Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive526

Could an administrator kindly notify MartinPhi of the disposition of this discussion?--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent him an e-mail informing him of the decision and providing a link to the discussion. I tend to think that he'll probably get that first, but I will also leave a message on his talk page regarding this discussion. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing this more and more often lately. A new account is created. The new editor subsequently makes 10 minor edits to somebody's talk pages, inserting and then deleting a single character. At that point, the editor can edit semi-protected articles — and invariably the purpose is for vandalism.

See the contributions of contributions, for example, whose first act after circumventing semi-protection was to vandalize the Virgin Killer article.

I've seen this on other semi-protected articles too. Perhaps the semi-protection rules should be changed, enforcing a waiting period rather than just a minimum number of edits.

I suggest that these editors do not come to Wikipedia with good-faith intent, and should be blocked on sight. ~

Support - obviously these editors know exactly what they're doing and should be treated as a 100% vandalism account. Rklawton (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this editor just got indef-blocked. Thanks! ~

Semi protection does require a time delay - the account must be more than four days old. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the account was actually created on the 24th [39] and was not used until today, hence he could edit semi-protected articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His 10 test edits were to a similarly straight-laced used named Quintessent. Could be a sockpuppet or someone pretending to be. "Quint" = "V", right? I don't know what "kau" means, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

His user name style is also similar to the username of a previous vandal who committed an identical pattern on the

talk

) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly German? The German verb "to eat" is "essen", the German verb "to chew" is "kauen". Tonywalton ^Talk 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you've got a

Tile join infestation: same semi-protection circumvention technique, same short meaningless usernames, same habit of repeating the same action ad nauseum. Persistent type who has not grown bored or felt a sense of futility in over two years of attacking Evolution, Northwich Victoria F.C., Witton Albion F.C., and Winshill. J. Spencer (talk

) 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for an abuse filter concerning this behavior.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been requested, please see

here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)}

21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, suggest extend to indef - I am removing attack/outing links, too. Suggest deletion of revisions. — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)}

19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate someone else perhaps taking the lead on those suggestions if folks agree with them.

^Sing

19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This is almost certainly Don Murphy back again, from the looks of those links. Be advised, anyone taking action will likely get the same treatment. You'd think he'd be too busy making movies to do this kind of thing. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice guy. — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)}

20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself or anything, but I would still suggest an indef based on the user's behaviour. — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)}

20:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. His methods (as well as those who apparently jump when he says "jump") are disturbing, to say the least.

^Sing

20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaand indef. No point spending any longer dealing with that account. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment, agree with SheffieldSteel's indef block of EchoofReason. Should the talk page be deleted/protected? R. Baley (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the user from editing it. That should do for now. No objection if anyone wants to tag it as {{

indef}} or just delete it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tagging. — 

neuro^{(talk)(review)}

21:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Make sure its the right tag! Some editors get them confused. :) Synergy 21:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly Don Murphy. His MO is to use a swarm of sockpuppets; I'd strongly recommend doing a checkuser on User: EchoofReason to root out any more that might be lurking. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(slight return) After an email communication from a checkuser, I've also indefinitely blocked User:LivieInIndiana. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

could someone look into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/OmegaXmutantX? He's been adding 'People of Basque descent' and 'Basque People' categories to random people without any sourcing or explanation as to how he came to the conclusion that they are of Basque descent. He refuses discussion and I count at least 7 warnings, and multiple final warnings on his talk page from various editors asking him to stop adding unsourced categories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OmegaXmutantX . here are some of his unsourced additions: [[40]] [[41]] [[42]] [[43]] [[44]]. There are literally hundreds more. Some of the random people he's adding might actually be Basque, but without evidence and refusing to discuss it, it's just disruption. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, taking his multiple prior warnings/requests to stop into account, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Hopefully this will alert him to the fact that he's doing something wrong. I notice that he's been doing the same sort of thing with vocal ranges for singers too (there seems to be an abundance of WP editors who appear to thrive on this sort of thing and never, ever stop to discuss their edits - no idea why). We definitely need to review this user's previous edits and remove anything that's not adequately sourced. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Recently the user

• Violence in 2000—notice the incorrect capitalization
• Violence in 2001
• Violence in 2003
• Violence in 2004
• Violence in 2006
• Violence in 2007

After I reverted these inappropriate moves, as all those lists included Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis as well, Ashley saw fit to revert (with the incorrect capitalization) and remove the Palestinian deaths from one of the articles, which I believe is a clear violation of

P.S. Here's another two edits, which are clearly incorrect because the articles have in these versions numerous cases of Palestinian casualties, including deaths. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Note to administrators: After trying to explain to Ashley why exactly I filed an ANI report, I was answered with personal attacks and insults. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The titles were inappropriate..the whole string of articles needs dePOVing....It is not drive by it is putting the articles in the correct category of factually inaccurate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

I randomly clicked one of the articles and found the following text pretty close to the start:

moved to Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2007 - Ashley kennedy3, 14:36, 31 March 2009:

February 26 - 1 Palestinian civilian, Anan al-Tibi (41), is killed by shots fired by from a passing Israeli army jeep while attempting to escape a surrounded house. Dozens of Palestinians are injured as they clashed with troops.[9]
IDF bombs two houses, including the home of a senior al-Aqsa commander.
February 28
* Residents of Nablus are confined to their homes as Israeli troops move house to house in search of wanted militants.[10]
* Ten people are wounded as youths throwing stones clash with troops. Fifty people were detained, although most were released, and troops surrounded hospitals to check people going in and out.
* Israeli army arrests five wanter militants suspects and uncovers three explosives labs.
* Undercover troops in a black car shoot and kill 3 militants in a Jenin parking lot, including the chief spokesman for the Islamic Jihad.[11]
* A total of 26 Palestinians are arrested during the operation.[12]

There's clearly content about Palestinian casualties so title changes seem to be a bad move.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but only writing up Israelis killed and alleged Palestinian terrorists killed when Betselem is available is making wiki somewhat of a Israeli mouthpiece. In your random wandering did it never occur to you to place POV tags or inaccurate facts tags on said articles??? compounding POV by displaying inaccurate details purporting itself as reliable...But you are correct I should have moved 1 them to Israeli version of History with a note warning of extremist propaganda...or alternatively gone for delete article as they are to far gone for recovery...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

All those pages are a disgrace to the project. Extreme selective editing to produce a one-sided account of violent incidents to the advantage of one party. Ashley is right, and wrong. He should have just posted a request for deletion. Perhaps this is an incident, but is he up on charges for snipping at wiki trash? Illustration, in just the first, which AK renamed Violence against Israelis in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2000, check September. Israeli soldiers being shot at, 2 of them, and a few Palestinian casualties on the temple Mount. In that late September week, in 5 days, 47 Palestinians were killed and roughly 1,850 shot and wounded. You'd never guess it. Sergeant Biri's murder gets a mention, but nothing about the slaughter as the IDF ran amok. Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishidani, let us please discuss the merits of the content of these pages elsewhere; this is not the forum for it. I see these page moves as

Ah, yes, according to

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications, he has been. I would appreciate input by other uninvolved administrators. A topic ban of moderate duration might be appropriate, given the level of emotion displayed in Ashley kennedy3's comment above, so as to allow him to cool down for a while.  Sandstein 

21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked this over and Ashley Kennedy3 seems to me as well to be editing disruptively. Their response on Ynhockey's talkpage is upsetting and doesn't help make a collegial editing environment. I support a topic ban if Sandstein wants to implement it. I have to admit that I voted delete on the AfD which may have sparked this though. DVD 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

A months vacation for Ashley? PhilKnight (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the two articles to their original names, and removed the obviously false "Note" inserted by Ashley. If people want to edit them, NPOV them, whatever, that's fine, but putting false statements into articles is completely inappropriate. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley has overstretched himself covering quite a few number of articles and finding(and rightfully so) the state of most of those articles unacceptable. Ashley perhaps thinks that the articles are going somewhere and that attention should be poured upon them. Just a simple warning that there is sufficient time to work on these matters will suffice. If these articles(which are his concern) have stood up for quite some time at their current state, surely they could last some more time. It was a case of WP:BOLD on his part and perhaps emotions from a academic head that he is. A month ban might prevent him from coming back and let us use him and his knowledge. Thank you board. Cryptonio (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps describe the process Ashley should have followed ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The procedure should have been AfD and userfy the article until appropriate action could lead to the articles being reinstated at a standard that was useable...but as the wiki project has left those articles on line for some time, I would not know who the article could reasonably be userfied to...

an alternative is to remove them completely....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ashley, there are two possible motions. One for deletion of the article, another for the temporary (?) deletion of AK. Now, you're a military man, dislike going AWOL, preferring to make a public infraction or two when square-bashing's boredom gets the better of you and you start dreaming of a term in solitary. But the scenario reminds me of Mishima Yukio, wonderful writer, who decided to go out in a flaming act of self-immolation, by recourse to traditional suicide. In the art of seppuku, the technical problem is how to cark it efficiently by disembowelment, which otherwise is quite slow. A short deep thrust just left of the left-side of the six-pack musculature of the abdomen, then a twist in the bodkin as you draw it through the thews and sinews down to the visceral peritoneum, so the gut pokes out (the early maestri clutched the bowels in their hands and threw it at their enemies), then a quick vertical cut up to the appendix. Being somewhat groupish and empathetic, the Japanese technicians thought it would be a good idea to get some of your mates in on the job, so they developed the 'kaishakunin', the office of decapitator. A chosen friend would stand by, wait for you to operate self-surgically, and then with a rapid snip, slice your head off.

There are very efficient kaishaku services available for the suicidal editor in wiki. So it's unlikely you'll have people like Masakatsu Morita rolling up for the final thwack. (Masakatsu was inept: Mishima, perfectly self-disembowelled had to keep holding his neck at an angle while the joker hacked away, hitting bone instead of slicing between the vertebrae). The problem is, you don't really disembowel yourself efficiently: you dither with a penknife, jabbing at yourself (making noisy minor infractions that are bound to tickle the ear of the many kaishaku in the neighbourhood), and it's death by a thousand blows. So chum, if you really do want out, do it with elegance, in harmony with the ready help. No frigging around with minor dabs: go for the huge infraction, something like the famous Elelandic commendation, and admin will put you out of your misery with a neat guillotining. I will of course, weep at the tumbril, and write the epitaph. But surely the smart things just to take a break, or challenge Phil Knight's suggested sentence as too light, and ask for 6 weeks sentence. I know it's intensely arduous, painful, trying to insist on intelligent editing and sensible articles in the I/P area, but, son, a minor tragedy, multiplied in the aftermath, risks becoming a soapoperatic series of major farces, what Signalman Freud called a 'repetitive compulsion' and while the game is enjoyed by those happy to assist you in your tormented exists, repeated complicity does look somewhat masochistic. After all, what you or I think is trivial: what you or I may do, to stay on and get articles fair and balanced, with a steady eye on the silent Palestinians, isn't. (Or of course, you could apologize, and promise to pull your finger out, which is rather difficult for seppuku aficionados, since a preliminary requires the moriturus to stuff his rectum with a ball of cottonwool in order not to soil the scene) Regards to a fine, studious, and dedicated, but fucking irresponsibly irascible fellow editor.Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Nishidani one week for making the above post. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• I am blocking
  WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman ^Talk
  13:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict with Jehochman:) In view of the discussion above, I have made Ashley kennedy3 subject to a one month topic ban with respect to Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles.  Sandstein  13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• There were two previous topic bans. The most recent was 60 days, placed by Shell Kinney in January 2009. Topic bans have not been effective deterrence. I am sticking with the one year block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• No objection to your block, but my topic ban will remain technically in force and may become relevant if your block is lifted for any reason.  Sandstein  13:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• Perfect. Jehochman ^Talk 14:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don´t think anyone will call me an "uninvolved" user here, but I hope I can still give my 2 cents: Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the more knowledgeable users in the Israel/Palestine area; one of the relatively few who actually read and use academic sources. Unfortunately, he has a very low tolerance for rubbish. And he express this lack of tolerance in no uncertain, and often, in rather undiplomatic ways. (In a conflict between A and B: if A has 90% of the fatalities, what do say about an article on WP which makes it look as if B had 90% of the fatalities, and A 10%?). User:Sandstein has placed a one month topic ban on Ashley. I agree with this. (Yes, Ashley: if you read this: you need cooling-off time). It might even be extended to double that. However, to deprive WP off one of its more knowledgeable editors for one whole year seems to me draconian, compared to "crime" committed. Would someone please reconsider this block? Thank you. Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to reconsider the block, but I'd like to discuss it with the user directly, rather than with agents third parties. They can reach me by email. In particular I'd like to understand why a topic ban would work this time, when the last two topic bans were followed by an immediate return to disruptive behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What means agents ? Is this some irony as the one you considered that is deserved 1 week block to Nishidani ? Maybe a 12h holiday will help you to read back

wp:agf

 ? I suggest you take some distance with this topic.

Basis of conflict resolution is to discuss with some intermediaries to conciliate points of views and explain with some neutrality the issues.

Ceedjee (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just for the record: I am nobodys agent, and nobody has asked me to come here and ask for a shortening of Ashley´s block. Also; Ashley has had some 2500-3000 edits in the Palestine/Israel area since he came back from his last block, and that includes writing, basically on his own, the much needed

1834 Arab revolt in Palestine. Just for the record. Regards, Huldra (talk

) 22:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As I will only be online briefly over the next few days, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to handle unblock discussions with Ashley kennedy3. My advice is to determine whether they will return to disruption, or not, if the block is lifted but the topic ban remains in place. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm an uninvolved editor as far as this incident goes, but I have worked with Ashley numerous times (sometimes we collaborate and other times we argue, but my discussions with her are always cordial). I've noticed plenty of times, however, that Ashley, like many if not most of the core editors in the I-P subject area, tends to get combative and forgets the rules (pillars, guidelines, rules of thumb) of Wikipedia such as NPOV and civility when a conflict of some sort erupts. His behavior is unacceptable here and he must understand to keep cool or suffer the consequences, like this block for instance. However, Ashley is by far, one of the only editors in the subject area, that contributes tons of quality info backed with reliable sources. His recent edits at

1834 Arab revolt in Palestine are particularly impressive. He's also been useful in adding coordinates to hundreds of WP Palestine articles and is responsible for starting hundreds or articles on Palestinian localities. All in all, Ashley kennedy3 is a very valuable editor to the project who, unfortunately, has indeed violated topic bans and previous blocks by continuing inflammatory edits and/or becoming uncivil in discussions with fellow users. Another topic ban is an obvious choice, but I think the year-long block is too harsh. I will not unblock him myself because of our generally friendly relationship here on Wikipedia. Instead, I'll explain to him (as I've seen Huldra do) the strict rules of NPOV and civility among other guidelines. Hopefully, he will get the picture and how things work on Wikipedia, and another administrator will unblock him after a definite assurance from him that he will not return to disruption. --Al Ameer son (talk

) 05:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The key phrase is "not return to disruption". No matter what the length of the block, a return to disruption will only result in another block. I would prefer to remove the block as soon as possible, but I do not want to return here tomorrow, next week, or next month. With that goal in mind, a long block may convince the editor of a need to change, rather than allowing them to sit it out and go right back to what they were doing before (as has happened with multiple previous blocks up to 30 days and bans up to 60 days). Ashley kennedy3 needs to provide a reason why things will be different if they are to resume editing. Jehochman ^Talk 06:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

AshleyKennedy is a good contributor concerning content matters in the articles related to the I-P conflict. But his behaviour vis-à-vis other contributors who do not share his standards or his views is not acceptable. And he has already been warned several times for that. Nishidani wants him to apologize. I personally did the same by emails and warned him about the consequences.
I would personnally suggest an undefinite block until he admits he was wrong, gives his point of view, and agrees he will take the highest care not attack so harshly other contributors anymore, for any reason. That is a suggestion to be discussed. I don't measure all the positive and negative consequences yet. Ceedjee (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I second Ceedjee's suggestion. He disagrees with both Ashley and myself on overall interpretation (but that's not, as we all recoghnize, our job) but we three and a few others have had a very productive working rapport ('across borders'). Admins judge first by the behavioural record (in AK's case, two suspensions were cases of stupidly allowing himself to be gamed), not by the editing record for substantive work. AK has always replied with speed and precision for any request, from whoever, on things like coordinates (where he has strong talents) to details (he has accumulated at his own expense a large library on the area. He is, like Ceedjee, basically an article builder from academic sources in an area where most seem to edit, from page to page, just on words, or phrasing, or a sentence or source, in terms of their pereceptions of POV, and without much regard to the whole subject of the page. He's clearly to blame for allowing a good record to be stained by infractions: he should learn to ignore provocation, be more patient even if antipathy closes in, not personalize his conflicts, etc.

Perhaps he should take a month's break, and figure out while reading whether he's committed enough to wiki, as opposed to understanding the history of the area, to curb his views (which I happen to share) and just stick to the technical labour of ensuring good material gets on page. If he decides 'yes', he should then ask for a reconsideration of a reduction from one year. If I recall, Sandstein's 1 month was too lenient. Phil Knight's 2 months fair, but, as Jehochman noted, he'd already copped (I think unjustly) a two month suspension, and therefore, within the wiki system (which we must accept however weird it works out instance from instance), you should be looking at something from 2 to 3 months. As any lawyer will tell you, law has nothing to do with justice. It's just how the paper evidence lines up, within a system of rules. Personally, I don't think Ynhockey should ever have even troubled to note the so-called Drive-by edit infraction, which occasioned his suspension, and his improper outburst against Ynhockey. Those pages are a POV disaster, and rightly elicit contempt. A good many in the I/P area should learn to use reporting technical infractions only as a last recourse, when there is a real stalemate on a page.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I have initiated a discussion on Ashley on his talk page regarding this matter, as Jehochman suggested an uninvolved admin might do. I also sent him? an email informing him of the new thread there. I welcome anyone interested to observe the discussion, and take part as they see fit. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DawnisuponUS (

Review and considered action by uninvolved admins would be appreciated at this point. Most of the history is plainly viewable at

I appreciate this call for action by uninvolved admins, I've already made a call for informal mediation, and if it yields no result, I will pursue other venues.

SheffieldSteel (

talk

) 22:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I concur with the assessment that DawnisuponUS has been edit-warring and is, to put it mildly, unapologetic about it. It's a new account, and the actual disruption is too old to be blockable now, but if he continues, a block at

WP:AIV with reference to this thread should be forthcoming, if you don't want to block him yourself.  Sandstein 

22:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that this recent edit is

point-of-view pushing and also ungrammatical, introducing both anti-Israel bias and a run-on sentence into the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certain it would had been far better if this ANI didn't come to play.

talk

) 22:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"Would have been" is correct, for what it's worth. Better would be to say "Well, I'm certain it would have been far better if ANI hadn't come into play." As far as trying to deal with English grammar, you have my sympathy. For the conspiracy theories I have no sympathy at all. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this important, Tom? Grammar? Explain yourself. I wonder what's on your mind.

talk

) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You brought it up [45]. If you aren't interested, don't let me detain you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, FisherQueen brought it up, and I want to know why. Must admit, extremely amusing summary too.

talk

) 22:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My primary objection was not to the grammar error, but to the pushing of a specific point of view, which, I think, is the subject of this discussion. I brought it up as an example of a recent edit that I thought showed you pushing a specific point of view. The other subject of this discussion, your aggressively unhelpful reaction to correction, I do not think I need to find examples of, as you have helpfully added several examples to this discussion already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say you've made your point too, as for my mood, or aggressiveness, if you prefer. I'm really not in the good mood and you parachuting in and throwing judgment which you've based on single edit, in spite the fact I've kindly asked adminship for more careful review, well, it surly didn't improve it – the mood.

talk

) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, what is the purpose of this exam? Is it over now? If it is, here's a remark. So far we have one uninvolved editor here. I remember you FisherQueen, one look at your talkpage was enough. I'll invite you to stand in front of the ArbCom. This is the stage in which you always come to play.

talk

) 22:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain what you saw on my talk page that made you think I'm in violation of any rules, but, like any Wikipedia editor, I am subject to the will of the community and perfectly willing to submit to the decisions of ArbCom. Remember to be specific about the rule I've broken, and include links and diffs, when you submit your complaint about me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of FisherQueen having violated any rule or guideline which would cause her to be brought up before the ArbCom, or retract your accusation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you be less uncivil? --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can, but I see no point in this case. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It is kind of scary when a admin tries to justify a ban because a person added a fact about Israel that doesn't show the Israelis in a good light. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Also, the admins picking on the person for his grammar demonstrates the lack of professionalism here. It is bad enough for a person to be reported, but with admins mocking the person's editing, well that is just bullying. Excuse the bad grammar, I am not writing a paper.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject of this discussion is the question of whether

uncivilly with other editors; do you have an opinion about that subject? If you'd like to start a thread about User:FisherQueen and the specific rule she has broken, you should create a new subject header, so the two discussions don't become tangled with each other and difficult to follow. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you broke a rule and I don't have an opinion on DawnisuponUS. But I have an opinion on the lack of professionalism by administrators like the unnecessary nitpicking on grammar. I just wanted to say something on the peanut gallery, that's all. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

DawnisuponUS is certainly not a new user. I have not interacted with DawnisuponUS, having been mostly on a wikibreak for the past 1-2 months. Yet, DawnisuponUS is following my talk page and trolling. [46] It's very clear to me that DawnisuponUS is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Previously, we had User:Tachyonbursts (~May 2008) and User:Quantumentanglement (~December 2007), who were both banned. There are striking similarities in the behaviour of all three of these users. And, I'm 99.9% sure Quantumentanglement and Tachyonbursts were not new accounts either. I suspect that these users are User:Lovelight, who was banned in May 2007 and has continued to edit off and on with sock accounts and as an IP editor. Of course, the accounts are too old for checkuser to help, but take a look at the behaviour and language used by these accounts to see the similarities.

DawnisuponUS is simply wasting people's time. Please stop allowing this. Someone, please block the account. --Aude (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Lovely, see how they surface? This is one of the editors I've named in my request for mediation, wonder who will surface next? Mongo?

talk

) 01:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This proved the point I'm making today long, long time ago, so you had to delete it? Gone, is it? Where can I find these ol' pieces, I'll need those. What's the word? It is cover up.

talk

) 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this recent edit should be excluded from this discussion as being irrelevant. It's a fairly typical edit made in IP articles by new contributors. It's neither point-of-view pushing nor does it introduce an anti-Israel bias into the article because it's consistent with the BRD workflow, was reverted and is now being discussed. It raised an important issue that perhaps isn't being given due weight in the article. New contributers often start like this but move on to discussing changes on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Aude that DawnisuponUS is almost certain to be somebody's sockpuppet as well as trolling this discussion, and have blocked it indefinitely. Review welcome.  Sandstein  05:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bravo. Thank you once again. --Tarage (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a sensible admin, why would you block a user simply because someone is suspicious that he is a sockpuppet? Doesn't a checkuser have to be performed first? Trolling is not an issue here. I hope this is some sort of an April Fool's joke, even the skinhead axmann received more leniency than this. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser isn't required when the

duck test applies. Dayewalker (talk

) 06:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)