Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive414

I want to point out that the article Melissa Farley has been blanked, ostensibly at the request of the subject of the article, Melissa Farley. Because I am the other party in an NPOV dispute with the editor who blanked the page, and because the action just took place, I'm a bit nervous that any attempt on my part to revert the blanking will result in potential revert warring. Hence, my request for outside intervention in what should only require a simple revert on my part. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the details of what's going on there but it seems to have been contentious for a long time and you guys might benefit from some outside input, such as a third opinion, restarting your mediation case, a content RFC and so on. I've restored the article and I've left the user a message. Sarah 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested in starting a mediation case, but the other editor in the dispute has twice now simply dropped out of sight each time a mediation case begins, only to come back with the same complaints once the case has been closed for lack of input. I have also tried an RfC before, but most other editors are simply scared off, both by the intensity of the dispute, and the sheer backlog of material concerning the case. WP:3O seems like it might be a good option, however – if another editor who is actually willing to wade through the history of the dispute and the issues involved were to weigh in with a well-considered opinion, it might help settle a dispute between two editors who are completely at loggerheads over this. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Longhair (talk · contribs) has abused his admin privileges by deleting my user page. He had no right to do so, and claimed it was because my user page was "Blatant Advertising", which is utter nonsense. I can only assume he has something to hide, namely that he was responsible for the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Missing 4 Year Old (talk)

Suspected troll account. -- Longhair\^talk 09:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, pretty clear troll account. One more edit of that type and I'll indefinitely block myself. WP:BLP is not a joke. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's obvious enough. The last sentence is a give away. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by East718. End of story. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Very clear troll account...even without the very tactful last sentence. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to persuade anyone's opinion either way :) Edits speak for themselves... -- Longhair\^talk 09:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This was blockable on the username alone. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Longhair is now patiently awaiting the arrival of the Portuguese police, on the basis of the careful case laid out in the first line of this post. </sarcasm> Orderinchaos 09:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, help with this would be cool. We're arguing over which images go where in the article. I say the more current, 3D rendition of the character should go on top while the old art on a Japanese TCG card should just be below in another section because it really isn't suitable to represent the article. However, User:A Link to the Past keeps reverting my edits, thus removing the 3D image altogether and putting the TCG image back on top. It's pretty annoying.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No admin intervention is needed here. Have you tried any steps in our dispute resolution process, like taking it to the talk page of the article, asking for a third opinion, or making a request for comments? Fram (talk) 07:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that certain people are blocked after checkuser and some are not.

Is this reason? Multiple voting from the same IP.

Or is there a reason to allow leniency since it is not proven, just suspected. On the other hand, if we use the standard "leniency until proven" then some of the people blocked after the checkuser should be unblocked.

RFCU link

Please explain. I am open to explanation just as I became more aware of the "keep" side after I submitted an AFD that I thought was an obvious "delete". So I am not accusing anyone of anything. JerryVanF (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was overturned at the DRV here, and one of the reasons for overturning was that only the sockpuppets !voted to keep

The users have not still been blocked because the sockpuppet case has not still been closed, look at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Dwyerj. Once it's closed, the closing admin will block the adequate users. Wait until the case is closed, look at what the closing admin does. Then, if you still see something wrong, then please discuss it with the closing admin *before* coming here to ANI, in case that it's just a mistake or a misunderstanding from the admin and you are able to solve any problem by talking with him. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For background information, see this AN/I thread and this one. Guy is following his archennemies, such as me: reverting me on an article with an insulting comment and threats on my talk page (promises me some strange sexual assault). As that IP has been stable at least for 2 days, maybe it will be usefull to do something. Thanks. Bradipus (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

However, no-one seems to have tried reasoning with him on his talkpage. Just a straight block without prior interaction would be a bit impulsive, wouldn't it? Lradrama 08:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously didn't have a look at te above referred pages. Did you just read the comments to his edits? This guy is the worst vandal we ever had on WP:fr, and he is issuing death threats towards WP:fr admins since he was banned about 2 years ago. He is just a guy with with a very serious issue, his IP's are regularly blocked on WP:en. What kind of reasoning do you suggest with somebody like that O_o  ? Bradipus (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and it seems to quack. See m:Vandalism reports/BogaertB. LegitimateSock (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

After a Wikiquette alert found his behaviour to be at fault, an RFC was filed about this user here, relating to incivility and name calling. He refused to accept the findings of the alert and as yet has not replied to the RFC.

The problem is since then he has made some very serious claims about User:Jza84 "vote-rigging" here and here. These were found to be without evidence (as the vote was carried out long before he joined). The bad behaviour detailed in the RFC is continuing in his edits, which (in my opinion) are getting increasingly disruptive. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can we do? MRSC • Talk 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite several warnings,[1] [2] [3] MRSC has attempted to bully me around Wikipedia and has violated Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Harassment, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, amongs others only this morning, in his all consuming crusade against me, an obsesive crusade in which he is attempting to drag me away from peacefully editing articles.

• Examples of violation of WP:EDIT WAR can be found on Saddleworth White Rose Society, where he also violated WP:VER by removing material[4], which is sourced[5] [6] without discussing his controversial change on the talkpage first.
• Examples of violation of WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:TALK can be found here[7] on the talk page of the article Yorkshire, where violating the "comment on the content, not the editor" philosophy of WP:NPA. He disrupted Wikipedia in order to make a point, violating the purpose of WP:TALK which is to discuss the article and its content.
• Examples of continuous violations of WP:HARASS can be found in the fact that he, along with Jza keeps antagonising me in regards to my RFC both on my talk[8] [9] and in MRSC's case the harassment and disruption has spread to talk pages of articles.[10] [11] This despite the fact that MRSC has been made fully aware of the fact that I have 30 days to completely compile my countering evidence for the RFC (which he began only last night), which understandably takes some time and thus why the "Closing RFCs" timeline policy is in lane.[12] And the fact that this morning, I have discussed it with administrator KieferSkunk [13].

The way MRSC and friend address me on my talk page, is in a "can do no wrong" condoscending, and "holier than thou" manner, which is in itself offensive and a cause for friction. MRSC's almost trance like obsession with me, unwillingness to let old disagreements go, is exemplified in him following me around from article to article only this morning, when I was add information to them. It is an uncomfortable feeling, to the point of weirding me out that, every edit and move I make on Wikipedia is being watched over my shoulder by MRSC and friend, ready to jump on me at any moment in an act of harassment and Wikilawyering in an attempt to get legislation against me for the simple reason that the two disagree on some elements of content disputes. Concerning the most recent behaviour, and given he is ignoring talk page comments about it, what can I do? - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please (both of you) go go here and follow the directions. This is not the place for this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise, I'll put it through the apropriate channel. - Yorkshirian (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I had advised MRSC to bring a report here if the dispute continued to escalate despite a failed WP:WQA and no apparent response to the WP:RFC/U. After the RFC was filed, MRSC reported that Yorkshirian's behavior was continuing, and Yorkshirian himself said he did not plan to respond to the RFC in a timely manner - he would give the RFC a full 30 days to see if it was "a waste of [his] time", which seems also to be wasting everyone else's time. Additionally, such a statement makes it clear to me that dispute resolution is unlikely to resolve the dispute. — KieferSkunk (talk)—15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Venting) Okay, administrators. I am starting to get really tired of either reporting things here myself or referring other people here, PER OUR POLICIES, and having the issues completely ignored. This is no less than the sixth time this has happened, where a request for help has gone completely unanswered on this forum (and eventually auto-archived) or has been dismissed out of hand with no pointers to a more appropriate forum that hasn't already been used. Good editors are leaving the project because of disputes that need quick intervention by experienced admins.

Now, as regards this particular dispute: Several steps at WP:DR have already been tried, and according to the people who filed the initial WP:WQA complaint, Yorkshirian's behavior is continuing to disrupt the project. Yorkshirian also contends that the people filing the complaint are harassing him and disrupting the project. There has so far been no traction at RFC - Yorkshirian has stated that he intends to wait 30 days for a bot to archive the RFC before he considers responding to it, indicating that he feels it's a waste of time. In the meantime, according to MRSC and Jza, he is continuing to act with considerable derision toward his fellow editors, making some serious allegations of abuse against other editors in the process.

This situation is beyond anything I can currently help with, as it regards a regional dispute that I am not qualified to speak to. The issues of civility may not be blockable, but I believe they require more immediate attention than can be given via WP:RS - I do not wish to take action because of a perception that I am biased in the situation, so it would be very helpful to get at least one other admin to take a look at this.

If this is not the best place for another set of eyes, please direct me to the correct Noticeboard. I am already aware of WP:DR and its instructions, and I'm of the opinion that, given what's happened so far, DR is not likely to work.

Thank you. — KieferSkunk (talk)—22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this is still not getting any attention, I've advised the people involved that the people running ANI apparently are too busy and/or don't care to help. Thanks for helping us enforce our civility policies, folks. I really appreciate it. I hope we don't lose more good editors over this flap. — KieferSkunk (talk)—16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not that no one cares, but nobody has found anything for an admin to do about this. The original advice, that you take this dispute to Dispute resolution, is the most helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi KieferSkunk, in my humble opinion, the user conduct dispute resolution process (apart from arbcom) isn't functioning at the moment. I'm of the opinion that part of the problem is lack of enthusiasm for the WP:RFC/USER process, which probably needs an overhaul, if not outright replacement. PhilKnight (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile on your talk page I've also suggested looking into Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, which is an informal mediation process. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops I see the page has a backlog tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Not mentioned here is this suspected sockpuppet report. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should just calm down. "Personal attack" or "civil statement" depends entirely upon the wording of the sentence, not the intent. For example, I could say "I'm confused by your recent edits" or "what the fuck are you doing", and it would be the exact same thing. It wouldn't change the intent of the message from benign to malicious. Now for example, I could say "you're an asshole" or I could say "Your edits indicate sockpuppetry, trolling, and disruptive behaviors"; same derogatory effect, but "you're an asshole" is a personal attack, whereas "you're a troll" is policy. Just take into account the jist of what's said instead of the way it's said, we'll all be a lot better off. Ziggy Sawdust 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:bardcom

Editor is reverting all of my edits blindly and is engaged in edit-warring. For many articles, he has now reverted three times. He started by reverting my edits on 13 different articles, of which he's reverted 6 to the point of 3 reverts this morning. While I can keep reverting, etc, it's obvious that this editor is wikistalking. Check out his contributions page to see that most of his reverts have no explanation, etc. and are mostly with the (non) reason (Rv.).

I've put some background on User Talk:Nakon as he blocked anon IP's for this behaviour recently. I reported this on the WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism page but was advised to take it here.

• 3 Examples:
• Looking at the revision history of Denmark here, Tharky's first revert was at 14:08. His most recent revert has also reverted another editors edits in the meantime.

• Looking at the revision history of Chondrus crispus, he has reverted 3 times. No explanation, no Talk.

• Looking at the revision history of Demography of the United Kingdom, same thing.

--Bardcom (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strictly, this is a content dispute, although the edit-warring back and forth is not great conduct. The dispute appears to be over whether "British Isles" or "Britain and Ireland" should be used. TharkunCoil is convinced it should be "British Isles". Similarly, Bardcom is convinced it should be "Britain and Ireland". I haven't actually found anywhere where either have stated why this should be the case, or why the other option is wrong, but as it's a dispute spanning numerous articles I may have missed it. Is there any reasoning behind this, anywhere? I would suggest WP:RFC is the appropriate venue to get a determination on which is the correct terminology to use. Neıl ☎ 11:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil, with respect, I disagree that it's a content dispute, and the dispute is not over whether "British Isles" or "Britain and Ireland" should be used. I've replied to your query on my Talk page. If it was a content dispute, there would be evidence of a dispute, or a discussion, or conflicting reasons given on the reverts. There are none of these things. You are leaping to an assumption by saying it's a content dispute, and this plays down the wikistalking, lack of AGF, blind reverting with no reasons, and edit warring behaviour of TharkunColl. This has nothing to do with content and everything to do with TharkunColl targetting my edits. Not anybody elses. Not other articles with similar content. Just my edits. --Bardcom (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a content dispute. Evidence of the dispute is all the reversion, re-reversions, re-re-reversions, and so on. I have looked at the reasoning you give on your talk page, and it does appear sound, but it IS a content issue, and TharkunColl only appears to be "stalking" you because you are the person who made the edits in the first place. Reverting one specific edit a specific editor has made across a number of articles does not amount to wikistalking. I should point out I have blocked TharkunColl before, and threatened him with indefinite blocking, so please don't think I'm taking his side against you. Now, TharkunColl has not given good reasons for his reversions, and so I will have a word with him as that isn't great, but please avoid simply reverting back immediately. Try continuing to engage him on his talk page. Neıl ☎ 12:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Neil. It's not too big a leap to say it's a content dispute, but it's still an assumption really :-). I wasn't sure what to do. We could have reverted back and forth in an edit war I suppose, and I was getting frustrated as it's very time-consuming to revert tons of articles all because a single editor is having a bad hair day, so I was looking for early intervention. This editor is breaking many policies and being disruptive - my personal feeling is that this editor knows how Wikipedia works well enough to know what is acceptable behaviour and what is not, and I believe a firmer stance should be taken with non-newbies. I'd already reverted his current batch of edits before your comment above, but I'll have a go at continuing to engage him on his talk page first. I'd appreciate if you could continue to keep an eye though. Thanks again for the good advice. --Bardcom (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I should point out I did just spot Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bardcom which is on pretty much this same issue, and didn't really establish a consensus either way. Given this, though, I think one of the caveats arrived at there ("please don't change mentions of British Isles without consensus") is a reasonable one, although I wouldn't feel constrained by it. My advice would be to make these changes where you see fit, explaining the reason for the change in the edit summary. If that change is reverted, then engage the reverter in discussion, explain your reason concisely, be willing to listen to their reasoning as you would hope they would listen to yours, and hopefully come to an agreement. It's basically WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. Neıl ☎ 12:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The RfC has been pretty much discounted on *all* counts. All of the disputed edits were upheld. Again, it's an example where people assume some sort of plot. I gave a detailed response on the Talk page (a tad frustrated perhaps) that covers all the main points. Since then, the editor that brought the RfC has acknowledged that I am acting in good faith, and that my edits (while unpopular with certain editors) are sound.

There was no agreement to avoid changing mentions of British Isles (as an aside, I recall a discussion on this topic where it was rejected on the basis that there are no "special" terms in Wikipedia where permission is required before changing). I also agree that submitting change requests before some sort of committee if the changes involve the term "British Isles" would not work. Your advice is pretty much what I've been doing all along. It's only in the past couple of weeks that my edits have been wholesale blindly reverted by anon IP addresses. This is the first time that a registered user has engaged in the same behaviour, and I'll admit that I suspect a link. The anon IP addresses invariably were blocked for this exact behaviour.

In the absense of an admin willing to intervene, I'm pretty much left on my own, aren't I? I never engage in ad hominen attacks, and I always try to be open and explain as best I can. But on the other hand, TharkonColl's behaviour where he doesn't AGF, attacks the editor, can blindly revert (a total of 27 reverts so far, across 13 articles), doesn't engage in discussion, etc, is largely ignored? So what can I do. Edit war until he 3RRs? And the policy of 3RR is to stamp out this exact behaviour, not necessarily to wait until a 4th revert has taken place. Given that he has 3 reverts on 6 articles should be more than enough considering the circumstances. I'd rather not block him if there was an alternative, but what is the alternative? He isn't talking or discussing...just name calling and blind reverting. It's not the spirit of Wikipedia, that's for sure. --Bardcom (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not "wikistalking" in the sense of following this editor for the sake of it out of intent to annoy, WP:STALK, it's just that TharkunColl disagrees with an opinion that happens to be being spread by Bardcom over several articles. Merkin's mum 13:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, it's exactly that. It's following an editor, for the sake of it, reverting edits with no explanation, just to annoy. If he was a "righteous" editor that had some principals that conflicted with the edits, don't you think we'd have seen a sign by now? A discussion? A point? Anything? Also, I object to your statement of "an opinion that happens to being spread by Bardcom over several articles". I am not spreading an opinion, I am editting articles where the term "British Isles" is used incorrectly. Why is this seen as "spreading an opinion"? It's exactly that reasoning that results in not AGF.... --Bardcom (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask Bardcom if he has added the term British Isles to any article. Obvious candidates would be Lough Neagh (largest lake in), River Shannon (longest river in), and not forgetting Ireland (one of the two main islands of). Merely mentioning it in passing on a talk page, as with Lough Neagh, doesn't seem quite bold enough somehow, when compared with his repeated deletion of the term from other articles. In short, it is quite easy to form the opinion that his edits are driven by something other than a desire for strict accuracy across Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If TharkunColl decides that he wants to discuss anything, he only has to take up the 15 or so invitations I've left dotted around the various article pages, or he can start a conversation on my Talk page, or he can discuss individual edits on the article pages. Also, if TharkunColl decides that he wants to find articles to insert the term "British Isles" where it would be valid to do so, he is free to do so. And if the only argument that TharkunColl can find is that he can't find any articles where I've inserted the term (which is pretty weak), I think that it only highlights the fact that Google reports that more than half of all the references to the term "British Isles" comes from wikipedia itself - suggesting a possible over-exhuberance and over-enthusiasm in it's use here already without adding to it. --Bardcom (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"reverting edits with no explanation, just to annoy." I would ask you to assume good faith, Bardcom. My edits are not intended to annoy. If you wish to make such changes to articles, then in order to avoid reversion it's probably best to open a discussion on the talk page first. And I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I asked above, by the way. Have you added British Isles to any article? TharkunColl (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I always assume good faith Tharky, but if you read the context of the reply to Merkin properly, you will see that I was justifying the wikistalking title in terms used by Merkin first - these are not terms that I introduced or would have normally used.

So, if I read this right, you're asking me to submit changes in advance on the Talk Page? Funny, but I've done that on some articles where I feel it's required, and still been blindly reverted by anon IP editors....but you probably already knew that. --Bardcom (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I did not know that. Are you suggesting I might be connected with those anonymous IP addresses? If so then please feel free to have them checked out. Furthermore, your words above - "suggesting a possible over-exhuberance and over-enthusiasm in it's use here already without adding to it." - seem to imply very strongly that you do indeed think there's something wrong with the term. TharkunColl (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned you already knew that, because one of your reverts was after a discussion on the article Talk page - are you saying you were reverting without even checking article Talk pages? As to your connection with anon IP addresses, I suspect a link and I've made the reasons for my suspicion clear - it's because your behaviour mirrors previous anon IP behaviour. It is known from a conversation with one of the anon IP editors that they were deliberately not using their login, and were editting from a nearby hotel's IP address range. Your last attempt to once again assign a motive other than accuracy to my edits is tiring and transparent. I've made it clear (even check the RfC) that what prompted me to start looking at wikipedia usage of the term was Google reporting as it did. I've said on numerous occasions that I will follow Wikipedia consensus, and will apply the term correctly and appropriately. There is nothing wrong with the term "British Isles" in itself - just the manner in which it has been applied in certain articles. --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember the particular edit to which you refer. As for the anonymous IP addresses, now that you have resolved your "suspicions" into a statement that comes very close to an accusation, your earlier criticism of me on my talk page for allegedly not assuming good faith rings very hollow indeed. I am not the anonymous editors to whom you refer, and I strongly suggest that you either (a) get the IPs checked out and/or (b) refrain from any further accusations. TharkunColl (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, it is not possible to check out if there is a link, as the anon IP editor used a hotel's internet access. I've stated the reasons for my suspicions so that you or anybody else can understand why it is reasonable for me to be suspicious. It was (and is) not an accusation. I always assume good faith. I do believe that the different admin reactions are notable too. The anon IP editors were blocked for exactly the same type of blind-reverting behaviour, you haven't even been warned. I didn't think that Wikipedia had double standards for anon IP usage.... --Bardcom (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What you actually said above was a nearby hotel, and the chances are it isn't anywhere near me (assuming he or she wasn't lying about the hotel, of course). Be that as it may, I am not that person. As for having grounds for reasonable suspicion, how about my grounds for suspecting your motives with regards to the British Isles? If it's okay for you to voice such a serious accusation as sockpuppetry, then why is it wrong for me to point out, on my own talk page, the apparrent tendentiousness of your edits? TharkunColl (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the anon IP editor said it was a nearby hotel. If you say it's not you, I accept that. Finally, I made the grounds of my suspicion public and clear. Your grounds are not public, or have no basis other than "Bardcom has changed X articles containing the term British Isles". That basis does not assume good faith and specifically attacks the editor. Let's hear your grounds based on article edits I've made. Anything else is irrelevant. --Bardcom (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Let's continue on your Talk page as it looks like the admins are now finished with this. --Bardcom (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Very sorry if this is in the wrong place but there is a backlog of applications on the AWB application page. Just wondered if one of the admins could take a trip over there and have a look and clear the backlog. Christopher140691 (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have no idea why somebody should want to have the Average White Band as part of their wikilife, please could somebody else Pick Up the Pieces on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A ban on assault weapons is likely to be backlogged forever. — CharlotteWebb 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kauymatty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauymatty4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauymatty5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kauymatty6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Probably could go to AIV, but they can be picky about warnings and active edits. Original, 1, 2 are already blocked. 3-6 were created the same day. 3-4 aren't active, but 5-6 are currently vandalizing. Anyone have a moment to take care of these? Thanks, --Onorem♠Dil 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

All blocked. Neıl ☎ 14:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Not exactly sneaky vandalism, but couldn't see any good reason not to take care of obvious sleepers. --Onorem♠Dil 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sumerophile is continuing to evade his/her 2-week block with three sockpuppets and is using them to edit war at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sumerophile (q.v.). How much longer is this going to go on? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Esanchez7587 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

User:Esanchez7587's block of USEDfan (talk · contribs) just now, where he blocked the account as a "vandalism-only account". I have no opinion on the actions of this user other than it most certainly was not a vandalism only account, nor does there seem to be any vandalism, as we define it. But hey, maybe the guy had it coming for a number of reasons, who knows, but then I started looking at other blocks by Esanchez7587 [14] and started to get concerned. At User talk:Esanchez7587#Use talk:Rashadtyler one admin unblocked a user, asking "Did you really block him, without prior warning, for creating a single non-notable musician article? I think that's a bit excessive, and the article was also not a nonsense article, as stated in the block rationale."

I'm particularly concerned about the blocks for "Creating nonsense pages" and constant use of indef blocks as the very first block, and without any prior warning. I think some of these blocks are likely in need of review. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Ned Scott; of the first half dozen blocks I reviewed I have no problem with only 2 (the schoolblock and the adolf guy one). Of the "vandalism only" blocks I see both good faith edits and other useful contributions, and the nonsense block is just wrong. Again I agree that indef tariffs appear too harsh for what is often "first offences" in most cases - especially given the inaccuracy of the reasons. Lastly, I saw a case where Esanchez7587 both issued a only warning and then blocked after the next violation - I am uncomfortable that any one admin should be both judge and executioner unless the situation is serious enough (which I don't think this is).

I would comment that I have seen Esanchez7587 taking AIV reports, and have previously not noted anything untoward. In case Ned Scott hasn't, I will invite Esanchez7587 to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s">ve reduced the block to 55 hours, adding onto time already served so that total duration is 65 hours, and noting that this is the third block for disruption or edit warring. seicer | talk | contribs 13:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled this out of the archives since there's still a large number of other blocks that should be looked at. -- Ned Scott 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Should this guy still be an administrator if he's blocking people willy-nilly?--RadioElectric (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends, if we give him yet another chance, and he learns to be less excessive with the block button, then he can remain an administrator. Conversely, if he chooses to continue these blocks, then he should most definitely have them revoked from his account. That being said, an administrator should already know if a block is excessive. Valtoras (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've scanned some of the blocks:

• The 3 IP blocks since USEDfan look fine.
• The indef block of YungGetMoney (talk · contribs) ("Creating nonsense pages") with no talk page messages might be too heavy-handed; I'm unsympathetic towards hoaxers, but I haven't the topical expertise to determine if all those deleted hiphop albums are obvious bunk.
• The 31 hour block on 24.11.221.53 (talk · contribs), with no warnings, 13.5 hours after the last edit, is bad.
• Rashadtyler (talk · contribs) was granted an unblock that seems like the correct choice.
• Bobwrit (talk · contribs) was basically a spammer, but never received anything close to a final warning.

Based on the above, Esanchez7587 needs to be set straight... — Scientizzle 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see the contributions of User:Box Benefits and compare them to User:Libro0 . --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to confirm Baseball Card Guy's suspicion. Box Benefits is in fact a sock puppet. Please block it now. Thank you. Libro0 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How can I be a sockpuppet of a page Baseball Card Guy created?! Libro0 (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You agree[15] that you are using sockpuppets, and you want your sockpuppet blocked? - auburnpilot talk 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather User:Libro0 is saying this is someone else's sockpuppet. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just under the impression these users were having a dispute. But it seems to be more. Rgoodermote  14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Libro0 is a problem user and has been abusing me and using false sockpuppet allegations against me. I would not be shocked that he would make his own sockpuppet to attack others, especially someone he keeps insinuating is me. We have started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libro0 against him. --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing harassment by User:Libro0 above.

I have been attempting with no particular success to mediate between Libro0 and I Hate CAPTCHAS, as Rgoodermote has been attempting mediation between Libro0 and Baseball Card Guy with I think no better success.

Libro0 seems to have some problems with civility to other editors of sports card articles, as well as what looks to me like ownership issues. He frequently reverts the changes of others and leaves what he admits are uncivil remarks on their talk pages, claiming that the incivility is warranted. The edit descriptions and talk page comments are peppered with phrases like will not be allowed and will be reverted and is not permitted. Perhaps understandably these do not always result in an appropriate reaction from the recipient.

He also claims that seemingly anyone editing card pages with an interest in baseball cards must be a sock puppet, and often states in postings on other editor's talk pages that he is talking to a sock puppet. This seems to be causing the recipients of these missives to not view Libro0 in a completely positive light.

Now, there are some indications that a few socks have floated through these card pages in the last week or two. But I don't believe that there is any particularly solid evidence at this time as to who is and who isn't a sock puppet. Would a CU be allowed/appropriate to try to sort out who might and might not be a sock? Loren.wilton (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would welcome any sort of investigation. I have nothing to hide. People need to stand up to cyberbullies! --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If you were to compare my interaction and edits in other areas it will become clear that my methods were the same here. The only difference is the recipient. I stand by all my contributions to wikipedia. They should definitely speak for themselves. As for Box Benefits: I most certainly did not admit to making it. I was stating that it was clearly made by someone trying very hard to incriminate me. I will be more than glad to stay away from the sports card pages seeing as how I have other contributions to make here. I want to state for the record that if I ever touch a sports card page that I insist that you block me. I give you my word of sacrifice which I doubt the puppets would do the same. In fact if any user other than I_H_C BCGuy and any of his alleged sock puppets uses edits those pages you may also block me. I understand that this may sound like a foolish risk but I will accept it nonetheless. If he is innocent he will not try and make a new puppet to get me banned. And I will certainly not try to get myself banned. Libro0 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • He/She was sneaky removing as the suspected sock puppeteer. [16] Then User:Omero Tognon shows up (see Special:Contributions/Omero Tognon) doing more of the same revisions under a new guise after you say (after he/she in his/her trademark passive-aggressive swipe lumps me in with someone else) "If he is innocent he will not try and make a new puppet to get me banned. " He/She apparently created another sock puppet to blame me. This is all getting out of hand. I am not I Hate CAPTCHAS just because I don't like some of the revisions that Libro0 made! --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole sequence at Omero Tognon looks highly suspicious. [17] Apparently the puppeteer forgot he/she was in his/her puppeteer guise and corrected the error that he/she originally made when they started the article. [18] Seems to as close to a smoking gun as one can find, especially given the timeline and the fact that this article is the name of the new sock. --Baseball Card Guy (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you are trying to say is that I created an article (Omero Tognon) then tried to have it deleted while as 'Box Benefits'. Because that is what the log shows. Furthermore, how ridiculous can you get. Who in their right mind would create a page and then create a sock puppet of the same name. I left the sports card pages. So why don't you just leave me alone. Libro0 (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Libro0 vandalized his suspected sockpuppet pages. [19] [20] It looks suspicious. I think that his actions especially with the creation of the Omero Tognon sock and the Omero Tognon article edits may be a desperate attempt to shift the blame away from him. Of course you would have your sock puppet take action against you to "prove" it is not you. Why else would you do it? --I Hate CAPTCHAS (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it looks suspicious and I have had enough. Please IP check User:Box Benefits, User:Omero Tognon, User:I Hate CAPTCHAS, and User:Baseball Card Guy. Libro0 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I pointed this user in the direction of the complaints department because he wanted to know why he was blocked by an admin after using that username for 2 years. I was wondering if any of the admins could take a look and explain to him about the legal side of editing Wikipedia because he doesn't seem to get the fact that he is in the middle of talking to the lawyers (Attorney) of Wikipedia in America surely he shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia? Below is the response which he posted on my talk page User:Christopher140691 Anyway can someone look at it for me as im not an admin I don't have the knowledge you do here. Christopher140691 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well you didn't exactly answer my question I was trying to ask. I don't want to complain about Administrators because I already was on the phone with an attorney from the Wikipedia (Godwin). He turned me over to the head Administrator and had me discuss the situation with that person. I'm not sure who they are because they have asked me to use the Wikipedia now for my questions. The only questions I'm left with are these: What can I post and what can't I? I read the Wikipedia policy and it seems that even the head Administrator has a double standard about it. While they claim everyone has the freedom to contribute they also say I can't post anything about Ultumix GNU/Linux as I understand. What I don't understand is why? They say I'm advertising Products and Services. I'm not. Ultumix is a free GNU/Linux distribution like Ubuntu and should be posted on the Wikipedia just like Ubuntu is. The problem is that I don't charge for my services when I help people online so they can't accuse me of advertising my services. I'm currently trying to investigate the Wikipedia because I have a strong feeling that the people that are being paid (above the Administrators such as attorneys, lawyers, and trademark owners) are trying to make a profit and will do anything to ensure that money keeps coming their way. The reason I feel that way is because of some of the demands that they made from me that didn't sound right. So you see I'm trying to figure out if the Wikipedia is truly open or not and if it's corrupt. I don't think I need to expose the Wikipedia but I have been praying for their staff and other Non-Profits that are secretly doing things like this. It makes me very sad that I see this all the time in organizations. I'm an Assistant Scout Master and as such I can't discuss the corruption I've seen in the BSA but I've seen it all over in all different organizations. I just wish the Wikipedia would deal with anything they have going on. One thing is for sure. The original intent of the Policy is not being upheld, it's being exaggerated. Thats why I started [2] http://www.pediaopeness.org. Neutral777 Neutral777 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Long tale short, the user doesn't understand (or doesn't want to understand) Wikipedia's notability standards. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

From the PediaOpenness site: "PediaOpeness is very similar to the standard Wikipdedia accept that you don't have to jump threw as many hoops to post a page here." (And I guess you also don't need to know how to spell.) *Dan T.* (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit, I'm not clear on request, either. If an article on some software distribution called "Ultumix" has sources that establish its notability, then it'll probably have an article - just as Ubuntu does. If the only sources for such an article are non-independent (the developer or the developer's site) or unreliable (blogs and such), then chances are good that such an article would be deleted - not because the software is bad, or because someone will profit in some fashion by quashing the article, but because independent sources cannot confirm the assertion that the subject is notable. I'm unclear on who the "Head Administrator" is, nor am I clear on who would profit from the exclusion of this subject. The perception appears to be that every subject and every individual is entitled to an article in the English Wikipedia, and - while a lofty goal indeed - it's not possible. The standard of inclusion is notability, and any article that can demonstrate it should probably be included. Also, WP:TINC. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of which department to send it to as im new on wikipedia only been here for 4 days so thats why I wanted to send it to the admins noticeboard. Christopher140691 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's the "Head Administrator", anyway? — iride scent 18:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not take action on this guy without contacting myself or Mike Godwin first, (and referencing that this guy is Ultumix from Openwikipedia). There is an ongoing OTRS issue about this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious complaint, though. Why is it that free speech so often equates to free advertising space? Guy (Help!) 23:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I must be that head administrator :-) Neutral777 has had problems because of the openwikipedia page, which I am aware is being sorted effectively privately and will involve a new format on a different URL. Neutral777 has has problems here because he doesn't understand some of our guidlines on self promotion and COI. I've had a productive chat with him via email and I think he's now aware of what the problems were with his original editing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a dissenting opinion here of sorts. On the one hand, if a Linux distro can't get mentioned on LinuxWeeklyNews or LinuxToday -- either as an article or a PR release -- I'm going to be hard pressed to believe that it is a notable distribution. Ultumix fails that test. On the other, I did find this interesting story, which if it doesn't make this distro notable, it shows that it has some infamy in certain Linux circles. (For those of you in the know, think LinuxOne.) I'm taking a few idle moments to try to see if I can find some reliable sources that can confirm what's in this blog, but the bottom line is that the only reasons to have an article about this distro would be the exact ones which an advocate of Ultumix would not want in Wikipedia. In short, both Ultumix & Wikipedia would be better off if there were no article, & I would hope someone could explain this to Neutral777; neither OTRS nor Godwin really should need to spend much time on this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- A misunderstanding. Guy was being rude - but not to Atren. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

JzG and I have a long and contentious history, which is well documented, but I have made every effort to bury the hatchet. Now this from him, directed at me:

Fuck me, yet another obsessive pro-PRT WP:SPA pushing Malewicki's fantasy.

Now, believe me, the last thing I want to do is start another war with JzG, and that's why I've stayed clear of almost every debate involving him, including his RfC where dozens of editors have criticised his attitude. But I don't wish to be called obsessive either just because I expressed a differing opinion on a deletion debate (and in the process, provided 6 reliable sources to support my position).

Can someone please advise me what to do here? I've tried to detatch, but I don't believe I should have to sit back and take such attacks, especially since JzG has publicly said he will try to be more civil. ATren (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He just called me a troll... he's just like that, and the other admins are never going to do anything about it. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note these diffs on the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG2. In future, ATren, before coming straight to ANI it might be better if you at least try and discuss this with Guy on his talk page. I have asked Guy not to backslide into using the kind of language that caused his last RFC again, I have no idea if he will listen to me or not, but I have asked. Neıl ☎ 12:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not go to his talk page because of our long contentious history. I did not want to be accused of baiting him. ATren (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Going to his talk page is not a good option when he's the sort who says you're unwelcome there if you say things he doesn't want to hear. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, apart from saying more fool you for believing anything Guy says - then, now and in the future - there is not much to do until ArbCom gets a calcium injection and concludes that allowing one or two "old school" charm dehanced drama warriors to continually erode the principles of consensus by discussion, and the importance of civility in interactions, does actually degrade the editing atmosphere and enact meaningful sanctions. Naturally, I expect only comments regarding my off-Wiki editing interests and other irrelevant factors as any response - if any. What else can you expect from Guy and others of the blunt axis?

Now, in response to Dan's query, I could go over to Guys page and post a polite level2 or 3 civility warning - no templates of course - but when it gets removed with an obscenity of exactly the type of which he has just been warned then I can't do anything... unless I want to be Tangoed. And don't you ever believe that Guy knows otherwise... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It takes two to Tango! Seriously, if you return to AN/I saying "Well, I asked so-and-so to stop insulting people and he asked me to go fuck myself so he might ought to be blocked, eh..." (rather than, you know, actually blocking him) accusations of retaliatory behavior won't arise, and nobody will think any less of you (unless their minds are already made up, in which case they can all go, um... jump in the lake... or something). — CharlotteWebb 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[the following was edit conflicted and written while LessHeard was composing his delightful assumption of ill faith, thanks, friend, it's always nice to be accused of duplicity]

The comment has nothing to do with ATren, as I would have said had he asked. The article SkyTran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is yet another fanwank for a non-existent form of PRT written by yet another WP:SPA with a totally uncritical view of the technology. Every single time Malewicki hawks his pipe dream to some new place, we get another set of edits serving to inflate something which has no objective existence whatsoever. TRhe reason Malewicki's pipe dream has not been sold to the cities to whom it has been pitched is not because Wikipedia follows WP:NPOV, it's because he hasn't even got to the prototype stage yet. It would be really good if a few editors who apply their critical faculties would edit these articles, but right now the only person weho touches anything to do with personal rapid transit and who has not drunk deep of the Kool-Aid is Ken Avidor, and he is so far off the opposite end of the scale as to be actively unhelpful. I am sick to death of articles promoting this fantasy world of a mass urban transit mode whose only implementation looks nothing like the pictures and serves an airport car park. We have a series of articles which amount to science fiction, and every attempt to make them anything else is resisted tooth and nail. That's why I don't go near it any more: the whole walled garden is edited by nothing but POV-pushers, so "consensus" will always be wholly uncritical. It's like homeopathy only worse, because in order for the dream to take shape they will first have to overcome the vested interests of the auto lobby, which will happen about three days after hell freezes over. So I'm sorry of ATren thought it was aimed at him, it was not. ATren and I have no dispute that I know of, we simply avoid each other because we don't get on.

Tobias, of course, I called him a troll because he inserted his highly unwelcome nose into a discussion on my talk page - trolling, in other words, according to the normal definition. I'm astounded at how sensitive he is about the word, given that he will fight to the death to protect the sacred right to link to vastly worse attacks on Wikipedians on his main site of interest. I believe I have worked out a Tobias Quotient which enables me to calculate how tenaciously he will advocate certain links or content; [Degree to which Tobias agrees with it] x [Extent to which it attacks other Wikipedians] / [Objective merit of the content]. As far as I am concerned Tobias is a dead loss in any discussion which even tangentially relates to attacks or harassment against Wikipedians (as that discussion did), because he has stated that he does not believe that harassment exists; it is not possible to have a rational debate when one party irrationally denies the premise for the debate even though it has been extensively demonstrated with numerous real and verifiable examples. I have been harassed to the extent of hang-up calls in the middle of the night, and harassment of Wikipedia editors varies from the relatively mild Wikistalking and trolling that Tobias engages in, to attempts to get people fired, to threats delivered to home addresses - why does the Foundation retain a security consultancy if this issue not exist? But of course we all know it does, apart from Tobias, who asserts that it does not and therefore no action to control it is permissible at all, and any attempts to control it must be stamped out at all costs because there is less than 100% agreement that harassment is a problem (and always will be as long as Tobias is around). If Tobias would unwatch my talk page and stop sticking his highly unwelcome hooter in, he would most likely never hear from me again. He chose to come along, I chose to actively disengage. I have nothing to say to Dan Tobias that the Wikipedia community wants to hear, and he has nothing to say that interests me in the slightest. He is well aware of this, and yet he still occasionally inserts himself into debates on my talk page, and then runs to teacher when the nasty man tells him to go away. A classic example of the phrase used by a friend of mine in his sig: "teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers". If growing a thicker skin is an appropriate recommendation for those who receive threatening emails and phone calls, as Tobias appears to believe, then it is surely an equally appropriate recommendation for people whose input is stated to be unwelcome in a discussion, especially when they knew full well in advance that it would be. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

re SkyTran; um, who died and made you consensus overlord? - we have articles detailing the technology of Star Trek spaceships... There are degrees of bollocks within the pages of this encyclopedia, but most of us are fully capable of disengaging from those aspects we find unworthy and when we do encounter them are perfectly able to remain civil. Whatever you may think of a subject, or an individual, there is no recourse to your delightfully bull-headed attitude as regards what may be considered decent discourse, unless it is your intent to make the atmosphere uncomfortable for those which you do not care for. Of course, this is harassment, and not a epidermis strengthening program. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You should listen to yourself some time. You sound like a frustrated adolescent. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That kind of comment really isn't helpful, and you know better, Guy. You just had an RFC on this sort of thing. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No RFC gives LessHeard vanU the right to be condescending and expect not to be called on it. He could, of course, have kept his trap shut, having already put his foot in it once, but he chose not to. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where, exactly, am I supposed to have said that harassment doesn't exist? In an essay on my own site, I explicitly say that "harassment and stalking is a genuine problem" while going on to mention how exagerrated accusations of it are sometimes used as an unfair move in wikipolitics. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(e.c.) Guy says it was directed elsewhere and I take him at his word. In retrospect I should have gone to him first, but given our history and the fact that it appeared to be directed at me, I sought advice here first. I'm glad it's cleared up. With respect to PRT, we've always disagreed on that, and we always will (comparing PRT to Homeopathy? Seriously?)) so I'll just leave it at that. :-) Feel free to close this thread. ATren (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, PRT (the Wikipedia article problem) is akin to homeopathy (the Wikipedia article problem). Lack of objective sources, and deeply vested editors. Actually, no, there are many more objective sources about homeopathy, but the balance is similar: most of the quote reliable unquote sources are essentially uncritical. Guy (Help!) 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PRT has been studied by governments and researchers for 40 years on three continents. Full scale prototypes have been built. A near PRT system has been running for 40 years without incident in West Virginia; one is being built as we speak at Heathrow; there are active attempts to build it in cities in the UK, Sweden, Poland, not to mention grass-roots efforts in Southern California, Seattle, Ithaca NY, and others; and the Masdar initiative in UAE is moving forward based on PRT as the primary solution to sustainable intra-city transport. Almost none of this involves SkyTran, which I agree is probably the PRT system most worthy of skepticism due to its lack of prototype and independent analysis.

Now, if you say homeopathy has a more solid basis than that, well then maybe we should all be learning serial dilution, eh? (kidding ;-) ATren (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a terminology debate. The concept of homeopathy is of course pseudoscientific and invalid, I am talking about the sources and editor communities, which in both cases are highly partisan. The sources about PRT are uncritical, and one of the few that is not is a literature review saying just that. There can be no sources saying it is unreliable, unpopular or unsafe in use, because no systems exist on which to base such sources. It makes a balanced Wikipedia article hard to write and maintain in both cases. Pushing the analogy beyond the analogous of course reveals differences, but I was using a metaphor for difficult editing conditions which will be familiar to many here. Don't read more into it than that. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(canvass) Now that you have read this, go to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_5#UniModal, read the comments there and !vote. We need a few more !voters --Enric Naval (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite having been warned, this IP editor goes around arbitrarily deleting portions of text, replacing English-language text with Romanian-language stuff, or adding observations in Romanian to the articles. (Check out the edit history, there is not one edit that would qualify as constructive.) Dahn (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Run of the mill school IP. It has some useful edits in its history and has stopped vandalizing, so we'll leave it be.-Wafulz (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for 24 hours, with a personal block notice regarding using English on en-wp. If vandalism starts up again after block expiry I suggest taking it to WP:AIV. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A user apparently with the fixed IP address 98.210.14.5 has for many weeks been making disruptive edits at the article Stefan Banach. Despite repeated warnings, and one previous block, this user continues with this behaviour, making edits which are continually reverted (as nationalistic POV-pushing) by other editors. We can deal with it but it seems a huge waste of everyone's time, and it's about time either the page was semi-protected or a longer-term block applied on this user.--Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article, and given my reasoning on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is a hostile Indian nationalist POV warrior and is pushing pro-Indian POV in the article British Raj. Ok let accept it as disruptive POV pushing is very common in wikipedia. But now he has crossed the level and has started to make racists comments against the British people. Comparing the British Raj with the Nazis [21]. Can anything be done with this user? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That diff doesn't look uncivil to me. The whole point of talk pages is to, well, talk. — iridescent 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The British Raj was many things, and not a few of them quite unsavoury, but a National Socialist derived ideology is not one of them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone who understands these look at it and fix it? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, which template? {{Afd}} hasn't been edited since February, so I'm not sure why it would suddenly break. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, seems to be fine now. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that it's should be okay for peopole to edit without loggig in. The IP's are getting pretty abusive lately.I'd post diffs, but I think you all know what I'm talking about.If I'm not at the right place please direct me to the right place. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up}Userboxes 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ain't gonna happen - IPs make some of our most valuable contributions. If there's a particular page you have concerns about IPs editing, raise it at WP:RFPP. — iridescent 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The village pump is the proper place to take such discussions.-Wafulz (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm dealing with a guy (User:Malik Shabazz‎) who continues to vandalize the article on Joan Baez and others I've tried to explain to him that the cat. American anti-Iraq War activists is supposed to denote people who are opposed to this particular war rather than people who oppose all wars under any condition i.e. American anti-war activists, American pacifists, and Nonviolence advocates hence Baez should not be on the list but he continues to ignore me. --Thoughtman (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the article indicates she is opposed to the Iraq War. Also, please don't characterize content disagreements (especially ones in which the evidence indicated you are probably wrong!) as "vandalism." Cheers, Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 19:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain to Thoughtman, the biographies of the three people at issue (Joan Baez, Medea Benjamin, and Arthur Waskow) describe them as public opponents of the Iraq War. They satisfy the criteria listed at Category:American anti-Iraq War activists. I've asked Thoughtman to explain why she/he keeps removing the category, but I haven't received a reasonable explanation. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the troll/vandal account DontCallThisHandBad since the userpage clearly claims that it is an established user. I expected to find maybe a banned user with sleepers, or just an open proxy to block. But instead, it is quite clear that it is Jaysweet, and [22] and [23] make it pretty obvious that it isn't just some shared IP. I thought I should bring it here to let others decide what to do. Dmcdevit·t 20:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Also note, on DontCallThisHandBad's user page the statement: This user suspects himself of being a sockpuppet. and While this is clearly a disruption-only account, this user promises to engage only in vandalism that is funny... Gwen Gale (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Block DontCallThisHandBad, tell Jaysweet it's not funny, then let's all pop over to spend some quality time at the permanent backlog that is WP:SSP. _GB^T/C 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, not Jayron32. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. _GB^T/C 20:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, what the hell. We can let Jaysweet off with a warning this time around. Lucky for him I'm in a good mood. Sock is blocked. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be something going on here. User:Donnylong has been changing the page Donny Long, making edits such as this one, which appear to be a veiled personal attack of sorts. I'm not sure what's going on here, though, and I was warned about reverting the subjects of BLP articles when citing a BLP concern, but I don't think this appears to be the case. —   scetoaux (T|C) 02:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a weird one all right, but WP:BLP does not allow subjects of an article to use their articles for soapboxing or personal attacks (for that matter, slander or libel against a living person in their own article is actually a violation of WP:BLP). The username is technically blockable per WP:UN, but some of their edits--such as this one--appear to be consistent with actions that would reasonably be taken by the subject. Rather than block, then, I'm going to leave a note on their talk page asking them to confirm their identity and advising them that they need to refrain from personal attacks. --jonny-m t 02:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Was that a legal threat I saw (before the page was blanked?) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was part of my rationale to blank the page. There didn't seem to be anything in the history of the page that I could have reverted to in order to end the current edit war and start the talking. Please inform me if I have acted inappropriately. —   scetoaux (T|C) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be that you could have found a good version somewhere in the History (or you could have edited the page yourself) but there's no guarantee that either action would have stopped the edit war. Better safe than sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit summarises the portion that set off the edit war. Vinh1313 (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think This edit is a better representation, since at that point I had re-written it to better conform to Wikipedia standards, and specifically removed an objectionable reference. It also illustrates the lengths subject will go to in order to pursue his vendetta against Christian XXX. At the end of the day, Donny Long seeks to have any truthful reference to his statements removed. James W. Ballantine (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left another note on User talk:Donnylong and sent an e-mail asking for a follow up so we can sort out these issues. Although there's no rush to resolve this, hopefully this will help nudge things forward at the very least. --jonny-mt 04:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been in contact with through e-mail during the day and we seem to have it worked out. Sadly, it's way past my bedtime right now, so I'll have to handle implementation tomorrow. The current protection should remain in place until I have a chance to put up the right notifications. --jonny-mt 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone's already removed the protection. In any event, I respect the decision regarding the sources, though I don't necessarily agree with it, especially since those same blogs have been used as sources by Vinh himself and this seems to me like the kind of situation that IAR was created for. Be that as it may...

I CAN substantiate, from Governmental sources, that Donny Long has been convicted of several felonies in Florida and California, including Spousal abuse, Battery, Grand Larceny, Burglary, DUI over .20, and Squatting. Any objection to that?James W. Ballantine (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Donny Long about the lifting of the page protection. I think all necessary administrative action has been taken and any further discussion can take place on the article talk page, so I'm marking this as resolved with thanks to all those who helped out. --jonny-mt 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am copying and pasting the discussion of CAMERA, collapsed out of sight on the Jerusalem discussion page, here:

Oh, very interesting, it now shows up as its own category (an ad reading something like "Camera seeks new volunteers for wikipedia ('israpedia')") below the one just posted. I am sure you know this, but just to be clear, in order to see the discussion click on 'show', below the CAMERA heading. Thanks! (Whew, I hope someone knows how to take care of this! This is very disturbing!)2equalvoice2 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with - the users involved blocked, etc. We had / have a separate ANI subpage for it. This is 2 weeks old now, not new news. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much - however, if it's been resolved, why is it that today, when I didn't write anything in edit summary, CAMERA put its ad in my edit summary box?1equalvoice1 (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, even mooooore interesting, now the CAMERA ad ("Camera seeks new volunteers for wikipedia ('israpedia')") had been deleted, while the discussion remains collapsed. Can you Pleeeeez make the discussion visible!!!! NONE of the other discussion upstairs are collapsed and they are MUCH longer.Thanks:)!!!1equalvoice1 (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, 1equalvoice1, if you're wondering how those sneaky, sneaky Jews got their ad in your edit summary box, they didn't. You selected a section of the talk page to edit titled "CAMERA Seeks 10 Volunteers to Submit Info to Wikipedia (Isra-pedia)" by clicking the "edit" link along the right side of the page when you made this edit among others. When you do that the editing interface automatically puts the title of the section you're editing in the edit summary. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's kind of obvious. woops. Thanks for clarifying that. Let the record show that I am Jewish and also lived in Israel 1/3 of my life. I don't appreciate the 'sneaky Jews' comment, even in jest. It's not about sneaky Jews it's about sneaky CAMERA.1equalvoice1 (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately it's a shame to lose someone good, though I don't condone his methods at all. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him based on the fact he pretty blatantly used an open proxy, when he is restricted to a single account by ArbCom. The proxy responded to a request on his page and stepped in for him in an edit war. I agree it is a shame, but in the face of such behavior after such a long time, I see little recourse. Vassyana (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - that's unforgivable given the arbitration sanction against him which he totally disregarded. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not SA. It's Davkal, who has lurked around using proxies making edits to immitate SA, then creating a new account to then point all of this out. Of course the fact that Davkal's tactic has worked (and the fact that editors who enable him are not santioned for it) is rather damning... Shot info (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you got any evidence for this Shot? I'd certainly be interested to see it and would re-evaluate. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Davkal (talk · contribs) frequently uses open proxies, and the main reason for his constant socking is to pursue his grudge against ScienceApologist. It is conceivable that these proxies were used by Davkal to "frame" ScienceApologist. On the other hand, ScienceApologist has used multiple accounts in the past, so it's conceivable that they are ScienceApologist. Still, the whole thing - mysterious open proxies show up to bolster SA's edits, followed immediately by a sockpuppetry charge on that basis by an obvious sock of Davkal's, smells mighty funny. I'd urge some serious consideration here. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't SA use registered accounts for his "socks"? I think this is very circumstantial evidence pursued by Levine2112, who battled SA for months on end. SA has done some bad things, but this is not clearly one of them. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I made it quite clear in my post that it seemed circumstantial to me as well but that coupled with "Davkal's" report, it made it all too curious. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As I mention on my talk page: The two non-proxy IPs are almost certainly ScienceApologist. I blocked the Dakval sock. I cannot unblock ScienceApologist based on the accusation it was another sockpuppeting editor, especially in the absence of any evidence indicating that is the case. That just opens the door to all kinds of abuse, with disruptive editors using open proxies and accusing their opponents of a set up. Sorry.

Also, the Dakval sock (Queue Pea Are (talk · contribs)) has been indef blocked. Vassyana (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. On the other hand, what about the precedent that all it takes is an open proxy imitating a handful of a user's edits to get them blocked for sockpuppetry? I'm concerned about that precedent as well. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd suggest unblocking. I think the block was reasonable based on the information Vassyana had, but based on what's been said here it seems more than likely that this was a set-up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

MO's. Davkal is going to do everything he can to get SA blocked. Even better if an admin can do it for it. It's easy to use a proxy, then make some edits to look like SA. But would SA be this silly? Would he be _this_ transparent. No. But for exact evidence, I don't have any links, other than Davkal has been lurking around SA for months now and it smells really, really bad especially when Levine (who hs enabled Davkal in one instance) tried on the IP = SA tactic, then lo and behold, there is a whole bunch of IPs, and Davkal himself tries on Levine's tactic (with Levine jumping in). The only thing that would complete the circle is if MartinPhi jumped in, but Levine seems to have taken over his role for the moment. Shot info (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not really clear or comfortable with what Shot info is insinuating here about me. I really have no idea who Davkal is, as far as I know our paths have never directly crossed, so the idea that I have purposefully enabled him is ludicrous. Recently, Shot info seems to only contribute to attack me. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ryan, the evidence is circumstantial, as is the evidence that these open proxies are in fact SA. It's a matter of which seems more likely - Davkal uses proxies (as he has in the past) to follow SA around and imitate him, then files an SSP report with a throwaway sock? Or SA, who's always under close scrutiny, uses an open proxy in a transparent manner? I lean toward the former explanation, having some experience with Davkal and his MO. I certainly don't feel comfortable with this as the basis for an indefinite block, since I think the likelihood that we're being trolled by Davkal is at least as high, if not higher, than the likelihood that these proxies were used by SA. But that's me - still, I would urge very careful review here, because I think we've been trolled. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support AGF unblock per this comment. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Would CU user agent analysis help here? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt. MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a checkuser to help clarify this situation: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. Vassyana (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock - SA got stitched up here. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I request that this block be lifted immediately - there is clearly reasonable doubt that ScienceApologist is responsible for the open proxy edits, and there is substantial circumstantial evidence that suggests he is not. FCYTravis (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock until stronger proof shows up tying SA to that proxy. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how long the checkuser might take. Having said that, as someone who really doesn't like SA at all, but more or less neutral, this seems to me to have a very strong chance of being a set-up. SA never struck me as being this stupid, particularly not considering the existing ArbCom ruling. I would favor an unblock as well, based on what strikes me as being reasonable doubt, although I'm not competent to say whether it should wait for the checkuser to be performed or not. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is SA allowed to use non-proxy IP addresses to edit from? DuncanHill (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that would fall under editing from more than one account - my interpretation. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I support unblock until/unless there is stronger evidence against SA, the account that filed the SSP report is clearly a sock account. R. Baley (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The ungrammatical comment of User:74.63.84.70 here strikes me as unlike ScienceApologist. Though I'm not familiar with Davkal, a brief look at his last contributions shows that he often neglects to seperate ~~~~ from the rest of his comment with a space, as 74 did on Orangemarlin's talk page. Since Queue Pea Are's scenario was that SA was under the impression that he was logged in while leaving the comment, deliberate obfuscation isn't plausible. SA should be unblocked barring less ambiguous evidence. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, would you object to an unblock at this point? I do have to admit a new user account bringing up edits made a month ago from an IP seems high suspicious. I think it's better to presume innocence until it is clearly proven that SA has been using a sock. Sasquatch t|c 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think it might be fair to call shenanigans. Given that SA block came so soon after and the sock puppet report was instigated by one of Davkal's socks (Queue Pea Are), well...It looks really damn set-up. HalfShadow (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just unblocked - consensus seems pretty clear that the evidence is at best inconclusive (although I repeat that I think Vassyana's actions were reasonable at the time), and SA should at least be able to participate in this thread. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) There are two other non-proxy IPs that are likely SA for which there is no comparable level of reasonable doubt: here and here. While my block was based on the strong concern of open proxy use, these IP contributions should not go unconsidered. I leave to the others discussing here to review them and come to conclusions about whether an unblock is appropriate. Vassyana (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This one is surely SA. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are from two months ago. Maybe he forgot to log in? Gwen Gale (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hardly think the ArbComm restriction is intended to punish him if he transparently and accidentally makes unlogged in edits for whatever reason. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The removal of material from the interview page was after SA had already made 3 reverts removing the same content, so I think the "forgot to log in" suggestion doesn't really fly there. DuncanHill (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

He was removing material added by a banned user trying to troll him during some kind of interview. . .that really doesn't bother me too much. R. Baley (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have to leave the house due to a personal emergency. I don't think anyone has any pariticular questions for me, but if so, I will reply in a few hours when I return. Vassyana (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy sockpuppetry... was this one also a 'set-up'? Dlabtot (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he just gets joe-jobbed often. east.718 at 02:59, May 9, 2008

This entire situation is just a little too 'perfect': SA calls out Davkal for socking, then almost right after that, one of Davkal's socks calls SA for doing the same thing. And as they're open proxies, it's impossible to tell who was really behind it. HalfShadow (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be new here. seicer | talk | contribs 03:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Preceding comment removed. seicer | talk | contribs 03:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a setup, and there's no way to prove or disprove SA violated anything here, right? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible that ScienceApologist used a proxy to make these edits? Yes. Is it possible that Davkal - a prolific sockpuppeteer and proxy user who devotes extraordinary effort to going after SA and who used a sock to file the SSP report - made the edits to frame SA? Yes. I don't see any reason to favor the former as more plausible than the latter. I would err on the side of blocking any proxies which pop up with extreme prejudice and continuing to watch the situation. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless some people feel that the obvious non-proxy IP edits are problematic, this thread should probably be closed. Vassyana (talk) 05:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99 deleted a warning of violating 3RR and Wikiquette made on his talk page by another user without proving that the warning was unwarranted. While I did not dig deeply into the case to see whether the warning was indeed warranted or not, I will appreciate your educated opinion on whether deleting such warnings from own talk page without discussing it first is generally an acceptable practice or not. I apologize if this is not a proper place to ask such questions. Cfeet77 (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Editors are permitted to remove warnings from their talk pages. Nakon 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was shocked too. But on my talk page, EdJohnston (talk · contribs) is telling me he will block me unless I restore unverifiable, challenged content in direct violation of WP:V. Can someone who understands our core policies please explain to him that it is inappropriate to threaten someone with a block if they do not add original research/unverifiable content to an article? --Rividian (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, he was telling you to self-revert to avoid a block for WP:Edit warring. Grsz^talk 02:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which would violate WP:V, as I was removing content that cannot be sourced. --Rividian (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out on your talk page, except for biographical articles, there is no exception to the 3 revert rule for removing unsourced content. Take it to the talk page if you find people disagree with your removal. Even if you think the material violates WP:V and you think people adding it are being unreasonable, that doesn't allow you to violate the edit warring policy. You can ask for third opinions at WP:ORN. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

All I ask is that I not be blocked for refusing to violate WP:V, which is what I'm being asked to do. --Rividian (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not going to be blocked for not violating WP:V, and never was going to be. What you can be blocked for is WP:3RR.Tiptoety ^talk 02:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This edit is legitimate and should not be block-worthy. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As a single edit, perhaps. Repeated over and over, it becomes edit warring. The warning to undo the last revert seems appropriate enough to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A second issue is that although much of the information was unsourced, that doesn't necessarily mean it is unverifiable - WP:V does not require that everything must have a source provided, and discussion is always warranted when people disagree about article content. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The claims I removed, which included legal advice, were in dispute though... and everyone clearly knew sources were being asked for. I wasn't sure anything in that content was true, and the fact that after a week (well, 26 months, if you count the total time the article was tagged) and no one could find sources, that confirmed my suspicion. WP:V does not require a source for every sentence, but it does require one for challenged claims, and it blatantly puts the burden on people re-adding content to find those sources. I was discussing on the talk page, but only one of the reverters was discussing back... and hadn't replied in a while. --Rividian (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, here are four reverts you made this evening; I don't know whether there are more. One: [24] Two: [25] Three: [26] Four: [27] The warning, and possible block, would be for edit warring. There are many productive ways to deal with these sorts of situations; let's discuss it on your talk page, and call this thread closed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

May I have the deleted revisions for the article Alfred Corn. Ref otrs:1533074. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sending it your way. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I am no longer on speaking terms with this young would-be helper. Can someone else see what they can do? This looks like something that could go either way, and someone needs to pay attention. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you provide a dif of the revert. I'd also recommend not using cap's when talking to other users, it appears as if you are yelling at them. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no revert of anything I wrote except the revert of what I wrote on his user page. I was yelling. He is being a bull in a China shop. Read all the complaints on his user page. He is trying. He is improving. He gave me a barnstar for helping him find tools for rapid reverts of recent edits and now he is reverting with too little thought, experience, judgement, or knowledge of either Wikipedia or the article subject matter. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, Camcd93 reverted some archiving I did on a talk page, but when I queried it with him he promptly corrected himself and apologized, which I felt showed both good faith and a willingness to listen on his part. DuncanHill (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Was 4.250: Even seasoned editors and admin's make mistakes every now and then. Discussion is important though, with every edit comes more knowledge of how this wiki works. With that being said, Camcd93 can in fact remove comments from his/her talk page. If you have further issues, address them to an admin you cross paths with or consider asking someone from Wikipedia:Highly_Active_Users. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read User talk:Camcd93 and look at how fast a large number of complaints have come in. This guy's reverts have re-inserted at least one BLP violation, among other things. Did that get your attention? I have a feeling as well that this person is not a newbie. I don't know if anyone needs to jump in just yet, but more eyes on this person would be good. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems from checkuser that this one is a reincarnation of WikiHero81 (talk · contribs) and probably Mcdiarmidc (talk · contribs). I'd suggest a block, personally; not here to be a contributor, but to play. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should just calm down. "Personal attack" or "civil statement" depends entirely upon the wording of the sentence, not the intent. For example, I could say "I'm confused by your recent edits" or "what the fuck are you doing", and it would be the exact same thing. It wouldn't change the intent of the message from benign to malicious. Now for example, I could say "you're an asshole" or I could say "Your edits indicate sockpuppetry, trolling, and disruptive behaviors"; same derogatory effect, but "you're an asshole" is a personal attack, whereas "you're a troll" is policy. Just take into account the jist of what's said instead of the way it's said, we'll all be a lot better off. Ziggy Sawdust 18:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Camcd93 has been indef blocked by user:Sarah. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New username being used to evade indefinite block. Particularly egregious example of evasion, as User:Lagrandebanquesucre made showy point of attacking his own original account: see Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking.

Checkuser reported [here] and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#Lagrandebanquesucre checkuser page.

Grateful swift block.--Gregalton (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: I don't think this user has been blocked yet, possibly because I made the mistake of posting a sockpuppet flag which included the blocked notice.--Gregalton (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone persistently keeps altering various Wikipedia articles along the lines of:

"[ARTICLE TOPIC] was voted "The Most Frequent Word Said While High" in the Pennsylvania State University's Irvin Hall Daily Collegian Newspaper."

In other words, the above passage is always or largely the same, with merely the subject of the sentence being changed to suit the subject of the article that is being vandalized.

I went in yesterday and manually corrected a few articles that were vandalized in this way.

Is there not a way to create a bot that specifically looks for a common phrase used by this vandal, such as "The Most Frequent Word Said While High", in order to combat this vandal?

Sincerely,

--Skb8721 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a few users, it's much easier to just block their accounts.-Wafulz (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If it starts becoming more common, you could add it to User:Lupin/badwords for RC patrollers to watch. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Following the unblock of user:Poetlister, there was some degree of (predictable) contention on the user's talk page whether the user was in fact properly blocked or not, and whether evidence supported this.

I feel strongly that this information would be worth summarizing to clarify the situation once and for all.

I have documented the circumstances and evidence of the blocks as part of my review of the block at ArbCom. To do this, I re-examined the evidence completely from scratch one last time, without any assumption whatsoever, from the original contributions, logs, and checkuser findings. I also (from scratch) rechecked the contribs for possible stacked pages, and every email on arbcom-l archives from 2005 onwards covering Poetlister's block, not relying on hearsay or others' self-selected evidence there, either.

In brief, the evidence that the eleven accounts concerned were abusive sockpuppets, was exceptionally strong. It covered both checkuser and behavior. It was as compelling as Archtransit; indeed as compelling and more extensively reviewed and rechecked than any other admin sock case I am aware of, ever.

Background

What ended up as the Runcorn sock ring was originally detected and blocked as sockpuppets of RachelBrown in 2005. It was unblocked not because of a flaw in the findings, but in effect, for good faith and a second chance, the unblocking admin specifically commenting to that effect on arbcom-l email and multiple others agreeing with the findings (see block log). Nine hours after Poetlister was blocked, the account Runcorn was created, which acted as a "good hand" account, and was RFA'ed in August 2006. (More specifically, Poetlister was blocked at 21:52, December 21, 2005, and Runcorn was created 12:36, December 22, 2005, nine hours later) Following RFA, the Runcorn account immediately (2 - 4 days later) began experimenting with unblocking and soft blocking anonymous proxies, and the entire sock ring moved to tor to hide their IPs and provide an alibi (both "Poetlister" and "Taxwoman" claimed later that nobody ever shared their PC and Poetlister stated if there was other use of the IP it was due to use of tor). The Runcorn account was routinely used to soften the hard IP-blocks on open proxies for the benefit of the other socks. However despite these attempts at obfustication, we were able in 2007 to checkuser them again and re-confirm they had indeed all been very likely using the same PC despite their claims. (Prior to this, on many dates the socks had used the same internet connection often minutes apart, one after the other.)

We looked closely at the alibi given, that these were all extremely close friends or room-mates. There was strong evidence that claims made by the users, including claims to be different people, were incorrect. Examples of the rebuttals I looked into included: that an SSP report was factually unreliable (filed by someone with a grudge), the block in 2007 was based on 2005's evidence only, the 2005 unblock proved innocence, the 2005 checkuser findings were unreliable, the allegations were tenuously founded. All inaccurate. I reviewed the evidence of the 2005 checkuser findings, and note that Kelly Martin's blog claims don't in any way contradict the core findings of common IP usage, nor do the 2005 findings contradict 2007. They support them. I re-examined the case for meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry, or "friends with similar interests" as well. No dice. Sockpuppetry remains the clear conclusion. For me, the evidence is compelling.

Extract - Couldn't it just be multiple users on the same computer?

The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry. Even if Poetlister's contention is true, the treatment is in accordance with well established policy. The account operator had a warning of communal and ArbCom concerns as early as December 2005 -- and the response was to ignore WP:SOCK (which the user obviously knew of) and instead create a new sock account immediately (Runcorn, 9 hours later) and seek to promote it to RFA, where the sockmaster immediately began using it to unblock anonymous proxies and add weight to the abusive agendas and stacking activities of the other existing socks.

All of this then led to a ban for the continuing identical conduct as 2005, plus admin tool abuse, in 2007.

If these were indeed different individuals (not a likely interpretation in the view of the many people who have rechecked the findings over time), then even so there was still gross willful abuse -- stacking via meatpuppetry, edit war team-tagging, and pushing of a COI and POV agenda on Wipipedia and its AFD via the admin account Runcorn and various others, as a sock/meatpuppetry ring.

But our interpretation overall (2005, 2007, 2008) is this is not the case. The view in both 2005 and 2007 (and 2008) was of clear-cut sockpuppetry. Either way, the use was abusive and likely intended to be concealed.

Extract - Kelly Martin's statement

Kelly Martin has stated she felt "pressured" to accept CU findings from 2005.

In fact the findings were considerably stronger than this suggests, showing considerable use by multiple users of the same IP within minutes of each other, for multiple ISPs, on multiple dates. Further CU findings from 2007 showed identical patterns, plus clear attempts to hide these via a (flawed) switch to anonymous proxies. This also allowed checkusers in 2007 to confirm that statements about not having shared computers, were likely to be incorrect.

Since this was May 2007, some 17 months later, and Checkuser data expires after a shorter period of time, the checkuser results being discussed are doubly confirmed as not being the ones KM is talking about, but newer checks in 2007, additional to the 2005 checks (which blatantly supported the same findings in the opinion of all other checkusers). A total of at least 7 experienced checkusers each independently rechecked the Checkuser results on the Runcorn/Poetlister group generally and came to the same conclusion. Additional to all of this there was considerable review of their findings and possible interpretations, by the Arbitration Committee.

Poetlister has repeatedly claimed to have done nothing wrong. This is not entirely accurate. An actual list of debates apparently "stacked" by Poetlister in breach of WP:SOCK includes:

• Talk:List of British Jews (with Newport [28] [29])
• Team tag reversion in an edit war with an IP editor, on Cut to the chase, with Runcorn and LondonEye [30];
• Consensus stacking at Talk:Rosemary Tonks (with Brownlee [31] - Poetlister - Brownlee - Poetlister)
• A significant number of RFAs and AFDs. (See below)

As a sock-farm, these accounts stacked a number of debates (including some 40 RFAs, almost 60 xFDs, and an unknown number of article discussions), tried (incorrectly) to manipulate proxies to allow better hidden abuse or less easy detection following the 2005 block/unblocks, and supported COI/POV based edit warring on articles of interest to the sockmaster.

As the administrator "Runcorn", the sockmaster also mis-stated communal norms to parties disputing with the other socks (to the advantage of the other socks), closed discussions favorably, and spuriously blocked (and attempt to blacken and ban) a user who tried to draw communal attention to these actions, giving reasons that were completely spurious. (The user was quickly unblocked.)

There was also considerable behavioral evidence to support that these were all the same user.

Especially, their conduct towards each other is strange when one considers later claims these are closest of friends, indeed in some cases housemates and real-world friends/old family friends, people who hold hands at the computer, and the like. The behavior of these users on-wiki does not substantiate the story of "extreme close friends" portrayed in their explanations. They did not act as friends. What they did was stack votes, engage in socklike behavior and mannerisms, push the same views on the same articles, edit-war tag support each other, create a new account hours after the old ones was blocked, practice unblocking (and then go all out to soft-unblock) previously hard-blocked anonymous proxies for each other (this was Runcorn's main use of block/unblock for several months in 2007)... and to an exceptional degree try not to be noticed very much as connected accounts.

Unblock

We decided to unblock for one reason, and one reason only. Although the user has engaged in improper activities, they were also bona fide adders of content who have sought to remain involved on other WMF wiki projects, notably Wikiquote. It is a norm of the community that there is always a way back, and we feel that unblocking the Poetlister account for English Wikipedia use will build on the activity at Wikiquote and allow the user concerned to show whether they mean to act well here, almost a year later. It is not exoneration, for the identification as a sock-master was solid and well evidenced. It is rcognition that for whatever reason this was an admin sock-master who - when not abusing admin tools and edit/POV warring - did genuinely add a very wide range of good content as well. There is always a way back for those who wish it and are prepared to show evidence it might work out, and this user is being given his/her chance no less than other users who might be redeemable have been.

Time will tell whether this is a good call. Our hope as a committee is that it will be. For that reason we ask the community to accept the user as one who has sat out their block, and asked for a second chance.

In my mind, it has always been deeply regrettable that no detailed explanation of the evidence was given in 2007. Back then, the methods of analysis were still somewhat new and WP:BEANS was a serious concern when faced with a heavy-duty sock-master who had sought to bury their traces and managed to pass RFA. If it means anything, this is more than words, and we learned from this; the Runcorn admin-sock case and its ensuing dramas were the main reason for the March 2008 Archtransit admin-sock case evidence being explained in full, instead of merely "announced".

All other socks remain blocked and should only be unblocked under consultation with the Arbitration Committee.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee.

One point of impaired logic; Poetlisters claim of no wrongdoing is rebutted by evidence of vote stacking - which is only "wrong" if it is accepted that Poetlister socked (which she denies). I also note that "The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry. Even if Poetlister's contention is true, the treatment is in accordance with well established policy..." means that the determination of socking in the situation that Poetlister describes is a construct rather than unquestionable evidence.

You know, it would have been easier just to say "We accept the remote possibility that we might have got this wrong, so we are lifting the block on Poetlister on the basis that the editor will contribute usefully in the future" - even if you think you were right! Nevermind, it will pass but you sometimes have to admit to wrong even where one thinks there is none just for the sake of the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, and is done when appropriate. In this case nobody of the many who checked the full evidence has concluded it was "wrong" to the extent that your wording would suggest. There is always a "remote chance" since checkuser doesn't sit with a video feed behind a person's computer, but in practical terms there is a point where one says "it's exceptionally likely enough from the behavioral and checkuser evidence, to say that for Wikipedia communal purposes, it may be treated as one user."

That a remote possibility exists is not the same as acceptance that it is likely. In simple terms, we accept that remote possibility in all sock cases, and try to assess the evidence so that we don't conclude puppetry unless it really does seem to be the likely answer. In this case, that was the repeated conclusion. If a different term is needed for "Sufficiently likely sock to be treated as one", then thats a separate debate. The current norm is such accounts are described as sock puppets. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

We have more of a "preponderance of evidence" standard than a "reasonable doubt" standard. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I've heard, it's a myth that some of the suspected socks (I don't recall the details but out of Poetlister, Taxwoman and Runcorn at least) voted on the same AfDs often. Also, wasn't there evidence Runcorn was a different person, given he always got up and started editing about 2 hours before the others?Merkin's mum 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The other evidence was rather more solid than "myth". And the stacking was widespread - some 40 RFAs were affected by this sock-master, and at least one user was blocked (with intent to blacken/ban) on visibly spurious grounds. The Poetlister account was involved in the stacking of 18 of the 60 stacked xFDs and 6 of the 40 stacked RFAs. As well, regarding Runcorn, odds that this new account, who has the same agenda, stacks the same areas of debates, uses admin tools consistently abusively to support the same agendas, edits via the same proxies, with other technical evidence suggesting the same connection, that was created 9 hours after Poetlister was blocked and is claimed to be a close family friend, who joins Wikipedia 9 hours after the block but never once mentions the block..... No. When you add up the existence of the sock ring, and the circumstances, use and agenda of the new account, its edit warring on the identical basis to the other socks... and its activities after RFA which basically serve the socking of the other socks... it is clear that beyond any usual level of evidence we normally require, that this was not a different person, but another GHBH sock. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec - with below)Which begs the question why Poetlister is now unblocked... now, I going to shut up in case that last point gets too much interest but my point stands; no matter how convinced the ArbCom/CU is about it being correct it may have been politic to allow the principle of the possibility of doubt being the part of the reason for unblocking to be aired. We may not be having this discussion had it were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Most sockmasters on this scale purely disrupt, and go out abusing. That's our reading of the 2005 creation of "Runcorn". But this time, in 2007, through the Poetlister account, this user has made attempts to show good conduct for a long period instead, and with success. The idea that such users can be redeemed is meaningless if never given a chance. We decided to give that chance, as Deskana says, because of the work being done showing possibility for change. Time'll tell how it works out. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To be brief, the Arbitration Committee did not unblock Poetlister on the basis that the block was incorrect, based on faulty evidence, or inappropriate. We unblocked because Poetlister in recognition of the good contributions that have been made to other projects, and because we believe that there will be no further abuse of any kind. That said, this isn't something that needs dwelling on. It's all in the past now. Poetlister is unblocked and welcome to resume editing. Lets be glad of that much, and put the past behind us. --Deskana (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One clarification please: was the unblock made at Poetlister's request, and if yes - did that request contain any admittance of wrongdoing? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

She protested innocence intensely and still does. She is often a contributor to Wikiquote, and I think some of the other projects, and is well respected there.Merkin's mum 17:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been ongoing requests by various of the accounts to be unblocked - in fact I received my first before even being appointed to ArbCom. So yes there have been requests. And no - no admission was made. To anticipate the next question, it was because any user has the right to appeal a ban (requesting review isn't a problem), so the former isn't an issue, and the purpose of a block is to protect the wiki and we believe the scope for abuse to recur (especially following communal disclosure of past activities and with communal eyeballs) is sufficiently reduced to cover the latter. Obviously if there were any signs of renewed mis-use then the community will deal with it, but as Deskana says, we aren't punitive, we have a year's positive record showing the user can act well on other projects if they wish to, and we hope it's behind us all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something that doesn't make sense to me here. Am I reading this right and the arbitration committee is contending that Poetlister, Runcorn, and lots of other people are really the same person? If so and you want to forgive this person, how did you decide to unblock Poetlister, as opposed to Runcorn or one of the other accounts? Maybe I'm just completely missing something here, but it seems like you (collectively, not you personally) are saying that the checkuser evidence was and is correct, but your actions don't reflect that belief. --B (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

1. That's been the case since December 2005, and again in May 2007. Yes, same person, same modus, same alibis, same checkuser and behavior evidence, same involvement in same agendas and sock pushing, same stacking on same xFDs and RFAs... Yes.
2. Why Poetlister and none of the others? Because the Poetlister name is the one the user chose to reactivate with elsewhere in the community and gained respect on other wikis under, after the socks were removed from this wiki, and most recently appealed under.
3. The unblock's explained above. It's a chance to show change, not an exoneration of past socking and abuse. (Sorry, bit rushed here, was due out 2 hours ago)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Committee has frequently held that, when users are editing in concert in a fashion that is indistinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, it should be considered sockpuppetry." - What you've not clarified is whether the other accounts - e.g. Londoneye who is a user in good standing on Wikimedia Commons, Taxwoman who still posts as a separate person on WR, should be considered sockpuppets of this user going forward. Whether it "should be considered sockpuppetry" is quite a different question than whether it is in fact sockpuppetry, since the latter closes the door on ever unblocking any of the other accounts. --Random832 (contribs) 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the fact that they were able to provide new pictures on demand does in fact mean they are distinguishable from one user operating multiple accounts, whatever their other actions were, so at worst this is meatpuppetry. --Random832 (contribs) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as one can be sure online, the balance of evidence is way, way towards sockpuppetry for all of the accounts. We concluded repeatedly, they are socks not meats. the evidence was very strong, and the alibis weak. Each project acts independently on this, though, as Wikiquote themselves did. Again, apologies, Im outr of the door and will have to follow this thread up tomorrow. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Also, how many RFAs had any three or more of the accounts voting in the same direction? How many had any two voting against each other? If you choose a large enough set of accounts, of course you can find numerous AFDs and RFAs that at least two voted on. --Random832 (contribs) 19:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You speak of the "balance of evidence" - what sort of evidence, in your view, would be required to refute this claim? If they (two or more of them) sent real identification (drivers licence, passports, whatever) to arbcom? If they (two or more of them) showed up in person at a meetup? There has to be _something_. --Random832 (contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Random832 above - while I'm neutral on who Runcorn is/was, the sheer difference in styles between Poetlister and Taxwoman, the difference between the articles they edit, and the fact that, if they are one person, they've spent much of the last year arguing with themselves on a certain WP:BADSITE do point to at the very least reasonable doubt. As I've argued elsewhere, Taxwoman at the very least was - and would be again - a net benefit to the encyclopedia, given her willingness to clean up articles most of us wouldn't touch with a barge pole. — iride scent 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Feh, the assertion is that they are all in the same place, presumably at or near UCL. If they want to meet me for a drink somewhere in the City, I'll verify they are all different people. This acto of selfless devotion has nothing whatever to do with the pictures they uploaded of themselves, not at all, nosiree. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, Guy. . .always willing to give until it hurts :-) R. Baley (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Where do I sign up for this sort of wikiwork or is it an admin thing only ;) EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can some kind of language or edit summary analysis be done like what was done on the Mantanmoreland arbitration case that showed the Mantanmoreland socks had unique edit summaries? William Ortiz (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I went through the various accounts' contrib histories in quite a bit of detail, and absolutely everything (voting and editing patterns, timing, everything), pointed to sockpuppetry. I'm all for second chances, and I always have been, but I would like to see a requirement to admit to socking and identify all socks used before unblocking. That being said, if ArbCom has decided to unblock, well then, it is their decision. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Did they even have certain unique phrases of speech nobody else used? William Ortiz (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Random832 removed Runcorn from the list of banned users with the rationale: If there is only one person behind these accounts, then who is banned?[32] and an edit summary of Per the official story that all these accounts are still considered the same person who is being allowed to come back as Poetlister - if this story is accepted then the unblock constitutes an unban.[33] I have undo that edit, as Runcorn is still banned, and the Arbitrators have made it clear that this unban is based on the proviso that the harm cant be done with only one account being unbanned. There is no "official story" - there is only what we can reliable deduce, and what we can reliably assume. In this case, the CUers are saying they can reliably deduce that there was abuse of WP:SOCK, and due to Poetlisters continued fruitful involvement in other projects and her own recent commitments to not edit via open proxies we can reliably assume she is a dedicated Wikimedia and will keep her word. We may never know the true story. Ultimately it doesn't matter - Runcorns use of the admin tool was unacceptable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure who said the above - not me - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)]

Why can't the publishable part of the evidence be published in detail as part of the requirements of her unblock? If the community's required to watch her, we should know what to watch for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What to watch for? That is easy : involvement in Jewish related community votes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Bans are on people, not accounts. And unless there is some other person involved (which everyone seems to deny), there is no person who is banned. --Random832 (contribs) 01:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that the operators of the Poetlister and Runcorn accounts are the same person (which was the whole reason for the ban in the first place), it does indeed seem that ArbCom has, in effect, lifted the ban and allowed that person to again edit under the Poetlister account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Random832, until arbcom removes the ban on Runcorn, your reading of this situation is incorrect. These accounts were banned because of violations of WP:SOCK - that includes meatpuppeting, which is one explanation, however unlikely that might be. As far as I know, the banned users claim they are different people. It is extraordinary that Runcorn is banned yet Poetlister is not, even though there is a significant community belief that they are the same person. Thankfully, arbcom have done the extraordinary and let the Poetlister account resume editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Guy's joke comment above is actually a good one. If these people are all in London, and someone were to meet them "face to face" wouldn't that put an end to all the sockpuppetry talk if many believe it false? If they're all separate people, then, wouldn't they all just have to be unblocked with a big apology? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 05:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. It seems like the first step is for FT2 to agree that this would convince him (or to say what further steps it would need) or for Poetlister to agree in principle to do it. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is not sockpuppetry, it is still an extremely unlikely set of events which strongly suggests meatpuppetry and admin tool abuse. The evidence still indicates that everyone involved in this funny business should have been blocked for violating WP:SOCK.

That said, it would be useful for Poetlister and any other real and distinct people involved in this funny business to meet with respected Wikipedians in a face to face scenario - that will result in more clarity in exactly what funny business occurred at the time. Until that happens, I think we should assume that Poetlister was a separate person, in spite of the fact that this assumption doesnt correlate with the evidence, and that she has since gone a long way to win back the respect of the community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was that Poetlister is a fairly private person and does not wish to meet other Wikipedians, though I may be mistaken. If I am mistaken, she would be very welcome at a London meetup which is happening this Sunday - Wikipedia:Meetup/London 9 - with or without other people who may shed light on the whole affair. WjB scribe 11:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disregard sockpuppetry then it seems that people who had over the course of a couple of years made genuine and useful contributions to content were permanently banned because a minority of their edits were made on the same side of discussions as their friends. That doesn't add up. Any admin tool abuse would be limited to the one who was an admin. I really think meatpuppetry is a red herring here - the case relies on sockpuppetry. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick answers to some of the above:

1. We consider all eleven accounts as a sock-farm. In cases where a sock-master will be allowed to continue editing, the norm is to block all but one of the identified accounts. The sock-master is allowed to edit under the one account "Poetlister", and the other accounts remain blocked. So in answer to Random832's first question, the evidence of common behavior, concealment, and a range of editing abuses, taken together with timing and checkuser information, makes an extremely strong case that these were intended and used as an abusive sock-ring at the time.
2. We tend to trust hard evidence of behavior rather than vague "style of speech". Writing in multiple styles of speech is easy - hard evidence of mannerisms and IP sharing and common activity is more likely to be telling.
3. In answer to Shoemaker's question, the behaviors to watch for are documented above.
4. Would a live meet-up help? Unlikely. Rustling up a few friends or housemates to pretend being other accounts isn't hard. That's one reason we don't rely on that test generally.
5. Random asks how many of the stacked items had 3 or more socks on them. RFA's with 3 or more socks included: Fan-1967 (3 socks oppose), FT2 (6 socks oppose), Georgewilliamherbert 2 (2 socks support, 1 neutral), Jreferee (6 socks oppose), Marskell (3 socks oppose), Maxamegalon2000 (3 socks support), Michaelas10 (3 socks oppose), Moralis (3 socks oppose), Moreschi (3 socks oppose), ProveIt (3 socks oppose), ... I gave up counting after the first while. It's a similar story on xFDs. Here's the first few entries on the stacked xFD's table (Worth noting - this table is all common edits, not selective):

Page (+ talk page)	Edit sequences
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnon Katz	Newport (11 Mar 07 12:08), Osidge (11 Mar 07 20:52), Osidge (11 Mar 07 20:55) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonkum	Runcorn (05 Nov 06 09:45), Runcorn (05 Nov 06 09:45), Taxwoman (05 Nov 06 12:29) All Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of psychopaths	Runcorn (07 Apr 07 11:58), Holdenhurst (07 Apr 07 19:01), Newport (07 Apr 07 22:22), Newport (07 Apr 07 23:10), Osidge (09 Apr 07 19:22) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet	Newport (11 Mar 07 12:06), Osidge (11 Mar 07 20:44), R613vlu (12 Mar 07 22:59), R613vlu (13 Mar 07 12:46) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous left-handed people	Runcorn (28 Sep 06 19:12), Runcorn (28 Sep 06 19:12), Poetlister (30 Sep 06 15:20), Holdenhurst (01 Oct 06 10:25) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictitious Jews	Newport (27 Jul 06 17:40), Brownlee (28 Jul 06 09:57), Brownlee (01 Aug 06 09:48) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish bankers	RachelBrown (15 Nov 05 20:38), Londoneye (17 Nov 05 09:33), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 12:57) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish chess players	Londoneye (22 Nov 05 18:31), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 22:50) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish communists	Brownlee (04 Jul 06 12:25) - Keep, Runcorn (04 Jul 06 19:28) - Keep, Brownlee (05 Jul 06 12:54) - Restore three anon keep votes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society (2nd nomination)	RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 17:22), RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 21:44), RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 21:46), Londoneye (17 Nov 05 22:39), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 23:38), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 11:33), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 18:23), Poetlister (18 Nov 05 19:16), Poetlister (18 Nov 05 19:24), RachelBrown (19 Nov 05 09:24), RachelBrown (19 Nov 05 20:18), Londoneye (26 Nov 05 21:29), Taxwoman (26 Nov 05 23:29) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish inventors	Londoneye (12 Dec 05 19:02), Newport (13 Dec 05 12:29) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish jurists	RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 20:57), Poetlister (19 Nov 05 09:38), Poetlister (19 Nov 05 09:39), RachelBrown (19 Nov 05 17:53), Poetlister (19 Nov 05 18:10), Londoneye (20 Nov 05 08:56), RachelBrown (21 Nov 05 22:52), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 18:50) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish publishers	RachelBrown (15 Nov 05 22:03), Londoneye (17 Nov 05 09:29), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 12:51), RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 21:35), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 10:43), RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 10:46) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Science	Londoneye (22 Nov 05 18:37), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 23:20) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices	Runcorn (01 May 07 19:38), Brownlee (01 May 07 21:42), Simul8 (02 May 07 11:33), Newport (02 May 07 19:21) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews (2nd nomination)	RachelBrown (18 Nov 05 10:36), Londoneye (18 Nov 05 11:07) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in sports	Londoneye (22 Nov 05 18:35), RachelBrown (22 Nov 05 22:53) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Peruvian Jews	Runcorn (16 Feb 07 21:56), Brownlee (17 Feb 07 22:00), Newport (18 Feb 07 11:47), Holdenhurst (18 Feb 07 22:59), Holdenhurst (19 Feb 07 13:00), Osidge (19 Feb 07 17:50), Runcorn (19 Feb 07 22:00), R613vlu (19 Feb 07 22:52) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Irish-Americans	Newport (05 Jul 06 11:21), Runcorn (05 Jul 06 19:49), Brownlee (06 Jul 06 11:07) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1	Runcorn (21 Mar 07 23:35), Osidge (22 Mar 07 00:30), Holdenhurst (22 Mar 07 16:44), Brownlee (22 Mar 07 23:54), Londoneye (23 Mar 07 12:14), R613vlu (23 Mar 07 13:25), Runcorn (25 Mar 07 13:43) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan	Runcorn (23 Sep 06 21:09), Poetlister (25 Sep 06 16:57) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectified Hebrew calendar	R613vlu (14 Feb 07 12:45), R613vlu (15 Feb 07 23:16), R613vlu (15 Feb 07 23:30), Holdenhurst (18 Feb 07 23:02) - Nominate and delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews	RachelBrown (19 Jul 05 19:59), Poetlister (20 Jul 05 12:44), RachelBrown (20 Jul 05 19:44) All Delete
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia	Brownlee (19 Jun 06 10:15), Brownlee (19 Jun 06 10:15), Taxwoman (19 Jun 06 17:01), Brownlee (20 Jun 06 10:13) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (2 nomination)	Brownlee (22 Dec 06 13:18), Taxwoman (22 Dec 06 15:50), Taxwoman (22 Dec 06 16:57), Taxwoman (22 Dec 06 17:00), Holdenhurst (22 Dec 06 23:00), Holdenhurst (22 Dec 06 23:03), Osidge (23 Dec 06 21:55), Taxwoman (28 Dec 06 10:56), Runcorn (28 Dec 06 20:30) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wipipedia (third nomination)	Runcorn (12 May 07 20:10), Brownlee (12 May 07 21:46), Brownlee (12 May 07 21:48), Brownlee (12 May 07 22:13), Runcorn (13 May 07 09:58), Osidge (13 May 07 15:15), Osidge (13 May 07 15:56), Taxwoman (13 May 07 17:36), Taxwoman (13 May 07 17:38), Runcorn (13 May 07 21:20), Runcorn (13 May 07 21:40), Taxwoman (13 May 07 21:57), Taxwoman (13 May 07 22:00), Taxwoman (13 May 07 22:19), Brownlee (14 May 07 14:35), Brownlee (14 May 07 14:40), Brownlee (14 May 07 14:52) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan	R613vlu (04 Dec 06 13:20), R613vlu (05 Dec 06 12:42), Poetlister (06 Dec 06 22:25), Brownlee (07 Dec 06 13:02) All Keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsa Zsa Riordan (2nd nomination)	Poetlister (17 Feb 07 19:52), Brownlee (17 Feb 07 21:56), Holdenhurst (18 Feb 07 22:55), Osidge (19 Feb 07 17:54) All Keep
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 16	RachelBrown (17 Nov 05 09:03), Poetlister (17 Nov 05 12:53), Londoneye (18 Nov 05 13:25) All Keep Category:Jewish chess players
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 17	RachelBrown (20 Nov 05 22:19), Poetlister (23 Nov 05 22:02) All Delete Category:Wealthy fictional characters
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 18	RachelBrown (20 Nov 05 22:08), Poetlister (23 Nov 05 22:00) All Delete Category:LGBT_criminals

Any competent sockmaster throws in a few contrary !votes. That's why experienced sock-checkers look at the pattern overall. The pattern overall is, when you strip away the surface, eleven accounts acted almost identically and formed an abuse ring. They also shared IPs. They later all moved to tor (on questionable reasons) and then denied using the same computers, but were in fact detected to have very likely been using the same PCs again, 2 years on. They claimed to be exceptionally close friends but the actual use of the wiki accounts when you look at their effect, was to stack votes, and (for runcorn) to be created 9 hours after the Poetlister block, and to act as an unconnected account, gain RFA, and abuse admin tools for each of the other accounts' benefit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC) (comment re-signed, got friends staying the week who were logged in. Sorry for the confusion)

Could you shorten that comment in any way? Rudget (Help?) 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. "The evidence of socking was very substantial." is the shortened version. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry Rudget, a bit short there I think. But yes, the evidence was heavily looked at. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(comment re-signed, got friends staying the week who were logged in. Sorry for the confusion) Isn't that ironic? --Random832 (contribs) 13:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re "Rustling up a few friends or housemates to pretend being other accounts isn't hard.", I take it the idea is that a friend comes up to you and says "there's this web site I've been trolling and pretending to be several people on and I got banned from it in May last year... uh yeah, it's been going on a while... and I sort of sent them pictures of you as being one of the people who did stuff they got banned for... anyway, I want you to come with me and meet a guy from the website and tell him you're that person. Oh sometimes I send emails from the person you're pretending to be, asking to be unblocked so if you could remember at least your email address and the general writing style... oh 'unblocked', yes that means 'let back on the website', I'll give you a list of jargon they use like that so you'll be convincing, if you get stuck then keep saying 'AGF'... and here's a list of your interests for the stuff you wrote about and the people you know on the site oh and some offline history I made up about us and some other friends too, you'll need to recognise their pictures and how we all know each other... I almost forgot there's actually more than one web site - you'd better be familiar with your recent contributions to them. Sometimes I've posted both sides of conversations and disagreements between us and others to keep the characters convincing, best if you read them too. Yeah there is a lot to read, I've been doing this multi-account thing for about 3 years...". Is that really a scenario you take seriously? 87.254.71.190 (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to the anon. If "edit a lot of the same articles, generally agree on XfD and all geolocate to the same town" is really a criteria, you could just as well say that User:BrownHairedGirl, User:Vintagekits and myself are all the same person. — iride scent 12:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What part of "multiple shared IPs" and "near simultaneous use of the same proxies" did you miss in the above statement. (I have experience as checkuser of finding "anonymous" proxies that actually convey quite a lot of information about their users--they make my day.) Funny thing, I thought it was Arbcom that was refusing to budge from a fixed position in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. Thatcher 12:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly think that the sockpuppetry cliam could be true. However, the fact that the idea of a meetup was dismissed on the grounds that the person involved could explain to a friend that they've been posting under multiple accounts for THREE YEARS for no reason that I can imagine could be convincingly put into words, continuing the deception for a year after having been banned from the website, have implicated the friend by sending in pictures of them and now want the friend to accompany them to meet some stranger from the website... Thatcher, do you take that scenario seriously? 87.254.71.190 (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Some of the 'bit player' accounts are actually very likely to be sockpuppets - Not many people are saying there's actually eleven (or however many) different people. Can you write up a list of exactly what accounts used open proxies at what times? Because if it was just (say) R613vlu and Simul8 using proxies, that really doesn't prove anything at all about Taxwoman and Poetlister. --Random832 (contribs) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see in the checkuser log (not the actual data, mind you) it is apparent that either Taxwoman or Poetlister or both were using tor at the time they were checkusered in May 2007, and the IPs are the same ones that Runcorn had previously downgraded from hard blocked to soft blocked. Also note that I have seen tor nodes that were not truly anonymous and passed on certain identifying information. Thatcher 13:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not the actual data? Do you not have the actual data? --Random832 (contribs) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher was not one of the CUs that did a check while the data was current. There is no need to berate him over that. Dmcdevit·t 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I wasn't berating anyone - I was just confused because I had thought that all the data in question was shared between all the checkusers (or at least all the ones who want to shoot their mouths off about this), and am only just now finding out this is not the case. Don't the checkusers have a mailing list? --Random832 (contribs) 01:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but Thatcher was not even a checkuser back then, so would not have had access, nor would he necessarily have the IP information today, as it's not shared by default. Same applies to me - Alison ^❤ 01:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was a thorough re-investigation, and that this would naturally include seeking second opinions. --Random832 (contribs) 03:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, second, third, ... seventh opinion (not including non-CU arbitrators as well). We have more than seven CheckUsers, though, so I don't know what makes you think that the fact that two of the newest CUs aren't part of that group is surprising or means there wasn't a re-investigation. It's becoming obvious that you are trying to spin everything said about the issue into some evil scheme. You haven't offered anything compelling, and this whole discussion is becoming a distraction. Back to the encyclopedia for everyone here, I say. Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Um. I've just been reading through the thread, and if anyone's comments so far have come across as over the top, it is your comment here, Dmcdevit. Random has been explaining what looks like a misunderstanding, and you are accusing him or her of 'spinning' things, which looks totally unwarranted from where I'm sitting. What I think is the major concern here is that with such a large sock-puppet ring (and I agree, there was at least some sockpuppetry going on here), it is possible that one or two genuine similar accounts operated by other people that appeared to look like socks or meatpuppets, were blocked along with the socks (I presume a full analysis looked at the whole contribution histories for all the accounts?) I also presume the checkusers are not saying that only one person could have been editing from the IP addresses found in the checkusers? There is always the possibility that in future someone will start, or restart, editing with an account from those IP addresses, and if that account ever ends up editing in the same areas and get checkusered, the person operating that account will be walking into a minefield of sock accusations. I wish checkusers and arbcom would consider the new accounts in future that might be started on those IP addresses. I realise that there may be too much of a taint around all this, but there should be the option for real people to have the possibility of e-mailing arbcom and saying "I edit from this area and I got caught up in this. I'm not interested in returning to my old account, but I do want to make a fresh start with a new account, but want to tell you the account name in case there are problems in the future." Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• FT2 (6 [accounts] oppose) - when were you going to tell us about your massive conflict of interest? --Random832 (contribs) 12:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• :That seems a bit of an odd question given that it is FT2 you are quoting... WjB scribe 13:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• ::Yes, he did say it - however, he kind of slipped it in there in the middle of a long diatribe as though he was expecting it not to be noticed. I don't think he should be the one presenting these explanations at all, really - Not because I think he would deliberately misrepresent things, but rather because he's so close to the situation that he may be biased in how he looks at things without even being aware of it. --Random832 (contribs) 13:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• :::You're asking for very specific information, some of which I am hesitant to talk about due to privacy issues, especially recalling some CharlotteWebb arbitration with had to do with Tor as well (though that is less of a concern now, as the Tor seems public knowledge; I forget how that happened or if it was in the original statement); some of which I am hesitant to talk about because of WP:BEANS and educating someone who was a smart sockpuppeteer to begin with, and some of which I am hesitant to talk about, because this has already been reviewed ad nauseam and your attitude shows that you have already made up your mind, regardless of the evidence. It would be nice if you recognized the sensitivity with which some people have tried to approach the issue, and the reason for the reluctance to share everything. Instead, the manner of your dogged pursuit of this matter, peppering it with accusations of bias or worse, has been unhelpful. Do you really think that more than half a dozen CheckUsers and all of ArbCom are biased or going on bad evidence? Do you think that by our posting only that information that can be made public for you, you'll notice something we all missed, or uncover the evil conspiracy behind it all? Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• ::::I haven't seen "half a dozen CheckUsers" in this discussion, I've seen three (FT2 included), only two of whom (you and FT2) that have (I assume) seen the evidence. --Random832 (contribs) 13:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I keep seeing "shared IPs" but also mention of open proxies and TOR proxies. Could one of the Checkusers clarify for us: were any of the shared IPs (for Poetlister specifically) not from an open or TOR proxy? --InkSplotch (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Common non-TOR IPs in 2005 and common TOR IPs in 2007 (which Runcorn had helpfully softened the blocks on). Thatcher 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Were there more tor IPs in common vs not than would be expected for two unrelated tor users? And hardblocking vs softblocking for tor nodes is something that many people have differences of opinion on - more so before the compromise solution of ipblock exempt was thought of - so unblocking/softening blocks on tor ips does not in itself mean Runcorn was personally using tor with sockpuppets. --Random832 (contribs) 18:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As to your first question, I have never analyzed the matter with regard to other tor users, so I couldn't say. I note again that I have seen tor servers that, intentionally or inadvertently, passed on identifying information, and note that FT2 stated above that this was an ineffective attempt to use anonymizing proxies. Thatcher 18:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Of course there was more commonality than one would expect, since this is a major piece of the evidence. But it's not just commonalit; that's a simplistic way of looking at it. Different users do not share Tor nodes at the same time. However, edits from these accounts were overlapping on the same nodes (A edits for a period of time, then B, then A again, etc.), indicating that it was the same person simply switching accounts. For example, there was one IP where Poetlister, R613vlu, Brownlee, and Londoneye edited from, in overlapping times; Taxwoman, Poetlister, and Brownlee shared another IP, Poetlister and Newport another; and so on, repeatedly, and to such a degree that mere chance is not likely at all. Recall, Poetlister's explanation for this was that her frail grandmother always used Tor on her computer, which Poetlister used sometimes too (some part of that claim must be false, since all of Poetlister's edits were from Tor).

They all shared the same rare (yes, rare) user agent. The accounts that slipped up and edited with Tor turned off some of the time had IPs that matched Runcorn conclusively, as well as overlapping, and matching therefore, with Poetlister. The same rare user agent was shared by Runcorn on non-Tor IPs as well as all the named socks, who was obviously supposed to appear unconnected to the rest, but for the slip-ups, as he never used Tor. The Runcorn account was used to unblock Tor nodes that were being used by the other accounts, both ones where Newport appears, and ones where Poetlister and Taxwoman, the supposedly different people, appear without the other socks. After all that, now factor in the behavioral evidence. This is not intended to be the definitive posting of all evidence, so that you can try to pick it apart, but rather, I am trying to show that there was a strong preponderance of evidence and that ArbCom made a thoughtful, informed decision based on that, which is quite different from a lot of the ill-informed accusations being thrown about. Dmcdevit·t 22:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FT2 - point blank question; what would it take for you to be convinced that at least two of the accounts are separate people from each other? If there is nothing then the idea that they are all the same person is an unfalsifiable proposition and therefore should be ignored. --Random832 (contribs) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ooooh, can we run that pretty graph against ArbCom members and their voting patterns regarding ArbCom cases? What? You mean you discuss things off-Wiki and see if you can't "reach a consensus"? How very dare you... wait, some of them votes don't agree... oh, lookee, FT2 says "...Any competent sockmaster throws in a few contrary !votes." ZOMG!! Ban the ArbCom!!! Like I said, just a little white lie and there would never had been all this fuss. (Yeah, I know I also said I was bowing out... but then I aint running for ArbCom.)LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See, ladies and gentlemen? This is the perfect example of someone being given a second chance on Wikipedia. I fully endorse this unblock, and believe that this user should be welcomed back and become an accepted member of this community once more. :) Valtoras (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher - How could a tor exit node leak identifying information even if it wanted to? Tor uses onion routing, so the only information it would have would be from the previous node in the chain. So, either it's a systemic problem (all nodes in a significant percentage of possible chains being compromised means a VAST majority of all nodes in the network are compromised) and therefore Tor is actually 100% worthless, or what you're seeing is actually the IP of another tor node, rather than of the actual user, or the information being "leaked" is actually a user agent (which unless it's a REALLY OBSCURE browser, doesn't prove nearly as much as you're implying it does) --Random832 (contribs) 16:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And even if a node were compromised, how would it pass on the IP in a way that would allow checkuser to see it? The only information recorded in checkuser is user-agent and X-forwarded-for - Since Tor doesn't work at the HTTP connection level, user-agent would always be passed but proves little, X-forwarded-for would never be inserted. --Random832 (contribs) 16:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS, my good fellow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEANS doesn't apply to calling someone out on exaggerating the level of "proof" they have. There is no way a "tor server" can leak IP addresses, period. --Random832 (contribs) 17:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have been mistaken on tor, certainly I have seen non-tor proxies that are "leaky." By the way, I went over the checkuser log, and this may interest you. At the time of the second block (May 2007), 5 different checkusers ran 108 separate checks, on 7 named users and 27 separate IP addresses. (The claim that only Newport and Runcorn were checked in 2007 is bunk, by the way.) Of those 27 IP addresses, 9 were proxies (6 tor and 3 other) and of those 9, Runcorn was involved in unblocking 6 of them, 2 were never blocked until after May 2007, and one had been previously softblocked by another admin. Thatcher 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I state again that it is misleading to characterize any soft-blocking or un-blocking as a one-man crusade by Runcorn as some people seem to want to think - there's been a lot of controversy on block type and duration for open proxies, up until very recently. --Random832 (contribs) 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a red herring. ArbCom has never said anything like "a one-man crusade," nor is that relevant. The pertinent evidence is that Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets. Dmcdevit·t 05:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, following on from my comment above, I hadn't read the whole thread. I see that Random has been questioning a bit down here as well, so Dmcdevit, I apologise for my comment above. Still, the "unfalsifiable" bit above is a good point. We never want to get to a stage where accusations can't be disproven. The inherent unspoken fear is that one day any one of us could face such accusations that are difficult to disprove (it is not unknown for people to try and impersonate other users). There always needs to be a fallback option, whether it be a committed identity (can anyone provide a link to this) or another indisputable way for the people operating two accounts accused of sockpuppetry, with the accusations backed up by borderline checkuser data (and yes, the value of checkuser data can vary depending on the context) to prove that they are two different people, and to be advised on how to avoid meatpuppetry accusations even if they edit in the same areas (which any two people should be free to do if there is no conflict of interest or undeclared off-wiki interaction). It sometimes seems the best way to avoid such things is to never let anyone else edit through your IP, but this is not always practical. It seems it would be good advice for all editors to know whether they are editing from static IPs or not, and to note the times when they edited from other IPs, and to state if they are aware that other people are editing from their IP or IP range (while not having to reveal any more than this), just in case. I've occassionally edited from other IPs, and I also believe the main ones have slowly changed over time due to IP reassigment other than dynamic IPs stuff, but the stuff about IP ranges being "geographically close" always concerns me. It might help if the checkusers confirmed that they do discuss and check each other's actions on a regular and random basis, just to make sure individual checkusers don't slip into the habit of making errors. In particular, are new checkusers given training? Carcharoth (talk) 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly the reality is that difficult cases of WP:SOCK accusations/violations are almost impossible to disprove without the assistance of a time machine. e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ehud Lesar took almost 2 months. At the end of the day, admins, CU and arbcom need to make decisions based on what information they have. I am surprised that people are trying to find malice or incompetence in the CU and arbcom simply because a person who, previously banned from the community, has been welcomed back in by arbcom. Admins do this all the time; it doesnt mean that the admin is wrong or incompetent. Those observing these tough decisions need to AGF that the decision was made for the benefit of the project, at that time.

This is an extreme case, and all the people with access to the privileged information are saying that the evidence is insurmountable, with a round of blocks being the only sane way to deal with it at the time - but there is a fallback option even for extreme cases like this, and Poetlister has taken that route. She bit the bullet and decided to work productively on other projects to prove that she is worth a second chance. At the end of the day it doesnt really matter how she ended up so closely aligned with this sock ring. She has put things right by demonstrating that she is of a better ilk. I hope that any Wikipedians who find themselves in such a rare predicament follow her example when other avenues of appeal are exhausted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that's _not_ a suitable fallback, because it does not allow Londoneye, if she is in fact a different person, to edit. It does not allow Taxwoman, if she is in fact a different person, to edit. It's only a "suitable fallback" if they really are all sockpuppets, which really isn't much of a fallback at all. --Random832 (contribs) 13:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont follow - I have just explained how this fallback has worked successfully for one account. If those other accounts are also separate individuals, they can also join other projects, edit consistently for a long duration without using open proxies, or at least not use the same open proxy. Checkusers can then share information to confirm that they are all reasonably likely to be acting as separate individuals now. "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The pertinent evidence is that Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets. This is false. The evidence in question, rather, is that the accounts accused of being his sockpuppets used the Tor nodes unblocked and soft-blocked by him. "Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets" is actually your characterization (not an unreasonable characterization, to be sure, but all the same) of the evidence, rather than being the evidence itself. The context of the numerous disputes over how tor nodes should be blocked, settled only recently by the introduction of ipblock-exempt, serves to established that he might have had some other motive for unblocking them than his own alleged personal use of Tor. --Random832 (contribs) 13:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see how softblocking the OPs proves anything either way. Assuming for a moment that Poetlister isn't a sock of Runcorn, Runcorn and Poetlister were at the least Wiki-friends. I know this because back in 2006, I emailed Poetlister and Poetlister CCd Runcorn into the email discussion. It's entirely possible that Poetlister or one of the others complained to Runcorn that their op was blocked and he independently decided to abuse his tools and went and softened it for them. It's also possible that some of the language, user agent, the shared OPs and other similarities boil down to friendship. I mean, if I find a great new program, I tell my friends so they can try it, too. If I was using an OP and I had a friend who also wanted to use one, I would help them connect to mine. And friends often pick up each other's language. Same goes for the XfDs and RfAs - friends often discuss things like this off-site and it isn't out there to think they might have followed each other's edits. That said, I do believe that there were socks operating here and I believe that Runcorn was one of them, but I've never been overly convinced by the purported evidence linking Poetlister to the sock farm and I think it's very unfortunate she has had to wait this long for an unblock. But regardless of whether she was guilty or not, a second chance is a good thing and I thank the Arbitration Committee for taking this step. Sarah 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at individual pieces of evidence in isolation (and not even the really important ones, like direct IP matches) is deceptive. Runcorn might have unblocked the proxies as a friend, but it is not reasonable to suggest that he also shared exact, rare user agents, had an exact IP match with a sock, and began unblocking those proxies, etc., but was "just a friend." It's a bit nonsensical to begin making up a story for Poetlister that is directly contradicted by her own defense given in her appeal, which is considerably less convincing than the vague scenarios and possibilities being raised here — which seem more like attempts to defeat the evidence by outdebating it and planting a seed of uncertainty through all the same "what if"s that sockpuppeteers always give when they get caught; you could unblock nearly any sock if explanations could be that insubstantial. Dmcdevit·t 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm not trying to make up stories for Poetlister. I'm just expressing my own opinion that "Runcorn specifically unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes used by his sockpuppets" is not, in my view, the strong "evidence" it's being presented as. It isn't even really evidence - the evidence is Runcorn unblocked and soft-blocked the Tor nodes, and the rest of it is opinion with "sockpuppets" easily interchangeable with "friends". I do agree that the pieces of evidence combined are more convincing than they are individually. As I said before, I believe there was socking going on here but I'm just not overly convinced that Poetlister was part of the sock-farm. But I also haven't been overly convinced by the explanations Poetlister has given publicly and privately and I have felt when talking with her in the past that she wasn't being completely honest or upfront. Since I don't find either side all that compelling and nearly a year has passed with her continuing her good work on other projects without any problems, I'm glad she's been unblocked. Sarah 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad she is unblocked too. Aside from all of this other distraction, the real message here should be that it is a success story. It is irrelevant whether she admits a true account of what happened or not. Her subsequent actions show that she deserves a second-chance, and that means that we should let her back in with dignity intact. She is free to continue to claim innocence; as long as she proves a net benefit for the encyclopedia, it's a good thing. What I am really frustrated about is that other people won't let her back with dignity intact (not referring to Sarah, or only this thread). Insisting on arguing a year-old case again in a show of anti-authority politicking sows doubt and undermines ArbCom, which is why I felt compelled to reply and talk about it, but I don't think we should be dwelling on this instead of welcoming Poetlister back, guilty or not, and I'd rather the thread ended here. Dmcdevit·t 04:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for explaining your views of the technical aspects of the case. Cheers, Sarah 06:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So, according to Sarah, you can edit under the same IPs, use the same rare user agent, edit the same articles, vote on the same XfDs, and speak the same way, and still just be totally innocent really, really close friends. In that case, as somebody already mentioned here, we might as well just abolish the whole CheckUser system. It's flawed! I guess everybody ever blocked for sockpuppeteering should be immediately unblocked, since that is the most commonly used defense; and how can we possibly prove them wrong, guys?! Still, the prospect of Poetlister having one or more alter-ego accounts is hardly unfathomable, despite the denial of Random832, who, ironically, probably witnesses it happen daily on the WR forums. Nobody's infallible and everyone makes mistakes, even popular users. 203.144.160.245 (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, ah no, that's not according to me at all. I've already said that I believe some socking was going on; that I'm not overly convinced by either side; and that the pieces of evidence combined are much more compelling than they are separately but no individual piece of evidence is overly compelling which is what was being presented above with regard to Runcorn soft blocking the Tor nodes. And thanks for the brainwave but we actually already know that checkuser is flawed, that's why we tell people it isn't magic pixy dust and that there are possible explanations for false positives. We've had false positives in the past so it really isn't that strange an idea to most of us. I can think of plenty of people off the top of my head who would look like socks of each other if checkusered but it's called being a spouse or a housemate. That's why we generally look for more evidence than just a matching IP. But anyway, I agree with Dmcdevit about this thread and I'm not going to continue posting here. Sarah 08:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish to thank FT2 for providing a detailed explanation of his thought process and evidence. I feel strongly that, given the age of the accounts in question as of May 30, 2007, the Committee should have provided a public explanation at that time. I am certain that, although it would have increased the immediate drama, it would have saved a lot of time in the 11 months since then. I understand from FT2's closing words that he and the Committee have learned a valuable lesson to disclose evidence in complicated cases.

In my correspondence with the Committee to request Poetlister's unblock, I argued strongly that, even if Poetlister was guilty of everything she is accused of, she should be allowed back because almost a year has passed, and ArbCom generally issues bans of "only" a year. I thank the Committee for accepting this argument. I am deeply bothered by Seraphimblade's statement above that he would not have allowed Poetlister to return without some admission or explanation. If, after literally months of pressure and persuasion, you cannot push Poetlister to admit to any wrongdoing, the proper thing to do is step back from the conflict and ask yourself, "What is best for the Wikipedia community?" Surely nothing is gained by locking a supremely capable editor out of Wikipedia just because you cannot win an argument against her. Seraphimblade probably doesn't know this, but I promised Poetlister and the Committee that I would return to editing under my username only after they unblocked Poetlister. I kept my word. If Poetlister were still blocked, I would not be making this post right now. My conviction was that, no matter what happened last year and before, it is now time to make peace.

I asked the Committee to publish a finding that a "reasonable doubt" exists regarding the allegations against Runcorn/Poetlister. They declined for reasons I now understand. By stating in my userspace that Poetlister is innocent, I established that a reasonable doubt does exist, no matter how strong the checkuser and behavioral evidence may be. I continue to believe that Poetlister did not use sockpuppets. You may consider me delusional if you wish, but that is what I believe. I have the right to believe that. I also have the wisdom to know when to leave well enough alone.

What convinces me that these users are not all the same person is the "Offdays analysis" of which days they edited or did not edit. Assuming that all these users are the same person, the contribution log of that person is extremely bizarre. This person edited every single day from October 14, 2006, until he/she was blocked, and would almost certainly have continued to edit every single day for several more months. Maintaining this feverishly high level of activity for nine months or more, without taking any days off, is extremely difficult to do, especially if the person must juggle ten different identities simultaneously. Moreover, the number of offdays decreased as more accounts were created and actively edited. The sockmonster took ten consecutive days off between December 22, 2005 and January 2, 2006, which were Runcorn's first and second days of editing. The sockmonster took a total of ten days off in the 16 months from January 31, 2006 until it was blocked on May 30, 2007. No matter how much I ponder the vote-stacking and checkuser evidence, I just can't convince myself that the data are telling a coherent story. It doesn't make sense that one single person did this. There must be some other explanation. Some of the accounts must be different people, and I think Poetlister is one of those different people.

Let me answer Random832's question about falsifiability: how can Poetlister prove that she is not the sole operator of the Runcorn sock-farm? It's very simple. (I have suggested the following to her in a private email.) From public statements, we know her first name is Giselle [34] [35] (this is also how she signs her email messages). She says she was born on May 11, 1980.[36] [37] She uploaded photographs of herself in July 2005 (Image:Poetlister.JPG) and December 2007 (Image:Poetlister2.jpg). According to W.marsh in August 2007, she provided the Committee with other information to establish her real-world identity. W.marsh wrote: "a real name was given at one point, that connects to a very old webpage, that seems to provide the actual identity of whoever was behind all of this and tie the female accounts to each other... but Bulldog and I decided not to mention that name/page publicly for hopefully obvious reasons." [38] I don't know what he's talking about, but I assume the Committee knows the details.

Poetlister can convince the Committee that she is not the sole operator of the Runcorn sock-farm by providing a plausible alibi to show that her real-world identity did not have Internet access, and thus could not have edited Wikipedia, on any of the 513 days from April 11, 2005 to May 30, 2007 when any of the Runcorn socks edited but Poetlister did not edit. The Runcorn socks, taken as a group, edited on 723 of the 777 days in this interval, but Poetlister edited on only 213 of those days, including edits she made to Wikiquote, Wikisource and Meta. That leaves a window of 513 days for her to present an alibi to show that she was not editing Wikipedia on any of those days.

Experienced users who wish to receive a copy of my spreadsheet, where I have tabulated the relevant data, are invited to email me.

I am nearly certain that the Committee has not pursued this line of reasoning yet. It would not prove that Poetlister is completely innocent, but it would prove that she is not the sole operator of the Runcorn sock-farm.

I am not blind to the fact that, in addition to vote-stacking many XFDs and RFAs, the Runcorn sock-farm shared some common habits in their edit summaries, such as using "RV" (capitalized) to signal a revert, and repairing links of redirects to point to the target page with an edit summary of "Bypass redirect" or more rarely "Avoid redirect." Ultimately, I must concede that there is evidence on both sides of this argument, and I will never know the whole story. What I do know is that the "offdays analysis," among other evidence, strongly suggests that more than one person was involved. How many people? I don't know. But it was more than one.

FT2's explanation has restored my trust in the integrity of the Committee as an institution where justice prevails. Even though I disagree with his conclusion, I respect it, and I will limit my dissent to my userspace and to appropriate off-wiki web pages. I wish Poetlister success in reintegrating to the community. That, more than anything else, is the ultimate goal of our efforts on this case. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The two user accounts and one anon who added spam relating to the Langham Hotel in Hong Kong all need to be blocked. Also, since I rolled back a lot of edits by these users, I'd ask the admin who takes this case to review my actions and make sure I did it correctly. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was recently blocked for mass puppetry as established per checkuser(see list of previous puppets) and now it turns out that he continued where he left off the new sock is 78.99.161.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) confirmed by checkuser [39] [40], now the new sock and the master account need blocking. The good faith of administrators was completely abused here. MarkBA has 4 blocks, but only one shows up in the block log of the main account and they treated him like a new user every time. See these talk pages for example [41] [42] [43] where he is constantly welcomed, invited to discussion, advised to create an account all the same steps taken over and over, with incredibly short blocks “not to bite” for example the 4th block is only for 3 hours [44] for “Disruptive editing: Multiple reverts with uncivil edit summaries”. The socks were generally used for mass incivility, personal attacks among other things like [45] often using edit summaries [46] [47] to abuse fellow editors. The latest sock 78.99.161.255 is no less disruptive with every single edit is a revert of a user. I think it’s safe to say that if all the edits were made with the main account it would be blocked already but by avoiding scrutiny and abusing good faith and being treated like a new user every time, the accounts got away with a slap on the wrist. The sockmaster account, MarkBA was already under restrictions per the Digwuren arbcom case [48]. Only the Checkuser confirmed socks are listed in the category there can be many more currently undetected. Admin action is needed against the main account so it can be properly tagged as sockmaster and the socks can be collected and their contributions can be followed from there. Hobartimus (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One problem I see (and I know absolutely nothing about this situation) is that it looks like he is using rotating IP addresses. There is a strict policy against long blocks for IP addresses. If a checkuser has determined they are his, I would suggest a block to his main account for sockpuppetry. We have to do something to make him realize that that sort of conduct is not welcome here. Notified him of this thread in case he has something to say. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am really surprised by this "report" because the diffs point to old edits and MarkBA has already been blocked for them. The sockpuppetry tag that Hobartimus is trying so hard to place on his user page was removed by an administrator for a good reason.[49] The situation is very complex and involves edit warring by a large number of editors, including MarkBA and Hobartiumus (who filed this report). The dispute resolution between all the involved editors is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment with the help of User:Elonka. I do not understand why Hobartimus filed this report because the sockpuppetry situation has already been discussed at that Elonka's page and administrative action has taken place. I can only guess that it has something to do with the fact that Elonka is away for few days for personal reasons. I urge Hobartiums to return to User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment because the discussion on this lengthy and complex edit war should be centralized. I would like also to encourage any administrator interested in this thread to read the linked page. It will give you a broader picture of what is going on. Tankred (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

• Elonka is expected to be off-wiki in the next couple of days and seems to have no problem with this discussion here
• this IP (confirmed by Checkuser only yesterday) has been used after MarkBA's block for abusive sockpuppetry expired on 27 April (so these are not old edits regarding the case)
• MarkBA is already under restrictions according to the Digwuren arbcom case and the edit summaries of the new revert-only IP have not been that civil
• I'm not "really surprised" by this report, but I wouldn't have posted here if the credibility of Hobartimus hadn't been attacked in an unjustified way

Squash Racket (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing complex here. The latest socking was confirmed by checkuser Tatcher [50] the abusive sockmaster MarkBA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) need blocking ASAP as confirmed by checkuser. The latest puppet last active a few days ago 78.99.161.255 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) still remain unblocked untagged and the main account needs to be dealt with. The community should decide wheter checkuser confirmed repeat abusive sockpuppetry is something to endorse or reward or sanction. Another "slap on the wrist" type block could be taken as open encouragement of this type of abuse since getting CheckUser confirmed proof is not always an easy task even in this case there can be much more abuse and disruption, only unconfirmed by CheckUser. As per admin Ricky81682 commenting above, blocking dynamic IP-s is not an effective way to deal with this, I endorse an indefinite or substantial block of the main pupeteer account, MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Hobartimus (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

False accusations, and heated personal opinions do not count into debate, therefore this thread is about that. Look at yourself first and your actions before complaining, I am NOT a sockpuppeteer (no evidence whatsoever), that's a personal opinion of several editors. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 07:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately MarkBA lost his mind. The more unfortunate thing is that he (as you can see) made it in a "clever way" by "exporting" those blocks coming from edit wars and uncivility and personal attacks to his IPs, so his account remained "clear" of blocks. However his "checkuser" case connected those IPs together and to him, therefore Hobartimus is right, MarkBA was blocked way more times than his block log shows.

MarkBA played out his restrictions through IPs, as well as general policies, like WP:NPA and all the others. Also impersonated me through doing similar or same edits, continuing what I stopped: edit warring (two of those IPs listed as "socks"). The descending tensions between Slovak and Hungarian users delivered by the User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment was multiple times compromised by these IPs as you can see (for example resulting in this thread, and slightly growing tensions again).

Mark has a "problem" in general with the Hungarian editorial community what he had explained on his userpage in a big, red provocative banner[51]. It was removed by Elonka (talk · contribs) [52]. As you can see, Mark also claimed that he had "retired", while the "checkuser" confirmed that he had not. He replied within hours to his blocking notice, despite his last edit was two weeks ago. That misleading banner was later removed by himself.

My feeling is that MarkBA is not intrested in decreasing the tensions or reaching any consensus or whatever, but only in "killing them all" (Hungarian editors' accounts/edits) thing. Maybe this is because of his adolescence (he is allegedly 16 years old) or his political beliefs don't accept any discussion or compromise wih Hungarians, or something else, I do not know, and doesn't matter. Unfortunately his recent actions made me thinking that he wish to act only in a way wich can maintain the level of tensions between Slovak and Hungarian users, therefore he does not have a place amongst us at these times, only after the experiment had reached all its goals. Maybe a half/one year later. --Rembaoud (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious YOU aren't interested in decreasing the tensions, dear Rembaoud... You were mixing politics, were edit-warring, and now it's ironic you want to exclude someone who didn't take part really much. False accusation no. 2 and don't speak about someone's personal data, OK? You should be silent if you don't know anything about me. Again, socks aren't mine at all; the IP range just happens to be in my area; I'm not responsible for the IPs. MarkBA ^{what's up?/my mess} 11:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Mark, I quit edit warring when I learned that it is forbidden, while you are being here for years and still doing, from IPs, what you deny, despite the overwhelming evidence, starting from the "checkuser" and finishing at this page with this: [53], [54]. This U2 thing does not stand, sorry. :( --Rembaoud (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrators reviewing the case should be aware that apart from the conclusive checkuser evidence several administrators already reviewed some of the case when a previous block for abusive sockpuppetry was applied but MarkBA repeatedly blanked these discussions from his talk page in an attempt to hide the evidence. MarkBA moved most of his editing abuse, harassment, edit warring, personal attacks to the sockpuppets but returned "within hours" when the main account was blocked to ask for unblock [55]. See some of the old discussions here, [56] [57], and a consensus of several admins that MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeed the pupeteer for example [58] [59], the talk page even had to be protected by administrator Yamla a little later due to constant blanking by MarkBA [60]. In the face of overwhelming evidence these continued denials by MarkBA above for example can only be seen as a weak attempt to confuse administrators, hide past actions from scrutiny, so the next puppet can get the same "red carpet treatment" as the previous ones. Starting with level 1(!!) warnings [61] more warnings without action [62] invitations to discussion of the same user invited multiple times before [63] advice to create an account given to a long time abuser [64] and even when the block comes (4th block of the user, under restriction already), who already had an 1 week block before it's only for 3 hours [65], all the diffs come from the talk page of a single puppet confirmed by checkuser only later [66] as it takes time to get confirmation. Time of good faith users is wasted this way constantly with no progress other than warnings or miniblocks for a dynamic IP and no consequence to the main pupeteer account with all the blocks not following him and not showing up in his block log. If something is not done admins will have to start giving out level 1 warnings again, when dealing with a multiple times blocked, under restriction, checkuser confirmed abusive sockmaster, who has no intention of giving up socking, instead denies that the whole thing ever happened. The main account should be blocked and identified as a repeat confirmed sockmaster so future users and admins at least know what they are dealing with. Hobartimus (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this an editor forgetting to log in? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that was the latest puppet IP used by MarkBA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that was confirmed earlier by checkuser [67] and now confirmed by him as well writing from that IP in the name of MarkBA, demanding an apology for "false claims and lies" and stating that he has a right to blank his user page, referring to the above discussion about blankings done by user:MarkBA.

A great finding SheffieldSteel, thank you. Hobartimus (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have checked contributions of that IP and I think they should be understood in their context: User:Nmate, who was under the same editing restrictions at that time, made some undiscussed controversial edits across a high number of articles. He was reverted by the IP that Hobartimus mentioned here. Nmate's edits were rejected by the community at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment and the original version of these articles (effectively protected by the IP's activity) has been retained since then. Again, the case is slightly more complex than the short description presented here by Hobartimus. Most if not all users under editing restrictions in this case have broken their restrictions on few occasions, but the overall frequency of edit warring has significantly decreased. Indef. block of an editor who has made 7,500 edits (including a featured article, several good articles, and plenty of DYKs) and received three barnstars would be a harsh measure. I see the ongoing dispute resolution at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment as a much more promising way to resolve a long conflict, of which this last incident was but one of many episodes. It may result in a topic ban or indef. blocks for several editors. But I would rather wait until the end of the dispute resolution process instead of banning selected editors while we are still discussing substantial content issues. Tankred (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm surprised to see such a comment here I expected the next comment from you to be an apology for earlier trolling and making blatant false statement on AN/I. Not that long ago you made the false claim in this thread that this was an old case [68], and that " MarkBA has already been blocked for them", these should be redacted. It's intresting that in the face of overwhelming evidence of persistent longterm abuse, anyone would consider any action proposed here "harsh" but I guess a user with 4 blocks and 2 editing restrictions to their "credit", should be expected to oppose any and all admin action and never support a block or ban, no matter the extent evidence. The case needs more attention from admins experienced in dealing with sockpuppets, not multiple times blocked users with a long history of disruption. Hobartimus (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tankred, you and your buddies gave the barnstars to each other :) Should I give Hobartimus some barnstars now so his words will weight more? MarkBA's number of edits is why intresting (how can you check it)? If I edit 1000 I'll be "blockproof" for a day or what? :) 5k is a week 10k is a month, +100k is infinity? :)) or I get one credit for every 1000 edits, wich I can use for an edit war, or a personal attack or whatever to avoid the consequences? :)) I do not see, why are all these "arguments" are intresting or should be noted. Joe has red hair, don't block him? :) MarkBA's recent(?) history shows a sad tendency, wich has been crowned right here at THIS thread, by MarkBA himself:

denying any connections to these IPs [69], confirmed by checkuser, that those were used by him, then...khm :) [70], [71] he-he. No need for further discussion. Everything has been said, Tankred just tries to protect his mate in any possible way, wich is understandable, but unfortunately has nothing but weasel talk and irrelevant arguments in pocket. However Hobartimus has some real ones, listed and discussed above, wich I can just repeat. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This bot, while useful in some respects, uses self-righteous language in talk pages and edit summaries. Creator doesn't take note of people's concerns. Artlondon (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it would have been more appropriate to notify the owner of the bot, instead of posting here. I've already dropped it off on Corens talk. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You've made a number of cut-and-paste moves. :/ I'm going to clean this up, but please refrain from doing so in the future. east.718 at 03:00, May 9, 2008

Coren looks to have singularly ignored the last four complaints about his bot immediately flagging immediate mirror scrapings of new articles. MickMacNee (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that Coren has "singularly ignored" these, or are you just assuming bad faith to a startling degree? ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 11:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course I have evidence, it's you Redvers who has no good faith around here. MickMacNee (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a bold and sweeping statement about me. Do you have evidence to back that up? ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your entire behaviour on this board prior to the recent Betacommand arbcom case. I recently found bc's second RFa, it makes for quite interesting reading, especialy when you realise that with the help of the likes of you, his behaviour is exactly the same in May 2008 as it was in September 2007, and apparently well before that. 'Dont feed the trolls' - ring any bells? MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see definitely no issue with the current wording of the bot's message, which is (I took it from Artlondon's talk page):

I have performed a web search with the contents of XXX, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: YYY. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

Coren not being very active these days, I can understand if he tries to do something productive of his time... Seriously... -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

JPG-GR (talk · contribs) is trying to "close" in an administrative style a request to move of a page which I had issued.

After User:Ludvikus had recently moved the article to a new title, I had issued a first request at 29 April 2008. It was accepted almost at the same day, and the article was moved back by an administrator to the old title. Now Ludvikus had the idea to move the article to a new, third title. That is why I filed a second request at 30 April 2008 to move the article back to the old title. I've explained on the article's talk page why this is the correct title. Only Ludvikus seems to oppose a move. However, now User:JPG-GR is removing my request from the WP:RM, (and at the same time the { {move-templates}} form the article's talk): [72] [73] [74]

JPG-GR explains to me that the case is closed, see their and my talk-page, although they are not an administrator. This behaviour of JPG-GR is disturbing. --Schwalker (talk) 07:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Five days have passed and there is no consensus for the move. User:Schwalker is merely taking out his/her frustration on me because he/she has found no support for his/her proposed move. JPG-GR (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is no consensus" and if there is no consensus, then it must be achieved" JPG-GR (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already found support by the editor who had moved the article back to its old title one week ago. The only editor who is opposing this consensus seems to be Ludvikus. Anyhow, WP:RM reads:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators. Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared..

So the next step after a request has reached the backlog would be that an administrator is looking at the case. --Schwalker (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've just been informed of this discussion here. I think it's about the battle of the t/T's - t vs. T, correct? All I can say at the moment is that I'm for the Big T. As to consesus, I'll report back on that in a moment, or soon. --Ludvikus (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm back. Both of you are wrong: in fact, the consensus was there, namely that Capital "T" is correct, and that the Article not be moved from where it is now. Here's my evidence for that Ludvikus (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC):

1. (cur) (last) 21:22, 30 April 2008 Schwalker (Talk | contribs) m (24,107 bytes) (→Publications by Marx related to the essay) (undo)
2. (cur) (last) 20:30, 30 April 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (24,104 bytes) (→Interpretations: clarify source author's voice) (undo)
3. (cur) (last) 16:31, 30 April 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (moved On the Jewish Question to On The Jewish Question over redirect: rv myself) (undo)
4. (cur) (last) 16:29, 30 April 2008 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (moved On The Jewish Question to On the Jewish Question over redirect: correct capitalization) (undo)
5. (cur) (last) 14:47, 30 April 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (24,021 bytes) (move minor info to proper section) (undo)
6. (cur) (last) 14:45, 30 April 2008 Boodlesthecat (Talk | contribs) (23,977 bytes) (undo)
7. (cur) (last) 13:49, 30 April 2008 Ludvikus (Talk | contribs) m (moved On the Jewish Question to On The Jewish Question: Formally the "T" is capitalized) (undo)

Consensus is reached through discussion, not through an overview of a move war. This is why I asked Schwalker (talk · contribs) to create a new, proper request so that there would be a more centralized area for future discussion to see if consensus could be found. He refused to do so, declared there was no consensus on my own talk page, and then reported it here. *shrug* JPG-GR (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. My understanding is that the only editor who objects/objected to "T" instead of "t" is Schwalker (talk · contribs). I have no knowledge of any other who supported/supports his view. So my understand of the concensus was/is Keep "T". --Ludvikus (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I'm sure that you act in good faith and are not aware of how much time of other people you bind by your disturbing actions concerning this article. Nearly each of your suggestions for this article so far had to be reverted by others. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to show our attention to you. So if you are not able to contribute in a constructive way, please try to work on something else. I believe that not more Wikipedians participate in the discussion about the title with a capital 'T', because they think this question is entirely silly. Another user has already once moved the article back to the old title at 13:08, 29 April 2008.

JPG-GR, well, I've never moved the article so far, do you really think that it is necessary to remind me not to "move-war"? Instead, I've issued two proper request to move, the second request at 21:35, 30 April 2008. The discussion takes place at Talk:A_World_Without_Jews#Lower case 't', everyone interested is invited to participate in the discussion to reach a consensus.

However, the problem is that you interfer and try to close my process, and remove my request from WP:RM, and remove my "move"-templates on the articles talk-page in an edit-war, and archive the discussion on the article's talk-page, to the effect that the process will not continue: no administrator will look at it, and move the article back to what most editors think is the correct title. Greetings to both of you, --Schwalker (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM is not a never-ending process. It is a five-day process. After five days being listed at WP:RM, the result of the discussion was no consensus. It is not my fault that only a limited number of editors are interested in this discussion. As I previously stated, the process doesn't go on and on and on until your side wins. After five days, there is no consensus, so there is no move. JPG-GR (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule like "After five days, there is no consensus, so there is no move". Instead it reads that if there is no consensus,

"the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus"."

Also please scroll up, I've already cited the WP:RM policy for the backlog above, thanks --Schwalker (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) As the greater issue at hand here is 75% due to the disorganization of Talk:On The Jewish Question and probably 15% due to the failure to properly request the move per the WP:RM procedure in the first place, I have re-proposed this move, on behalf of User:Schwalker. Please have any further discussion in favor or against the move there so that consensus can be reached, if possible. JPG-GR (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "failure to properly request the move per the WP:RM procedure"? The only failure I can see here is your interference in processes of other people. --Schwalker (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please look below on this Noticeboad" to the Section titled: Disruptive editing and page moves by User:Ludvikus. It relates to the alleged disruptivness of the same parties regarding related and similar issues. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish to add that I have respect for User:JPG-GR who I find is meticuous in following Wikipedia policies and procedures. I've learned things from him just with the last few days. He knows how to do things here at Wikipedia. On the other hand, I believe otherwise with respect to User:Schwalker who has unilaterally - without any consenses - Reverted my text from the talk page, calling it Deletion. I sincerely believe that what he's doing at this moment is disruptive to our whole Wikipedia community. Let me say something about myself to establish my veracity. I'm a respected editor at the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. How do I know that? Simply because when I add text there - it sticks. And you all know that that page attracts a lot of crackpots from all over the world. Nevertheless, the page has dedicated Wikipedian editors who constantly and vigilantly defend it against Vandalism. That all means that I'm a respected editor on that page - on Jewish matters I might add. I come here because of this editor who I believe - for reasons I do not understand - is WP:stocking against me. He is deliberately Deleting or Reverting matterial I put up. Please, lets put an end to all this nonsense. Lets settle and compromise. But for that we need cooperation among all of us. Can anyone advise as to how to put these silly disputes to rest? Chheers, and have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)