Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive695

The user who made that post does not seem to be the same one as the one who has the Glitch Turner account. I'm thoroughly confused. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to be proved wrong. What are your grounds for thinking that?

talk

) 14:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They say in their latest post that they're not the same person. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The key quote is "I am not Glitch Turner, but as everyone seems to be usig this page to talk to/about me, I shall use it too" --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So either he is and he's lying...or he isn't and there is more than one troll at the party. Does it make a difference either way? Maybe they're both LC. Maybe the LC anagram is actually LC and the anon is the one pretending? Maybe neither is LC and it's just someone looking to have some fun with a banned editor's name? Whoever is or isn't whoever...have any of them shown that they want to edit productively, or are we just wasting time because a ref desk editor got sick of being questioned for removing a banned user's questions to the point where they suggested we just unban them instead? --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why are we giving this troll so much attention? It continues even during this conversation. Has there been any evidence in years that they actually want to contribute productively? Archive this whole mess and go back to RBI. LC, just go away, completely, for a few months at least. Show that if you can't figure out a way to be productive with your socks, you can at least not be a negative for some length of time before you try to lie to us all about how you want to help. --Onorem♠Dil 14:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• And another sockpuppet while we discuss it:
  talk
  ) 14:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the offer posed by Dweller reveals an editor who must have an admirable amount of patience, I don't believe the banned user has shown the least bit of good intention in any way, quite the opposite in fact, as the continued socking proves. I think your efforts will be invested much better by editing the encyclopedia, Dweller, than wasting them on this one. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Kind of you, but I'd like to think that a small amount of time invested by me now, could result in a ton of constructive edits from someone who did prove themselves capable of useful editing in the past. Besides, I enjoy helping people - it's the only reason I volunteer for additional responsibilities, and it keeps me fresh for content contribution. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly also appreciated, and I hope you will continue your efforts to help people. Personally, I just think this one is beyond help. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - The "LC was banned over 4 years ago. He continues to sock relentlessly to this day" line from the beginning was all that needed to be said, as fair as I am concerned. Sometimes
  terrorists need to be capped rather than captured, sometimes baseball cheats don't get reinstated despite false apologies, and sometimes we need to stop spending so much time trying to excuse the behavior of bad editors. Tarc (talk
  ) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Kudos Dweller, I agree that if an editor can be salvaged, it's worth a shot. The experiment can be terminated easily enough and I'm sure you'd be on the case. If you are in contact with this person, advise them that we need at least six months without even a sniff of Lc at all, and none of that's-not-Lc either. If someone is impersonating them, they're hanging out with the wrong crowd. Six months of total quiet will cover a few cycles of troll-urge, if they can get that far, I would be willing to look at your proposal favourably. Six months of total quiet. Franamax (talk) 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose mentoring at this time. I have a lot of respect for the proposal (and the proposer), but this is a prolific long-term nonconstructive editor, and the rest of us only have finite reserves of time and goodwill. The simplest way forward for lc is simply to stop misbehaving. Mentoring is a bad investment decision: ${\displaystyle (P^{reform}.W^{lc})-(W^{supervision}+W^{mentor})<-W^{RBI}}$, where:
  • ${\displaystyle P^{reform}}$ is the likelihood that mentoring actually works,
  • ${\displaystyle W^{lc}}$ is the future good work done by lightcurrent,
  • ${\displaystyle W^{supervision}}$ is the time that people still spend looking over the reformed editor's shoulder,
  • ${\displaystyle W^{mentor}}$ is the effort by the mentor, and
  • ${\displaystyle W^{RBI}}$ is the ongoing effort of
    RBI in the no-change scenario. (And we treat the latter three Ws as negatives; they're time that good editors could spend doing something else instead) bobrayner (talk
    ) 12:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Um, bullshit. LC is not above fucking with us in this manner. I have seen nothing in the behavior of either Glitch Turner or of the IP edits by LC recently to indicate to me that they are not the same person. Even if what you say is 100% true, I am unconcerned with that. So we have two indef blocked trolls instead of one. Does it really matter? --Jayron32 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the statement of contrition was or was not actually written by LC isn't what I consider to be the important point of my post. The intended point of my post was to argue that Glitch Turner's statement of contrition should not be taken as a sincere offer by LC to turn over a new leaf, and hence there is no reason for us to even consider unbanning LC. That intended point of my post, that there has been no sincere statement of contrition from LC, is a valid point either way, whether it's because Glitch Turner isn't even LC, or because the Glitch Turner posts are a part of some kind of LC mind fuck. Red Act (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

[edit by banned user redacted]

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

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

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

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

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

His repeated and ongoing addition of uncited material is

FWIW, I don't think he's ever deliberately inserted untrue material; just factual material that isn't cited and maybe can't be verified. I also agree that the aircraft articles he tagged could indeed be better cited, but the

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

I've seen a number of ANI threads recently where people have been confused about this, as a result of which we've been losing lots of good encyclopedic info that per AGF we're better off leaving alone. I'm not saying people should go off on OR sprees or spew mindless trivia (including cited trivia) into articles: I'm just talking about uncontroversial relevant info, like the electrical data about obsolete transistors that someone was removing recently. That stuff is fairly easy to verify if you can get your hands on old data books, and is useful and encyclopedic if you have to fix an old TV set or something like that. This aircraft stuff sounds comparable. Articles that are very closely sourced (contentious politics articles, for example) are frankly less credible than less closely sourced ones, because the close sourcing gives the impression of conflict between editors and consequently the likely presence of bad-faith editing. Ken Keisel looks to be pretty knowledgeable so if the stuff he's adding looks relevant and correct, I'd generally not worry about it. Just ask for cites for specific stuff that you have doubts about, and discuss his approach to editing with him at a general level (RFC/U if you must) rather than leaving warning templates and opening ANI threads. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks anon, and yes, I believe that each of the recent edits I linked above has specific WP:V or WP:CITE problems, either because they appear to require local knowledge (and are therefore WP:OR) [40], [41], [42] [43] because they're intrinsically "likely to be challenged" (claims of "the largest", "the heaviest")[44] [45] or they report an opinion [46]. I don't believe that "travel to the place and see for yourself" satisfies WP:V :)

This isn't new behaviour; Ken's been adding material based on hearsay or personal experience for some time.[47] [48] [49], so yeah, we have a problem here. Discussion has produced inconsistent results, so I'm happy to take it to an RFC/U if that's the best course of action. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add that this user is doing some very bizarre things. I'm not directly involved but my watchlist of aircraft articles recently lit up like a Christmas tree. Uncited

ARBCOM

or other restrictions apply.

I am not qualified to write about old aircraft engines but I managed to get the

Jimbo rolls his eyes when he reads this stuff. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)

01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I still think you guys are overreacting a bit, except in cases of info that's actually contentious. Maybe you should try mediation (medcab?) first, as it's less confrontational than my earlier suggestion of RFC/U, if you're having trouble disussing this with Ken directly. Looking at Ken's overall contrib history, I think he's not that experienced with how we try to do things with regard to sourcing, and he is basically making newbie-like errors despite having 2300+ edits (almost all his edits are in mainspace--he hasn't interacted with other editors all that much). But he really does seem pretty knowledgeable about aviation. So it may help if an outsider has a chat with him.

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

The problems in the diffs you've shown look fairly tame to me at most. They don't make me feel like the encyclopedia is threatened. If you think something from them has to be taken out of an article, I'd say remove it but put a note on the talk page saying what it was, so people can know about it and look for sourcing if they think it's interesting. I'm pretty busy with RL stuff this week and sleepy right now, but can probably try to discuss this with Ken next week if you think that might help (I've had reasonable results in this sort of situation before). I do agree that he should modify his style somewhat. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Added: Nimbus, per Rlandmann's post, it sounds like the thing with the cite-tagging was a reaction to earlier cite requests that Ken felt affronted by. It was obviously inappropriate but I think it's been resolved. I also see the current discussion on Ken's talk page is not very friendly, and also it doesn't look like he's been notified of this thread. Look, he means well, please try to de-escalate the situation some. I'll try to leave him a note tomorrow but won't be able to spend much time on it. I also see he has asked for mediation, which seems like a good idea to me. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 07:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The user was notified of this thread here. I also thought of 'having a chat' but reasoned that it would not work. The mediation attempt was a direct response to another editor reverting the 'citation needed' tags, an attempt to report that editor's 'vandalism' to the admins. It was the wrong venue (should have been here if there was a case to answer), was malformed and quickly deleted. This recent post on the user's talk page (...is getting to the point where I can file a police report with my local police for pursuing me on Wikipedia. If you wish to test me by all means proceed.) could easily be taken for a legal threat and the user should be notified of the gravity of this wording. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This diff is very clearly a legal threat and requires immediate action. - Ahunt (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pointed him to

WP:NLT in the section he started below and invited him to rephrase it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 19:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

• "If Sunday brunch is gay, I don't want to be straight" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Sunday Brunch
• "I've seen C-beams glitter in the dark near there" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tan Haur (2nd nomination)
• "To honor the Republic of Macedonia" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boosterthon Fun Run

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

Propose a topic ban to read:

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

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

• Moonlichen is some kind of troll account for the most part, i noted it when first created.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A review of their contributions indicate a) a familiarity with high-level WP policy b) that this is probably not their first account. This is not an editor who does not know what they are doing. The AfD carry-on is not terribly disruptive, but it is of no value to the process and adds only noise; if they keep it up, issue a block warning and take it from there. Topic-banning is a little heavy-handed at this point I think. Skomorokh 10:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• A single-line comment that disagrees with your sensibilities does not make someone a troll. There are far more policies against being a mean to other editors than against being a little goofy now and then. Lighten up. --
  talk
  ) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You've done this multiple times and it has proven disruptive to others with no benefit to the project. If you want to keep playing silly buggers, go ahead, but don't complain you weren't warned if you end up blocked. Skomorokh 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think the topic ban is in order. A quick run through their history show no useful contribution to that process, and a lot of mild disruption by annoying everyone else without being responsive to concerns. — Coren ^(talk) 14:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat on the fence. Some mild goofiness is fine, and the user has made some useful copy edits, for instance. A series of edits a few months ago made me think that this was a vandalism-only account, but it's not. On the other hand, I am an elephant and have not forgotten this edit and the associated mess, where the user had to be admonished by an administrator to a. keep their goofiness within bounds of our policies and b. to at least try and act like an adult. That rudeness is a hallmark of trolling as well and does not indicate a desire for cooperative editing. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions. We're not topic banning humor accounts from AfD are we [50]? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's not really occasional humour though - but persistent and slightly annoying "keep" comments which are not useful. Topic Ban was intended as a lightweight way of pointing out that the joke is wearing thin :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  You realize, of course, that the AfD to which you link is an April Fool's, right? — Coren ^(talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Except that it's not and I'm confusing it with someone else. It was ridiculous, but not for that reason. — Coren ^(talk) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support I can't see how this is helping the process --Guerillero | My Talk 15:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Don't forget to spank him for colorful violation of
  WP:TALK!! Make his ass cheeks on red and one blue! Tijfo098 (talk
  ) 17:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• The admin getting the prize for taking MoonLichen seriously is... drum roll... (did you guess?) Tijfo098 (talk) 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Huh? No, I didn't guess, and it has nothing to do with this. Sandstein comments, as closing administrator, that MoonLichen's arguments don't make sense. How is that taking them seriously? And why the silly little drum roll? If you have a bone to pick with Sandstein, bring it up at another lame attempt at humor. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a AFD topic ban but I think its not really needed anymore as if he does it again he will clearly be blocked and has been warned of that. I still remember the user redirecting his talkpage to a sexual expletive, he had to be warned he would be blocked before he stopped reverting to that position and one of his AFD comments is even in a foreign language (Swedish).
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions. My goodness. Really? Take a good long look in the mirror. Giving ourselves just a tad too much importance? Project needs a lighter side. Most funny people overdo it in time, feel silly, turn it down a notch, then resume. So they used profanity. Oh well. I propose that editors voting "support" here go find a real issue on the project, there are people on here with chainsaws (socks, real uncivility, agendas, POV pushers, etc). Ridiculous.Turqoise127 22:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I take offence at that! You can find me being silly or cracking jokes in the appropriate places! :) MoonLichen is simply ignoring polite requests to scale it back.. that's concerning. --Errant ^(chat!) 07:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom and Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Since I first saw this account a couple months ago,
  I've been hearing quite a few quacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/
  00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Get a life.
  confer
  04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think sanctions are the best approach. I've also queried this editor, several times, and received no response - other than moving my posts to their odd sub-talk-page and calling my edits 'vandalism'. I'd suggest a strong warning for tendentious editing, and if that fails, a block. If they're not prepared to discuss things, it's detrimental to the project - and their contribs to AfD in particular are more disruptive than they are amusing.  Chzz  ►  10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• I see no need for a ban - just warn for disruption and block if it continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

At 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the page from "Prin eErnst August, Prince of Hanover (1954-)", a title unilaterally intorduced by DWC LR. The pre-dispute title was"Ernst August, Prince of Hanover (born 1954)"" Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)" was a new title you unilaterally introduced during the dispute.Dbpjmuf (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, why is the DOB in the article's title? I'm not sure that's the way things are supposed to work either. -

talk

) 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The date is meant to disambiguate this Ernst August from his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and son, all who have (or had) the same name and title. --NellieBly (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah...looking at

talk

) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I tried to move it to the title in the RM (Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)) but clearly I messed up and accidently hit enter on my keyboard. I asked at

WP:RM for someone to move it to Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) as otherwise it will confuse the ongoing RM. I will ask again. - dwc lr (talk

) 13:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thanks to User:Boing!_said_Zebedee for removing talk page access and extending block by 24hrs. - Happysailor ^(Talk)

86.46.188.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Requesting removal of talk page access, and possibly extension of the block due to continued abuse on own talk page - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mario! But our Princess is in another castle! —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Fungal friends, have no fear! :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Heyheyheyhey! Stop stealing my shtick, or I'll sic the internet police on you! HalfShadow 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Luigi, but I think I'm in the right castle - I'm not looking for page protection - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

RFPP also deals with talk page revocations. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem has been solved, user cannot edit talk page as per

talk

) 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Quinn2go

I'm sorry for trying to do this at multiple places (mainly, having this thread, RPP and SPI at the same time) but I'm really getting fed up with this. The article's talk page has been practically dominated by an army of socks that only use it to

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

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

If it is indeed a real, registered number, then it's probably best to advise the user that this is not really a good idea (due to possible phone spam and such) and they should consider a user name change. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are probably too many unknowns here to give advice that would be correct in all circumstances. For example, how do you know it's a US phone number and not some other 10 digit number? Is the editor actively claiming it's their phone number? Is their editing problematic? Have you talked to them about it? etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Has the user in question been informed of this discussion? —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've notified her tonight. I didn't want to possibly distress a new user unless other folks felt raising the issue was reasonable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am disappointed the number isn't 867-5309. Resolute 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Incidentally, a TNID search comes back as an invalid number. [51] Also, [52] doesn't list 953 as a valid exchange in the 213 area code. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

As an uninvolved non-admin, If things arent changed quickly her label and lawyers plan to get invovled. and but you need to get back to me, seriously, within a 24 hour period. sounds like a legal threat to me, and maybe I'm taking it out of context, but I can't see it as anything but a legal threat. -

talk

) 03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a legal threat. From reading the comments she doesn't understand how Wikipedia works and doesn't care, and will "File a compaint" if she doesn't get what she wants. [53] --OpenFuture (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Call in and file some kind of complaint" is not a legal threat. In fact, we've got BLP processes set up specifically to handle such complaints. Rklawton (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

While that diff isn't a legal threat (IMO), the one posted at the top most certainly is. -

talk

) 05:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The "threat" at the top is 3rd person, so that's a gray area. The person posting is just big fan and doesn't speak for the artist or the label. I've resolved the main problem, however. I went to Anita's website (the one we list in her article and maintained by her label), clicked on her Twitter link (so we know it's not an imposter), and found where she posted her birth day and month. I noted this on the talk page, posted a link, and restored her article back to the last edit containing the correct date. I see no reason why this shouldn't end the matter. Rklawton (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

That's good, too. Rklawton (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I really wish that someone would have contacted me on either my talk page or my

WP:NPOV. If there is any scrutiny or problem with the advice I gave her, the feedback would be helpful for me to know how to interact with problems of this nature in the future. Thank you. --Leahtwosaints (talk

) 15:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. I also wonder if OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is an acceptable name. Mindbunny (talk) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't dignify this with a response..... but what the hey. I am confident any admin will see right through this troublesome editor's report here. 1) Mindbunny has a personal grudge against me since a re-inserted a comment critical of his behavior at Lara Logan, back onto his own Talk page. 2) in my short time here, I've learned to use the Talk page a lot, as a look at my Contributions will show. 3) I only inadvertently removed content the first revert on Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia (an article I came to to see in what other ways Mindbunny has attempted to belittle discrimination against Womyn). I since restored the source. 4) I am obviously not responsible for the actions of anonymous IPs, and he's claim that I am the same person is laughable (I encourage any admin to investigate). I know I've kind of asked for it by delving into these Wiki pages and commenting myself - but I do find this a bit rich. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindbunny notes above that "Another edit of the anon IP to a different article also removed referenced material". It's interesting that this removal was identical to, and shortly after, an edit by a suspected sockpuppet.[59][60] RolandR (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, one of Nableezy's friends trying to get revenge on me for commenting on his case. As I say, I guess I've brought this on myself for getting involved in all these dramas - but I must say I'm rather surprised by the "wolf-pack" mentality of some on here. Admin: please investigate me, and then kindly punish those who are making the false accusations! :-D OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OpinionsAreLikeAHoles should consider requesting a username change, the current one isn't really acceptable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? Who do you really think would find it offensive??? OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:U is pretty clear that you aren't allowed to have usernames with profanity or implied profanity; not that I personally mind it, but our username policy does say as much. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 17:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

<-Some further info. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles is editing via an Amazon Web Services Account although he claimed not to be aware of that. He seems to make a number of edits while logged out, see IP 175.41.171.29 and the edits by IP's starting 175.41. at Itasca High School (Texas) + their contrib histories for example. I think I'm okay providing the IPs here per the privacy policy because there is concern about abuse of the project and whether this user may be a sockpuppet, possibly of prolific sockmaster User:Ledenierhomme. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly of User:AFolkSingersBeard (which could possibly be itself a sock of Ledenierhomme). RolandR (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes possibly...it's difficult to keep track of all the socks nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrections. I said the account was created a month ago. It was created two weeks ago--and immediately knew how to edit in sophisticated ways. OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has never "restored" the material in question, although the user keeps claiming otherwise. Mindbunny (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. I think Opinions answered NorthernBlades comment about user name on his talk page using the wrong account here...as Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He quickly realized it and removed the comment with a "Whoops wrong person". I'm requesting checkuser and will notify Vassos55...does anyone else see what I'm seeing?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops..oh dear. And there was I thinking the box of seaweed we bought this evening with the brand name "Big Sheet" was going to be the funniest thing today... Sean.hoyland - talk 19:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Possible connection based on CU evidence. They both share the same UA, but IPs and geolocation are all over the place. However, webhosts and other gateways are being used, which may explain that. –MuZemike 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MuZemike. I believe they are the same based on the sock's flub.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Vassos55's edits at Cyprus internment camps were to reinsert material previously supported by User:Telaviv1. I have no evidence of a connection. Zero^talk 23:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

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

This IP claims[62] to be Runtshit. The editing pattern does not bear this out; but it is clear that this and many other IPs and SPAs carrying out similar disruptive edits are part of a big sock farm. RolandR (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like OpinionsAreLikeAHoles has walked away from this account. It's currently blocked pending a request for username change. I assume he is now using another sockpuppet account and/or is editing logged out probably via another proxy server. Are both OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Vassos55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) going to be blocked for sockpuppetry and if so, when ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Update: He has just been unblocked as his user name change was approved. Hello? Anybody out there? Tiamut^talk 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

1. sock puppet of Shuvuhikovsky (talk · contribs
   ).
2. As a corollary of the CU results, the user was not editing from a school. Hence, I would bank that this is another disruptive sock account more than anything else.

–MuZemike 21:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

121.102.105.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
113.197.225.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
124.147.88.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

hello,

these anonymous users change certifications from several discographies. Everything began with the first ip-address, 121.102.105.130, where he upgraded

(Non-administrator comment) All three IPs belong to the same ISP and geolocate to the same area. Looks like a single IP-hopping editor to me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Clearly these IPs are used by one user. I doubt that there is any point in a topic ban, as it is highly unlikely the user would take any notice of it, and when a user IP-hops over such a wide range there is no effective way of enforcing a ban. I have semi-protected the articles for a month.
  talk
  ) 21:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you very much.--
  T
  21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill Huffman appears, from his own admission to be operating multiple accounts. He appears to be using the Bill Huffman account to collect what he feels to be negative information about yours truly. In doing so, he appears to watch conversations that take place on my talk page, then goes to the other editors and tries to recruit them into collecting negative information [74] [75] [76] [77]. I was responsible for highlighting to ArbCom that Huffman, who operates an off-wiki attack site on Derek Smart was trying to get negative information on Smart placed in the Wikipedia article by making suggestions on the article talk page as well as operating multiple accounts see here. After being asked to leave the Smart article alone, Huffman announced that he was abandoning the Huffman account. As his contributions show, he has not done so. This diff appears to indicate that this user may be maintaining this account simply to focus on me. Since admin Atama was also involved in this last year, I'll also ask him if he has any comment. Admins, please resolve the situation. Cla68 (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Notified. Cla68 (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My interaction with Bill was on his old account. I had blocked that account because it was being used in a way not in accordance with

WP:SOCK to be voluntary guidelines to be ignored when inconvenient. -- Atama頭

17:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bill left a note on my talk page as an IP (I assume it was him), claiming that his account was blocked. It isn't. I did leave some advice about using an alternate account legitimately, and strongly suggested that he address the concerns on this noticeboard. -- Atama頭 20:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)