Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2

I believe JoshuaZ, the creator of this RFC/complaint page, is a evolutionists zealot and who is on a current crusade against me. For example, I would mentiion that it took a lot of pointed criticism of the evolutionists Haeckel's work to get JoshuaZ to finally admit that his work was fraudulent on a particular issue. And JoshuaZ did so only after I pointed out the prominent evolutionist Stephen Gould said the work of Haeckel in question was fraudulent. Please read this page to see our discussion on the Haeckel issue ken 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo[reply]

The editors of this page may be interested in knowing there is an open mediation case, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo.--Andrew c 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, Andrew. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has become apparent based on Ken's recent edits and his comments here that he has no intention of changing his editing behavior or such. I therefore suggest we take the next step in pschemp's suggestion and take this to WP:AN or WP:ANI and make a call for community consensus about what article's Ken should edit. JoshuaZ 02:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

136.183.146.158 seems to be ken. In the same articles ken was in, doing the same thing and presenting the same tone and arguments in talk pages. Even edits at the same time as ken, usually in blocks either directly before or after ken does a bunch of edits, and text has been posted with the IP account, then fixed by ken with his named account ([1]). Would like to keep that in mind when going forward with this. *Spark* 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a god idea to me. Guettarda 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It would be best to resolve this in some fashion that would limit further disruption. Doc Tropics 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely - perhaps this case needs more intervention, and the discussions on the talk page by this editor (thought it is under his IP) is probably causing other editors lots of grief. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pschemp has blocked both of Ken's accounts for a week, which I think is a good start. *Spark* 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Let the sock-watch begin... The Crow 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My hope would be that ken would use this opportunity to reflect a bit on what have been somewhat toxic editing practices. Hopefully after some thought, he will revise his approach slightly and become a more constructive member. We can definitely use someone with his energy, as long as it is applied in more of a productive direction. I am positive he can do this. ken, we are not all against you. We know you can work in a more helpful fashion. Don't let this temporary setback get to you. Just learn from it and move on in a positive direction. --ReasonIsBest 06:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like Ken to me 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs · logs). Opinions? Guettarda 05:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very suspicious, and to me, this user has also been writing about creationist theories in articles. This IP also began editing on the day after Ken was blocked, and edited Christian apologetics. But look here! 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs · logs) signed as kdbuffalo! It's the same user, definitely. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same style of editing. Same type of language. Postings lacking logic. Postings nitpicking and using carefully culled quotes out of context. Yep. It sure looks like Ken.--Filll 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This link tells all. It is Ken, for sure.–- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, given that evidence I am going to block this IP for the duration of the week block. If someone feels that the block should be reset for all accounts, I am not opposed to resetting the block. Guettarda 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is that Ken's IP is dynamic and is continually by his IP - just like mine. Therefore, IPs with the prefix 136.183.1* could all be used by him when the ISP changes his IP. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of the block posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kdbuffalo. Guettarda 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: 136.183.154.15 (talk · contribs · logs). --Robert Stevens 09:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reset the block each time a new sock is found. Without resetting the block he has no reason to stop IP jumping or even creating another named account. *Spark* 12:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He was using this IP earlier in the day - it's blocked, but I have let Tariqabjotu's block stand on the other accounts. He definitely appears to be working from a dynamic IP. The idea of a community block was raised at AN/I (link above) - feel free to add your thoughts. Guettarda 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest semi-protecting the articles in question. We had good luck with this on Bible scientific foreknowledge. Really if you think about it, we have a problem with a specific author on a specific set of articles. He's not interested in working elsewhere in Wikipedia. By semi-protecting these articles you could effectively halt the disruption without blocking huge swaths of New York State University College at Buffalo from editing the rest of Wikipedia. The Crow 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. That's a good idea, without too much collateral damage. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are forgetting he's disrupting talk pages, not articles for the most part. We don't semi protect talk pages as a matter of course. And huge swaths of buffalo aren't blocked, because IP blocks are not indef and they stil allow registers users to edit. pschemp | talk 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet many good IP contributors who use the same ISP will not be able to edit Wikipedia. You're right though - I haven't seen a talk page protected yet. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 07:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct, he was primarily disrupting articles, not talk pages. In my experience he simply did massive deletions and would not discuss on talk pages even when he was asked to engage. Even his petty squabbles on the talk page would hardly qualify as "disruption". The talk page doesn't need semi-protection, just the main articles. And I can assure that these IP blocks will not be temporary... he will come back under shifting IP's until you've blocked his entire class C subnet, and it will become unmanageable. Additionally, there will be named sock-puppets. He is that persistent. That's why I warned on the sock problem the first day. The Crow 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it is, but just to check: this isn't Ken, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.217.14.153 Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound like Ken to me. Guettarda 14:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Ken is back! A familiar pattern of vandalism has reappeared on Peter Stoner and Bible prophecy from two very similar anonymous IP addresses, 128.205.191.51 and 128.205.191.55. On "Peter Stoner", this user tried to reinstate Ken's peculiar wording in which Lippard and Carr's criticism is deleted from the "Criticism" section but Holding's response to Carr is left (as described in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16_Deletions_by_user_Kdbuffalo).  : after being reverted, he's continuing with other forms of vandalism, such as falsely claiming "no historians cited" despite a citation from Katzenstein's "History of Tyre". On "Bible prophecy", we're in an edit war where he's trying to pretend that Farrell Till is "not notable", just as Ken did earlier. Both IP addresses are registered to "State University of New York at Buffalo", both have been used in the past on articles frequently edited by kdbuffalo, and the talkpage for 128.205.191.55 indicates previous vandalism and a temporary block imposed in March 2006. --Robert Stevens 12:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through the affected articles, I am almost completely sure that this is Ken. Ken has edited Bible prophecy before, and his edit at the time is identical to 128.205.191.51's edit. The edits and the edit summary are the same. Looking at Peter Stoner, Ken's edit and 128.205.191.51's later edit are nearly identical as well. Conceivably, it could be a random user copying and pasting the old version of the article, but this is unlikely. Block as a sock? I'm wondering if the old decision still applies so many months later. At the very least, it's probably to be considered as a new case. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 08:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same user with the same violation. I said on the first day he would never reform, that he would be back with multiple sockpuppet accounts, and of course this prediction has been abundantly accurate. It hasn't even been 90 days yet. Why on earth bother with a new case? Block him and continue to be vigilant for more chronic violations. The Crow 13:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Kdbuffalo's block log, it looks like the block was only for 9 days, not 90, so (I could be missing something) but I don't see what Ken just doesn't log in. I have reviewed these edits, and I too am pretty certain that this is Ken. It is saddening that the editing behavior hasn't changed, that the exact same edits, with no discussion are being made, as if wikipedia works by forcing controversial edits into article, hoping no one notices. All that said, it doesn't seem as if any of these edits violate any rules. There were no 3RR or personal attacks involved, so I'm going to AGF and not support any action taken on these anon accounts yet (if the edits get to the point where rules are violated, then I would support another block). -Andrew c 16:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]