Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:07, 18 November 2008

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

User: Srkris - Civility and disruptive POV edits

User:Srkris has been:

• Uncivil in the talk page with a WP:CIVIL warning issued.
• Uncivil edit comments
• Doing POV Content forking (WP:POVFORK)
• Using clear Peacock/Weasel edits
• Most recently disruptive edits and ALL of this without leaving any edit comments on the talk page.

Please look into this. Thanks. ] (] · ]) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Srkris is basically stalking me and undoing all my WP:RS cited edits with a clear POV and a personal agenda as evident from the comments. ] (] · ]) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...........he is indeed stalking me. ] (] · ]) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sudharsansn, u have to make u'r case clearer to admins. For example when you said that edit comments were uncivil, first that it does not link to any edit comments, second you have to say what comment was uncivil. This is just one example.Taprobanus (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Taprobanus :-)

• ""which ignoramus altered this?", "formed by your own ignorance and prejudice", "Under what authority do you find yourself competent to make mass reverts " - From the talk page and also the edit comments which are listed alongside the edits in the edit history page. His behavior has also been pointed out as being uncivil and rude by other editors in the Sanskrit talk page. As listed again, he is basically stalking me and undoing all my edits just to push a POV in spite of WP:RS citations and talk page comments that I have added. This is turning out to be a nuisance to have an editor who is out on a spree. ] (] · ]) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• The sort of wikihounding behaviour described here is troubling and unacceptable. It's as if he's seeing how much he can hound a user before he gets blocked, given that his reports of wikistalking in the past were dismissed as frivolous. Additionally, reuploading deleted images and using them in the same fashion that they were used prior to deletion is disruptive - see his deleted contribs. Tools, anyone? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your points. Is there something that can be done about this? This user is very simply an wikihounding troll pushing POV, but does not get noticed because of the fact that he is actually very well organized and gets away with it all the time. He has been issued several warnings but he removes them from his talk page accusing the admins/editors of being vandals. Here are some: Removing warnings from tal page, blocked five times for sockpuppetry, wikistalking and uncivil behavior, blocked again, and comments, warnings removed from talk page, personal attacks, more uncivil behavior and more. Now with ALL this continuing even now, as pointed out in my complaint raised here, I seriously cannot believe how the Admins let someone clean up their talk page to make it look nice and still continue organized mafia-type hounding, uncivility, sockpuppetry and policy violations to let one guy get away with ALL this, just to write POV nonsense. Can something be done about this? Seriously!! Thanks ] (] · ]) 03:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked through those diffs, but users are generally allowed to remove warnings and comments from their talk page - except if they're blocked, where the block notice+reasons should remain viewable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that he is making his vandal behavior look unnoticeable by being very organized about not letting admins gain the impression that he is a POV vandal. He is basically sweeping it all under his carpet so that a first look would not reveal anything. Can something be done about ALL these other complaints raised about blanking content, uncivility and wikihounding? ] (] · ]) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to continue everyday. What he is doing is exactly WP:HOUND, stalking a user to chase that person out of wikipedia by creating a bad taste towards editing articles. He has been stalking me here, in fact several times here, in this article for more than ten days and is also dubiously adding comments with random sockpuppets. Is anyone even looking into this? ] (] · ]) 00:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Srkris and Sudharsansn are both problem editors pushing their opposing povs. It would appear both could do with a cooldown block and a patient reminder regarding WP:NOT. --dab (𒁳) 06:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how User:Dab(Dbachmann) is suddenly qualified to call me a problem editor when no one following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines seem to have had 'problems' with me. My record in Misplaced Pages has been perfect and consistently clean for over two years. I haven't had ANY blocks or spats and I am trying to constructively expand Misplaced Pages by reliable citations and I haven't made ANY edits without proper referencing. My work in Misplaced Pages has been completely within the framework of Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. User:Dab(Dbachmann) may disagree with the contents of the edit, however, that does not give him the right to limit that information or accuse me of being a POV editor.

User Srkris on the other hand has had a history of bad editing in Misplaced Pages, some of which I have pointed out. He has been blocked five times, he has re-uploaded deleted images, has been served civility warnings, POV warnings and a longer history of bad behavior on Misplaced Pages. So User:Dab(Dbachmann) suddenly jumping into this and accusing me of being something, does not absolve the reason for this complaint being made and it also does not absolve User Srkris of his uncivil, inappropriate, POV Wikihounding. Post ONLY what is relevant to this complaint made here, your judgments and opinions can come in when required. Thanks. ] (] · ]) 19:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It continues here. I seriously cannot understand how someone with FIVE blocks for uncivility, Wikistalking and Sockpuppetry is still continuing to do Wikistalking and uncivility without the faintest remorse and how WP Admins aren't noticing a troll who is hiding all the warnings in his talk page, as pointed out above, by sweeping them under the carpet! If an editor with such a bad editing history and an outrageously bad block/warning history can continue to go on a POV rampage, without any civility, to stalk other editors thereby creating a negative edit atmosphere, I fail to see the need for guidelines or policies.

Also, User:Dab(Dbachmann) recommending his 'newfound' invention, 'cool down' block, is immature and outright silly. I don't know why I should be blocked because User:Dab(Dbachmann) thinks that an edit war with a blatant POV troll with a miserable edit history in Misplaced Pages, requires also the other editor, with a two-year clean record, to be blocked for 'equality' reasons. I have heard of 'equality', but this is nuts! Maybe he thinks that one user has to be blocked for every troll who is blocked or warned.

User:Srkris is a classic example of someone getting away from all the hue and cry by cleverly posting an 'inactive' status message in his userpage while at the same time being hyper-active and removing ALL warning messages and hiding traces of his bad behavior by occasionally taking breaks from Misplaced Pages. All necessary information pertaining to his current behavior has been listed very clearly with diffs. ] (] · ]) 10:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Avinesh (Gentleman Account) and User:Googlean (Enforcer account)

For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Misplaced Pages terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Misplaced Pages. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Misplaced Pages terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Violation only if the good hand is an admin/admin candidate or the bad hand is specifically demonstrated as disruptive or editing for the purpose of stirring up controversy or participating in internal policy-political discussions. Merely having two accounts for more and less controversial areas, as this appears to be according to User:Vivin, isn't a violation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I never knew Wiki rules permitted accounts used solely for edit-warring. Please do point me to any existing policy that allows this. Btw, theblock log of Googlean indicates the account is stirring up controversy and his edit log indicates he is fighting political battles.Pectore 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP case filed. --vi5in 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean has been blocked before for edit warring. It is interesting to see that the bad account hasn't been indef blocked yet. Vivin is correct here.Pectore 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So one account is used to edit war, while the other isn't? Yes, this is a violation of WP:SOCK. Khoikhoi 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked, googlean indefinitely and Avinesh for one week based on linked confirmation above, and disruptive edit warring, attempting to deceive and obfuscate disruptive editing, and generally trying to be too cute by half about explaining it away. Additional confirmation would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

User:Vivin had earlier issues with User:Avinesh , bcoz of the latter's objection of POV pushing for the former's caste. This was indeed objected by many users like this , this and many other examples. Vivin himself was alledgely using socks ( See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet and User_talk:Vivin#Your_sock_puppet_case Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#User:Avinesh ) . With Avinesh leading "his accusers" , it was important for Vivin to get the 'head of Avinesh' to roll down. Avinesh was earlier involved with taking many caste based articles to AFDs. Even I have crossed horns with Avinesh very long back ( Both of us have 'complained' each other at the ANI). User:Avinesh is a good contributor , his contribs can be viewed from the user page.

In his new form as User:Googlean , he was 'fighting ' aganist the Pro-Hindutva and Anti-Christian cabal lead by ,
Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Pectore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Tripping_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) etc .,
While I dont really agree to the justification of Avinesh's use of mutiple ids to work on controversal subjects, I guess his explaination was the policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Misplaced Pages might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area . I interacted with User:Googlean on wiki noticing his NPOV fighting . I didnt know Googlean was actually Avinesh , whom I earlier had issues with , until when Vivin tagged him as a sock of Avinesh and Harjk.It may be interesting to know how Vivian identified Avinesh as Googlean without even a check user!

Googlean was associated with the following articles which was subjected to heavy POV vandalism by an anti-Christian cabal .

• Anti-Christian violence in India
• Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka
• Religious violence in Orissa
• September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore

See also Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jobxavier,
Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ,
Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Pectore
and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer. These pages is still trolled daily by scores of IP socks of Jobxavier. User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a permanently banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Googlean was intially blocked by User:YellowMonkey , who unblocked Jobxavier , when Jobxavier was blocked by another admin. YellowMonkey is a trusted admin , whom I have a gr8 respect and on wiki friendship , but this action didnt seemed acceptable from him and I have already conveyed this to him. Googlean and many other users wanted to add Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Vishva Hindu Parishad are declared militant parties. See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Bajrang_Dal.2C_Shiv_Sena.2C_VHP_-_militant_parties.3F . While Googlean strongly decided to keep adding the parties as militant / extremist , YM blocked him on a apparently pseudo consensus. Googlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by YM for "persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB." I guess here he was reverting a reliable source (?) part which was removed by a possibly a SPA editor named Blondlottswires ( contribs ) See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin .

The next time Googlean was blocked when an admin User:Wknight94 misinterpreted the CU results by User:Nishkid64. Nishkid unblocked Googlean and Both Nish and Wknight apologised to Googlean ( see User_talk:Googlean#re:.

Bharatveer has a very long disruptive and POV pushing history on Hindutava and Anti-Christian articles. He just came out of an year long editing restriction after this Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer. He was blocked several times during this period and ALSO last week. He is currently under Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case and is close to another editing restriction or a permanent ban. With Pectore the only person defending Bharatveer, it was important for him to get Googlean 'chained' and his accusitions here was in a very bad distaste and bad faith.

Now this being the behind the curtains story , tell me who is disruptive and socker. Avinesh may have used another legitimate account to keep off from the controversal subjects to protect his privacy and defend his personal and family security. You may not never know, he may be even otherwise be attacked in real world if his real identity was to be revealed as Avinesh . The question is whether he wanted to risk that in India , where there are lots of religious attacks recently ? The last time I warned an IP sock of Jobxavier, this was what I was threatened " The home ministry has your details ( and they will get you  ? ) ". What is next ? " Tinucherian, you are threatened to be burned or murdered? " The question is whether I should risk my personal and family security or should I also use a pseudo username to keep WP as NPOV as possible and also protect my life and security ? This being the case , I request the admins to reconsider the indefinite block of Avinesh and Googlean ! -- Tinu Cherian - 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely and totally uninterested in accusations about evil cabals and the related defense that poor behavior is justified by fighting a cabal. No excuses. Try again.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See facts and evidences before taking a prejudiced view . Also it is important to identify and to Call a spade a spade ! Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way, I am under no circumstances going to unblock someone based on the rational "they were fighting a cabal." This is non negotiable, so if you want my help, you're going to have to do better, or you can find another admin.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the real issue here? Think of the bigger picture ! See the contribs of others and Googlean/Avinesh , Was he disruptive or edit warring ? Was he keeping WP reliable and NPOV from huge number of disruptive socks and meat puppets? Was he potentially protecting his privacy and personal/ family security to uphold the best interests of Misplaced Pages by using a pseudo/ legitimate sock ? Did Avinesh and Googlean kept editing the same page as two different users ? With vivian's confession , Avinesh had declared he was indeed Googlean when needed. Did he kept denying his identity as Googlean ? . Concuring -Relata refero's statement above, kindly read WP:GHBH , was he operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy ? Was he operating a "bad hand" account for the admin / admin candidate for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or "three-revert rule" issues on the same articles ? Look at the other side of the table ? Lots of disruptive sock on rampage ! Admins and lots of other users keep reverting the sock POVs daily ( check the page histories of the articles above) and had to protect the pages. In the light of the above evidences and facts, I request to unblock User:Avinesh in Good faith. Due to pressure of lots of traumatizing POV pushers like these, many good users ( like User:P.K.Niyogi User:Ragib ( see reasons ) etc) have left / is leaving WP, which is not good for Misplaced Pages ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just finished my cup of hot chocolate (mmm hot chocolate) or my keyboard and screen would be quite chocolaty now (mmm chocolaty...). Tinucherian, thank you for confirming what Avinesh has consistently denied: Harjk and Crazyguy2050 being his sockpuppets. If you'll look at Harjk's contributions and Crazyguy2050's contributions, you'll see that he consistently reverted the article without discussion claiming that he was reverting "POV fork terrorism"/"monkeysm" (I still have no idea what that means). What's interesting is that Avinesh never really edited the article in question. So I guess Tinucherian, you're confirming something that Avinesh has denied - that Harjk and Crazyguy2050 are his socks. So there's the first point. Avinesh has lied through and through - hardly the mark of a "good editor".

Now Tinu also brought up Relata reverting the changes. Relata did revert the changes, but he and I reached a very amicable consensus on the article. So Tinu's second point is completely moot as well.

The third point is me having sockpuppets. Avinesh (and his socks) seem to accuse people that they do no agree with, of being sockpuppets. In fact, I believe he launched (as Googlean) a frivolous case against Pectore. The SSP was completely inconclusive, which means that I don't have any sockpuppets. I never have. Contrast this with three confirmed sockpuppet cases against Avinesh. I'm not sure what you mean about Avinesh "leading his accusers". I've only had one accuser and that's Avinesh (in addition to one Khalistan-nut-troll). And really, I have no interest in seeing "the head of Avinesh roll". I've stated many times that I value his contributions. However, he's always had WP:OWN and WP:COI issues with people correcting or cleaning up his articles. I mean, take a look at this revert war that he got into regarding his incorrect English grammar, which I was trying to correct, or these other articles, where I was trying to do the same. In fact, he launched that SSP case against me without following proper procedure (didn't bother to inform me), and simply because I tagged his article saying that it needed cleanup (which I later did).

Regarding my tagging Avinesh as a sock, it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh". I've pointed this out many times in the WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:SSP cases against him. Perhaps Tinucherian should have been as diligent in reasearching that as he has been in his defence of Avinesh. About all of this drama about ZOMG I R GOING TO BE KILLED!!! Really, now. Avinesh's intent is very clear - to engage in disruptive editing and POV pushing (and this has been confirmed by his previous blocks) in a set of battleground articles. So please don't try to bring up stuff about people being afraid for their lives.

Anyways, that's all I have to say. --vi5in 07:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Avinesh were kind of edit warring on some articles which I had brought it myself to the notice of ANI long back ( Need to really dig the archives to find it ). Seeing these initial edits of Googlean, he declares himself as a legitimate sock user , which clearly shows his intentions of having other accounts and only using pseudo names while working on controversial subjects , due to privacy and security reasons. Regarding it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh" , shows that he had no wrong intentions. He must have intented to keep his privacy only with the general public but bold enough to disclose it to admins . Hence I dont believe it is a good hand / bad hand case. I didnt know Avinesh and Googlean are related until User:YellowMonkey added this. When did I confirm Harjk and crazyguy are socks of Avinesh? Regarding User:Harjk , I lean to give the benefit of doubt because of shared network issues. It does scares me to think how many vandals probably writes from the my same company corporate network and my home broadband ISP network. This could happen to you also. The fact being you saying " he launched that SSP case against me for asking for cleanup of your article " is a hilarious attempt of blinding us of the real facts. Avinesh SSP by you ( dated 7 May 2008 ) is much earlier than Vivin SSP by Avinesh ( dated 14 August 2008 ) . During the time earlier when both of you were having issues each other, With your suspected sock Uzhuthiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) , ONLY concentrating and attacking on Avinesh created articles is a clear case of sock or meat puppet , with or without proven evidence ! Also to be noted that Harjk (talk · contribs) wasnot attacking your articles . Vivin Avinesh links show how better Wikipedian is avinesh , Mr Wikiwarrior! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, all your other rather unsubstantiated points aside (which I've refuted above), you do realize that the livemint article is a compliment, right? Thanks for the plug, once again. \o/ --vi5in 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, timeline clarification. There is no "hilarious blinding of facts". The first SSP case against Avinesh was because of a confirmed RFCU against him. I had no idea that Avinesh was Harjk/Crazyguy. I initiated an RFCU against Crazyguy being a sock of Harjk. The RFCU then established that Avinesh was the puppetmaster, which is obvious grounds for an SSP case. Avinesh's frivolous SSP case against me was launched as soon as I started tagging his articles AND cleaning them up. It wasn't just a 'drive-by-tagging'. Avinesh created some pretty good articles; they just needed to be cleaned up. Finally, creating a large number of articles doesn't mean you're better than everyone else. It's quality vs. quantity. So yeah, your argument fails again. Anyways, I'm not going to be taking part in this discussion any more. --vi5in 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The very last entry I made which you deleted concerning the Moorer Report was this one:

===Independent American Investigations===

Findings of the Moorer Commission of 2003

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Marine General Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)...". The Moorer Report continues: "in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States".

1. There are descriptions and titles supplied of the primary authors. It is difficult to imagine how any real American Citizen loyal to the Unites States could consider an Ambassador, a Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Marine General, and a Rear Admiral are behind a Fringe Theory.
2. The Entry contains the quote "there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from...". This quote is lifted directly from the report. What follows, are the names of presumably reputable persons who are in agreement with that statement.
3. Each of these persons are identified, and each of thier statements have the stated third party reference as part of the entry. The assertion that "Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided" is 100% incorrect. Each of the 5 persons listed has a secondary source identifying that each of these five have said what is implied in the quoted Sentence.
4. Since statements by each of the 5 above are reproduced in the articles listed, there is no violation of WP:OR. There is no original research involved. The articles are published, and readily available, via link, directly from the entry.
5. WP:SYN is also not violated here. Each of the sources speaks of ONLY that person speaking - effectively making the point that is stated in the Moorer Report quote which I reproduced.

It is interesting that you played the 'anti-semitic' card. I suppose I am supposed to cringe at this thought and somehow defend my actions. I think not. I am merely trying to get portions of an Independent Report from the 4 reputable persons listed on the USS Liberty incident Page. There is nothing anti-semitic about the truth.

The comment you made when you last removed the entry above is: 20:50, 14 November 2008 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (76,838 bytes) (rv no talk page consensus for this edit. Relevant policies WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit) (undo)

I would now like to address each of these objections, and others which have been voiced, individually:

"Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Misplaced Pages policy whatsoever.

An attempt at WP:CONSENSUS is impossible with your methods, primarily since you violate the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS yourself. Specifically, the policy calls for changes to entries if one feels that entries are incorrect. You have chosen to delete the entry every single time you see it. There is simply no way to reach consensus if you delete the entry, and every other variation of the entry you see. WP:CONSENSUS is impossible to reach if the only act you perform is to delete the entry. You have never even attempted to edit the entry to rid it of your objections. That is both a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and the first reason for why I make the charge that you are trying to censor any mention of the report on the USS Liberty incident page.

WP:UNDUE claims: WP:UNDUE says, in part: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is little mention of the Moorer Report on the USS Liberty incident page. Without it, WP:UNDUE is valid for the list of reports, since it gives undue weight to those reports mentioned, and none to the Moorer Report, entries to which you invariably delete. Amazingly enough, the only report which is not quoted explicitly in the USS Liberty incident page is the Moorer Report. Since it is niether an American nor Israeli government report, it was explicitly listed as an Independent American Investigation. It is you who are in violation of WP:UNDUE, buy allowing mention and quotes of the other reports, but consistently deleting any contents mentioned from the Moorer Report.

WP:NPOV claims: Another interesting one. The Moorer report makes several numbered statements, the collection of which is it's conclusion available here. That is it's purpose. To have investigated the USS Liberty incident and come to a conclusion. That you do not like the conclusion of the report is not my problem. One of the numbered conclusions of the report is that "there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew". This point is not made anywhere on the USS Liberty incident but is available in the Moorer Report. Inclusion of the Moorer Report actually completes the NPOV of the USS Liberty Page. After all, there can be no way that the USS Liberty incident can be considered Neutral if it explicitly does NOT provide at least some conclusion of the Moorer Report. So we have again you making an accusation, when it is in fact you who are guilty of the accusation.

There is a link to the Findings of the Moorer Report at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page. Your charges of WP:FRINGE on the entry I made has never actually caused you to remove the link at the bottom of the page to the Moorer report. Are we to understand that the Moorer Report is an acceptable link when a link to it in "Sources claiming attack was deliberate -> Other Sources" is available, but is a Fringe Theory if any mention is made on the USS Liberty incident of the contents of the report? Your inconsistent treatment of this entry speaks volumes about your intentions. You only delete any quotes or entries made on the Moorer Report, but you do not appear to object to a link to the report. Is my belief that you are trying to censor the report really that far fetched, in this respect?

You have argued that there is no secondary sources for the Moorer Report Findings for some time. I am astounded that the following reports, also listed on the "USS Liberty incident" page do not have a single secondary reference listed. The reports listed which do not have a secondary source are:

1. U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry
2. Joint Chief of Staff's Report
3. CIA Intelligence Memorandums
4. Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee Investigation
5. House Armed Services Committee Investigation
6. The NSA History Report

Why does the Moorer Report require a secondary source, when not a single one of the other reports listed have a reference?

Lastly, a checkuser (whatever that is) is welcome, as would be any other WP investigation you choose. I do not worry about my actions.WorldFacts (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: ] (] · ]), ] (] · ]) and ] (] · ]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Misplaced Pages policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional.

Having said that, the problem that looms over all others is the libellous smearing of editors as we're seeing yet again in this case. Along with the jeering at attempts to build collegiate relationships, one would really think admins knew better than to behave in this way. PR 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Misplaced Pages:Edit war and noting by reference Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we can avoid legalistic terms like libellous - it is not good enough to label other editors as antisemitic (or as Holocaust Deniers in one case) and then try and laugh it off. Particularly not when the great majority of those cases are totally without foundation. There is a problem on these pages, but it's not antisemitism (that I've noticed, anyway) - it's racism. I've just drawn everyone's attention to it in as non-accusatory a fashion as possible, leaving it to the discretion of admins what to do with an editor who refers to "crack-head Arabs" (along with unpleasantness aimed at the French and dozens of ethno-specific snide comments).

Editors might be amused to check that well known reference, the Misplaced Pages, where they will find: "Jcom Radio was forced to cease broadcasting on Aug 12, 2008 when it lost a High Court libel case brought by George Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow. The case concerned a broadcast in Nov 2007, in which a character playing "Georgie Galloway", the station's "Middle East correspondent" cried out "Kill the Jews, Kill the Jews". Despite sacking the presenter, issuing an apology and offering Mr Galloway the opportunity to appear on the station, Mr Galloway was awarded £15,000 and c. £5,000 in costs. He said that the station's apology "fell short of the categorical retraction of the imputation of anti-Semitism that I insisted upon"." PR 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anybody with anything. But I thought y'all might be amused to know that times move on and that, in at least some jurisdictions, accusations of antisemitism have apparently become actionable. Even an apology may not be good enough, as in the example I've drawn your attention to. There are of course, simple means to avoid putting yourself in jeopardy. PR 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The age old 'I'm not going to beat you up but you might have an accident' routine, PR? Please, pull the other, it has bells on. Can an admin deal with this as they deem appropiate? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening...But" Please pull the other one, legal threats are out of order. Justin talk 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As someone has pointed out on my Talk Page, there is an implicit legal threat above against me. I would be grateful for an admin to comment please. Justin talk 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

• Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
• Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.

• See these contribs lists: and and and
• See these diffs: and this edit summary and

This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion? I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB _talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne () 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne () 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— Dædαlus /_Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, . He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where all this starts. But , , seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the first one to admit - freely - that I am sometimes less tactful than I could be. I also agree that I should never have noted my educational background in a discussion (the only real instance of that ended several months ago, without recurrence), and I was properly chastised for doing so by others.

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. I have not stalked that person's edits, nor have I done so for eight months. The anon has.

The anon claims that some of the IPs are not his/hers; that might possibly be true. Using fairly ham-fisted IP-matching techniques, it would appear that about 3/4's of the IPs are centered around the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes part of Indiana, for purposes of this discussion); the rest are uniformly from New York. There might be a pattern there to be found - the user might take monthly trips to NY for work or whatever - but I think that it serves everyone's interest to not tar an innocent user editing from 75. with the same brush. Avi mentioned in the related RfCU that 75. counts for about 1% of the internet (about 67.1 million IPs), and the wiki benefits from the input of them. We cannot block them out because one particular user is being a jerk. And don't think I am not creeped out (and a little frightened) by the fact that the anon would appear to be in my own backyard.

Proposal One doesn't block the IP range; it just bans the user from editing here from whatever account or IP they choose to edit from. While this means that anyone being crafty with the same IP domain is going to get probed for duckhood, I think we already tend to do this passively and unofficially with most folk who act similar to banned or blocked users.

By banning the user, we remove ourselves from Proposal Two's added duty (and me the additional nuisance) of reporting behavior which would likely reoccur (case in point: the anon has been blocked three different times for this behavior, and each of nine different AN/I's have all commented about how the user had acted inappropriately - to date, that behavior has only abated by blocking the anon)

It has also been argued by the anon that they have edited anonymously for seven years. While that is a statement we cannot really prove - again, no single IP means edit histories are difficult to track, what is more telling is the stated reason the anon prefers to edit via dynamic IP and the actual effects. The anon has stated in April that they prefer to edit as a "public user", and more recently that they wish to avoid the "social networking aspects" of Wiki, and simply concentrate on articles. Quite lofty; if only it were true. Out of all the IPs connected to the account (and again the RfCU only addresses those IPs that intersected with my edits), less that a tenth actually add content to an article (and uncited content, in point of fact). The remainder of all of these contributions consist of reverting me, attacking me in article discussion or filing various administrative actions, all against me. All of that seems to pointedly fly in the face of someone trying to avoid the non-encyclopedia-building aspects of Misplaced Pages.

Indeed, if the anon has been editing here anonymously for seven years, I cannot be the only person with whom the (s)he has taken exception to in the past. However, because the anon has chosen to twist one of our most cherished Foundational ideals - that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, can edit here - and used it to avoid repercussions for their behavior, they should not be afforded the same protection that we afford to any other anon who comes here to actually add to the Project. The assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders by which we overlook extensive, recurring and nasty behavior. This user has abrogated their right to edit in our community; using Misplaced Pages instead to wage a protracted guerilla action against one or more users is not part of our core policies.

Since they have shown they cannot follow our rules, and instead use them to continue action against their fellow users, I think that Proposal One removes the problem user without really interrupting the contributions of similar IP accounts. - Arcayne () 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing with blocking the IPs he's caused trouble on is that he's clearly on a dynamic IP, which means someone else is also and theres a chance they could end up on a blocked IP (I know its a super-slim chance but still) Its a very extreme idea to ban IPs permanently. Heres an idea, I don't know if its possible, but is there a way you can block the IPs but still allow registration from them? That way if he does register whilst banned and then abuse Arcayne from an account, then we can sort it from there? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can make IP ranges so that they may only edit from accounts and not anon. -t BMW c- 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what about registering though? thats what im worried about. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, it's highly unlikely this will have to be enforced with long-term blocks at all, be it of ranges or individual IPs. Short blocks whenever he turns up again, depending of course on the intensity of his activities. In the unlikely event that more wide-reaching blocks should be necessary, ability for logged-in editors to edit through the block and ability to create new accounts through them are parameters that can be individually fine-tuned, just like we do with vandal blocks all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are still counting votes on this, I'd add my support to option 1. In practice, the two options are similar, since if a new IP shows up from this range who doesn't attack Arcayne it's unlikely that anyone will react to him in any way or connect him to this issue. The value of making this a ban is that any admin who notices the usual pattern will be able to block the IP without further ado. Most likely these blocks will be short, a month or less, and they will be anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. You do realize that if the ISP releases his dhcp release and gives him a new IP it isn't "creating a new account" and your usage of that indicates either a complete lack of understanding or an attempt to make something sound worse than it is. Your last CU failed I believe on an account you tried to tie to him. So do you have any evidence that he's actually created an account to harass you?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that for a moment: in every account listed in the RfCU, the anon had the IP for a day (two at the most) before the ISP would reassign a new IP address. However, the anon has had this particular IP (the one most recently blocked) since November 7th - over ten days. Now, for you or I, that's nothing, but those who've interacted with the anon know this is extraordinary in the extreme. I am reckoning that, knowing it would only hurt him/her if a new IP were to pop up amidst an AN/I specifically addressing all these multiple IP identities, the anon has chosen (as opposed to it being an ISP choice - and the ISP apparently hasn't changed since March) to either not reboot the modem (which is what I have assumed the user has done to also reboot their anonymity). In prior instance when the anon was saddled with a template on their talk page that connected them to their prior ids by admin reinforcement, that IP would go silent, and a new one would pop up a week or so later.

The last RfCU did not connect the anon to a known user. Perhaps it is my own bad faith assumption that the user is previously blocked or banned user, and my apologies to Jojhutton for disturbing him while trying to connect some dots about the anon. The current RfCU makes no such mistake, simply addressing the various 75.etc. IPs that keep popping up to attack my edits, and the prior checkusers have been useful in that the anon had previously admitted to editing under the anons denoted in bold there.

As for attack accounts, is it your contention that the anon never created an SPA/rebooted his/her modem simply to have it appear that more than one IP were complaining about my edits? - Arcayne () 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The current RFCU is pointless as all a RFCU is is to look at the underlying IPs to see if they're the same or similar. Since all you have are IPs, you're not checking anything. I'm not contending anything other than to tell you to stop claiming that this individual has made accounts to attack you unless you have a check user which says accounts are tied to him which you don't. You just have a mess of IPs from the same address. Which are not accounts. Personally I've had occasion where my IP has remained the same for months, and other times where it changed 2 or 3 times in a week. Such is the nature of a dynamically assigned IP address. Sometimes you can force a new IP address by rebooting/leaving your modem off for the lease period (typically a day) and sometimes your ISP just decides to randomly reshuffle all the leases, or there is some other problem going on which causes everyone to grab a new ip address. Generally rebooting your modem doesn't grant a new ip address as the DHCP process will typically give you the same address you had if the lease is still valid, or if no one else has taken that address after the lease is up your modem will ask for the last address it had. So it actually can be a little difficult to get a new IP address that way. If you're not familiar with DHCP and how it works I suggest reading up on, its not always possible on a system you don't control to go and get yourself a new IP address on demand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would submit that the RfCU is only pointless in that it points out the obvious - that the same user is responsible for most if not all of the IPs. Maybe take a closer look at the most current RfCU; I've listed the prior RfCU's regarding the user, and the anon him/herself acknowledged that the IP addresses were theirs. All I did was point out the string of IPs editing in the same RfCU, and the anon derailed the process by admitting that they were his/hers. Not failed mind you, derailed.

And while my IT-skills aren't anywhere near your apparent level, I am not sure they are really required when the same user keeps popping up in articles you are working to attack your edits. In the same ways. Using the same arguments. And the same unpleasant behavior. I mean, I didn't pull the IP addresses out of the air, Crossmr; they came up because the same person kept attacking me in places where they never had before. It started out in Fitna, but then spread to almost everywhere I edited. The result was antagonizing, creepy and annoying as all get out. I am sorry, but I am not getting where you are coming from here. I mean, if you are asking to be spoon-fed diffs of what everyone else can feast upon themselves, maybe I am not the guy to do it. I realize that the list of IPs in the RfCU is daunting, but I am not the one who chose to edit from that many places, now am I? - Arcayne () 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to prove your case which this is about since you've chosen to make so many complaints about this IP. However many of the diffs I've been provided in the various attempts to show how bad this IP is, don't really show anything bad about this IP which is what makes me question the veracity of the claim here. A previous diff was provided to show how bad the IP was with the note of "see this edit summary" upon viewing the edit summary I found nothing wrong with it. It was a factual and accurate description of an edit made that appeared to be a legitimate edit. That's just an example. So far about 2 out of 3 edits being show as indications of problem don't indicate any problem. I've seen a few questionable diffs, but I've seen them from both sides. My point with the accounts comment is that claiming this IP has made accounts to harass you is wrong and can cause a bias. Someone might read that without actually checking think "wow this guy is bad". If you want to cause someone to be banned, do it on facts and not hyperbole. He's had a lot of IPs, but I don't see anything actually tying him to an account, and if the worst thing he has done is get hung up on a claim you made (which honestly for all your explanation, can still be interpreted as claiming multiple degrees, no where did you ever state when making those claims that those were just classes that were part of a single degree) then a site ban really isn't in order. A mutual restraining order is more in order as I've seen you get just as worked up about him as he gets worked up about you.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally some diffs

I recommend everyone who is interested in resolving this and genuinely getting to the bottom of it go and read the diffs provided at: . Per my request the IP stepped back and provided some genuine diffs from the beginning of this dispute. As expected they are a little one sided, however it does let you view pages at the proper time context so you can also read what was said by both parties. There is a lot to read, I'm not going to kid you. However, the more I read the more questionable behaviour I see on the part of arcayne. Frankly its going to take a day or two to digest it, but so far I've seen more than one sock puppet claim being leveled by him but checking the various user pages, I don't see that anyone has been ever tagged a sock puppet. I'm still not taking any particular side at this point, but after seeing some of the diffs here, I think a more thorough investigation is required both to resolve this situation and to make sure its resolved properly. I said it earlier and I will say it again, I believe this is far more complicated than being heavy handed against an IP and calling it a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The troll's diffs, unsurprisingly, omit all the relevant stuff, namely how he kept following Arcayne around all these months. The original dispute in early April is hardly of interest at this point, except as an explanation of where the various harassment memes (such as the "Oxford" issue) originated. I'm trying to condense a few diffs myself, seeing as some people still fail to see the obvious, but as it's across so many pages and IPs it takes a bit of time. – As far as I'm concerned, Arcayne himself is still not the issue here. He was involved in what was originally a legitimate though heated content dispute back at the time; since then, he's simply been the stalking victim. (And I'm not saying this as somebody who particularly likes Arcayne; I know it can be exasperating to deal with him at times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

98.18.130.129 et al

{{Resolved}}

98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted abuse to the subject of Talk:Michael Rosenblum after replacing a warning on that IP's talk page, for earlier abuse, with "Fuck off"; and doing the same to the talk page of another IP (75.91.74.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which has also abused Rosenblum; as have other IPs from the same ISP (Windstream Communications Inc): 98.17.164.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); 75.91.74.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also one from the US military: 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using identical terms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Barneca has sprotected the article, and I blocked the most recent ip for 31 hours. Hopefully this is an end to it (for a while, at least).LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing: , . Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a high traffic talkpage, so if there is a spate of ip vandalism then a request for a short semi protection could be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that. Meanwhile 98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 174.131.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are both involved in the same abusive behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 162.39.211.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User continually re-creating deleted content

Aaronshavit (talk · contribs) is continually recreating a deleted article. The history of the article is somewhat lengthy; he first tried to re-write the Racism and Zionism article, and when his changes were rejected, he created the article in his userspace, User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations. He made a total of 3 edits to the page in August 2007, and then instantiated it into the article space as Israel and Racism, which was subsequently deleted via an AfD as a poorly-written and biased WP:POVFORK (see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Israel and racism). He made one more edit to his personal copy; it was then nominated for deletion, which failed (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations). He made one further edit to his copy, in July 2008 - a total of 5 edits in all to the main copy, all fairly minor.

In August 2008, the article it was a POVFORK of, Racism and Zionism, was deleted (see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Racism_and_Zionism). In October, his POVFORK was also put up for deletion, with the nominator describing it as an "Abandoned soapbox being treated as an article, POV pushing in userspace", and noting that it came up second in various Google searches. This time the consensus was to delete (see Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism allegations (2nd nomination)).

Since then Aaronshavit has recreated the article 3 times, first as User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism on October 10, which I deleted on October 12 as a WP:CSD G4, then as User:Aaronshavit/racism and Zionism on November 7, which I deleted again on November 11 as a WP:CSD G4. At that time I warned him on his Talk page not to re-create the page. However, today, November 17, he has again recreated the article User:Aaronshavit/Zionism and racism. At no time has he made any substantive modifications to his copies, and I believe his use of modified names for each copy may have been for the purpose of avoiding detection (so that it wouldn't show up on the watchlist of anyone involved in the deletion).

Given this is his third re-creation of deleted material, and that he has recreated it in defiance of warnings not to do so, I was planning to block him, but thought I would present the issue here for a discussion of the length of that block. Is 24 hours for a first offense reasonable? Or, given that he edits intermittently, and might not even notice a 24 hour block, is a longer block reasonable? Jayjg 02:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, there's nothing wrong with starting at 24 hours, then escalating as necessary. I'm taking as given that there's strong community consensus that this material isn't coming back. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Given the six-day period between recreations a week makes more sense. 24hrs will not prove a meaningful deterrent. -- Y not? 03:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave unblocked for now, reiterate the warning in the most specific possible terms ("If you re-create that article in substantively the same form again, I will block you.") and then see what happens (possibly a second admin should be the one to provide the new warning, and I'd be happy to do so if consensus is that that's the right route). This warning should probably also include an explanation of WP:DRV, if the user believes that the deletion decision at MFD was somehow in error. In the event of a further re-creation, I don't think an indef block would be out of order, as the account would be showing the intention to continue violating policy indefinitely. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any policy on what one can keep in UserSpace (previous discussions I've seen spoke of unnecessary duplication of unsatisfactory material/abandoned - that seems not to be the case). I'm using similar such pages either for code or for other people's reference - I don't even update them very often.

And for Jayjg to get on his high horse on this topic is puzzling indeed, since he actually recreated a notorious "SOAP-BOXING" (and personally unpleasant) UserSpace article here. I think we're entitled to expect a bit of consistency here. PR 18:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the material was a re-creation of material specifically deleted after an MFD discussion. If MFD's to have any meaning, you can't just re-create deleted material ad nauseum. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella‎

Minor politician, whose bio is the recurring subject of a long-term edit war. Personally, I'd like to see the article trimmed of all non-essential information, but this is a continuing battleground for partisan bickering. Please consider page protection, if needed. JNW (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected on the m:wrong version. Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a editing dispute resolution procedure? Isn't that the better place to solve this kind of issue? UN111 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

• Resolved Blocked for username violation. Spartaz 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A new single-purpose account, DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs) is making many somewhat controversial edits (such as deleting the "Criticism" section) to Jewish Internet Defense Force. Things had been very quiet there since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on October 4, 2008. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This account appears indistinguishable from Einsteindonut in terms of interests and behaviors. Whether it is them, or a sympathizer following the same agenda does not matter, per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. What shall we do? I think we should consider whether to block them as a sock. Perhaps a checkuser could take a quick look. I've invited the user to comment here. Jehochman 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this need a checkuser? The name alone is probably blockable, but combined with single-purpose account behaviour and obvious previous editing experience, this is a clearly disruptive second account. An experienced editor can make controversial edits under his own account or not at all. (Blanking sections of a controversial article takes us clearly into 'bad-hand' sock territory.) The only useful purpose that a checkuser might serve here is to clear the drawer of sleeper socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is "drama?" My apologies. I don't know what you are talking about. I just learned about the JIDF from the Ha'aretz piece and didn't feel the WP article was very fair to the organization, so I created an account to help make it better. I accidentally took out the "Criticism" section upon making edits, and re-added it. However, I'm not sure what WP's policy is of using articles which are originally in German. I feel if criticism is to be made about an organization, that we should only rely upon an accurate, FAZ approved, translation. I'm not sure one is available? --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, I added other cited material from the new Ha'aretz article, which was quickly reverted by Nagle. It was new background information which I thought was important. --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have indefed the account for a username vio. It also looks like a sock to me but as this is clearly a disruptive name we can do without it. Spartaz 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is a good idea for thoroughly investigating sock puppetry that may involved use of multiple accounts or block or ban evasion. It would be best to connect the account to a master account and empty any sock drawer. Is there a CU hanging around or do we need to bring this case over to WP:RFCU? Jehochman 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we list it as there is no rush now. Spartaz 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm am shutting down for the night. Please do list it, because there seems to be a reasonable basis. Jehochman 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a disruptive username? Huh? It only is one because of who it might be, and/or the edits they have made. I hate to say so, but NPOV is a key policy, and how many times a day does wikidrama occur in this forum because people are POV-pushing. I hate to use the example, but "Master of Puppets", based on meaning alone would be considered more disruptive (no offence intended). If someone created the usernames "AlwaysAGF" and "DontBeAnEditWarrer", are we going to delete them too? -t BMW c- 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I partially agree with you but I also think that such a name is somewhat indicative of puppetry. Think about it, POV Pusher is uniquely Wikipedian lingo, it's unlikely that a new user would use it right off the bat... L'Aquatique 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that it's not a new user - but we're talking right now about a block due to the username alone. Prove it's a sock (or have a little more duck-like properties than an obvious knock-off of policy) and I'm good with it. Maybe someone wants to properly move to a new name (highly unlikely, but it can happen). -t BMW c- 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person reverted by POVPusher, I did consider coming here or going to a senior admin but decided not to. I also considered the POVPusher = ED equation, but POVPusher didn't react to my reference to JIDF as "your lot" whilst ED always vigorously denied any such connection. It's unfortunate that the JIDF are so wedded to the glamour of clandestine action that they can't create an account with their name that contributes to the talk page alone. Then they could draw our attention to new articles about them and complain about and explain anything they considered misrepresentation. Instead they have this series of edit warrior accounts that are transparently connected to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: within a few hours after the block of DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs), a new user account, Howdypardner (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created and began editing only the JIDF article. Something to watch; no action requested at this time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy's "Glad I could help" on the talk page acknowledges that this is the same person as POVPUSHER. Obviously not sockpuppetry, as it's overt, and not block evasion as they were given explicit permission to come back in a new guise. (The above is in relation to POVPUSHER, obviously the prior CU suggestion is different.) There are potential 3RR issues but it depends how new we regard this user as.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Howdy has no user page or talk page, and I hadn't noticed that note on the article's talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, DontbeaPOVPUSHER was blocked indef for username, but this doesn't rule out his return as Howdypardner. The latter has been cautioned against edit-warring on his Talk, and has not reverted since 18:18 UTC on 17 November. Between the two of them they are over 3RR but is unlikely that action will be taken if the reverting has actually stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has now made several more reverts. since Ed's post above. Also the "resolved" tag strikes me as no longer appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Rfcbeach

Rfcbeach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sock of Rfcbeach137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Keeps uploading copyvio image from Canon USA and calls it his own. Image must also be deleted from Commons. Dr.K. (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

He actually uploaded many more copyvio images. I have reverted them all. But someone has to inform Commons about this avalanche of copyvios. Dr.K. (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sock, warned sockmaster. I'll ask the guys at commons to check this out. Thanks for reporting it! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Master of Puppets for the swift action. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries, cheers! Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Contacted SterkeBak who will look after images. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks again. Cheers. Dr.K. (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sauve.sean returns to edit war

Sauve.sean (talk · contribs) has returned from a block for edit warring as IP 75.168.220.204 (talk · contribs) (note his comments on the Suave.sean talk page to establish his identity). He is now edit warring at Same-sex marriage as seen here . He has also promised to continue his edit war, referring to it as "war" . Would an admin please step in and handle this returning POV warrior? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Likely the same person. Sauve.sean and his IP blocked for a week. Spellcast (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

User switched to a different IP in same range; that IP was blocked, page protected for three days. Good night. OhNoitsJamie 07:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And another one: - blocked 24 hours for puppetry and block evasion. L'Aquatique 15:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet another one at IP 75.168.214.145 (talk · contribs). Denies being a sock of Sauve.sean, but admits to being the same IP user that was blocked for disruption last night. Edits are still anti-wikipedia, NPOV rants . Is semi-protection a better path than blocking the IPs? Dayewalker (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean POV rants.  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Doink. Yep, you're right. Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm reopening this. User is now socking with multiple IP's, I've blocked the ones that show up but it's sort of like playing whack-a-mole. I'm thinking a rangeblock might be in order here but the idea of placing one myself is the stuff of nightmares. I absolutely know I'll block the entire country of Singapore or something like that. Anyone else feel up to it? Looks like the range is 75.168.2**.***- how many addys would that be? L'Aquatique 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

255 * (255-all the 2xx) = 39525 -t BMW c- 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Whack! L'Aquatique 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to wrap it up, the editor's name is Sauve.sean, not Suave. I misspoke, and he is anything but suave in any case. Dayewalker (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back. He's slipped through the cracks at 75.168.209.210 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Still active, and stepping up his POV attacks at DYK, this time . Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the range is too big to do a rangeblock. We're just going to have to keep blocking on sight and wait for him to lose interest... L'Aquatique 07:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac i Gradiska Stara

Administrator Ricky81682 keeps removing good portion of this article claiming lack of reliable resources. See . The resources are given - the only problem is - Ricky does not read the reference given there - see .--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has been full-protected by SoWhy (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton 14:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource, put the sources on the page and if you are really using those sources, why revert to a version with different lyrics (slightly, not a big deal) than what you are posting? Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise. We had a third-opinion, nobody else commented (beyond their personal analysis of US and Croatian copyright laws) on the idea that we shouldn't just post the entire lyrics (to a song with multiple versions). Brzica, put an editprotected on the page and get someone else to add that version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• As I said - references are already in the text - all you have to do is to read it. They are all online accessible. Yes, you said this too

• 07:25, 17 September 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) (1,140 bytes) (lyrics are copyrighted and so cannot be included)

• which appeared to be wrong. (Hate crime texts are not copyrightable - as I explained already). So, you are jumping from one to another non-existent problem. And then threatening to block me for telling you that you are wrong. Also, you removed half of the Magnum Crimen article falsely claiming that the removed part is not sourced. And again threatened to block me if I put it back! Stop just blinding reverting without any compromise - what compromise you are looking for if you are removing text and not improving it at all???--Brzica milos etc (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I'm not going to keep arguing with you that your interpretation of US and Croatian copyright law are not the standard here. Policy says to use limited version of lyrics, especially when there are multiple versions (and when we are claiming that a living person may or may not have sang one version). I've said before that I would accept sourced lyrics but what part of this, and this (excluding the other people) indicates an attempt to use a source. Either use the source and put it in the article or it doesn't go in. I don't want it at all, but you are going to use it properly and stop reverting to get your way. Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). That is not the way things work. I'm not going to rehash Magnum again but claiming that other users will eventually add the exact source of information is not the same as saying it is sourced. What part of this and this are sourced? The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I got involved in this when I offered a third opinion that I hoped represented a compromise between the two viewpoints; it has developed into what is, without question, the most surreal experience I've had on Misplaced Pages. Ricky81682 has now suggested a RfC and short of keeping the article permanently protected forever and ever, I feel that an RfC offers the best hope for the article.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 06:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We do seem to attract editors in this area that have significant WP:IDHT issues. The RfC is probably a good idea, although I'm quite concerned that our productive editors are being forced to jump through these hoops on so many articles to successfully make even trivial edits. Brzica milos etc has had our copyright and verifiability policies explained very clearly to him by at least two editors, and still they're going over the same ground. Personally I'm inclined to give him an editing holiday, but since the article is already protected this might be unnecessary just yet. EyeSerene 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the pattern is like the third opinion, editors who disagree won't respond there and instead will just wait until the protection is lifted before trying to war their way on, and respond with the same arguments. If we end up with a repeat, I have no problem with blocks at this point. We have had WP:IDHT games at this point. I just want to add that while I disagree with any lyrics, I have agreed that if they produce a reliable source, they can include them, but I still don't think it's necessary. I have challenged the inclusion of YouTube video links. The balkanpeace source was first mentioned at Talk:Jasenovac_i_Gradiška_Stara#Resource and my problem is that Brzica's logic seems to be "here, I found a source on the talk page so I get to put whatever version I want to on the article page." The source didn't match what he claimed the lyrics were, so I wanted him to either use that source or explain what in the world is going on. The other source I cannot read and am not interested in figuring out translations for something I don't think the article even needs. I have gone through enough hoops with this whole mess of articles. In addition, I'm curious about what to do with this comment to Jimbo. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• • To This flag once was red We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain - please avoid making your own rules then representing it as a Misplaced Pages policy. You got valid references and bear with it. As to - Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). be so kind to verify that it is not my own translation and, me being a person who speaks Serbo-Croatian, my approval of the translation is an expertise. Stop selling that cheap idea that you are a 'third opinion' person.--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • To Ricky - would you please stop falsely blaming others??? Where did you find this: The others got blocked by other admins because they kept playing the "knowledge is more important than verifiability" game that you are playing right now. Who said "knowledge is more important than verifiability"??? Me??? Where and who else??? Please quote!!!--Brzica milos etc (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> We're clearly getting nowhere with this person, and editors who contribute positively should not have to waste their time with these constant trivial disputes. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Consequently, in the light of the above comments and this diff - where he's objecting to the RfC proposal, essentially making the WP:DR process unworkable - I've indefblocked Brzica milos etc as an incorrigible POV edit-warrior who has no intention of trying to work within our editing policies. If anyone wants to review, please do. EyeSerene 15:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know when the song started and just because "people have sung it", doesn't it is automatically in the public domain. I didn't say that, please re-read the above and note who signed what.

Stop trying to put in your own translation and claiming that people should read the talk page if they want to find the source (especially when the source you want to use has slightly different lyrics). I didn't say that either, please re-read the above and note who signed what.

To be honest, I'm struggling to retain hope in a middle-ground. EyeSerene's indef block is regrettable, but sadly necessary. Brzica milos etc doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying, and seemed hell-bent on assuming that I'm on the "enemy side". I can't see the article moving forward like that, but hopefully it can post-block.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

London Action Resource Centre

Slow-burning edit war here, with editors reverting and telling each other to "see talk", which no-one has contributed in over a year. Questionably sourced material seems to be at the heart of it. Can an uninvolved admin take a look please? Gracias, the skomorokh 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the page to a non-contentious version, and protected it until further notice. Any admin who feels this is a problem is free to revert me, but I think there might be BLP issues here, and I don't like the tone that Paki.tv (talk · contribs) uses in his edits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful. Hopefully we will see discussion starting again over the contentious material. Regards, the skomorokh 15:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quasi-legal threat by User:Rescirscir

(relocated from top of page so it gets more notice) Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) :Thx—sorry for posting in wrong spot! Good Ol’factory 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

On Temple Lot, I reverted some edits by User:Rescirscir for the reasons I then provided on the talk page. In short, the edits included some claims about a living person that were unsourced. (Well, there were "sources", but they were either completely unrelated weblinks, links to geocities.com, or YouTube videos. I discussed the problems in more detail in my comment.)

User:Rescirscir responded with a somewhat cryptic comment on my talk page that I was being "monitored". I asked for clarification, and received a response on the article talk page that said I was "cyberstalking" and that he wouldn't argue with me because "I don't need to". After this, the editor included the following link: , which is a news release about the May 2008 passage of a Missouri anti-cyberstalking law.

As an admin, I haven't had much experience with legal threats, and I'm unsure of how serious this example would be, but I wanted to bring it here mainly because of the past history of the page. In isolation, I don't think this would have necessarily been a huge deal, but Temple Lot has a history of weirdness: User:Jsmith 51389 (who was probably the arsonist in question spoken of in the article) was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats a number of months ago, and there's quite a history of various "redlinked" editors making similar (though far from identical) edits to the article in question (including some by User:Jeh akuse, who was blocked, and some by User:CH 82).

Thanks. Good Ol’factory 04:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – This would be User:MarthaFiles. I've blocked the account for sockpuppetry. See the revision history of Arabism for examples (I had totally forgotten that I had since this before). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Blocked.

Resolved – Clear copyvio, deleted, thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – The IP edited the article twice for which she/he was warned for. Simple vandalism that was reverted. The last edit was hours ago. No blocking necessary. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved – Tony1 unblocked, dispute resolution recommended instead of edit warring. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards