the three revert rule.
    2. The very new editors' sourcing was much better than almost anything else on the page. On at least one occasion the sources they provided did explicitly say there was a claim he was a political prisoner.
  • @SlimVirgin - I am simply stunned to see it suggested that I'm involved. From Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'."

I've looked again over each of the edits, and other than failing to say "I'm an admin" I'm still quite confortable with each step I took:


  • Given the state of the other references on the page and the generally poor level of discourse that was occuring, how were the newer editors expected to learn community norms?
  • They were making serious attempts to comply, and as far as they could tell edit warring was what you do.

Finally, and with respect to the block itself

  • I had issued a warning that was consistant with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Civility.2Fdisruption.2Freasonableness in that "Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement."
  • Without substantive discussion with me regarding this warning, the warned editor violated both of the editting restrictions he had been placed under.

While I've certainly taken on board the feedback presented in this section, forgive me if I state that several of the positions expressed are inconsistant; poorly informed; and at odds with the facts of this event as well as policies and guidelines as they exist.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron, I do not use the term unilateral in the sense of done by one person, but in the sense that it affected only one party in the content dispute. I'm quite taken aback that you regard that as abusive. So far as I know, it's not an uncommon definition. In terms of your refusal to use protection, is that not what you meant to do when you wrote there, "This is a content dispute, and there is no requirement for full protection."? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Most, if not all Admin's keep tabs with a discussion in which they have been involved in and you have been on elsewhere but not here.
Also you have failed to explain your bad faith comment towards me.
Also you can not place what ever restrictions you want on others who you don't agree with and the fact that you were already heavily involved.
I wasn't using the block log against you just pointing out that in the past you also had unfair blocks but mealy pointing out that I thought that you would have taken into account past experiences. Fact is I'm rather appalled with your handling of this whole fiasco and the fact your not even sorry for it, I feel that you should recall yourself considering the feeling from other Admins here have been the same. Bidgee (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl - Thank you for that clarification with respect to "unilateral." And with respect to the protection, I argued against the protection (poorly, it has been noted and I've acknowledged) but I didn't refuse to do it. The use of the active tense seems to place greater onus on me than I believe is warrented. If I'm drawing more out of that than you intended, I apologise.
@Bidgee - Thank you for clarifying that. I simply didn't understand for what purpose you were bringing up the log. And I was keeping tabs, but I was mostly asleep or at work while this was going on. And2 in case it's not utterly pellucid: I'm not at all sorry. I want polite collegial editting of the page;I want consistant, robust sourcing. I tried on several occasions to engage you in polite discussion, and I failed in that. And3 adminstrators can place editting restrictions as they see fit. Have you read any of the numerous links to Arbitration principles that I have provided?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If you fail to see you abuse of tools and are not sorry for your incorrect blocking, then I feel that you are no longer fit to be an Admin. Fact is no Admin who is involved in a dispute should ever place restrictions considering they were bias to one side (Your block is proof of that), Admins who are not part of the dispute can place restrictions. Bidgee (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Stop dramamongering. If you have an issue with Aaron's actions, either file a RFC/U or submit a request for recall. There is nothing more to be done here. NW (Talk) 05:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
So I can't make a reply to something Aaron Brenneman has said? Fact is I was giving them time to respond before taking it further. Pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. Bidgee (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

admins are abusing their power[edit]

Extended content

{{checkuser needed}}

This account looks like an obvious sock of somebody who's been banned from that article. Jehochman Talk 21:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Says one of the very admins who abuses their power on a daily basis. How do you lot sleep at night??? (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Quite well, thank you. Daily exercise seems to help, as does refraining from caffeine. Jehochman Talk 22:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
One can have caffeine and still sleep at night ya know. Just don't drink caffeine 3 hours before bedtime, doctors say. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
or 5mg of Diazepam ;) Jack Merridew 12:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I insist that someone look into the administrators at Sarah Palin. They are working with pro-Palin people to shut out and ban all the neutral editors who want to tell the truth. Then they whitewash the article and talk page. AfricaTruth (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. A user with just three edits (counting the one above) is already an expert on wikipedia. Who says our education system is failing? :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
...Quack? N419BH 20:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
With a name like "AfricaTruth" there is no way this account has an agenda. Just no way... Doc talk 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Having just read the agenda account page, I think it should be merged with the single-purpose-account page. In fact, I will fight to the death over this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ... On second thought, I'm not allowed to fight anything to the death. Strict doctor's orders. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • AfricaTruth seems to be an obvious sock of someone. HeyMid (contribs) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk · contribs), maybe?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Based on the standing off that the user has made (they actually opened a discussion after they were warned to talk it out). I'll notify the user as you did mention them. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, sorry I missed the notification. I'm striking the comment, because there's a more-obvious candidate if I had been paying attention. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's the africa discussion from a week or two ago. Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_63#Africa_.28part_I.29--Cube lurker (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I am shocked- shocked, I say- that there are Wikipedia administrators who are actually preventing Sarah Palin from making it clear what an awful, awful person Palin is (i.e., the Truth). Whatever happened to Wikipedia's well-known liberal bias? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Really simple, Haliburton bought out half our administrators... Sheesh you didn't know you could get paid for blocking liberals? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I should be getting my check tomorrow, just in time for last-minute Christmas shopping. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Non-administrative note: You worded your assertion quite carefully so as to get around the notification requirements. Please provide proof that administrators are abusing their power. Enforcing the currently standing community consensus does not take administrative powers nor is it an abuse. Coming to this page and yelling "Abuse" without providing evidence is a very quick ticket to having your actions scrutinized and preventative actions enforced on you. Hasteur (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I do think we should give some credit for getting the heading correct, even if the rest of the posting has serious flaws.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot conclude anything via CU. The SPA is on a BlackBerry, and I haven't found any other abusive users on that range. AFAIK, it could be anybody. –MuZemike 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet/single-purpose bad faith account. I'd rather not quack my way to blocking the person I think is the puppetmaster, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
"And living in the same city as a banned user does not make me a sock."[4] What city and what banned user? This guy knows more than he's letting on... Doc talk 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, shucky-darn, you beat me to pointing that out, thanks to a side debate about Carmel-by-the-Sea, of all things. That's one of the more interesting comments I've seen a sock make. There needs to be a corollary or subsection in WP:BOOMERANG titled "Dead Giveaway". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Carmel-by-the-sea, eh? After they are discovered they could be flung into the "dead pool", maybe. Doc talk 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile I've blocked User:AfricanTruth, who also popped up. Very sorry to say, this could be User:Dylan_Flaherty, who I topic banned from Palin. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this may be a joe job. Good call on the block, however. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be at all surprised. There's been what seems to my eyes to be a growing problem with impostoring users to try to get them into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I would think, there is no way DF should be blocked without a CU. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I saw the account earlier, and agree with User:Horologium that it looks quite clearly like someone was trying to appear as though they were a sock of User:Dylan Flaherty. Based on the style and tone, though, I sincerely doubt that's the case. The question remains: who is doing this, and why? Merely trolling? jæs (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Dylan is certainly no dummy: and this would be a very dumb thing for him to do (and really makes it clear that's it's a troll). I agree with the above. Doc talk 00:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not even trying to look like my sock, and you should be ashamed of piling on to accuse me, especially Gwen who has wronged me enough times in the last few days alone. It's very obviously someone trying to look like a sock of User:Uncensored Kiwi. Of course, we don't know if it actually is because there's no real evidence; they were blocked without the courtesy of a CheckUser. The side-effect of this blatant breach of due process is that I wind up being falsely accused of socking again. Well, I'm really sick of it. Gwen, you owe me a retraction, an apology and an unban. Do it immediately or your reputation will take another blow. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
How does Gwen's current accusation (mistaken or not) all of a sudden nullify your topic ban? –MuZemike 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's her second strike: two mistakes in a row. This is her chance to fix them. Dylan Flaherty 01:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You're mistaken, Dylan, I said it could be you but that there should be no block without a CU. Sockpuppetry sometimes isn't easy to track at first. As for the Africas, are you saying they're not socks? If so, how do you know this? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I said AfricaTruth never even tried to look like a sock of me; rather, they look like an Uncensored Kiwi sock. Whether they are is another matter, and not one that any of us is qualified to rule on. Then again, we don't even know whether Uncensored Kiwi was an actual sock in the first place, only that they got censored based on a rather underwhelming "likely match". Given the distribution of population in New Zealand, this is particularly unconvincing. And now AfricaTruth was blocked on no match at all. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't block Uncensored Kiwi. Are you in the same city then? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Uncensored Kiwi and BlueRobe are both in Auckland, along with almost a third of the total population of NZ, which is why I find the CU suspect. From the fact that I don't use Commonwealth English, it should be pretty obvious that I'm not a kiwi, but you already accused me of being a sock of Uncensored Kiwi, so I guess that what I consider obvious might not be to everyone else. The funny thing is that AfricaTruth was right; not necessarily about intentional admin abuse of power, but certainly about the Palin article being locked down by pro-Palin WP:OWNers, effectively with support from admins such as yourself. All the Palin fans have to do is insult and generally abuse anyone who suggests edits they dislike, and they can count of that person being blamed for not going along with the "consensus" (read: mob rule). Dylan Flaherty 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You're mistaken yet again, I never even hinted, much less thought, that you were a sock of Uncensored Kiwi, given I don't recall ever hearing of that account until about 15 minutes ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you said that AfricaTruth/AfricanTruth was me. Now you're asking if I'm in the same city as Uncensored Kiwi, which - even with lots of good faith assumed -- would qualify as hinting that I'm a sock. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say the Africas were you. As for the city, I didn't know you were talking about Auckland or Uncensored Kiwi, rather, you had only said something about NZ. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) She did not say that it was you. Let me quote her post above (emphasis added): "Very sorry to say, this could be User:Dylan_Flaherty". "Could" does not equal "is". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────────────────────────── Retro, you apparently live in a kinder, gentler Wikipedia. In the one I live in, Uncensored Kiwi was blocked on a "could". Dylan Flaherty 02:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He sure was. :-o [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. So if I lived in Auckland, an SPI accusing me of being Uncensored Kiwi would have yielded a false positive in the form of a "likely match". Dylan Flaherty 02:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The topic ban was upheld by the community: it's not for her to reverse at this point. Doc talk 01:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. She's free to undo her own block topic ban at any time. Dylan Flaherty 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You're mistaken again, Dylan, I didn't block you. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. Dylan Flaherty 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, she can't, because the discussion showed overwhelming support for a two-week (or longer) topic ban; in fact, only one person supported you in your effort to get the topic ban overturned. A substantially greater number of editors (most of whom were totally uninvolved) supported the topic ban. At this point, Gwen would need to bring this back for another discussion, and it's likely that the original consensus would still stand. This is, of course, assuming she were willing to do so, and other than casting aspersions, you've provided no reason for her to accede to your demand. Horologium (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, you go tell her what she can and can't do. I'll wait here. Dylan Flaherty 01:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. [5] Horologium (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Very impressive. If only it had some effect. Dylan Flaherty 02:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
While blocks can be overturned by the decision of a single admin, that is not the case with bans. Bans are a group decision that can only be overturned by a group decision. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I invoked the ban under the Palin arbcom sanction (and logged it), which an admin can do on their own. However, it's true that after Dylan appealed it here, the outcome being an overwhelming consensus to uphold, that made it much tougher to undo. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────── Not really interested in hearing about this. You were very wrong to have banned me in the first place. Dylan Flaherty 02:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If she's obeying an arbcom sanction, how is it wrong? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom didn't tell her to ban me. She decided to ban me. Dylan Flaherty 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
If you were in violation of an arbcom decision, then she would be obligated to issue a ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Arbcom didn't tell her to ban me. She decided to ban me."--Citation needed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It should be obvious that the burden of proof is on you here. I can't cite every diff to show that none of them include Arbcom telling her to do it. Dylan Flaherty 02:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, I wasn't "obeying" an arbcom sanction, nor am I ever obligated to take an admin action. I invoked a topic ban through the Palin arbcom sanction and as you know, Dylan, the consensus here upheld that. As you also know, even after that happened, I was quite open minded, on my talk page, about finding a way for you to at least get started on an RfC if you wanted to, but you said no to talking further about that, which you can indeed do. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see. This authorizes (though does not obligate) an admin to issue a ban as deemed necessary. And it's only 2 weeks. Dylan would be best off to just let the clock expire and leave it alone otherwise. If he lets it be, he'll be un-banned before New Year's Eve. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There are people in the world who still care about the principle called justice. Dylan Flaherty 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The square root of 4 is both 2 and -2. See, I can match your non sequitur with my own. Dylan Flaherty 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments about "justice" are the non sequitur. I say again, you have no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. It's a private website, not subject to anything pertaining to the Bill of Rights. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought this might be Dylan for a minute, too, until I remembered that Dylan did not appear to be an idiot the last time I saw him here. That doesn't seem to be a reason for lifting Dylan's topic ban, and I don't have any problem with blocking Africa, who's clearly a sock of someone, and I don't care that much who anyway. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have a problem with blocking the whole country of Africa? Kelly hi! 02:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Not the whole "country" of Africa, just the stockings. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a poor "country", they probably have wholes in their stockings. Kelly hi! 02:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yup. A lot of them do not even have shoes. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Many of the stockings they do have tend to be red. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) L.O.L. X-D By "Africa" she meant User:AfricaTruth (and probably the other one, User:AfricanTruth as well). See the earlier parts of this discussion. ;-) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Good fundraising idea. Bandwidth=$$$.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Dylan has been repeatedly disinvited from posting on my user talk page - but repeatedly posts again and again. [6] where I iterated the disinvitation. [7] where he posts again (making twice after specific disinvitation). And [8] marking his third post after being told not to. Might someone note this behaviour on his part? Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Added [9] - this consistent posting on my user talk page is getting a teensy bit bothersome. Collect (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan needs to remove his little "no-fly zone" from his talk page, since he doesn't respect requests from others to do the same. I haven't commented there because I respect his wishes: why can't he? Doc talk 03:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Everyone (including Dylan) needs to stop pissing on their talk pages so as to somehow mark their territory. It's a collaborative project, and that requires our talk pages to be open to other editors -- some we may not even like. If someone is hounding you on your talk page, an administrator will deal with it. Otherwise, talk pages belong to the project, not to individual editors. You can delete (almost) anything you'd like from your talk page, but "banning" other editors just looks childish. jæs (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

AfricaTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
AfricanTruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Yes. Both of them obviously socks of each other, and trying to impostor Dylan, but it didn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. They're obviously not trying to impostor me. The comments about being in the same city as a banned user are straight from User:Uncensored Kiwi. Dylan Flaherty 03:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter who they're socks of. They had to hit the road. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It certainly matters to me, as I was falsely accused of being the foot. Dylan Flaherty 03:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think the Africa Truther socks (sorry, couldn't resist) may not be alone. jæs (talk) 03:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
That possibility had been raised near the top of this section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, Africa Truthers. Just wait, soon we'll have an article like this one about believe who believe Palin said Africa is a country. Kelly hi! 03:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Such bloody ignorance I keep seeing. Everyone knows Africa is not a country; it's a song, by Toto. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Really? I thought it was by Perpetuum Jazzile! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Outstanding. I'm guessing you've seen this by now:[10] but it's in season anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course, but thanks for the reminder. :-) How about these guys? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
And like this umpteenth thread concerning this editor: "It's gonna take a lot to drag me away from you..." Doc talk 03:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The reality is that this thread has nothing to do with my actions. I didn't file this report, I'm not related to the AfricaTruthers, and I don't want to be here. I got involved because of yet another false sock accusation. I realize that it's something of a tradition in the "community", but please try not to blame the victim, ok? Dylan Flaherty 03:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
You're really "muti-tasking" between this thread and the one at the bottom. Did you know someone gets assaulted in this country every 90 seconds? Why does it have to be the same unlucky guy? Doc talk 03:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
@ Gwen Gale...Using the same criteria that you based your "Sorry to say this could be User:Dylan Flaherty" on, what other editors could be socks of User:AfricanTruth?Buster Seven Talk 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing practices by 2 IP-editors - &[edit]

User: & User: are both generating massive amounts of edits on the same general-interest articles while similarly disregarding certain accepted Wikipedia editing practices.
User: (Special:Contributions/ deleted content, deleted certain sources, is not using edit summaries and seems to be writing WP:OR while not utilizing the Preview button (and therefore generates massive lines of edits that could be taken care of with much fewer edits). After I left some Notices and Warnings about these practices at User talk:, the second IP-editor, User: (Special:Contributions/, started editing the same or similar articles in a similar fashion: also no edit summaries, also doesn't use Preview button (so ends up making multiple lines of edits), also writing WP:OR on the same general-interest articles ("blonde bombshell" movie-stars/B-movie stars such as Jayne Mansfield, Kim Novak, Sheree North, Marilyn Monroe, Cleo Moore and others). I have tried to assume good faith and notify these IP-editors of accepted Wikipedia practices/guidelines and have been correcting obvious errors as I find them but the massive lines of edits are proving too much for me to keep up with. I have been finding that some of their text additions are, in my opinion, veering into unsourced original research, such as the following: Jayne Mansfield diff & Kim Novak diff. Jayne Mansfield diff & Kim Novak diff.
Another consideration is that at least two of the articles' subjects, Kim Novak and Mamie Van Doren, are still living and therefore the articles are biographies of living people. I would appreciate some other opinions on the two IP-editors and the general situation. Shearonink (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I have only looked at the Mansfield edits that you gave above, but it seems that (even though xe isn't telling you xyr sources, communicating with you at all, or even using edit summaries) the editor without an account there is working from one of the many books that document Mansfield's career in more detail than our article did before that edit. ISBN 9781561711468 records, for example, that Mansfield's first rôle was opposite Edward G. Robinson in Illegal (released 1955), and goes on to record further rôles in Hell on Frisco Bay and Pete Kelley's Blues. It even gives her initial salary. The entry for Mansfield in the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture documents those, too. The "low budget German thriller" Dog eat Dog!, with its German, Italian, and original English titles, and indeed a note about the poor dubbing, is documented with reference to Mansfield in ISBN 9780313285448. Yes, it would be great if the editor cited xyr sources, used edit summaries, and communicated. But from the Mansfield edits at least it doesn't appear that what is being added is either intentionally wrong or a new analysis not to be found in the several existing detailed biographies, in books, of this person. Your best course of action here is to consider the edits being made as prompts for things that the article hasn't yet covered in detail, and to take some of these books in hand and improve the article's coverage of the subject. Replace the mediocre content that is pointing you in the right direction with good, solidly sourced, content.

    Oh and fix the bogus book citations that are citing as if it were the source in Jayne Mansfield#References, will you? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

    • Addendum: Kim Novak's bad performances in Middle of the Night and others are discussed in Barnett2007 that's already cited in the article. Indeed Barnett xyrself cites Shipman1973, with a particularly scathing quotation ("a performance of such inadequacy that it soon became legendary") from Shipman. Again, an editor without an account is making what is still a fairly poor article better, but simply not telling you the sources, using edit summaries, using the preview button, or communicating. Take it as a prompt, take the already cited sources in hand, and improve the article further — attributing to Shipman that which is Shipman's, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Valid edits or not, it is the IP's job to cite the sources he or she is using. If they don't know how, they can go to the talk page and request assistant. —Mike Allen 11:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Long history of copyright violations by User:Logger9[edit]

User:Logger9 has the habit of writing long, unencyclopedic essays, compiled from outdated research literature, which has led to long, infertile debates in the past. Recently it has been discovered that much of his writing consists just of copying or superficially reformulating entire paragraphs. He has been warned several times about copyright violations, but he continues as before. For more information, please see my recent note Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Logger9 -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you creating an LTA page is constructive at this point, those are usually only created for the most egregious of disruptive editors who are also blocked/banned. - Burpelson AFB 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I feel increasingly lost in WP's ever increasing bureaucracy. Anyway, I am sure this user will be banned soon. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a case for WP:CCI which can set up a systematic review of all of their contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed the LTA page and opened a CCI request. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Issues are confirmed, and the CCI is open Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Logger9 is continuing the edit war at physics of glass. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot review the entirety of the PDF, but a few glimpses in Google convinces me that the content he added back to the article is still a violation of our copyright policy.

For a few examples, I can see the following in Google search are present in Haymet (oddities of formatting courtesy of Google)

  • He wrote, the stability of all 230 lattice types could be determined
  • He wrote, It should be emphasized that although the lattice symmetry is assumed, it is actually the lattice constant
  • He wrote, most severe approximation in the density functional theory is to relate the single-particle direct correlation function
  • He wrote: lead to a mean field theory, which would be a poor approximation at a second-order phase transition such as the gas-liquid critical point
  • He wrote: For certain first-order phase transitions, the empirical evidence suggests that this assumption does not lead to such serious problems

There may be more. I stopped looking.

Some of this is paraphrased; some is verbatim. As per his comments at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9, he may not understand what is required by paraphrasing. See that page (in background) for a few examples of content he seems to have copied. If he continues placing content onto Wikipedia copied or minimally paraphrased from external sources, I believe he will need to be indefinitely blocked until we have some assurance that he both understands the degree of rewriting required and is prepared to meet it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Logger9 has continued his copyright violations, after the above comment was written ([11], subsequently removed as a copyvio [12].) If no action is taken here, then he may construe statements that he will be blocked for further copyright violations as idle threats. Since he's already been blocked once for copyright violations, I suggest that the next block be much longer. Chester Markel (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
He's been indefinitely blocked. I don't believe he should be unblocked without some assurance that he knows how to handle content and will abide by our policies. His note here that "I do not copy content directly: I paraphrase" in the face of so much direct pasting is hard to comprehend. (See his talk page for one example, and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9 for more.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and votestacking at MfD[edit]

All active accounts blocked; may be unblocked subject to a convincing explanation of behaviour. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:20, 23 December 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.

The above ANI subthread from September this year details the issues at the article Murder of Meredith Kercher which were mainly defined as a large number of SPA accounts, mostly created at the same time, causing disruption at the article and its talkpage through virulent POV pushing, incivility and other issues. The discussion ended with the most problematic of the editors, User:PhanuelB, being blocked indefinitely. Recently, two userspace drafts by the user have been sent to MfD.

User:PhanuelB was notified on his talkpage, where he has been active. However now, many of the other SPA accounts, having been inactive since Phanuel's block, have resurfaced to comment on the MfDs.

Although this looks like obvious sockpuppetry, I suspect that it is not that simple, as there is evidence that for some of the accounts, similar named usernames have been active on other forums regarding Knox and Kercher. However, this obviously is meatpuppetry, and it is definitely votestacking. However, the effects are the same, and per WP:SOCK my initial thoughts are to strike the SPA !votes on the MfDs and block them all indefinitely. Input would be useful. I will be notifying all the accounts after I have posted this. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Having a point of view and arguing a point is not a crime. Perk10 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
No, it isn't. However, Wikipedia is not the place to do this, it's an encyclopedia - see WP:SOAPBOX. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Block all socks-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I am interested in Wikipedia. I have only edited mainly on one topic so far. What is the problem with that? Is that against WP rules? Perk10 (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
If one is a sock of a blocked editor, that's a problem. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me rephrase. Having a point of view, as an individual, is not a crime... And, is editing so far on only one article on WP against WP rules? Perk10 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
Is there a way to prove one is not a "sock puppet"? Perk10 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
If there is, please let me know. I think a secondary concern is that admins who disagree with people who agree with each other might call them sock puppets rather than arguing for or against points. Perk10 (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
Open an WP:SPI, if you suspect anybody of socking. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said, I don't think you (or the others) are sock puppets. You are, however, as shown through your editing patterns, meatpuppets. None of these accounts are here to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; they are only here to push a point of view on one single article (or in this case, to votestack a deletion discussion concerning that article). They all disappeared for three months after PhanuelB was blocked, only to resurface now - just as PhanuelB starts editing again. I don't see any reason why the usual sanctions shouldn't apply. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The same principle applies. I am an individual with a point of view on how to improve the accuracy of an article and I am learning what Wikipedia is about as well. Perk10 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
Answer me two simple questions then. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (a) Why did you suddenly stop editing the Kercher article in September, around the same time as all the other accounts named above?
  • (b) How did you know about the MfD that you suddenly appeared to vote on today?
Because I am an individual who cares about the accuracy of the article. As do you do, too, I think. EDIT: The admins seem to care about the specific content of the article. Perk10 (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
I very much care about the rules of WP and I care about admins following those rules, as well as editors, and authors. Perk10 (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10

─────────────────────────Your timeing stinks, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? Perk10 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
You dissapeared when the others dissappeard. You reappeard when the others reappeared. It's looking like a case of Meatpuppetry 'atleast', to me. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
If I care about an article, I will follow what is going on. I think something against the rules is afoot with that particular article. Perk10 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Perk10
I don't see the need for this purge unless it is the policy of Wikipedia to remove editors who take certain views on the MoMK article --Footwarrior (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. It is, however, Wikipedia policy to remove sockpuppets (and per WP:SOCK, meatpuppets are effectively the same thing). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the MoMK article was fully protected back in September. It became almost impossible to make changes to the article, so it's understandable why a lot of participants stopped trying. --Footwarrior (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I don't believe a word of it. There are only two reasons why this group of editors should suddenly re-appear after a 3 month absence to votestack the MfD. They are - (a) they're all the same person, or (b) they're being off-wiki canvassed to vote there. Either way, it's sock/meatpuppetry. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree. The amount of hostile meta-discussion and unfounded-accusation-hurling that has resulted from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article has, in the past, been epic - as if to rival the dramatic value of a Greek tragedy, with the perpetrators a collection of almost indistinguishable SPAs hell-bent on baseless criticism of Wikipedia editing policies. I would argue that there are firm grounds for an SPI - although I doubt that there is one particular person operating all these accounts (and we know which ones we're talking about), equally I am not convinced that each SPA belongs to a different individual. An investigation could certainly put an end to much of this confusion. SuperMarioMan 01:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Personally, I don't think an SPI is necessary (quite apart from the fact that behaviourally these are probably separate people). Their editing patterns mean that they are indistinguishable from sockpuppets anyway. The only thing an SPI might be useful for is to ascertain some IP ranges in case there are further issues in the future. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between voting and "votestacking"? Perk10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perk10 (talkcontribs)

01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:VOTESTACKING - "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion..." )in fact, most of WP:CANVASSING applies here. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The different claims laid forth here don't add up. Perk10 (talk · contribs) states he only cares for the article, but the MfDs are for userspace drafts. He further asserts interest in the subject matter of the article - yet in the three months since he vanished along with the other SPAs, there have been significant events influencing the article's content, one as recently as last Saturday. Enough reason for someone asserting interest to come back and edit, or at least discuss on the talk page. But they all only come back to votestack on MfDs for two stale userspace drafts. Footwarrior claims that the article was fully protected and that deterred editing from that whole group (Footwarrior himself isn't part of the group BTW) - fair enough, yet the article has been back to semi protection for two and a half months, and none of these SPAs have shown any interest up to the very moment the MfDs were created. Offsite canvassing is the only reasonable explanation. MLauba (Talk) 01:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Or people who care about the accuracy of this topic. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is not against the rules of WP. Perk10 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC) Perk10
Really? So where were you when one of the convicted had his final appeal rejected? Where were you when the appeals for the other two began? Where were you after last Saturday, when evidence from the first trials were sent for re-testing? The topic is exposed on the article, not the userspace draft, as you very well know. MLauba (Talk) 01:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No. However it is against the rules of Wikipedia to (a) "Contact users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions" and (b) attempt to influence a discussion by means of sock or meatpuppets - both of these are clearly happening here. Also, as MLauba says, the article has been unprotected (or at least only semi-protected) since early November. Why have none of the 13 accounts listed above - or at least the ones that aren't blocked for disruption already - made a single edit anywhere in that time? Sorry, we're not stupid here, and you haven't given a convincing answer to any of the questions. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Given that is has now been 17 hours since I posted this, and no believable reason has been given for the behaviour of the SPAs, I intend to block them all unless a substantive reason is given for not doing so within a short period of time. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Does that include Charlie Wilkes, who has a great deal of subject matter expertise and has made valuable contributions to Wikipedia? --Footwarrior (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Since User:Charlie wilkes (contribs) has never made any contribution to Wikipedia except commenting/arguing on talk pages about the Kercher article, then yes. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Yoyohooyo, one of the blocked SPAs, has suddenly returned to their talk page (after an absence of more than two months, during which time the page has not been edited - of course, this probably has nothing at all to do with the AfD and ANI discussions ...) with comments that come within a whisper of threatening legal action. POV-pushing from off-site sources, meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry - I wouldn't be surprised if all three were playing a part here. SuperMarioMan 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I've been following this page the whole time. I stopped editing because it was disturbing to see how many editors were being banned and compromises were not being achieved. Many good editors left and that was sad to see. I chimed in because I respect PhanuelB's work. In the spirit of Christmas why not just let this go? I'm leaving for the holiday and do not have time to discuss this now. I would ask that you do not block me or anyone else. If my participation is actually encouraged I will return to the page as an editor in the new year.--User:jaberryhill —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC).
  • I have removed the trolling at User:Yoyohooyo (who is a sock of an indef blocked editor) and am going to block the others now. Any or all of the editors may be unblocked when they convincingly account for their editing patterns. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. I have only blocked the active accounts, but will block the others if they follow suit. I have updated User:Pablo X/spa to show the current status of all SPAs. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:20, 23 December 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.

Reversion of sourced material in retaliation in a dispute on another subject[edit]

Good afternoon,

User:Someone65 was called out by several users for performing mass page moves without discussion in the Islam portal last week. User was then banned for a week for sockpuppetry. User returned a couple of days ago and began a campaign to get articles deleted on the Islam portal. When I opposed user S65, we got into a skirmish on the subject, after which S65 went through my edit history and picked out an article I added content to over the weekend.

S65 reverted my changes, claiming they were "unreferenced". As you can see, the change he reverted consists primarily of sourced content, and a photo gallery.

This user is exhibiting a pattern of destructive behavior. The reversion cited above is an act of vandalism committed solely in retribution for our disagreement on a different issue.

Do you have any suggestions as to what can be done to curb the destructive behavior of this user? User is currently requesting rollback authority, citing his efforts to fight vandalism, which sounds frightening.


Aquib (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This ANI report is absolutely absurd.
Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [13] for evidence)
Secondly, I reverted this edit [14] by User:Aquib because he;
  1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
  2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
  3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy
Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.
What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits. Someone65 (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
S65's responses are a total distortion, as can be proved by the timestamps on the conversations and the diff on the revert I am complaining about in this ANI. Further, it is part of a growing pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.
To respond to Someone65s first point:
Firstly, User:Aquib is untruthful about my page moves (which happened 16 days ago) . I DID discuss the page moves with consent from 3 other established editors. (see [82] for evidence)
  • The link Someone65 has provided here is to a discussion that I initiated after the page moves had been executed, and after my initial discussion discussion asking him why he had executed the moves, not before. The initial conversation I had with him was here where I asked him why he had moved the pages. As you can see, S65's response is that the move was done under the umbrella of the Jagged85 RFC. It is only when I went to the Jagged85 RFC page to follow up on S65's claim this conversation S65 claims is a pre-move discussion occurs, I learn S65 is not involved in the Jagged85, and is misrepresenting the page moves as being part of the RFC. In fact, as evidenced by the discussions, other editors are upset about the moves as they have occurred without discussion. So S65's first point is an obvious distortion, as was the misrepresentation of the reason for the move. Frankly I am surprised at these claims, as anyone can look through S65's edit history and see the page moves began before my first contact.
To respond to Someone65s second point:
Secondly, I reverted this edit [15] by User:Aquib because he;
  1. added an entire paragraph without adding a single citation
  2. he deleted a reliable and secondary reference from the University of Pennsylvania, which was perfectly referenced.
  3. i considered his pointless addition of an image gallery as totally unecessary and against Wikipedia:Image use policy
  • An examination of the diff I have provided shows in fact S65 has reverted the information I have inserted about the gardens at Azhar park, and included a reference to D. Fairchild Ruggles' book on Islamic Gardening. I may have also cleaned up some uncited text, but my new section on the gardens is what was removed along with its citation. So S65's second point is another obvious distortion, as was the first, the claims about the move etc.
  • In fact, the diff shows the citation was mine, and S65 deleted it. Point-blank Distortion.
  • S65 considered the addition of a few photos a violation of policy? I'm not sure how to respond to that. Consistent, perhaps?
Rather than S65s account of the "move incident" which I have demonstrated as a misrepresentation, and the supposed reasons for his the reversion of my al-Azhar edits from this weekend, which I have refuted, I can offer a much simpler, obvious truth. As evidenced from the timing of the al-Azhar park edit on 12/22/2010, I was involved with him in a dispute (which he is continuing to pursue as I type) regarding the notability of biblical figures in Islam. When I began to revert some of the edits S65 was making against another editor's work, he swung around and attacked the al-Azhar article I worked on over the weekend, then tried to explain it by claiming it was I who damaged the article.
To respond to S65s third assertion
Thirdly, i have not began a "deletion campaign". I'm simply objecting to the creation of misinformitive pages by User:Imadjafar over the past 2 days. (check his User talk:Imadjafar). Two administrators involved have not objected whatsoever to my edits.
  • The references to biblical figures in Islam is neither a small matter nor a new one. S65's objections to them are simply part of a pattern of tendentious editing and misrepresentations, much as the defense of S65s actions have been misrepresented here.
On S65's last remark
What concerns me is the fact that User:Aquib has stalked me over my last 7 edits.
  • If I am not supposed to be concerned when I come across an editor who behaves the way S65 is behaving, I am open to suggestions as to what I should do.
To recap
Virtually every point S65 made in response to this ANI is a distortion or a misrepresentation. It is almost as if S65 thinks no one will bother to check the statements for truth. This is the same pattern S65 exhibits in editing articles: Misrepresentations, distortions and a tendency to suppress information. This editor needs to be banned or prevented from damaging articles.
Aquib (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Almost forgot to recap the main point: S65 clearly retaliated against me by reverting sourced changes to an article I edited over the weekend. This was done in response to an ongoing, totally unrelated dispute we are currently engaged in. Deliberate vandalism.
Aquib (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your time -Aquib (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on Someone65[edit]

I believe that the project would be improved by the indefinite removal of Someone65 for the following reasons:

  1. Previous abusive sockpuppetry noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Ghazi/Archive.
  2. Reverting an edit for the supposed reason that it "Did not provide references" [16], while actually removing the reliable source {{Cite book|last=Ruggles|first=D. Fairchild|title=Islamic Gardens and Landscapes|publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press|date=2008|page=168|isbn=0812240251}} is blatantly malicious activity, suggestive of sneaky vandalism. Someone65's repetition of his lies about this edit here [17], pretending that he restored the reference which he actually removed, provides further evidence of Someone65's mendacious conduct.

There's probably more evidence of duplicity by Someone65, but I really shouldn't have to look. When an editor has been caught betraying the community's default assumption of good faith by abusing multiple accounts, lying in edit summaries to damage articles, then brazenly lying again to justify their vandalism, thus requiring good-faith contributors to review all of their edits for potential sneaky vandalism or misrepresentation, the only appropriate response is to eject the malicious editor from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's a need for a community ban at this time, but I have blocked Someone65 indefinitely, because their recent editing is just too disruptive/weird. If Someone65 can make a persuasive case for unblocking, no further discussion with me is required. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Sarek, but considering a history of abusive socking and the fact that the main account has been indeffed since November, I think this sock should remain blocked and future socks should also be blocked until this editor understands how to work with other people and stops the sneaky vandalism and meatpupptery campaigns. - Burpelson AFB 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Riddle me this, riddle me that: sock, meat, or tofurkey?[edit]

For several weeks, a variety of anon IPs in Ryiadh, Saudi Arabia have been trying to remove material from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. They tend to display the singular coincidence of also editing articles related to Wikileaks: SAUDI ARABIA AR RIYAD RIYADH. Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak, United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs: RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Contribs: RIYADH SAUDI ARABIA Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. Contribs:

Suddenly (as of yesterday), an anon IP in Seattle has taken over, making the same edits to the same articles. SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98168 Common subjects: Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak‎. Contribs: Vandalism caught my eye:

How odd. IP spoofing? Meat puppets? The last two IPs, taken together, have made 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, making it an obvious evasion of the rules. The situation involves possible edit warring, vandalism, and puppeting, there's no one forum that seems best.... Mindbunny (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No comments about anything else, but appears to be a proxy hosted by I've blocked it accordingly. TNXMan 17:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I've semiprotected Women's rights in Saudi Arabia for a week. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Malicious hoaxery[edit]

Resolved: Articles speedied, commons images nominated for deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some more watching eyes would be useful on this. Already the article on VERITAS, a telescope array, has been overwritten twice with the same content as at Veritas trust and Veritas Trust Seal, all of which is in the first place a copy of what can be found in our VeriSign article with some name changes to make it seem as if the U.S. VeriSign is the Singapore Veritas. Trust seal has been vandalized to contain this purported company's purported trust seal. This appears to be a systematic, multiple article, attempt to mis-use Wikipedia to impersonate VeriSign, that — oddly — is originating from Imperial College London. Uncle G (talk) 06:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Level One Warning" for AGF?[edit]

Resolved: Wifione ....... Leave a message 19:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! On my talk page another editor has given me a "level one warning for assuming bad faith" and I'm curious about this on several levels:

  1. Did I actually do anything wrong or that could be considered wrong? If so, I want to correct it.
  2. I searched through WP:AGF and found nothing about "levels" and "warnings"-am I missing something?
  3. Obviously the editor feels something is wrong--what's the best action for me to take?
  4. Is there anything I could have done differently to avoid this (outside of not being involved in the AFD in the first place?)

Any coaching and comments for me would be appreciated! I'm not looking to report the other user, I'm looking to improve my own style.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. You said I wonder if this is a personal issue and it's just that you don't like the performer so you were "wondering" if he was editing without integrity, ie you failed to assume good faith.
  2. I've left a link to the templates page on your talkpage.
  3. You could apologise for not assuming good faith, or, if you think you have good reason to believe they are not editing in good faith you need to explain yourself and back it up and try and resolve the issue.
  4. You could read your posts before you click save and imagine whether you would like to be on the recieving end.Fainites barleyscribs 15:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, it appears they took umbrage at, "I wonder if this is a personal issue and it's just that you don't like the performer?" That seems to imply that they're motivated by dislike of some individual, rather than by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. In general, it's best not to post speculations about another editor's motives.

That said, leaving a "level one" - or any kind of - warning on the page of an established editor is a terrible idea. If someone seems to doubt one's good faith, the solution is to explain one's intentions, not to officiously notify them that they've "violated" AGF. That's the fastest way to make a situation worse. Wikipedia is not made of "rules" and "levels" and all that junk.

The best thing you can do at this point is probably to say you didn't mean to impugn their motives, and walk away from it. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Wow. Welcome back GTBacchus! It's lovely to see you.
  • Hi Paul. Although I would say that you were being a little cutting edge in your statement to Hell In A Bucket, I don't think Hell should have given you the level one warning. In other words, the part where Hell points you to assume good faith, is appropriate. Look, beyond this discussion, I'll be archiving this discussion very soon as the ANI is not for discussing such simplistic editorial conflicts which you both, as mature editors, should resolve in good faith. Fainites and GTBacchus have given the precisest suggestions possible. Employ them and don't throw the olive branch away. Sincere regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 15:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, Fainites and GTBacchus have said everything that needs to be said. As to this particular thread, rather than archiving this, I'd suggest moving it straight to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests seeing that's where it should have went in the first place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
My advice...don't take offense to anything any editor does to you. Your reaction can actually be judged and used as evidence against you as being disruptive if an issue builds. Only push an issue if you can clearly demonstrate that wikipedia is being harmed by an action or behaviour, and even so such actions can be seen as being disruptive and may result in a block. As a wise administrator told me, build up's much better and safer to have an administrator make your case. --scuro (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice everyone! I think I'll apologize for the harshenss of the comments and walk away from the discussion. I'll also be more careful in the future. Feel free to archive this!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: This should never have been brought to ANI, but one can say, Kuguar03 was not personally attacked. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It all started at this Afd. User:Kuguar03 nominated this article for deletion. User:Piast93 voted to keep it, and added a little advice to Kuguar03 about maybe not nominating articles for deletion so quickly, as it may discourage new users. Kuguar03 immediately accused Piast93 of personal attackshere. When User:Netalarm tried to calm the situation, Kuguar03 accused Netalarm here of joining in a smearing campaign against Kuguar03. That’s when I tried to defuse the situation, but then Kuguar03 began demanding here what he did wrong. User:ZooPro and I tried to explain that there were no attacks made, and no one thought any less of Kuguar because of his Afd, but he kept asking what he did wrong, and ended up demanding “a huge apology” for wasting his time. Netalarm, Piast93, ZooPro, and I all tried to calm him down, but it seems Kuguar03 won’t stop accusing people of attacking him. The ArbiterTalk 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. If that's an "attack" or a "smear" then I've been executed and drenched in mud many times over; any thicker skin for sale somewhere? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. First it's unbelievable that you'd rather go to ANI than admit you were wrong, but then you misrepresent what happened in such a ridiculous way? Here I thought you were just foolishly joining in the pile on without really trying to understand the issue, but it seems you have some deeper issue that I'm unaware of.
All I've ever wanted is to know what I did wrong, or acknowledgment that I didn't do anything wrong. Is that so much to ask? Kuguar03 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not really see any personal attacks at that AfD either. Kuguar, it may very well be better even for your own sake to not let little stuff like that insult you so easily. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN, as I've pointed out many, many times the only issue here is what "mistake" I made by nominating this article for deletion, as stated here, here, here, and here. That's not trying to "defuse the situation", it's escalating it. If I made a mistake, tell me what it is. If I didn't, then I didn't. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
And for the record, I gave an in-depth explanation of my reasons for nominating the article here. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can all see, he just refuses to let it go. The ArbiterTalk 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
As you can all see, he refuses to answer a simple question. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting. The other editor may have been just giving his own opinion. It does not look like he was trying to put you down. At this point, I would say just move on. You will waste a lot more time trying to get a result to your satisfaction out of an other user making that comment, than you would just moving on and improving the encyclopedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict x 2)Kuguar03, I don't recall that I've interacted with anyone of the editors with whom you're upset, and I don't think I've ever run across you, so I'm completely uninvolved. I read every word of the AfD and the subsequent conversations you initiated, and I have to tell you that you were not personally attacked. I can show you lots of actual personal attacks, against me and against every admin here, but this is not one of them. Piast93's comment was a constructive criticism - people seek criticism of their contributions every day at Wikipedia:Editor review. Nobody has said anything personal about you - it was a simple suggestion to keep in the back of your mind as you edit. You have to calm down about criticism of your editing or you're not going to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia at all. - KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Is that even relevant to the discussion? I'd have walked away from this ages ago if it weren't for the constant accusations that I did something wrong. That's the only issue as far as I can tell. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You're doing something wrong right now, that's for sure; this dog is dead. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Who, me? The Arbiter is the one who brought this to ANI. If anything he should be censured for wasting everyone's time. If he won't acknowledge he was wrong there's not much to talk about here. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read my second comment above (the one with the blue edit conflict tag)? That should have gone somewhere in telling you what you may or may not have done wrong. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


I don't believe this. Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Kuguar, in your third message on Piast93's talk page, in the section you yourself titled Try to avoid personal attacks, you said, "Criticizing me for constructively participating in the building of wikipedia is a personal attack". We're trying to tell you, no, it is not. He did not personally attack you. If you are going to take things like that so personally, if you don't want your work criticized - including your AfD nominations, comments, uploads, or any other aspect of your contributions - don't edit here. Let these people alone now. KrakatoaKatie 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with KrakatoaKatie, No personal attack was committed and I feel it seemed to go from something very very simple to ending up on ANI, like I said to you before Kuguar03 I did not consider anything you or anyone else did wrong I do think there may have been some miscommunication that has somewhat been resolved here. No one holds any ill towards you and will treat you like any other editor. I welcome your contributions to the project and hope that this mis-understanding has not blackened your view. Please try to remember we are humans just like you who are sitting in front of a computer trying to make the world a better place by building a free encyclopedia. ZooPro 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just a comment from an uninvolved editor. I don't think User:Kuguar03 really did anything wrong in nominating the article, but I also don't think User:Piast93 was guilty of bad faith or made any personal attack in offering some advice. User:Kuguar03's pursuit of this has gone way too far into dead horse territory -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for acknowledging that I did nothing wrong, ZooPro. I'm curious what caused you to reverse you previous position, but I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. I did nothing wrong by nominating an article for deletion after careful consideration, and repeatedly criticizing me for doing so is an attack and not constructive. Some editors disagree with that, fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here. The only issue is, and has always been, whether or not it's a mistake to nominate an article for deletion. I don't believe it is, and as I understand it, wikipedia policy is on my side. I don't know why Arbiter would rather escalate (and totally misrepresent) issues than admitting to being wrong, but if he hasn't done so by now he probably never will. I don't know what outcome he expected, but he now owes lots of other people apologies for wasting their time. But as long as none of the editors involved come after me again I don't see any point in pursuing this matter further. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
How many times is it going to have to be repeated to you? Criticism is not a personal attack. It is not their 'opinion' as you state above, it is defined that way in policy. As katie said, if you can't handle critique, you would probably have better luck elsewhere than wikipedia.— dαlus+ Contribs 09:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Holy crap, talk about beating dead horses! Let me say once more before finally walking away: The only issue here is whether it's wrong to nominate an article for deletion or not. That's it. That's all. There is no other issue here. Constantly talking about personal attacks is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting what I said is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting the issue is adding nothing to the discussion. Yours, KrakatoaKatie's, and other editors' comments are completely irrelevant to the issue here. If you think they are, you need to go back and look at what actually happened, because they are not, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Arbiter, Piast93, and Netalarm repeatedly told me I made a mistake by nominating an article for deletion. I disagree. I was hoping to get some explanation of their view to try and understand better where they were coming from, but none is forthcoming. That's all that's going on here. That's it. There is nothing else. If you don't have anything to add to that discussion you're adding nothing to the discussion.
Now if anyone wants to have a constructive discussion, you know where to find me: Diligently working with other editors to build an encyclopedia. It's baffling to me why so many people would oppose that. Kuguar03 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, how about I repeat most of my second post in this thread, where I try to answer that?: "I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting."
And, in addition to that repeat: There is nothing wrong with nominating an article for deletion, as long as it does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (such as it not being notable enough).
Does that answer your question? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Just because you say something, doesn't make it automatically true.. also, you don't get to decide whose comments are relevant to this discussion; firstly to my above point, the rightness/wrongness of the AfD is not the only issue here, the other issue is your misunderstanding of wp's WP:NPA policy. You can't go claiming someone is attacking you every time you're criticized as it's disruptive editing and draws away from improving the encyclopedia.
Secondly, there is nothing our comments are misrepresenting about yours; you clearly think you were attacked because someone disagreed with your nomination; you say that exact thing in several posts above. It may be the case that you think you were attacked; that isn't what's up for dispute in this issue, what is up for dispute is under policy, those are not attacks, and continuing to claim such is in itself an attack, because it is baseless accusation. Calling you stupid would be an attack, saying you were wrong for noming an article.. no.— dαlus