The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Closed without action. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has previously been blocked for breaking his parole. He has again broken his 1 revert a week parole on the State terrorism and the United States article.

Reverts:

• 19:22, 19 March 2008
• 03:39, 16 March 2008

I did do Giovanni the favour of not reporting him for a similar incident a while ago, and left him a message on his talk page encouraging him not to edit on the article without establishing complete consensus. But he hasn't taken this on board and seems to believe he can keep reverting anyway. He has been let off the hook more than once here, yet he seems to keep pushing the limits of his parole on a regular basis.

Giovanni will claim he was reverting a "malfunctioning" bot, but I believe it accurately picked up a case of vandalism. For reference, User:Ssb3342 is a blocked sockpuppet of User:Hkelkar.

Furthermore Giovanni did not explain either of his reversions on the article talk page. John Smith's (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, it looks like he did use the talk page: the 19 March edit summary says "see talk", and he did in fact leave a talk-page note discussing the revert immediately before making it ([5]). The 16 March revert looks for all the world like he was undoing what appeared to be a false-positive by ClueBot. At the time he made the revert, Ssb3342 (talk · contribs) had not yet been identified as an Hkelkar sock - that happened hours later. I'm not inclined to see this as a revert in the context of his 1RR, as it appears to have been a good-faith attempt to correct an apparently mistaken bot rather than participation in an edit war. Therefore I'm inclined to close without action, though I'd welcome other admin opinions. MastCell ^Talk 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. Though the fact the sock was identified by the bot suggests it was vandalism. Furthermore, as has been explained in the past, one revert a week isn't a right. He has repeatedly removed content from the page even when it is subsequently restored. That's edit warring and it doesn't help gain consensus on what is already a controversial page. John Smith's (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The bot picked it up due to the amount of content removed. A common vandalism pattern is blanking all or large sections of articles. Ssb3342 was reverting a single large addition to the article, so the bot's pickup was indeed a mistake. That the editor who reverted the large addition was themselves a sock doesn't make the bot correct and has no impact on whether Giovanni33 was right to correct the bot. It is known that the bot is inherently imperfect and will always suffer from some false positives. Giovanni's edit on the 16th is fine. MastCell is correct in evaluating the edit on the 19th. I agree this should be closed without action. GRBerry 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I thought that removing a section of an article without explanation is vandalism. Why was removing just one large addition not vandalism? John Smith's (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot should not have made an edit in this situation. Giovani33 corrected the bot. Bots should not intervene in an edit war; but we don't know how to teach a bot to recognize an edit war. The earlier participants in that edit war quite likely merited 3RR blocks, but doing anything about that 6 days later would be ridiculous. GRBerry 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest you do anything about the previous infractions - I was reporting on Giovanni's parole, which is examined on a weekly basis. As I said, I interpreted Ssb's edit as being vandalism because he blanked a section without an explanation. Are you suggesting that it wasn't vandalism because there was an edit war surrounding it? If Ssb had been taking part in the discussion or more generally the page editing, sure that wouldn't have been vandalism. But to pop up and delete a lot of content without comment surely is vandalism. If Ssb hadn't been vandalising, why did the bot only revert his edit?

Furthermore I didn't say Giovanni had committed vandalism as you suggested in your edit summary. John Smith's (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Ssb's edit is vandalism - and in context I can't really call it that, the bot should not have reverted it. It was about the 8th or 10th revert in a multi-editor series. At that point, bots should not be involved. Giovanni only undid the bot. Since I conclude that the bot should not have edited, I also conclude that reverting the bot is fine. In short, I don't consider that revert by Giovanni to be the sort of revert the ruling is intended to address. Had he reverted one of the human editors, it would be the sort of revert the restriction is intended to address. The restriction is intended to address edit warring with other humans instead of seeking consensus. Cleaning up after bot false positives is not edit warring with humans. GRBerry 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand now. I thought that it was vandalism and as such it was right at any point for a bot to revert it. But if you're suggesting that it should not have made the change because of the on-going dispute then I understand quite perfectly. Please close this report - retracted. John Smith's (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

PHG has been blocked for 60 hours. AGK § 19:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is under recent ArbCom restrictions from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Specifically:

• He is banned from editing articles related to medieval or ancient history
• He is only allowed to participate at article talkpages, if he can do so in a civil and non-disruptive manner
• He is supposed to respect consensus instead of continuing to bring up the same old arguments

He was already blocked on March 16, 2008 for violating restrictions.[6] Through the block, and the case, PHG continues to deny any wrongdoing.[7][8] [9](See also User talk:PHG#Block)

Some of the history-related subpages in his userspace were deleted (over PHG's strong objections)[10][11] yesterday via MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PHG's archived articles. The community consensus at MfD was clear that the subpages needed to go.

Today, PHG has again violated multiple restrictions:

• He re-created one of the pages that had been deleted via MfD: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (Note: has since been re-deleted)
• He started a new subpage that is related to medieval history: User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) (though the title says 19th century, there is clearly a section on medieval history within the article)
• He is not respecting consensus at article talkpages, and is instead effectively copy/pasting his old arguments and continuing to disagree. Examples:
  • Talk:Louis IX of France[12][13]
  • Talk:Edward I of England[14]
  • Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis[15][16][17][18] [19][20] [21][22]
  • Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance[23][24][25] such as about involvement of the Knights Templar[26][27] and the whereabouts of Bohemond VI[28]

I am requesting that sanctions be enforced. His last block of 48 hours did not seem to get through to him that he needs to let this go, and go work on something else for awhile. As I mentioned three days ago in the current request for amendment, it is my opinion[29] that he needs to be permanently blocked until he is able to acknowledge that he understands what he did wrong, and until he indicates that he is interested in reforming his behavior. Since I know that perm-blocks seem to give people the screaming hives though, I would be willing to settle for a one-week block instead. Whatever is done, PHG's disruption must be stopped. He has already wasted the time of too many good editors. At some point we just need to be able to say, "Enough. He does not appear to be working in a cooperative fashion with other editors, and he just needs to be asked to leave, so that other editors can get back to work. Wikipedia is not the right place for him." --Elonka 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no involvement with the original content dispute, and no opinion about the prior behavior of PHG, nor have I reviewed all details of current behavior of PHG; however, the MfD mentioned at the beginning of this section was graced with serious misrepresentation of the ArbComm decision, which did not suggest the deletion of the files that were the subject of the MfD, did not prohibit PHG from working on the articles in question, merely from doing so directly through article edits. He was explicitly encouraged to continue his contributions through civil suggestions in Talk. He was not condemned for his prior participation, and if he continues to participate in a civil fashion, no sanctions were prescribed. He was blocked briefly (and possibly correctly) for what would ordinarily be a minor breach of civility. But the claims above about his continued behavior do not appear to be warranted, and it would seem that opinions about him are being colored by past conflicts. ArbComm did not require public humiliation and "self-criticism" as any condition for continued work here.

He has not only been allowed to do what Elonka is complaining about, he was actually encouraged, none of it violates the ArbComm decision (beyond the incivility already reported and sactioned, and which has not continued). I would suggest that the campaign to inhibit his continued work is disruptive, and should begin to attract attention as such.

To those users upset by his allegedly repetitive arguments in Talk, "not respecting consensus," arguing against the majority or even a large majority is not disruptive if civil, and my suggestion is that if his arguments are irrelevant or useless, don't read them and certainly don't respond to them. It is not necessary to answer those arguments unless another user takes them up and uses them to edit. It's an old rule: don't debate a motion that has not been seconded. Interfering with his right to make civil suggestions is chilling to Wikipedia process. It should cease.

As to PHG, I would suggest that he avoid, to the extent possible without serious harm to his contributions, provocative actions, even if they are technically permissible and within his rights. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a further review of PHG's block, cited above, which I previously described as warranted, based on having seen a single edit with problematic language, I have become concerned that it may have been unfair and unwarranted. PHG has complained about certain aspects of the arbitration and the results, and he has a right to do so, provided that he does not do so disruptively. Subsequent events seem to be confirming, in fact, at least some elements of his complaints. When I reviewed the ArbComm decision, I found the issues extraordinarily complex; ArbComm, investigating the claims with more than ordinary diligence, came up with a precisely crafted decision that specifically asserted that it continued to assume good faith on the part of PHG, at the same time as it found that "some" sources had been misrepresented. It's easy for those deeply opposed to his work to read this, casually, as "falsification of sources." He was not found to have done that, but rather, to have misrepresented the balance of opinion in the field and in the sources, a far more subtle error, and one that is actually quite common. The remedy recognized the value of his voluminous contributions and set up conditions where his errors would not harm the articles, because, presumably, any other editor taking up his suggestions from Talk would first confirm the sources, and the existence of so many editors highly suspicious of his work would surely prevent harm; indeed, the present hazard is that genuine and usable work would be disregarded, not that sloppy work would be incorporated. The attacks on him and his work should stop. Now.--Abd (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you're very mistaken.

Firstly, as the blocking admin, I'm fairly sure the block was about 110% appropriate and supported in every way going. Secondly, statements such as "arguing... is not disruptive if civil" are deeply in error. We have a large number of civil edit warriors; indeed the entire case of RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 was the statement by multiple users that "This would be a welcome improvement to address the fact that these editors have learnt to edit war civilly" [30].

The aim of these remedies was specifically that PHG was to act from now on, in a way that respects the consensus of others on matters, rather than constantly cause editorial problems by not heeding others. One factor in this was that the approaches he advocated were worryingly often unhelpful - they frequently misrepresented sources, were non-neutral, or were unheeding of others' concerns, for example. Although well meaning, they were problematic. Thus he was given as one of his remedies, that he was required (not just 'asked') to "remember" that Wikipedia is collaborative... that it is "essential that all editors work towards compromise"... that when most editors have reached agreement, "it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument" and he should "move to other debates"... and that change of consensus generally requires new information, new voices, or passage of time.

Those were passed as remedies, meaning, any administrator who feels they are not being complied with in PHG's editing, in any manner, may enforce them.

The question here is not what happened at MFD. The decision at MFD was a consensus made by an independent administrator based upon wide discussion, and following Wikipedia:USER#Copies_of_other_pages. if PHG objects then the correct route is deletion review which is collaborative and usual, not out-and-out ignoring of the MFD consensus and communal view. That is exactly what the remedy is attempting to address - the strong tendency to ignore a consensus or view not wished for. Also known as tendentious editing.

The issue here is not whether he is "right" or "wrong" either, nor whether he likes the arbitration decision (or you would decide otherwise), but whether he has respected a consensus once one has formed.

Arbitration rulings are bright lines. They are the end of the line in dispute resolution. The only question relevant on this page is, does the evidence presented speak of their breach. If so, then this is Arbitration enforcement, and they will be enforced. If not then he won't, or he may be warned. It's that simple. The time for debating such matters was long, long before arbitration... unfortunately the evidence at Arbitration suggests that this was not an option that was well followed. Hence this.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that FT2 not extrapolate from what I've written to an unwarranted criticism that I did not make. First of all, to my knowledge, there has been no section opened at WP:DRV. Nor has any challenge been mounted against his block of PHG, only a mention of some concern about it, based on an incomplete review. I could do one or both of these, if I did not hold the opinion that there are less disruptive remedies, starting with doing nothing but responding to active situations, such as this enforcement section.

My opinion is that the deletion could be challenged and that it was incorrect, not because there were no problems with the pages, but because the problems were remediable, easily, without the likelihood of any disruptive process. As I am sure FT2 knows, sometimes closing administrators do not address substantive arguments raised in deletion process, and simply "get the damn thing closed." This is often good enough. But where substantive arguments are raised, and, in particular, where the process was abused by an immediate misrepresentation of the ArbComm PHG decision, it would have been better, and less disruptive, if the closing admin had explained his decision, addressing the arguments raised.

There are what I consider numerous errors as to understanding of policy in FT2's comment above, but what is of most concern to me is that in the name of "enforcing" the ArbComm decision, this administrator is actually subverting it and claiming that it was defective, i.e., that the option of resolving "such matters" was not well followed. However, the parties involved did request clarification from ArbComm, specifically inviting the stronger interpretations which some have been making (which are so deviant from the decision that they hardly justify the word "interpretation"), and ARbComm has, so far, declined to review it. Which leaves us with my opinion that the ruling was clear, as is, very clear, and it permits PHG to do what he has done, if done civilly. Contrary to that, FT2 raises the specter of edit warring from other cases. It is extremely clear: if PHG edit wars in this area, he's quickly blocked. But expressing an opinion on a Talk page is not edit warring. Period. No matter how many editors don't like it. Because it is impossible to crisply define trolling that does not close the matter, but WP:TROLL is a dangerous tool. Suffice it to say that the offense in trolling is an intention to create outraged response, it is not based merely in expressing opinion about an article topic.

We use the word "consensus" loosely, but the word has a history, and in its history, it means complete agreement. Including PHG. For practical necessity, the term then becomes loosely expanded to refer to a general agreement, but Wikipedia rarely devotes the very substantial resources necessary to determine that; so what we have are ad-hoc expressions of some kind of local consensus. If that local consensus becomes an excuse to suppress dissent, the whole system breaks down. You cannot have NPOV if dissent is repressed. That does *not* mean that it must spill over into articles, and that is one reason why we have Talk. It is, in fact, a place to express dissent. I have not reviewed the specific behavior of PHG in Talk, so my comments must be taken solely as a response to FT2's comment ahead. The ArbComm decision is indeed a bright line. Don't claim that a user has crossed it who has not.

1) I would love to know what can be wrong with just putting a small link in User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) to an old version of the article so that at least people who arrive on this page know where to look for the full version (this page is linked to from many discussion pages [31]). The full 200k page had specifically been deleted on the ground that "old disputed pages should not be archived", and that it took unnecessary user space on Wikipedia, which are reasons I am respecting. This is why instead of the 200k article, I have just inserted the small link:

"Long version here".

Of course some user has deleted the page and is now claiming that "I re-created the page", which is untrue: I just left a link so that people can still consult the long version (this page is linked from many different places). Such misrepresentation and claims are akin to harassment as User:Abd kindly mentions above. Let me also remind that I am not at all restricted from editing my own User Pages.

2) Elonka is claiming that an article I am preparing User:PHG/France-Japan relations (19th century) has some mention of Medieval History in it. This is untrue and rather funny by the way: the earliest date mentionned is the 16th century, which is after Medieval times. The earliest contacts between Japan and the West started in 1545, which is Renaissance, certainly not Medieval. As far as I known, but Elonka apparently doesn't (or doesn't want to), "Medieval" ends in 1492. Anyway, and independently of this, as far as I known the Arbcom decision allows me to write about Medieval or Ancient History on my User:Page if I ever wished to.

3) Regarding Talk:Page edits: I am simply using my right to contribute on Talk Pages. I am not especially "fighting against consensus":

• On "Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248)" we are actually four users complaining about the introduction of false unreferenced statements by User:Elonka. I understand she must dislike it, but on Wikipedia untrue statements have to go.
• On Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance, we are only discussing about particular representations of the involvement of the Franks, a discussion which is appropriate and we never really had in the past (as recognized by User:Shell Kinney "This is a step in the right direction and I think its worth fairly assessing each point to ensure we haven't over looked any usable parts." here).
• On Edward I of England, all content about the contacts between this king and the Mongols has been deleted [32], without any discussion, so that it is only normal that I challenge this on the Talk Page, and other users are supporting my point there.

I am obviously being harassed by Elonka, and I ask everyone to understand the situation and help restrain such practices which are certainly not justified by the Arbcom ruling, which again, I am willing to follow even if I dispute it (I am a dedicated Wikipedian after all). PHG (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that the level of action against this user amounts to harassment. However, having said that, PHG is incorrect about an important thing, and the error is a serious one, and it could explain much of what has transpired. He wrote on Wikipedia untrue statements have to go. No, they don't have to go. This, indeed, would be the argument of PHG's opponents. What we do on Wikipedia is to exclude, in the presence of controversy, unsourced text from articles. They can be made on Talk, and the remedy is not deletion of them, but of, if considered warranted, response and balance. Untrue statements are made in Talk all the time, and if I responded to all of them because they "have to go," I'd have no time to eat or sleep. In the other direction, if PHG makes an untrue statement in Talk, there is no necessity of response. He is not going to then put this in the article. I would suggest a minimal response to those who disagree with him. Attempting to repress him from a civil expression of his opinions and observations is, in fact, the soul of disruption, this kind of censorship then breeds incivility and outraged response, often dragging in otherwise uninvolved editors on one side or the other. Like me. It should stop. Respect the ArbComm decision, all of you. --Abd (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Abd. Actually, the statement that "has to go" is not at all a Talk Page statement (no big issues with that), but an untrue and totally unreferenced statement in the Viam agnoscere veritatis article that "Viam Agnoscere Veritatis may refer to three letters, Cum non solum, Dei patris immensa, Viam agnoscere veritatis". This point is important to clarify as it was used unfairly as a justification to attack me extensively when I created the article and during the Arbcom case. Regards PHG (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG continues to violate his restrictions. Today, he created France-Japan relations (19th century). I have tagged it for speedy-deletion, and again request that PHG be blocked. I know it seems odd to delete something that looks like a "real" article, but let me assure you, it is not. PHG is just very talented at formatting and copy/pasting. What he is doing is creating a coatrack article to push specific biases about medieval history. He adds the information he wants to add, and then copy/pastes in information from other sources to pad it out. I can go into more detail if needed, but it tends to just cloud the issue. The bottom line is that we've already thoroughly investigated this via ArbCom, that ArbCom decided unanimously that PHG is restricted from working on history articles, and yet PHG continues to work on history articles. The ArbCom sanctions need to be enforced, and PHG needs to be blocked to prevent further damage to Wikipedia. --Elonka 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same behavior we've seen before - note that PHG says that regardless of the MfD outcome, he should be in the clear because instead of a copy of his preferred version, there was only a link to his preferred version - come on now, is anyone really going to buy the idea that its acceptable because its technically different? This is the kind of wikilawyering and hair-splitting that led to the ArbCom making collaboration a remedy instead of a finding.

He's now doing the same thing in the article space, trying to hedge the line and find articles he can continue his behavior on without technically violating the restrictions - note that he's now arguing what years of history he may edit or that creating an article on a medieval historian (who is one of the sources he greatly misrepresents) also technically doesn't violate the restriction. There's no attempt to follow the spirit of the rulings here.

Since he brought it up, I did suggest that we make sure we've responded to each of his points once. I reviewed each of his arguments and gave each a separate section -- the one he's chosen to argue has had 8 different sections across two talk pages and the total discussion has been more than four times the size of the article. I linked to each discussion, summarized and indicated that unless there was something new, there was no point in beating the poor horse anymore -- yet he continues the same arguments.

Its the same at Viam agnoscere veritatis, we've shown one reference, the one he originally used to confuse the letters and yet even now, a month later, he's still arguing the exact same point. Everyone else has discussed it and moved on.

PHG appears to have no intention of respecting the ArbCom's rulings; I would also request that the restrictions be enforced and agree with Elonka that while a block until he agrees to stop would be preferable, escalation would seem to point to a week long block at this juncture. Shell ^babelfish 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has become clear that PHG is continuing to defy the ruling passed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, despite repeated warnings and recent blocks. Further to the evidence presented by Elonka and the Committee's provisions at Franci-Mongol alliance, I have blocked PHG's account for 60 hours. AGK § 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

As per below. Thatcher 14:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:ARBMAC I banned Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen for a month. The account The Dragon of Bosnia (talk · contribs) immediately took up the torch, and checkuser  Confirmed that The Dragon of Bosnia and Geographer X (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Grandy Grandy. I have blocked all three accounts indefinitely. The question is whether to consider the block of Grandy Grandy as a ban or to reblock with a definite expiry and consider it a warning block/second chance. Thatcher 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My notes and thoughts:

1. The block log for The Dragon of Bosnia doesn't show your block Thatcher. Nor does the log of blocks you issued show anyone else it might be. I suggest you confirm that that block took.
2. The editor was put on notice of the case by Stifle in December, as evidenced by his talk page.
3. I note a mediation cabal case where 2 of these accounts were on the same side of a 4-2 editing division before the case opened. The problematic use goes back to at least late November. There is a later mediation cabal case about this specific article where these two are the same side of a 2-1 editing division as the case opens.
4. I see evidence of the accounts talking to each other in order to create the appearance of being different users (e.g. "I just came back from vacation. What happened with the Bosnian Genocide? I think we should make an effort to improve it. Do you agree? Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)" [33].

All in all, it seems clear that there is a longstanding (months) pattern of using these accounts on that article. I'm not sure I'd go for a ban at this time, as I don't at an immediate glance see evidence of issues unrelated to this article. But the block should not be particularly short either, for behavior that is a months long pattern, with intent to deceive other editors. Given the topic ban on Osli73, and the handful of other editors with any to that article in the past few months (none of them particularly demonstrating a sustained interest), I'd say the block needs to last for at least a few weeks just to give the article a chance. GRBerry 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I swear I blocked all the accounts; oh well, that's fixed now. Thatcher 06:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is long term pattern. I can support indef but could also live with a minimum of one month. I suggest waiting a month and see if other socks appear, then decide. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the ban should be indefinite (or at least for a year) on any Balkans related articles. This is not a slight transgression but the deliberate actions of someone who has a very specific POV in this area and has been willing to push it using two accounts to make it appear that the user had more support than they actually had. This is not a case of using a sock puppet to occasionally support a particular POV in the odd straw poll, but using it to attempt to force through a particular POV on the page by by using accounts to avoid the 3RR [34]. During late January and early February while this editor was taking a Wiki-break and therefore not editing the Bosnian Genocide page those editors left were able to work out a compromise version which had proved impossible while this editor was involved during which time there had been RfCs and 3 attempts at mediation. However twice since the compromise was agreed, this editor had tried to revert the page to a version they liked although no other editor editing the page agrees. [35],[36] So it looks as if this editor will revert to a version (s)he prefers even after an absence of a month and even if the consensus among other editors of the page is for a different version. BTW it seems that The Dragon of Bosnia is th the olders account and the oterh two are sock puppets.

• The Dragon of Bosnia is an older account created at 1:34 on 20 February 2007
• Grandy Grandy first edit was at 05:38 on 27 September 2007. Almost immediately the account was used to edit war on Bosnian Genocide.
• Geographer X first edit at 14:34 on 13 October 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Philip's finding that The Dragon is the oldest account, that might be the right one to let back if and when the time comes to do so. But if the editor expresses a different preference on one of their talk pages, let them choose their account. I did also spot some problematic false appearance of consensus editing by Geographer X, but with far fewer contributions that account is a sideshow. I think Rlevse's idea of a one month block while checking for new socks is a good idea, followed by an article editing ban for a similar period (with talk page discussion or formal mediation allowed). I'm wondering if the editing restriction on Osli73 should be adjusted; he obviously can't engage in formal mediation with this editor while this editor is blocked. GRBerry 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to leave all the accounts indef-blocked at this point, but adding the condition that any one of the accounts may ask to be unblocked in a month, rather than making the unblock automatic. I note that none of the accounts has made a talk page comment on the block so far, and I half expect he will start making new sockpuppets before the month is over, although I hope to be proved wrong. And maybe change Osli73's topic ban to a 1RR per week limit. Thatcher 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have achived group think. While commuting to work this morning I concluded that some form of 1RR seemed right for Osli73. GRBerry 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]