Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive695

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

Noticeboard archives



I began editing (diff) Bashar al-Assad on 7 May 2011 when, in the course of a discussion at another article, certain biographical details relating to the president surfaced that were not part of his article prior to my edit. There has since been a discussion ongoing about how best to handle the added content. Flatterworld (talk · contribs) joined the discussion here, with no valuable input other than to shoot bad-faith accusations from the hip. There is nothing necessarily uncivil about his language, but the nature of his comments undoubtedly runs counter to WP:AGF, which is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. The user's Talk page abounds with warnings against similar conduct in the past: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and the list goes on and on.

I directed the user to WP:AGF here and here, asking that he strike out the bad faith remarks. He chose to disregard my advice. It is necessary for an Admin to involve himself in guiding Flatterworld (talk · contribs) in how Wikipedia envisions healthy interactions between contributors. A 48-hour block would not be an excessive response under the circumstances, though I am open to less severe alternatives.—Biosketch (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A 48 hour block for saying you cherry picked sources? Would you be open to the less severe alternative of doing nothing? It seems to me you are running into some opposition on the Assad talk page. Trying to one-up the opposition by trying to get them blocked is not the best way forward. I'd suggest you solve this dispute by continuing the discussion on the talk page. I note you also failed to inform Flatterworld of this discussion.--Atlan (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I was informed on my Talk page (which I clear after reading). Quite honestly, I have more important things to do with my time at Wikipedia than argue about this. It's not bad faith to address a serious issue with an article, and I will not be bullied into some sort of fake 'compromise' by any attempts at intimidation. Flatterworld (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed you were informed on your talk page of this report at WP:WQA. This, however, is a different report at a different venue.--Atlan (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't realize there were so many venues. ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Atlan (talk · contribs), thanks for taking the time to look into the incident and for leaving the updated notice on Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s Talk page. In answer to your question about the 48-hour block, of course it isn't simply for the accusation against me over cherry-picking sources. It is the broader tone of Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s comment, the fact that it attributed ulterior motives to me, and Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s ostensible history of similar such comments to others. Perhaps I am overstating the importance of WP:AGF, but the page does describe it as "a fundamental principle on Wikipedia," and it rather unequivocally requires editors not to "attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice" – and in this case no evidence of malice was indicated by the user making the accusations. Also, the suggestion that I'm trying to one-up the "opposition" – a label I emphatically reject, by the way – by getting them blocked frankly doesn't make sense. You'll see that the additions I made to the article have been embraced by the article's editors since I introduced them. They've even been expanded. The dispute on the Discussion page is therefore not about content but about a much more minor question of layout. If Flatterworld (talk · contribs)'s contribution had been a meaningful one, elaborating at least a little on why he construes my additions as cherry-picking etc., there wouldn't have been a problem. It's the reality that in this user's first interaction with me he chose to assume bad faith that's the problem. I've had much more heated discussions with colleagues here, but they stay constructive because a mutual effort is made to assume good faith as much as possible. If WP:AGF is not considered a serious policy, then I'll concede the 48-hour block is excessive. But if WP:AGF is seen as essential to Wikipedia, it is not.—Biosketch (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocks are a preventative measure. We don't issue them as punishment for failing to assume good faith. This board is for incidents. If you want to address Flatterworld's long term behavior (which I doubt, even though you bring it up), start an Rfc. Usually, it is best to either prove the other side wrong, or agree to disagree and shrug it off, rather than run to the admin boards in righteous indignation.--Atlan (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
It's unfortunate, Atlan (talk · contribs), that you insist on shifting the focus onto me, first for "Trying to one-up the opposition" and then for "righteous indignation." The second idea is as bizarre as the first was shown to be, and addressing my concerns with less aggressive language would have reflected better on your judgment. It would have been sufficient to say from the beginning that "Blocks are a preventative measure" and that Admins do not administer them "for failing to assume good faith." That would have gotten the message across that WP:AGF is not strictly enforced, without the gratuitous calumnies vis-a-vis my motives. My pride is not wounded, but my confidence in you is.—Biosketch (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User Geo Swan continues violation of BLP[edit]

After his recent RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan he still violates BLP and bases articles on primary sources against community consensus and BLP.Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports And he keeps reverting one edit another one with a false explanation that he want to discuss the copyright status of the image while reverting a bunch of other edits including some that violate BLP. Please help. IQinn (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, the image dispute is just a small part of Geo's obsession with cataloging and wikifying every Guantanamo detainee. It was bad enough when MfD had to scour his userspace for this languishing junk, but now IMO Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp needs a thorough review. Tarc (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
As said that here is not about the image and the whole thing was never about the copyright status of the image it was about the value of the image for the article and about Geo Swan secretly reverting other changes that violate BLP in the same edit. There was a discussion on the talk page about the value of the image where he fails to provide compelling arguments or sources for inclusion. He does not need to revert the image 3 times into the article to get another opinion on copyright was not in question and if he would like to discuss the copyright status than anyway keep the image of the article until that has been discussed not edit war the image into the article. But that is and was never the topic here - edit warring, BLP and continues disruptive editing is.
He did not only re-add the image 3 times while a discussion was ongoing on the talk page what would be bad enough. He reverted several other edits under the cover of this. E.G. re-adding these primary sources two times one two. against community consensus and RFC/U and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports
@Tarc - how can this section ever been cleaned up when Geo Swan keeps aggressively reverting any attempt to clean it up under false explanations and he disagrees to be mentored? I am here so administrator stop him edit warring and stop him repeatedly reverting all changes of the article including some that violate BLP. I also want him to agree to be mentored as the RFC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan suggested. At least he need to be mentored in BLP articles where he once again violated BLP. Enforcement is needed. IQinn (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not disagree with you, just noting that this image brouhaha is the proverbial tip of a very large iceberg. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Well Eppefleche, i think you are a known supporter of Geo Swan and people might should not take your words to serious. The forum you point to is irrelevant and as i laid out that is not about the image it is about Geo Swan edit warring and violating BLP. It seems to be the case that other people understood the problem quicker and enforced the removal [7], [8] [9] of the problematic content that he had re-introduced two time into the article under the false claim he would like to discuss the copyright status of the image. Geo Swan should agree to be mentored as the RFC/U suggested unfortunetly he refuses to do so and continues disruptive editing in BLP's articles what makes the fixing of this section almost impossible. IQinn (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible disruptive nomination for deletion request[edit]

User:Thivierr nominated Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Competence is required for deletion. This essay was mentioned as part of a comment to an evidence presentation in an Arbitration Committee case; Thivierr has consistently commented in that case in support of the "accused party" at the core of that dispute, and this essay was cited by another editor that has commented against the accused party.

If someone uninvolved in the arbcom case could keep an eye on this user and his deletion request, that would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. Did not notice this until after I had begun closing the MfD as withdrawn, but there we go. sonia 09:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Light current[edit]

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

LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day. On the ref desk talk page, we have editors arguing that if his ref desk edits happen to be "answerable", then they should stand, invoking IAR, claiming it overrides a ban. I say a ban overrides IAR. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Ignore All Rules is "when it's in the best interests of the wiki, ignore the rule" not "do it just for the hell of it". Pretty sure that a sockmaster socks because he wants the attention and is tired of being left on the outside. I don't think indulging him and allowing community participation constitutes the best interests of the wiki unless you're a Conservapedia mole. Ironholds (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but this is not being suggested "just for the hell of it". See a thread here: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Proposed_compromise, where a rationale is outlined. Staecker (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
      • He's banned; He cannot edit, if he does edit those edits must be removed on sight, and if he creates socks to edit, those socks must be blocked, period. There is only one recourse here, and that is an unbanning proposal at WP:AN. Unless the community decides to unban this user, or unless His Honorable Lord Jibmo Wales overturns the ban, the policy is clear. IAR need not apply. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The proposal that a banned user's Reference Desk questions be somehow allowed to stand is being made by a lone editor, and for my part, I don't see any consensus developing around it. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
What complicates the issue is that other editors respond to a question, only to find their efforts reverted. Based on the argument that a question from anywhere in 1/16384 of the entire possible range of IP addresses must be this one banned user. What if the banned user is part of a school with a thousand children? Now they're all "trolls", and all answers to their questions disappear. Administrators have refused to block the range of IPs for just that reason; why should other editors be more restrictive? We've ended up with a duplicate ANI and Sockpuppet Investigations at the Refdesk talk page. Most fundamentally, the compromise I suggested is based only on the right of an editor in good standing to ask a question which happens to be the same as that asked by a banned user - something which I hope should not be controversial. Wnt (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
No one has claimed that anyone that edits from Light Current's range is Light Current. Not one person. However, Light Current has a very specific and well understood modus operandi, and the combination of his behavior with his IP address is a clear indicator that it is him. Merely because people know his behavior, and enforce his ban by removing his questions, does not mean that people have even once claimed that innocent users editing from that range should also be blocked. What has happened is that YOU, Wnt (and near as I can tell, you alone), have taken upon yourself to mischaracterize the work of others in such terms, but no one actually behaves or thinks that way, no matter how often you assert it as though it were true. Its simply not true. LC is an obvious troll, his fingerprints are distinct and recognizable, and it is unfortunate that your answers to his trolling questions get deleted along with the questions themselves. However, that doesn't mean that other people (you know, those people that are not you) cannot recognize him. --Jayron32 03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll grant that I don't know his modus operandi. Could you point me (and the rest of us) at some resources about that? The Refdesk questions were so short, I never imagined they could carry many fingerprints. Wnt (talk) 04:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Given that this was explained to you at WT:RD, and you chose to ignore it or discount it there, I doubt you'll listen here, but here goes. LC asks short, contextless questions about subjects which are either a) defecatory b) sexual c)bigoted or d) some combination thereof. An earlier popular subject was the planet Uranus, which can often be mistaken for the english phrase "your anus". LC has apandoned this motif, but other questions are usually easy to spot. Other recent gems have revolved around the size of someone colon, and the proper technique for masturbating a dog. Don't be ashamed, however, if you cannot easily spot him. The world is a diverse place, and we all have different skills. I, for example, am not a really good Basketball player, so I don't spend a lot of time playing basketball against better basketball players. Likewise, if you find that you lack the skills in the area of spotting LC socks, perhaps it would be best if you didn't get in the way of people who are really good at it. Its not a slight against you; like I said we are all good at different things, and that doesn't mean you are a bad person for not being good at identifying his socks. --Jayron32 04:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear - was that pattern described before the most recent round of questions? (And true, I never even thought about the weight of a human colon as defecation-related) Wnt (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
People told you those posts were him, and you clearly refused to believe them. This is all over WT:RD. Lets also make this clear:
  • Sometimes, people who are not LC also ask immature, offensive questions. These are easy to spot since LC edits from a known set of IP addresses. We delete other obvious trolling questions as inappropriate, even if LC has nothing to do with them.
  • Sometimes, people who are not LC, but edit from the same IP range, ask legitimate questions at the ref desks. These are easy to spot as the questions are usually well thought out, have a context, and don't delve into prurient interests, and don't follow up honest questions with inappropriate trolling later on.
Again, don't be ashamed if you cannot spot these things. People don't necessarily think less of me for my poor basketball skills. --Jayron32 05:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here[10] is what we're dealing with:

"The problem is that you are never going to be able to stop anyone determined (even me) from editing. 8-) People just have to live with it. If you dont like a Q, ignore it, but dont make a song and dance about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

He's been at this for over 4 years. Someone needs to prove him wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Internet seems to be here to stay, and Wikipedia has the potential to last for the long term, too. Eventually, Light current will die of old age. And Wikipedia will still be here. Until then, WP:RBI. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
What's curious is that according to this LC goes through so much trouble to be recognized. He has to come to the same place, ask almost the same questions, and never register for an account first. If he simply wanted to have trollish questions stay up and be answered, it would be no challenge at all. One reason why to me the "WP:DENY" argument seems misplaced. Wnt (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Many trolls will do that. They'll play a game that's basically "How long can I last before I'm found out?" Sometimes they'll drop little hints, especially if they're being overlooked for who they are. I recall a troll from a couple of years ago (not LC) who kept editing and talking about the subject of anagrams. He was on there about a month before anyone realized that his username was an anagram of his sockmaster's username. That's what makes LC all the more puzzling, as you say: He immediately makes his presence known. The fact that he keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over indicates he's basically playing "internet ping-pong". The dilemma for him now is that his ever-higher visibility produces an ever-longer list of editors willing to "paddle" him. There are many of those, and only one of him. So it's a battle he can't win... as other trolls have eventually figured out. LC isn't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Ironholds, I'm not saying what I agree with WNT's proposal, but it was clearly not "For the Hell of it", The effort to completely expunge light-current's questions sometimes becomes extremely disruptive, far more so than if the questions had been answered and allowed to sink quietly into the page history.
Bugs's crusade against this banned user has essentially become the most significant of component of the banned user's disruption.
(I'd also like to take a moment to mention how unusual it is to report a mere talk page proposal to ANI as if it were some oncomming horror. Ref-Desk policies are properly discussed on the ref-desk talk page. Bringing it here was simply canvassing.) APL (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it is more nuanced than that. The situation here is that LC has two advocates that feed his trolling behavior. Both Wnt and BaseballBugs in their own way exacerbate the situation. If Wnt was more understanding of the need not to feed the troll, and if Bugs was a little less strident in his efforts to eradicate him from Wikipedia, it would get boring for LC pretty quickly. Any one of two solutions would work equally:
1) if all of LC's posts were removed without comment or controversy by anyone, that is if they just disappeared and no one complained, objected, or even noted that it happened, LC would have no satisfaction or
2) if all of LC's posts were left alone, and answered earnestly without judgement; that is when he asks about the color of Uranus we all pretend he didn't just make an asshole joke, and instead just direct them to the parts of the relevent Wikipedia article, there's also no fun for LC.
The fun in this situation comes in making an inappropriate question and watching the shitstorm it generates between Bugs and Wnt (or whoever wishes to fight that day). It's not answers he's after, its the shitstorm that his very presense generates. Until we all get on the same page, and decide definitively how to deal with this WITHOUT a huge fight ensueing from the "What's the harm in AGF and answering his questions" and the "Banned is BANNED" camps, LC will go away. I personally couldn't give two shits about HOW we resolve this, just that the fight itself is what LC is clearly after, and as long as we keep having this fight, LC is going to continue to push our buttons. --Jayron32 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
What you've outlined is the reason I have stopped deleting his garbage. I wanted to raise the visibility of it (call it canvassing if you want) and let others do that work, as I am tired of getting yelled at for trying to enforce the rules, especially as I had no part in his original ban. That occurred before I even knew there was a ref desk. So I am not interested in being the "designated deleter". However, when some naive soul attempts to answer one of the troll's stupid questions, I'm going to point out who he is - once the latest incarnation has been blocked. Also, as it happens I am currently under an interaction ban with a particular user I won't name. I take that ban very seriously. I expect others here to take other bans equally seriously. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that 1 is impossible. Quiet removal of posts is very problematic. First the questions must be removed before they are answered, or the removal itself becomes confusing and disruptive (As often happens.). And secondly the posts must be removed without errors or potentially innocent questions will be removed as trolls (as also happens.)
Who could be trusted to be the silent-but-deadly troll enforcer? Certainly not Bugs, but who could do better than Bugs?
It's common for questions that were just sitting, answered, after taking up about a grand total of maybe four person-minutes, are deleted, and the resulting confusion costs far more person-minutes.
Causing this disruption for mindless enforcement of "BANNED USERS MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST" smacks of dogmatic thinking where pragmatic thinking would be preferable. APL (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not mindless. He was banned for a reason. It is the banned user who's causing the disruption. That's why he was banned. And his recent arguments, that we'll never stop him so we shouldn't even try, are thoroughly bogus. If you don't enforce the banning rule, you might as well not have a banning rule. As I see it, he wants to essentially get de facto "un-banned" without having to go through the proper process to get un-banned; which he would of course fail miserably, because he has not changed his approach since he was banned four freakin' years ago.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Recently an editor proposed writing an abuse filter. I don't know what, if anything, has come of that. Obviously, we don't want to give any details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "mindless" isn't the right word, but "Dogmatic" certainly is. Your approuch is anything but pragmatic.
You seem to be unable to see how completely you've been trolled by this LC fellow. APL (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Only because of certain editors aiding and abetting. If they would SHUT UP about it, and help enforce the rules instead of arguing against the rules, there would be no drama. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Simply put, this user's only purpose is the glee he gets from being "naughty" and starting arguments on the RefDesk. If you're worried about confusion due to questions disappearing... well, LC isn't confused, he knows what's happening. If the confusion is on the part of other users, Template:hat the discussion with a simple WP:DNFTT editnotice. Discussion is ended, troll gets no satisfaction. Wash our hands of him until he finally gets bored and moves on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, IF you could get his enablers to agree. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
He get's his "Glee" from holding up a hoop and watching Bugs jump through it. If tomorrow Bugs were struck by a meteor, the cycle would end and he'd get bored.
Having a nemesis is fun. APL (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait. Instead of being mildly insulting, Allow me explain what I mean by dogmatic instead of pragmatic.
Let's assume the following facts :
1) LC enjoys sparring with you, and using you(and others, admittedly) to create disruption. This is pretty much the definition of a troll.
2) Even if you educate all current regulars, There will always be new users and readers to the ref-desk who are confused buy your removal or hiding of seemingly innocuous posts. Human nature being what it is, there will be a time-sucking discussion any time someone is confused.
Ignore the rules for the moment, and just think of what will lead logically to the best outcome. Does it make sense to continue your actions, despite the fact that (because of 1) it is a self-perpetuating cycle, and that (because of 2) it will always be likely to cause a disruption?
APL (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're not willing to enforce the rules, then you should lobby for his ban to be lifted. And if you're not willing to do that, then enforce the bloody rules. You're wrong about a troll getting "bored". LC was trolling and socking long before I came along, and will continue to do so if I ignore him. If a troll doesn't get attention, it just pushes harder. But if everyone stops enabling a troll and starts reverting it every time, then eventually the troll gives up. The problem right now is that we have a couple of youse guys who argue about it every freakin' time that someone deletes one of his stupid questions. It is YOU that is enabling and encouraging the troll. And if that's the way you want to keep going, then un-ban him and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yep. If you want to start a discussion of lifting the ban because he's especially irritating, have at it. He's far from the most irritating person amusing himself at Wikipedia, though, and he is easy enough to recognize and revert. If you don't want to lift the ban, or can't find consensus for it, then we just continue to WP:RBIrevert, block, and ignore, with as little fuss as possible, until he dies. Or gets bored. Whichever. There are thousands of us and only one of him, so it doesn't really have to be that big a deal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a ridiculous and emotional false dichotomy. There is a middle ground between unbanning a troll across an entire site, and eradicating his posts at all costs and any collateral damage. APL (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What "collateral damage" are you talking about? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Next step?[edit]

What would be the procedure for getting "Light current" un-banned and un-blocked? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey look! It's bug's trademark sarcastic WP:POINT. APL (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
At this exact moment, I want to hit both of you with a trout. Could you stand a little closer to one another? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm deadly serious. I want the guy unbanned and unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, to be honest, it'd be a purely symbolic move. He is already capable of evading technical bans, and either way damage to article-space will continue to be repaired in the usual way. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
As is any user. So why bother with bans? Why bother with blocks? Why bother with rules? Just let the trolls do whatever they want, and screw the ones who actually try to contribute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that you simply use the same trout twice, but then I realized that I we might then argue over which of us should be trout-slapped first. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I call your attention to LC's block log,[11] and especially the comment from the blocking admin: "Has exhausted community's patience, per multiple AN/I discussions, and is now creating a series of sockpuppets to try to vandalize us into submission." Does that complaint sound familiar? It's from February of 2007, long before I had any dealings with that user. The "ignore it" theory does not work. And as long as guys like APL insist on arguing about it, the troll will continue to operate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So, basically your current course of action requires that an entire class of people "like APL" and "like Wnt" stop existing? Even if your cause is just and your will strong, will that ever happen? Will anything you're doing make it happen? APL (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to enforce the ban, or not? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
My point here is that you're fighting human nature. On two fronts. One one front you're entertaining and encouraging a troll, on the other front you're hoping that deleting or boxing seemingly innocuous posts and their replies will never be found confusing or irritating, brought up, and discussed. You may be able to out-pace the troll, but you will never-ever change human nature on the ref-desk talk page. There will always be discussions of this sort, and no amount of reporting the discussions to AN/I will change that.
I'm fully willing to admit that your actions are Right and Just. However, they are also not working. Even if it's not your fault, they still are not working. (Which I'm also willing to admit. The fundamental cause of friction is that your expertise on this particular troll cannot be effectively communicated to all on-lookers. In article-space this wouldn't be an issue, but on a talk page these anti-troll changes are more than normally visible, so they attract and confuse on-lookers. This is not your fault. It's the nature of the system you're working within.)
What I'm trying to get at, and apparently not communicating effectively, is that the current approach for dealing with this troll on the Ref Desks has failed. (Through no fault of Baseball Bugs.) In this case I define failure as the cure being more disruptive than the disease.
A new approach is needed. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have one off the top of my head, but continuing a failed approach is foolish. Especially as it's been very clearly established that this troll is especially persistent and will not likely give soon. APL (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
"...will not likely give soon." Right. Especially if you continue to take his side instead of the side of the rules. It is the continued efforts to enable the troll that keep him going. You are not willing to enforce the rules. So you've got LC now. Enjoy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I am now starting to pursue the question of what it will take to get LC unbanned. With the shackles off, maybe he could contribute something useful. It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • OK .. first - I wasn't even around (other than an IP and reader) back in 2007 when Light current was banned, so I honestly don't have any dog in this fight. My feeling however is this: If the guys been around trying to get back in over 4 years later, I'd say there's a chance that he honestly wants to contribute here. I'm all for giving someone a chance to edit, improve their efforts, and mend their ways. Soooo .. you can put me in the Support unban section (if we could get around to that after wading through all the TLDR stuff. I suspect it's understood (if it hasn't been said outright) that he'd be on a pretty short leash for a while, and would have to really mind his "P"s and "Q"s, but its a community consensus that counts here. One last note: Blocks are cheap, and if push comes to shove, then I'll spend one of mine if I have to. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: The user has made a request at User talk:Glitch Turner to be able to respond to this discussion. They have been told to make any contributions on their talk page, and such contributions should be copied to here. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I think at this point it may be worth taking a step back to ask whether banning actually includes questions at the Refdesk. After all, banning in general is a prohibition on editing Wikipedia, not using Wikipedia. True, ironically enough, I actually do think of Refdesk questions as edits that build a database of questions which at some future time might allow people to ask a smart computer program a question and get a relevant answer - but many (most) others simply view the Refdesk as a service to readers. If that's true, then asking a Refdesk question might not be something that a ban should prohibit at all! Wnt (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The reference desk is collaborative and volunteer-driven, just like the rest of the encyclopedia. There's no reason why the volunteers who staff the reference desk should have to deal with an editor that the community has decided is no longer welcome here. I'll also point to the ban policy itself, which addresses the issue of why bans are applied to all editing. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Even so, the bans often don't apply to 'editing' one's own talk page for discussion of the ban - so "editing", in that policy, doesn't mean pressing the edit button, but something more conceptual. Wnt (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that site banned users are allowed to edit their own talk pages, although I would appreciate clarity on this point. The situation is different than that of blocked users, or of article/topic/interaction banned users. In any case, I can see a clear distinction between being allowed to edit one's own talk page and being allowed to edit a reference desk page that half the world (est.) has on their watchlist. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
They aren't. This is explicitly stated at the banning policy, see here, where it says in the chart showing the difference between site bans/topic bans/blocks that the access to a talk page is "usually not allowed". Note that it states that, An editor who is "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") has been completely ejected from the project. This would certainly include participation at the Refdesk. -- Atama 23:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Ref Desk, I have to say that while there is room for improvement there, I don't see any urgent problems posed by banned users. Surely IAR implies that if a question is interesting enough to be answered, we should do so? Count Iblis (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement from User:Glitch Turner[edit]

Copied by request from User talk:Glitch Turner


Please consider an unblock of this account. I have exerted much energy and wasted the time of others being disruptive in the past. It was wrong and I apologize for my immaturaty. I believe I can use my time and talents to be a productive member of the encyclopedia. I suggest the following:

  1. Initially limited access to only articles or their talk pages to show my ability to improve the encyclopedia. I would also ask for access to my user talk page, and to the user talk pages of those that need to communicate with me for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia.
  2. A topic ban, restricting me from any edits at the reference desks, as they were my biggest source of behavior problems in the past.

If allowed, I am going to give 100% effort to turning over a new leaf and devote my energy to improvements here. If someone would be willing to help or mentor me, I think it would be even better. Thank you in advance for the consideration. Glitch Turner (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC) End of copy Peridon (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This is per a discussion on User talk:Glitch Turner and a note posted here by James B Watson which I can't find for the moment. If this isn't in the right place, would someone kindly sort it out for me - going offline. Peridon (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lifting of ban of Light current[edit]

  • Support with the understanding he follow ALL policies and guidelines, NOT sock, and attempt to contribute constructively. — Ched :  ?  04:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (yea, yea, yea .. I know it's not a vote - it's a !vote) (redacted per JB Watson diff — Ched :  ?  12:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC))
  • Oppose for now, however if he strictly follows WP:STANDARDOFFER, stays away from Wikipedia for a full 6 months, then requests an unban at his main account, I would then fully support lifting the ban. If he's serious about obeying the rules, he will obey the terms of his current ban and just stay away long enough to demonstrate that. Given the level of recent sockpuppeteering and disruption, I cannot support lifting the ban today. I would support, however, lifting the ban if he abides by it long enough to know he is serious about returning in good standing. --Jayron32 05:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. He has not shown any interest in obeying the rules. His edits at the reference desk are still troll edits. The only reason to un-ban him is in hopes that letting him edit will bore him faster, but I just don't see letting a troll run amok on the reference desk until he decides to stop as a useful way to keep the reference desk useful for other readers. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I have seen countless editors have indef blocks lifted in the hope that they'll improve their behavior. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. You don't know until you try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Obviously, as this was my idea. It's clear that he really, really wants to edit. I'm willing to give the guy a chance to show he can contribute. And in the meantime, other than this un-ban discussion, I intend to keep my distance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Are you willing to mentor this editor? 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Revert, block, ignore. There are ways to request lifting a ban that do not include persistent disruptive socking.  Sandstein  21:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support unbanning, on the clear understanding that it's a trial, that any unacceptable editing at all will result in the ban being reimposed immediately, and that this discussion gives any administrator teh authority to reimpose the ban without further warning. As Baseball Bugs says, unblocked editors sometimes improve and sometimes they don't. If this one does then clearly unbanning will be good. If, on the other hand, he doesn't, then not much harm will have been done in letting him prove to us that the continued ban is indeed justified, per WP:ROPE. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Support withdrawn: see below.JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support conditional that the user accepts that the topic ban from the reference desks is permanent and he will not ever request it to be lifted. I enjoyed interacting with LightCurrent way back before his ban, and he did make many useful contributions to the project, but the ref desks are a step too far - as he says himself, above. --Dweller (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The following comment copied from User talk:Glitch Turner per request. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed, my intent above was for a permanent topic ban in my problem area. Glitch Turner (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Now we're negotiating with banned users and dedicated sockmasters? No thanks. Revert all sock edits (including those to the ref desk), block the socks and ignore. And file abuse reports with his ISP. If he really wants to be unbanned he can email ArbCom. - Burpelson AFB 13:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is a WP:POINTy proposal, because BB is upset that some editors are defending LC's trolling behavior. I find the continuous abuse of the RefDesk quite telling, and have no more WP:AGF left to give on this one. LC has made it quite clear that he/she has no intention of behaving like a reasonable adult. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
[Edit by banned user removed]
Oppose per this above statement by the subject illustrating that he still just doesn't get it. "I'll vandalize if I'm not treated the way I like" is absolutetely completely unacceptable. That behavior, if carried out, would lead to a prompt block of any user. As a threat from a long-term disruptive editor who can't not-disrupt even when told not to? No. WP:STANDARDOFFER with a mentor as responsible oversight of it would previously have been my position ("okay, you say you can contribute? Do it and let the community judge") but definitely not with a threat from the banned editor as his counter-offer. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry .. have a technical question here DMacks. How does that EL "Edit by banned user removed" work to post what it does? Also, could you post the diff? ... I did look through the Glitch Turner accnt. and didn't see that anywhere. Not trying to be smart or badger ... just seems to be an old post, or rather an odd way to repost what someone else said. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind ... must have been caught up between a cached copy and an edit. Cause I never saw that GT made that contrib. — Ched :  ?  16:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - LC is a competitive troll. He brags about his trolling in other sites where popular trolls try to one-up each other. He has no interest in properly editing Wikipedia. He only wants to get the ability to be a more disruptive troll. -- kainaw 15:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - LC is being disruptive while this very discussion is ongoing. All good faith on this user has been squandered long ago. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - No evidence that he is anything but a malignant troll. We may be fighting "human nature" (according to APL's comment above), but so be it. Favonian (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose, and it frankly stupefies me that anyone is taking this seriously or wasting time on it. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Actions speak louder than words. Stopping the troll edits would have to occur first, before lifting the ban should be considered. Promising to stop the disruptive editing if the ban is lifted is backwards of the way it ought to be in this case. Red Act (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's "I'll stop being disruptive if I get the chance to be unbanned" not "I'll keep being disruptive until I'm unbanned." — Moe ε 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
[redacted edit by banned user]
He's still trolling. If anyone seriously thinks unbanning this guy would be a good idea I have a bridge to sell you. - Burpelson AFB 21:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If we let someone back onto the project as capitulation to try to stop their disruption, that sets a terrible, terrible precedent. -- Atama 23:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Normally I'd oppose unban of such a long term problematic user, but I detect here a glimmer he may have finally turned the tide, so I'm supporting ONE LAST CHANCE here, and he must follow all rules and cause no problems or reinstate the ban.BarkingMoon (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
(changed my mind) (redacted per JB Watson diff — BarkingMoon (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Very strongly oppose I did support unbanning (see above), but this edit has changed my mind completely. Nobody whose line is "I will be disruptive if you don't do what I want" can ever be trusted to be a constructive editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. One last final maybe chance has long since come and gone. As he's still socking, trolling, and attacking other editors, there is absolutely no reason to think this will change if empowered through a legit account. Kuru (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JamesBWatson. Do not support negotiating with terrorists. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

New proposal: Return with mentoring/probation[edit]

The community seems disinclined to an instant return for this user.

So perhaps a different proposal might work better. At such time that the community decides to allow LightCurrent to return, I'm prepared to mentor him, conditional on him accepting my terms.

I'd propose:

  1. Mentoring for a six month term
  2. Mentoring would be a form of probation
  3. His editing would initially be very restricted - he'd need to earn the trust to edit more freely
  4. ...other than the Ref Desks, which would remain off-limit permanently
  5. Anything I deemed a deliberate breach of my terms or egregious behaviour, or unconscious breach that I believed was testament to unfixable behaviour would result in me instantly imposing an indef block and returning here to request a reinstatement of the ban

I have some experience of mentoring a few editors back from bans. None of them have been rebanned to-date.

Perhaps if this were to follow a period of no socking by LC, say a month, to fall in line with the intention of the standard offer, the community may be inclined to approve it? --Dweller (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Tentative Support The diff above JBW concerns me. I'd certainly not care to be held hostage by anyoneChed :  ?  12:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I was, I think, one of this editor's strongest supporters, until I saw the edit I have linked to in my last comment, and I also believe have a history of frequently being willing to give blocked editors another chance when others are saying "no". However, I really cannot see my way to supporting removal of a ban from an editor who has publicly declared an intention of trying to hold us to ransom, especially after just a month. After two years perhaps, maybe at a stretch after six months, but not after one month. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comment. Even as we discuss this, the user is continuing with block/ban evasion and trolling: [12], so the likelihood that he/she will be a nice cooperative editor and refrain from socking for a month looks thin. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The user who made that post does not seem to be the same one as the one who has the Glitch Turner account. I'm thoroughly confused. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to be proved wrong. What are your grounds for thinking that? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
They say in their latest post that they're not the same person. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The key quote is "I am not Glitch Turner, but as everyone seems to be usig this page to talk to/about me, I shall use it too" --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
So either he is and he's lying...or he isn't and there is more than one troll at the party. Does it make a difference either way? Maybe they're both LC. Maybe the LC anagram is actually LC and the anon is the one pretending? Maybe neither is LC and it's just someone looking to have some fun with a banned editor's name? Whoever is or isn't whoever...have any of them shown that they want to edit productively, or are we just wasting time because a ref desk editor got sick of being questioned for removing a banned user's questions to the point where they suggested we just unban them instead? --OnoremDil 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Why are we giving this troll so much attention? It continues even during this conversation. Has there been any evidence in years that they actually want to contribute productively? Archive this whole mess and go back to RBI. LC, just go away, completely, for a few months at least. Show that if you can't figure out a way to be productive with your socks, you can at least not be a negative for some length of time before you try to lie to us all about how you want to help. --OnoremDil 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And another sockpuppet while we discuss it: Special:Contributions/Excrescence. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While the offer posed by Dweller reveals an editor who must have an admirable amount of patience, I don't believe the banned user has shown the least bit of good intention in any way, quite the opposite in fact, as the continued socking proves. I think your efforts will be invested much better by editing the encyclopedia, Dweller, than wasting them on this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Kind of you, but I'd like to think that a small amount of time invested by me now, could result in a ton of constructive edits from someone who did prove themselves capable of useful editing in the past. Besides, I enjoy helping people - it's the only reason I volunteer for additional responsibilities, and it keeps me fresh for content contribution. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That is certainly also appreciated, and I hope you will continue your efforts to help people. Personally, I just think this one is beyond help. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The "LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day" line from the beginning was all that needed to be said, as fair as I am concerned. Sometimes terrorists need to be capped rather than captured, sometimes baseball cheats don't get reinstated despite false apologies, and sometimes we need to stop spending so much time trying to excuse the behavior of bad editors. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kudos Dweller, I agree that if an editor can be salvaged, it's worth a shot. The experiment can be terminated easily enough and I'm sure you'd be on the case. If you are in contact with this person, advise them that we need at least six months without even a sniff of Lc at all, and none of that's-not-Lc either. If someone is impersonating them, they're hanging out with the wrong crowd. Six months of total quiet will cover a few cycles of troll-urge, if they can get that far, I would be willing to look at your proposal favourably. Six months of total quiet. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose mentoring at this time. I have a lot of respect for the proposal (and the proposer), but this is a prolific long-term nonconstructive editor, and the rest of us only have finite reserves of time and goodwill. The simplest way forward for lc is simply to stop misbehaving. Mentoring is a bad investment decision: , where:
    • is the likelihood that mentoring actually works,
    • is the future good work done by lightcurrent,
    • is the time that people still spend looking over the reformed editor's shoulder,
    • is the effort by the mentor, and
    • is the ongoing effort of RBI in the no-change scenario. (And we treat the latter three Ws as negatives; they're time that good editors could spend doing something else instead) bobrayner (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Glitch Turner is not Light current[edit]

People, we're wasting our time discussing this. A checkuser check would be required for conclusive proof of this, but it looks like Glitch Turner is indeed not actually Light current. IP edits which definitely are LC are saying that he isn't Glitch Turner[13][14][15], and Glitch Turner overwrote one of those statements, presumably to hide it.[16] Glitch Turner's writing style is also different from LC's. It appears that someone other than LC is checking to see if it would be possible to get LC unbanned by pretending to be LC and acting contrite. That's why LC is continuing to troll as we speak, in contrast with Glitch Turner's above contrite expression of a desire to be reformed. Red Act (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, bullshit. LC is not above fucking with us in this manner. I have seen nothing in the behavior of either Glitch Turner or of the IP edits by LC recently to indicate to me that they are not the same person. Even if what you say is 100% true, I am unconcerned with that. So we have two indef blocked trolls instead of one. Does it really matter? --Jayron32 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Whether the statement of contrition was or was not actually written by LC isn't what I consider to be the important point of my post. The intended point of my post was to argue that Glitch Turner's statement of contrition should not be taken as a sincere offer by LC to turn over a new leaf, and hence there is no reason for us to even consider unbanning LC. That intended point of my post, that there has been no sincere statement of contrition from LC, is a valid point either way, whether it's because Glitch Turner isn't even LC, or because the Glitch Turner posts are a part of some kind of LC mind fuck. Red Act (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit by banned user redacted]

I'm not in contact with LightCurrent, but would like to be. I suggest this conversation is shelved for the meantime. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Ken keisel adding unsourced material[edit]

Hi all -- User:Ken keisel has a long history of inserting unsourced or poorly sourced information into articles. He's been warned about this many times by many people. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Things have been coming to a head over the last month or so, when Ken has been making a large number of such contributions to various aviation-related articles, for example: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

I've been working with him to get citations in place for as many of these claims as possible, with mixed results. However, even while working through this process, he's continued adding unsourced information, most recently to Yankee Air Museum.[32] I reverted that addition and warned him that he might not be able to continue editing if he continues this behaviour. His immediate response was to go on a rampage of adding {{citation needed}} tags to a variety of articles [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] until an admin warned him to stop

Today, he re-added the uncited material to the Yankee Air Museum page and left a message on the article talk page explaining why he feels that articles about private organizations don't need citations.

His repeated and ongoing addition of uncited material is disruptive, and based on today's edits, I believe that he has no intention of stopping. I'd issue a short block myself at this point, but I consider myself involved. Could somebody else take a look please?

FWIW, I don't think he's ever deliberately inserted untrue material; just factual material that isn't cited and maybe can't be verified. I also agree that the aircraft articles he tagged could indeed be better cited, but the POINTy behaviour wasn't going to get other editors to work with him on that... --Rlandmann (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Is any of the stuff being added in serious doubt and/or controversial? It looks to me that Rlandmann and many people leaving those warning templates are misinterpreting WP:V, which says all info in Wikipedia must be verifiable, not necessarily actually cited. Verifiable means that a source exists. Uncited stuff can be challenged and removed as a matter of editorial judgment, but the "challenged" part (at least in the form of a good faith belief that the info is likely enough to be wrong that leaving it in the article is doing more harm than good) IMHO is a vital component of such a removal. The main exception is negative info in a BLP, which always must be cited. There is a wikipedia fork called Veropedia in which -everything- has to be cited, but WP doesn't use that approach. People who want citations for every single addition should look there instead of here. (Actually it looks like Veropedia is now dead, which may convey a lesson of its own).

I've seen a number of ANI threads recently where people have been confused about this, as a result of which we've been losing lots of good encyclopedic info that per AGF we're better off leaving alone. I'm not saying people should go off on OR sprees or spew mindless trivia (including cited trivia) into articles: I'm just talking about uncontroversial relevant info, like the electrical data about obsolete transistors that someone was removing recently. That stuff is fairly easy to verify if you can get your hands on old data books, and is useful and encyclopedic if you have to fix an old TV set or something like that. This aircraft stuff sounds comparable. Articles that are very closely sourced (contentious politics articles, for example) are frankly less credible than less closely sourced ones, because the close sourcing gives the impression of conflict between editors and consequently the likely presence of bad-faith editing. Ken Keisel looks to be pretty knowledgeable so if the stuff he's adding looks relevant and correct, I'd generally not worry about it. Just ask for cites for specific stuff that you have doubts about, and discuss his approach to editing with him at a general level (RFC/U if you must) rather than leaving warning templates and opening ANI threads. (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anon, and yes, I believe that each of the recent edits I linked above has specific WP:V or WP:CITE problems, either because they appear to require local knowledge (and are therefore WP:OR) [40], [41], [42] [43] because they're intrinsically "likely to be challenged" (claims of "the largest", "the heaviest")[44] [45] or they report an opinion [46]. I don't believe that "travel to the place and see for yourself" satisfies WP:V :)
This isn't new behaviour; Ken's been adding material based on hearsay or personal experience for some time.[47] [48] [49], so yeah, we have a problem here. Discussion has produced inconsistent results, so I'm happy to take it to an RFC/U if that's the best course of action. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add that this user is doing some very bizarre things. I'm not directly involved but my watchlist of aircraft articles recently lit up like a Christmas tree. Uncited original research has been added to some articles where mass 'citation needed' tagging has been added to others (in some cases added for extremely obvious and undisputed facts), that can only be deemed as disruptive editing and I perceived a level of spite coming through (intended or not). Many 'citation needed' tags were added to article leads which shows no appreciation or understanding of WP:CITELEAD. The reversion of this 'spree', as another editor coined it, obviously involved much unnecessary work for project editors. A recent exchange at Talk:Yankee Air Museum implied that Rlandmann was not qualified to edit the article and this rang alarm bells of ownership problems to me, apart from not appreciating at all that any Wikipedia article is open to editing by anyone unless ARBCOM or other restrictions apply.
I am not qualified to write about old aircraft engines but I managed to get the Rolls-Royce Merlin and Rolls-Royce R through FAC by using old fashioned books and the previous work/contemporary support of other editors. Another strange request from this user was that all aircraft article editors use the same source for specification sections, it did not gain consensus at WT:AIR and I should note that we don't use US dollars in England even if we could order this (unknown to me) publication. I can understand RLandmann's reluctance to block this user as required but I do feel in this case that more 'boldness' should be applied to protect the encyclopedia (which is the primary purpose of a block). FWIW Rlandmann's neutral judgment and patience level as an administrator over the three years plus that I have been here have been beyond reproach (see User talk:AMCKen for an example). If an RFC/U is filed then I will pitch up there but again it's a lot of unnecessary grief for someone to deal with. A personal thought is that the general level of arguing/bickering/whatever you want to call it has risen to new heights on WP and has dampened my enthusiasm to the point that I don't contribute articles anymore, this episode is just a continuation of the problems that are occurring daily, it's a great shame and I'm sure Jimbo rolls his eyes when he reads this stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I still think you guys are overreacting a bit, except in cases of info that's actually contentious. Maybe you should try mediation (medcab?) first, as it's less confrontational than my earlier suggestion of RFC/U, if you're having trouble disussing this with Ken directly. Looking at Ken's overall contrib history, I think he's not that experienced with how we try to do things with regard to sourcing, and he is basically making newbie-like errors despite having 2300+ edits (almost all his edits are in mainspace--he hasn't interacted with other editors all that much). But he really does seem pretty knowledgeable about aviation. So it may help if an outsider has a chat with him.

Remember always that the purpose of all those policies (V, NOR, etc.) is to make sure the encyclopedia is reliable and mainstream, rather than being ends in themselves. They have to be enforced pretty rigorously in areas of controversy, like politics and BLP's. In areas like science and math, they're actually enforced pretty loosely, yet those are the areas where Wikipedia's reputation is the highest, mainly because the editors in those areas tend to know what they're doing and not be pushing agendas. That's more valuable to the project than any amount of policy observance.

The problems in the diffs you've shown look fairly tame to me at most. They don't make me feel like the encyclopedia is threatened. If you think something from them has to be taken out of an article, I'd say remove it but put a note on the talk page saying what it was, so people can know about it and look for sourcing if they think it's interesting. I'm pretty busy with RL stuff this week and sleepy right now, but can probably try to discuss this with Ken next week if you think that might help (I've had reasonable results in this sort of situation before). I do agree that he should modify his style somewhat. (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Added: Nimbus, per Rlandmann's post, it sounds like the thing with the cite-tagging was a reaction to earlier cite requests that Ken felt affronted by. It was obviously inappropriate but I think it's been resolved. I also see the current discussion on Ken's talk page is not very friendly, and also it doesn't look like he's been notified of this thread. Look, he means well, please try to de-escalate the situation some. I'll try to leave him a note tomorrow but won't be able to spend much time on it. I also see he has asked for mediation, which seems like a good idea to me. (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified of this thread here. I also thought of 'having a chat' but reasoned that it would not work. The mediation attempt was a direct response to another editor reverting the 'citation needed' tags, an attempt to report that editor's 'vandalism' to the admins. It was the wrong venue (should have been here if there was a case to answer), was malformed and quickly deleted. This recent post on the user's talk page ( getting to the point where I can file a police report with my local police for pursuing me on Wikipedia. If you wish to test me by all means proceed.) could easily be taken for a legal threat and the user should be notified of the gravity of this wording. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This diff is very clearly a legal threat and requires immediate action. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Pointed him to WP:NLT in the section he started below and invited him to rephrase it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to be a bit late to this discussion. I only just learned about it. Reguarding my notification to user Rlandmann to file a police report, that is in direct response to increasingly bizarre and abusive statements made by the user on my Talk page, as well as the users continued efforts to follow me on Wikipedia, altering my contributions on every article I have edited, including articles outside his area of interest. Because this is a very serious matter I have added a discussion on this specific topic to this page below. As for the rest of this matter, I have been very clear about my concerns, and have stated them in discussions held on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft page. I returned ti Wikipedia because other aviation authors have commented to me that the articles are being used as a primary source by the general public, and much of the information contained in them is speculative, or downright incorrect. What I found are articles based on very poor sources that are totally lacking any form of standardization with regard to content, sources, or even the standards by which the sources are judged. One of my first principal concerns was that the performance figures are drawn from a wide variety of sources, if they are sourced at all. These sources do not agree on the methods or standards by which the list their performance figures, making it quite impossible for the reader to make a useful comparison of the performance of any two aircraft (Imagine how hard it would be to compare the performance of two autos if no one could agree what the length of a mile was, and you have a good idea what I'm getting at). I pointed out that there is a publication available for around $5.000 that lists all this data to a common standard, and suggested that they authors employ this for their figures. The objection I received was that no one wanted to spend the $5.00, so there was no consensus. I freely admit that while away Wikipedia's template for posting references has become somewhat complicated, and I am doing my best to learn it. A second, and perhaps more serious problem has been user Rlandmann following my every movement on Wikipedia, altering or deleting every entry I make. If he had wanted to check my use of Wikipedia templates that would be justifiable, but to follow me to critique the content of each of my postings is beyond the function of any editor, and does become abusive when he deletes a passage I added to an article on an organization I have belonged to for 21 years that merely listed the location of their aircraft while their museum is being rebuilt. This information is non-controversial, and non-abusive, and benefits both the article and the organization. Rlandmann did not have any evidence to challenge the information, but deleted it anyway. Another problem that I have seen crop up recently is the use of highly speculative sources as references for articles. The same people who are deleting information I post about organizations I belong to are posting information based on statements made on sites such as "", a publication generally regarded as "The National Inquirer" for geeks. I am suggesting ways that this small group of editors could greatly expand the accuracy of their articles and getting no interest, while being threatened with blocking for providing information that is far more factual than much of the garbage that has been added lately. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────As per User_talk:Ken_keisel#Warning and also below at #Edit_Stalking_by_user_Rlandmann this user has now been indefinitely blocked for making legal threats. I am not sure that any other action on this entry is therefore required. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

AFD topic ban of MoonLichen[edit]

MoonLichen (talk · contribs) This user has some odd activity at AFD, basically adding nonsense or "joke" !votes to AFD's. Examples:

This is all very odd. User has been asked a couple of times to use better rationales. I left them a note last night, but they carried on (this morning with the Macedonia summary) without responding at all. In fact they don't seem to have responded to concerns at all.

Propose a topic ban to read:

  • MoonLichen is topic banned indefinitely from all deletion related pages until such a time as they can adequately demonstrate understanding of the deletion process and guidelines.

Thoughts? --Errant (chat!) 08:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Moonlichen is some kind of troll account for the most part, i noted it when first created.--Milowenttalkblp-r 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
A review of their contributions indicate a) a familiarity with high-level WP policy b) that this is probably not their first account. This is not an editor who does not know what they are doing. The AfD carry-on is not terribly disruptive, but it is of no value to the process and adds only noise; if they keep it up, issue a block warning and take it from there. Topic-banning is a little heavy-handed at this point I think. Skomorokh 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A single-line comment that disagrees with your sensibilities does not make someone a troll. There are far more policies against being a mean to other editors than against being a little goofy now and then. Lighten up. --MoonLichen (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You've done this multiple times and it has proven disruptive to others with no benefit to the project. If you want to keep playing silly buggers, go ahead, but don't complain you weren't warned if you end up blocked. Skomorokh 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the topic ban is in order. A quick run through their history show no useful contribution to that process, and a lot of mild disruption by annoying everyone else without being responsive to concerns. — Coren (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm somewhat on the fence. Some mild goofiness is fine, and the user has made some useful copy edits, for instance. A series of edits a few months ago made me think that this was a vandalism-only account, but it's not. On the other hand, I am an elephant and have not forgotten this edit and the associated mess, where the user had to be admonished by an administrator to a. keep their goofiness within bounds of our policies and b. to at least try and act like an adult. That rudeness is a hallmark of trolling as well and does not indicate a desire for cooperative editing. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanctions. We're not topic banning humor accounts from AfD are we [50]? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    It's not really occasional humour though - but persistent and slightly annoying "keep" comments which are not useful. Topic Ban was intended as a lightweight way of pointing out that the joke is wearing thin :) --Errant (chat!) 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    You realize, of course, that the AfD to which you link is an April Fool's, right? — Coren (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Except that it's not and I'm confusing it with someone else. It was ridiculous, but not for that reason. — Coren (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I can't see how this is helping the process --Guerillero | My Talk 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to spank him for colorful violation of WP:TALK!! Make his ass cheeks on red and one blue! Tijfo098 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The admin getting the prize for taking MoonLichen seriously is... drum roll... (did you guess?) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Huh? No, I didn't guess, and it has nothing to do with this. Sandstein comments, as closing administrator, that MoonLichen's arguments don't make sense. How is that taking them seriously? And why the silly little drum roll? If you have a bone to pick with Sandstein, bring it up at another lame attempt at humor. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support a AFD topic ban but I think its not really needed anymore as if he does it again he will clearly be blocked and has been warned of that. I still remember the user redirecting his talkpage to a sexual expletive, he had to be warned he would be blocked before he stopped reverting to that position and one of his AFD comments is even in a foreign language (Swedish). Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanctions. My goodness. Really? Take a good long look in the mirror. Giving ourselves just a tad too much importance? Project needs a lighter side. Most funny people overdo it in time, feel silly, turn it down a notch, then resume. So they used profanity. Oh well. I propose that editors voting "support" here go find a real issue on the project, there are people on here with chainsaws (socks, real uncivility, agendas, POV pushers, etc). Ridiculous.Turqoise127 22:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I take offence at that! You can find me being silly or cracking jokes in the appropriate places! :) MoonLichen is simply ignoring polite requests to scale it back.. that's concerning. --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per nom and Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since I first saw this account a couple months ago, I've been hearing quite a few quacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Get a life. —SW— confer 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think sanctions are the best approach. I've also queried this editor, several times, and received no response - other than moving my posts to their odd sub-talk-page and calling my edits 'vandalism'. I'd suggest a strong warning for tendentious editing, and if that fails, a block. If they're not prepared to discuss things, it's detrimental to the project - and their contribs to AfD in particular are more disruptive than they are amusing.  Chzz  ►  10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I see no need for a ban - just warn for disruption and block if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Page move during requested move discussion[edit]

At 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Dbpjmuf initiated a requested move discussion of the page Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) to Ernst August Prinz von Hannover. That discussion continues. Dbpjmuf then moved the page unilaterally to Ernst August Prince of Hanover (born 1954). This is a name the page has NEVER had before - although it was at Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954) (i.e. with a comma). I reverted this move to the page name at the beginning of the requested move discussion, but now Dbpjmuf has moved the page again unilaterally to Ernst August Prinz von Hanover (1954-). Could an administrator please explain to Dbpjmuf that this isn't the way things are meant to work. I'm sure that he has his reasons for moving a page during a requested move discussion, but .... Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the page from "Prin eErnst August, Prince of Hanover (1954-)", a title unilaterally intorduced by DWC LR. The pre-dispute title was"Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954)"" Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)" was a new title you unilaterally introduced during the dispute.Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Just curious, why is the DOB in the article's title? I'm not sure that's the way things are supposed to work either. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The date is meant to disambiguate this Ernst August from his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and son, all who have (or had) the same name and title. --NellieBly (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah...looking at Ernst August, I see what you mean. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I tried to move it to the title in the RM (Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)) but clearly I messed up and accidently hit enter on my keyboard. I asked at WP:RM for someone to move it to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) as otherwise it will confuse the ongoing RM. I will ask again. - dwc lr (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Related to this, I've also had an issue lately where Dbpjmuf has been redirecting the trademark Honey Baked Ham away from HoneyBaked Ham to Ham with a hatnote, even though it has been discussed that branding of a product takes preference from the generic product. I'd like clarification on this. Nate (chatter) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Resolved: Thanks to User:Boing!_said_Zebedee for removing talk page access and extending block by 24hrs. - Happysailor (Talk) (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Requesting removal of talk page access, and possibly extension of the block due to continued abuse on own talk page - Happysailor (Talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mario! But our Princess is in another castle!Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Fungal friends, have no fear! :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Heyheyheyhey! Stop stealing my shtick, or I'll sic the internet police on you! HalfShadow 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Luigi, but I think I'm in the right castle Face-smile.svg - I'm not looking for page protection - Happysailor (Talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
RFPP also deals with talk page revocations. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Problem has been solved, user cannot edit talk page as per User:Boing!_said_Zebedee. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Freddie and the Dreamers[edit]

Freddie and the Dreamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Quinn2go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quinn2go

I'm sorry for trying to do this at multiple places (mainly, having this thread, RPP and SPI at the same time) but I'm really getting fed up with this. The article's talk page has been practically dominated by an army of socks that only use it to soapbox and possibly to attack the subject. Since there are now several different IPs doing this, I think in addition to blocking the socks, I think the talk page should be semiprotected for a good while to prevent the accumulation of new chitchat from these socks. I also am highly surprised that Quinn2go, a vandalism-only sockpuppeteer account hasn't been indef-blocked already. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

EDIT: HJ Mitchell semiprotected the page. This should settle the issue (unless they find another page for their soaping that is). Thanks! Zakhalesh (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor with phone number in username[edit]

So there's a pretty new editor (arriving in mid-April) whose username incorporates what appears to be a full (US) telephone number. To complicate the mix, although the phone number would correspond to a US location, the editor works almost exclusively on article relating to Philippine television. Is this an appropriate situation? (I don't want to call attention to the actual username, so I'm not posting it here). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is indeed a real, registered number, then it's probably best to advise the user that this is not really a good idea (due to possible phone spam and such) and they should consider a user name change. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
There are probably too many unknowns here to give advice that would be correct in all circumstances. For example, how do you know it's a US phone number and not some other 10 digit number? Is the editor actively claiming it's their phone number? Is their editing problematic? Have you talked to them about it? etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Has the user in question been informed of this discussion? —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I've notified her tonight. I didn't want to possibly distress a new user unless other folks felt raising the issue was reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to admit, I am disappointed the number isn't 867-5309. Resolute 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Incidentally, a TNID search comes back as an invalid number. [51] Also, [52] doesn't list 953 as a valid exchange in the 213 area code. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat or frustration?[edit]

Resolved: user blocked Rklawton (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Empress Ericka (talk · contribs) posted this message which appears to contain a legal threat. The user does not state that they will take any action, so I have not blocked them. The message does seem to be designed to intimidate, however. The source of the user’s frustration can be found here, with additional opinion located here. I think the user would benefit from some clue, but my attempts to help have failed and my opinion (derived from their oblique statements) is that the user would rather I did not continue my effort. Thanks for your time Tiderolls 03:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved non-admin, If things arent changed quickly her label and lawyers plan to get invovled. and but you need to get back to me, seriously, within a 24 hour period. sounds like a legal threat to me, and maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I can't see it as anything but a legal threat. - SudoGhost (talk) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a legal threat. From reading the comments she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and doesn't care, and will "File a compaint" if she doesn't get what she wants. [53] --OpenFuture (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Call in and file some kind of complaint" is not a legal threat. In fact, we've got BLP processes set up specifically to handle such complaints. Rklawton (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
While that diff isn't a legal threat (IMO), the one posted at the top most certainly is. - SudoGhost (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The "threat" at the top is 3rd person, so that's a gray area. The person posting is just big fan and doesn't speak for the artist or the label. I've resolved the main problem, however. I went to Anita's website (the one we list in her article and maintained by her label), clicked on her Twitter link (so we know it's not an imposter), and found where she posted her birth day and month. I noted this on the talk page, posted a link, and restored her article back to the last edit containing the correct date. I see no reason why this shouldn't end the matter. Rklawton (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked for continued legal threats. –MuZemike 05:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good, too. Rklawton (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I really wish that someone would have contacted me on either my talk page or my email, which is activated, since the offending comment was made on my talk page, thus somewhat involving me. Often I get so many people contacting my talk page in the same period of time that I miss seeing everything, or don't have time to respond immediately. I would have appreciated being a part of this discussion. I hope that my good faith edits and advice given to User:Empress Ericka (all done only on her talk page, and mine; no email or communication outside Wikipedia) show that I was in not attempting to encourage her either to give up entirely, or to encourage her to continue in the same fashion given the WP:MOS and the WP:COI issues after she identified herself as the A&R employee of at least one record label, never identified for both Kaki King and Cindy Blackman. I had a hard time with another editor who was blocked for the same reason was more than enough for me! I try to learn from my mistakes, and tried to assist User:Empress Ericka as much as possible while still warning her of the importance of WP:NPOV. If there is any scrutiny or problem with the advice I gave her, the feedback would be helpful for me to know how to interact with problems of this nature in the future. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by OpinionAreLikeAHoles and anon IP[edit]

OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has removed referenced content from Women's rights in Saudi Arabia twice, both times with dishonest edit summaries. The first deletion of referenced content was marked as a minor edit [54] and "unclear" (It is a one sentence quote from a Muslim feminist that is quite clear). The second [55] also contained a flatly dishonest edit summary stating that my revert removed content (I was restoring content).

Between OpinionsAreLikeAHoles' reverts, anon IP removed the same content, also with a dishonest edit summary "restored content" (content was removed). [56]. Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material: [57] .

All the IP's edits are related to the MIddle East. And almost all of OpinionAReLikeAHoles' are as well. The latter editor registered a month ago, and immediately began making sophisticated edits.

Neither editor has made any comment in Talk. I'm not sure how long the content has been there, but I went back 500 edits, to August 2010, and it is there [58]. So it seems to be in the "consensus, but controversial" category. The article has been plagued by editors with obvious agendas regarding Middle Eastern politics trying to remove that quote.

Maybe this should a sockpuppet report, or an edit warring report. There is a little of both, and a whiff of vandalism.... Mindbunny (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I also wonder if OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is an acceptable name. Mindbunny (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I shouldn't dignify this with a response..... but what the hey. I am confident any admin will see right through this troublesome editor's report here. 1) Mindbunny has a personal grudge against me since a re-inserted a comment critical of his behavior at Lara Logan, back onto his own Talk page. 2) in my short time here, I've learned to use the Talk page a lot, as a look at my Contributions will show. 3) I only inadvertently removed content the first revert on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia (an article I came to to see in what other ways Mindbunny has attempted to belittle discrimination against Womyn). I since restored the source. 4) I am obviously not responsible for the actions of anonymous IPs, and he's claim that I am the same person is laughable (I encourage any admin to investigate). I know I've kind of asked for it by delving into these Wiki pages and commenting myself - but I do find this a bit rich. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Mindbunny notes above that "Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material". It's interesting that this removal was identical to, and shortly after, an edit by a suspected sockpuppet.[59][60] RolandR (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, one of Nableezy's friends trying to get revenge on me for commenting on his case. As I say, I guess I've brought this on myself for getting involved in all these dramas - but I must say I'm rather surprised by the "wolf-pack" mentality of some on here. Admin: please investigate me, and then kindly punish those who are making the false accusations! :-D OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
OpinionsAreLikeAHoles should consider requesting a username change, the current one isn't really acceptable. - Burpelson AFB 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Really? Who do you really think would find it offensive??? OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:U is pretty clear that you aren't allowed to have usernames with profanity or implied profanity; not that I personally mind it, but our username policy does say as much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Some further info. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is editing via an Amazon Web Services Account although he claimed not to be aware of that. He seems to make a number of edits while logged out, see IP and the edits by IP's starting 175.41. at Itasca High School (Texas) + their contrib histories for example. I think I'm okay providing the IPs here per the privacy policy because there is concern about abuse of the project and whether this user may be a sockpuppet, possibly of prolific sockmaster User:Ledenierhomme. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly of User:AFolkSingersBeard (which could possibly be itself a sock of Ledenierhomme). RolandR (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes's difficult to keep track of all the socks nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Corrections. I said the account was created a month ago. It was created two weeks ago--and immediately knew how to edit in sophisticated ways. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has never "restored" the material in question, although the user keeps claiming otherwise. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh oh. I think Opinions answered NorthernBlades comment about user name on his talk page using the wrong account Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He quickly realized it and removed the comment with a "Whoops wrong person". I'm requesting checkuser and will notify Vassos55...does anyone else see what I'm seeing?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Oops..oh dear. And there was I thinking the box of seaweed we bought this evening with the brand name "Big Sheet" was going to be the funniest thing today... Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 Possible connection based on CU evidence. They both share the same UA, but IPs and geolocation are all over the place. However, webhosts and other gateways are being used, which may explain that. –MuZemike 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, MuZemike. I believe they are the same based on the sock's flub.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Vassos55's edits at Cyprus internment camps were to reinsert material previously supported by User:Telaviv1. I have no evidence of a connection. Zerotalk 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone's playing games. Got another IP doing the same thing - copying text from another section and inappropriately replacing existing content. [61] --NeilN talk to me 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This IP claims[62] to be Runtshit. The editing pattern does not bear this out; but it is clear that this and many other IPs and SPAs carrying out similar disruptive edits are part of a big sock farm. RolandR (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It looks like OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has walked away from this account. It's currently blocked pending a request for username change. I assume he is now using another sockpuppet account and/or is editing logged out probably via another proxy server. Are both OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) going to be blocked for sockpuppetry and if so, when ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Update: He has just been unblocked as his user name change was approved. Hello? Anybody out there? Tiamuttalk 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Teacher / class editing[edit]

user blocked, talk access revoked
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.

Teacher asked on helpdesk about using Wikipedia in class, and I advised - mostly, "use drafts", "do not share accounts" - Wikipedia:HD#Afternoon Wikipedians.

The teacher disregarded the advice, and allowed pupils to share the account and create live pages, e.g. [63] [64].

I further advised, in clear polite terms, not to share accounts - the teacher claims Jimbo / WMF have OK'd it. See User talk:MrPurcellsClass and User_talk:Chzz#Thank You.

I gave an 'only warning', but he is insistent that he has permission via WMF. Please advise.  Chzz  ►  12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't take "I have been in correspondence with Jimmy Wales, Wikimedia and associates and they said it was a great idea and the use of just one account he said was 'a great ideas, Mr Purcell! Go for it and don't let anyone stop you'." at face value - at least, not without some actual evidence to back it up. I suppose you could leave a note on Wales' talk page to get further confirmation? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Note ongoing edits from this user, Wikipedia is committing a crime against humanity and my pupils are very talented and wish to edit and experiment with the Normal wikipedia. Is there any chance you could make me an admin? It would make my job easier. etc.  Chzz  ►  12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Those above comments he made on editors talk pages make me a bit suspicious on the original statements from the editor - Happysailor (Talk) 12:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting development - [65] - just reported to AiV - Happysailor (Talk) 12:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this is a moot point now: KFP blocked the account for disruption and legal threats. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • User is blocked now for disruption. I'd guess this could be impersonation by pupils. Perhaps we should delete the user page too? --KFP (contact | edits) 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
    I have placed the standard indef block notice, with directions on how to request unblock, on their page. Let them learn how to use that (or not). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
User page deleted. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the prompt help, everyone. I was suspecting trolling from early on, but had to balance it with AGF and not wishing to bite, etc. I think we dealt with that pretty well. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblock request declined. I suggest that we only deal with the request trough the unblock-en-l mailing list, and require a school mail for the unblock. Right now, i believe we got an impersonation issue, or at least a case where one cannot know who requests the unblock (Teacher or pupil) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:54, 13 May 2011 (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.
  1. MrPurcellsClass (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Shuvuhikovsky (talk · contribs).
  2. As a corollary of the CU results, the user was not editing from a school. Hence, I would bank that this is another disruptive sock account more than anything else.

MuZemike 21:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Changing music recording certifications by several ip-addresses[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


these anonymous users change certifications from several discographies. Everything began with the first ip-address,, where he upgraded BPI music recording certifications on five discos, see [66], [67], [68] and [69]. I reverted his revisions, except on Whitesnake discography, where it was correct, and put a warning on his talk page. Then made this revision: [70] (again UK certs!). Now, I warned him with {{uw-vandalism1}}, because it is obviously that it was not a good-faith edit. And last but not least, who edited again the same discos: [71] and [72]. I put the same warnings as before. This is logical that they are actually the same editors. What do you think? Is a topic-ban appropriate in this case? Or do you have a better solution? Oh and certs are listed on [73]; just type the name of the band or musician and you will see the certs. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) All three IPs belong to the same ISP and geolocate to the same area. Looks like a single IP-hopping editor to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Clearly these IPs are used by one user. I doubt that there is any point in a topic ban, as it is highly unlikely the user would take any notice of it, and when a user IP-hops over such a wide range there is no effective way of enforcing a ban. I have semi-protected the articles for a month. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Multiple accounts and more[edit]

Bill Huffman appears, from his own admission to be operating multiple accounts. He appears to be using the Bill Huffman account to collect what he feels to be negative information about yours truly. In doing so, he appears to watch conversations that take place on my talk page, then goes to the other editors and tries to recruit them into collecting negative information [74] [75] [76] [77]. I was responsible for highlighting to ArbCom that Huffman, who operates an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart was trying to get negative information on Smart placed in the Wikipedia article by making suggestions on the article talk page as well as operating multiple accounts