Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Block template feature preventing blocked user from editing own talkpage

I know that this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I am becoming increasingly concerned about the number of instances in which blocked users have been inadvertently or unnecessarily blocked from editing even their own talkpages, as a result of the newly enabled feature on the block template allowing the blocking administrator to so direct. In the case of most blocks, this additional restriction on the blocked user is not necessary. If anything, it will often be counterproductive, in that it stops the user from posting an on-wiki unblock request or engaging in dialog regarding what he or she did that triggered a block and what he or she should do differently in the future.

Administrators should be sure to utilize this feature only where it is clear that there is no reasonable chance of legitimate input of any kind from the blocked user (e.g., Gra*p vandals) and not in the case of routine blocks, or even blocks based on serious misconduct. Indeed, I am not sure that this feature might not be counterproductive to the point where it should be removed altogether. I certainly don't recall any groundswell of demand for this feature/setting relative to the dozens of other proposed changes patiently waiting in line....

In the same vein, it is my view that the "block this user from sending e-mail" setting should only be utilized in the case of blocked or banned users who have misused the Wikipedia e-mail function or as to whom there is a serious and substantiated risk that they will do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The checkbox is close to the block button. It can easily be unchecked by accident. PEBKAC errors are likely. Jehochman ^Talk 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also be aware that there have been instances where this feature has worked incorrectly; one user could not edit his talk page, although the log did not show he was blocked from doing so, and another user was blocked from editing his talk page, although the admin had distinctly not selected that feature. Bugzilla 15812 has been filed, as noted up above. Risker (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

At an absolute minimum, shouldn't the feature be revised so that the default is that the blocked user can edit his or her talkpage, and the blocking administrator would have to check a box to stop the editor from editing that page, rather than the other way around? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It is the case at the moment that the box needs to be unchecked to disable talkpage editing - so the default is not to disable editing. I'm not aware yet of a case where someone unchecked the box by mistake, but there does seem to be a bug that has resulted in people not being able to edit their talkpage even though the blocking admin did not uncheck the box. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the talk page lock feature when blocking

Made a subheading so people are aware of what is going on here. KnightLago (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If this becomes too much of a problem I'd support a removal of the feature. Really, it accomplishes very little that full protection wouldn't accomplish, and what it does accomplish (allowing other non-admins to post to a block user's talk page without allowing the blocked user to respond) runs a substantial risk of heckling/hitting a fellow when he's down. Durova^Charge! 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ottava Rima has mentioned that a similar problem was encountered on Wikiversity and has been reported. Risker (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Even without the bugs, I don't support this feature. Very rarely should blocked users be prevented from editing their talkpage. Most of those cases will be where they abuse the ability to edit the talkpage following a block, at which stage the page can be protected. A talkpage protection is likely to get more attention than an additional element of a block, and allows for the period where the user cannot edit their talkpage to differ from the block length. I suspect that, as an added parameter to a block, it will be used far more commonly than talkpage protections, which is problematic given the number of blocks appealed on talkpages. We shouldn't be putting up barriers to users getting a fair hearing if they want to contest their block. It doesn't appear that the feature was added as a result of a consensus-based discussion and, if others agree with me, I suggest we have a discussion to form a basis to ask for this feature to be disabled. WJBscribe (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Remove the featurecruft.Jehochman ^Talk 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There are already issues as it is with some shared IPs with their talk pages blocked. The last thing you want to do is make things even more inconvenient. ~ Troy (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well; it seems like something handy that might get used occasionally, but in general just sits there and does nothing. If it ain't broke... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After all, when this would be useful, can't you reach the same end by protecting the userpage when necessary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone has suggested to me off-wiki that this feature may have been developed in response to the ongoing antics of a certain group of vandals who sometimes place dangerous malware on their userpages. If this is so, the argument for having this feature is stronger than I had imagined. Perhaps the solution may be to retain this feature but physically separate the "block user from editing own talkpage" as well as "block user from sending e-mail" settings from the other block settings on the "block user" template, thus allowing admins to engage these settings when there is reason to do so but reducing the chance that this will be done through inattention or inadvertence.

Also, the wording of the setting is a bit confusing. It would be better as "block user from editing own talkpage" (default unclicked, click when choosing to engage) rather than "allow user to edit own talkpage" (default click, unclick when choosing to disengage). They are logically equivalent, of course, but the lack of parallelism with the other wordings probably increases the number of mistakes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

By "certain group of vandals", do you mean the Gr*wp fools? If not, then I for one am not familiar with the vandals you're referring to and, therefore, wouldn't know to use the feature anyway. That makes it all the more useless. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that too, and it seems like a much less intrusive solution for those who deal with that problem to get into the habit of protecting the relevant user talk pages rather than implementing a new feature that has the potential for substantial collateral damage. Hardly anyone ever accidentally full protects a user talk page while protection is a separate action from blocking. New admins may be confused by this tool, and it being buggy as well inclines me toward jettisoning it altogether. Durova^Charge! 03:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse removal. This feature is all disadvantage and no advantage. The number of instances where this feature can be possibly used reliably is absolutely tiny, and shrinking. The risk of unwarranted use is unacceptably high. If Newyorkbrad is right about the reason for its introduction, I wonder if he has been misinformed and confused between the regular edits of these vandals, and their talk page edits. It is not malware on the talk page but just a very large edit. It's not that bad really, and the precise size of the edit is conveniently provided in several places before you have to look at it. We get these large edits all the time in articles, in the sandbox, in templates and other places. Every admin should know by now when they block a particular page-move or template vandal to look at the page size, to go straight to the page history instead of the diff, and to delete and salt or protect the talk page. Any admin who would use this checkbox would necessarily know that. And these admins are usually onto these vandals very quickly. It's probably even quicker to protect the page than faff about with the checkbox. Developers should be introducing a way to limit the size of edits instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also would like to see this feature removed; it has very little benefit as the same function can be attained by protecting the page, and that one minor benefit - making the blocking of page move vandals require one less click of the mouse - is hugely outweight by its disbenefits, detailed above (buggyness, accidentally disabling, buttoncruft, potential of misuse (q.v. certain admins inappropriately removing the ability of blocked users to use Special:Emailuser despite no abuse occuring) either through ineptitude or malice). fish&karate 11:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, remove it. It causes a lot of trouble for almost no benefit. We're very good at deleting and salting G*awp talk pages immediately anyway: about the only time we would use this feature. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I also can't see any advantage of this feature over the already existing feature to protect a User's talk page. No significant benefits + significant costs and risks = an idea that should not be implemented. GRBerry 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is responsible for testing this software? Why is it not properly tested first? Why are half witted incompetent admns allowed to expirement with it? Giano (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Instead of taking cheap shots at the admins, who frankly don't deserve you, why don't you go make yourself useful somewhere? HalfShadow 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We give it to those dullards so we can mock them when it goes wrong. It's like giving matches to a toddler, or feeding a troll. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Remove, absolutely. I've been active around requests for unblock for considerable time, and never had protecting talk pages manually when needed been too cumbersome to introduce such a potentially devastating feature. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With all this consensus, how does it get turned off? rootology (C)(T) 05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Poke a dev? I think Brion oughta' be able to do it. In the meantime, let people know to leave that box checked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want that checkbox, just add #wpAllowUsertalk { display: none } to the global CSS. That way, the checkbox is not shown and can't be inadvertedly unchecked. While keeping it for other projects. Hardcoding to remove it is IMHO excessive. Platonides (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal - I think the only reason this feature should be used would be in blocking certain vandals, mainly our Harry Potter friends. They create usernames and conduct page moves that clearly demonstrate who they are and thus locking their talk page while blocking them is very convenient to admins. I think this should be a last resort nuclear option, but it should be kept and simply used very sparingly as it is useful. KnightLago (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In reply to the idea that simply protecting the talk page would be better. In cases were this is used a lot of times the account is simply hardblocked and no messages are left on the talk page. Often admins forget to protect the talk pages of such accounts and they are created with vandalism after the block. Another admin is then forced to come along, delete the page, and then protect it. This usual happens in the midst of a large spree of vandalism with a dozen or more accounts being blocked. It can easily get very annoying and time consuming. This solves that problem. I think we just need to make it clear this is only for very blatant accounts. KnightLago (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Removal If we could learn Rollback and Huggle blocking, we can learn this tool, as soon as the bugs are worked out. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral but please, please, if it's kept, flip the language to "Prevent user from editing own talk page...", with a checkbox that is unchecked by default. The current message/action is horrendous from a CHI/human-factors point of view. ALL the other checkboxes (except "Watch..., which is neutral) are worded such that checking the box further restricts the user's activities. (Prevent account creation, Prevent user from sending email, Autoblock any IP addresses used) but then this one says "Allow...", in a case where it will very rarely be invoked. That's just asking for mistakes and unintended consequences. --MCB (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Completely agreed with MCB and NYB. If the feature does end up getting kept, the language really needs to be flipped in order to be consistent with the other blocking options. It's definitely not intuitive. GlassCobra 07:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - User talk pages very rarely need to be protected, and it's not that hard to do when it's necessary. Very low-value feature, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove encourages too much page protection that is not inline with our standard blocking practices. -- Ned Scott 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I also agree with NYB about e-mail blocking. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Off wiki problems re project from jidf.org

NOTICE: As per my talk page this is a one off account I have created to preserve my real identity from off wiki attacks. I will not use it again after this posting. Please do not C/U or anything else that would violate WP:Outing!!! I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID for this one off posting.

The website http://www.thejidf.org has posted a list of wiki editors and asks that people track their edits. This is off wiki harassment and has bearing on the editors as there may be WP:Outing involved. I would urge oversight on any of the individual editors accounts in case this is the case.

The latest posting comes a a few hours after a wiki editor has been blocked. This editor has been editing in a pro jidf way. I think it is fair to state that the jidf.org posting is connected to the blocking.

Under the heading List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors there are 15 wiki editors named with links to their talk pages.

The posting goes on to say "Behind the scenes, we have been studying their "contributions" to the site and we encourage others to do the same. Please alert us to any problems of POV-Pushing and bias and subtle antisemitic jabs and the standard "Jew baiting" found on Wikipedia (WP) so we may update this list and cite examples. Also, we are looking to get a lot more active on Wikipedia, since many people have pointed out unfair policies there, especially with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. Please keep us posted as to any problems you experience on Wikipedia as it will aid in our research and approach."

This is a serious form of harassemnt and presents serious problems for any editor involved in I/P wiki projects and /or pages.

Thought you should be aware cheers and goodbye from this account .

JIDF Threats (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the list, and I don't see any "outing" nor do I see any harassment or calls for harassment. It is mostly an expression of opinion about the nature of the contributions by the editors listed. In order to stay on the safe side of WP:CIVIL, I will refrain (for now, at least) from stating whether I agree with the characterization of most of the listed editors, or not. While I do not find such off-Wiki lists to be helpful to the project, I don't see a big deal here. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The website mentioned by JIDF Threats is not helpful for the project, but we can't do anything. Nobody can stop people from creating such websites. We should simply ignore these websites and continue making productive edits to Wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Only once they become a problem here can anything really be done about it. And when and if that happens, we deal with them as we deal with all troublesome editors. HalfShadow 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree; not really "outing" editors beyond what's already on their userpages. It's just a list of links to various userpages with the title claiming they all have a heavy anti-Israel bias. In any case, along with the others, it's not our jurisdiction. Find out the username of whoever runs JIDF however, and some reasonable requests might be made. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I make one last point to clarify one thing. This should possibly have been posted above at [1]. The posting on Jidf came mere hours after User:Einsteindonut was blocked again. He has been involved in problems with some of the named editors. I imagine some of his "friends" may have been involved in disputes with the other named editors. That may be a place to start re unravelling which users are working for or are indeed jidf. I am sorry to remain anon here but the external threat of being called an anti semite is a big stick that when used the way jdif use it could cause users off wiki real life problems. This problem from jdif will not go away and they still are all over their page on the project [2], [3]. Hope that clarifies my original posting here. JIDF Threats (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'm gonna' go notify the editors mentioned in the posting about it. I figure they oughta' know. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is really not that much different to what the Wikipedia Review mob do, though the evident extremism of this outfit is concerning. I noticed that someone mentioned above contacting the people behind the website. Do we actually know who these people are? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't this site and it's article been brought up here multiple times? HalfShadow 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's been discussed many times. Here are a few links: 1, 2, 3, 4. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO, what appears on that page regarding Wikipedia is nowhere near as bad as a lot of the stuff that appears on Wikipedia Review. It is not even in the same league. I am talking specifically about the Wikipedia-related stuff, as there is some other stuff on that page that I have major issues with, but it has nothing to do with this project so we don't need to talk about it. As for wanting to know who "these people" are, why do you care? Do you want to ask them why you aren't included on their list? 6SJ7 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this listing of "anti-Israel editors" is no way, shape, or form, anywhere near as bad as the stuff found on that other site ChrisO mentioned for comparison. It's astonishing someone would even think it, much less post it. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big step from posting a list of targets to trying to out specific editors, and from the comments below it seems that someone has in fact taken this step. We've seen from WR where this kind of thing can lead. That's why it needs to be taken seriously - certainly more seriously than either of you seem to be taking it. I'd suggest that you also quit the juvenile sarcasm, by the way. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is highly relevant for us to notice such lists and report them here. Very helpful in characterizing responses to individual edits or comments or trolling. If those with strong POV identify their targets, it's good to know. DGG (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DGG is on target: regardless of ideology, when some offsite group begins publishing enemies lists of Wikipedians it's good to be aware of it. If anyone from that site is reading this thread, please be advised of the risk that such a thing can backfire. Durova^Charge! 02:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Both DGG's and Durova's comments seem reasonable enough, as long as one realizes that in any given case (and I'm speaking hypothetically, for now) it may not be the "identifiers" who have the "strong POV" (and edit accordingly), it may be the "identified", or at least some of them. Or it may be both the lister and the listee. In other words, just as Freud knew that a cigar is sometimes just a cigar, it may be that the reason that someone is on a list of POV-pushers, is that they actually are a POV-pusher. Hypothetically speaking. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

They are apparently reacting to this [4] provocation. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that. Some anon put a swastika flag on that article. It came up in my watchlist, and I reverted it as routine vandalism. [5]. The vandalized version was live for three minutes. --John Nagle (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this anon vandal who I (and you?) had taken to be some kid turned out to be a long standing editor and admin with a history of denying that Jews are a people.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually. Having been asked about this offline, I now can't find any evedence that this guy was an admin.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The proximate cause of their latest outburst is the block that Einsteindonut received and the recent situation involving Eleland. Their "provocation" is that Wikipedia is "Where the antisemites an anti-Israel POV pushers roam relatively free. Where Holocaust denial and revisionism are given nice platforms". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, when Einsteindonut is given an indefinite block for saying Israel should re-take the Sinai (subsequently modified to 72 hours), while Eleland's indefinite, and then 72 hour block for unrepentantly and repeatedly referring to a pro-Israel editor as a "c*nt" is widely protested, then one realizes that something is amiss. And when Einsteindonut's accuser, Puttyschool, is not given a similar block for insisting that the New York Times can be referred to as the "Jew York Times", using a link to Jew Watch as evidence, then the extent of the problem becomes more clear. The latter inequity, has, however, been fixed, by me. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Every time Einsteindonut throws a temper tantrum, the JIDF starts attacking WP editors. Please don't rationalize their behavior. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't defend Einsteindonut's behavior or rationalize the JIDF's. I do recognize some obvious recent inequities on Wikipedia which could lead people to make incorrect assumptions about Wikipedia. And I can also act to redress those inequities, at least to a degree, which I have done. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Malik is voicing the suspicions of many of us that ED is big in the JIDF. If these suspicions are correct then it does merit pointing out and issues such as WP:COI and WP:NPA would come into focus. But, yes, there are troublemakers on both sides and I personally was surprised that it took so long for Putty to be blocked too.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I share Malik's opinion somewhat. The level of drama ED has incited on this board has been decidedly unhelpful to any sort of online peace, as have some of the more extreme comments from himself and his supporters. I don't think we should be defending users on either side who do not appear to have any reason beyond drama to be here. Orderinchaos 11:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just point out that Einsteindonut was not blocked for saying Israel should retake the Sinai, he was blocked for this [6], followed by this [7] - in other words, a deliberate attempt to do exactly the same thing as Eleland to see if he would be blocked for the same time. In the end, he was blocked for less time than Eleland, thus making his protest moot. Such disruption does lead me to believe that we would be better off without him (and the same goes for Puttyschool, for that matter). Black Kite 15:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

A few weeks ago, User:FayssalF indef blocked the account of User:Obaminator, and remarked that "Creating sockpuppet accounts to question other people's accounts" is not appropriate. It seems that the same editor who created that account in order to harass User:Einsteindonut is back at it again, this time as User:JIDF Threats. Notice the same focus on the Jewish Internet Defense Force article, the same insinuations with regard to User:Einsteindonut, and the same modus operandi - the creation of a single-purpose sock account, to avoid linking the complaint with the master account. I believe this user account should also be quickly indef-blocked. In addition, I think it is proper to run a check user on this account, and block the master account for repeat violations of policy. At a minimum, it should be privately communicated to him/her that such behavior will not be tolerated. NoCal100 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a little empathy is appropriate. The JIDF has tried to "out" two editors — going so far as to publish a photo in one instance — and it has dug up and published detailed information about others. I can understand why an editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, especially when, as noted above, "I have asked that oversight be applied to certain edits re my normal wiki account but as that has not happened so I create this ID". — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to User:FayssalF's comment the last time this happened. It is simply not appropriate to violate WP policies by creating sock puppet accounts for this purpose. If the editor is reluctant to put her/himself on the line, they should not be making provocative comments against other editors, or useless AN/I reports about off-wiki groups. NoCal100 (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When the id was pointing out JIDF's targetting of individuals, then it was fair enough to be anon. However, the id has moved on to make accusations against ED. Now, several of us do harbour suspicions about him and his connection with the JIDF, but it is clearly moving beyond the initial emit which the account user had set and it is fair enough for NoCal100 to point this out as well as the similarity to Obaminator.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

← Have we all not had enough of this. These accounts need to be reviewed for what contributions they have made to improving the main space and how much WP:SOAP and WP:POINT they engage in on article talkpages. We are building an encyclopedia here, not an open forum or blogspot for the discussion of whose race is superior to whose and throwing labels around in order to incite contention, that ultimately leads to Wikipedia preventative action. This strikes of an agenda other than improving this project. Religion, politics, nationalism, etc. all are prone to biases and POV. We can't allow these to bleed Wikipedia to the point where we forget our objective here. If editors are using this as a forum for pushing a personal point of view, then take action immediately. If after taking action they engage in the same activity, then they need to join an off wiki forum or blogspot, but we don't need them here. I'm amazed at the amount of time that is taken up on debating whether someone should or shouldn't be dealt with, when it is so obvious that they are acting in a manner contrary to our purpose here. I'm no wikilawyer to quote policies and procedures and there should be no need to sing to the choir here. Identify the problem, take action, and if the action fails to remedy it and it's repeated, finalize it and move on. Nothing is always black and white, but sometimes the shades of gray have the effect of deflecting us from the original point. This shouldn't be occurring as often as it does.--JavierMC 06:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question is whether such individuals can be "reformed" so that they become useful editors. WP:IPCOLL does try to keep track of such things and suggests that at least soem individuals do change their manner of contribution.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have got 4 good reasons to...

...block Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Puttyschool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely and help the encyclopedia. Please note that some of the details below have been unknown to most administrators (if not all).

1. wp:ARBPIA and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying#Community urged;
2. wp:NOT; this includes wp:soap and wp:battle;
3. Neither Puttyschool nor Einsteindonut are here to write an encyclopedia. They are here to provoke and attack each other and come to AN/I for wikilawyering. For that, they have been warned more than enough. The situation in the I/P area had still been under control before the appearance of these 2 editors creating havoc and prompting endless battles between established users (be them users with a strong POV or not);
4. WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks and wp:outing (i.e. user:CJCurrie) since Einsteindonut is either a member of the JIDF or someone related to the person who runs that website.

I say a member because:

• He is the only one who used to misspell my user(name). (referring to on-wiki, e-mails and at the JIDF website)
• Everytime Einsteindonut gets implicated in an on-wiki battle something gets posted on the JIDF.
• Insisted hard enough to get the identity of the original account of the user who posted the anti-semitic edits on-wiki (the one I CheckUsered and found out that he's been editing Wikipedia for so long under a couple of accounts). I have always refused to divulge the main account identity to Einsteindonut because of the history of JIDF outing and to protect the real-life identity of a Wikipedia user per the Wikimedia Privacy policy. I have made clear to him that unless it is a law enforcement body approaching the Foundation or an approval from the ArbCom such info cannot be divulged.

I say someone related to the person who runs the website because:

• I have been in contact with Einsteindonut in private and I was given the e-mail address of the guy who I am sure (because of his name) is the one running the website. The e-mail was given to me because I had asked Einsteindonut to stop harassment and outing of editors off-site a while ago before he explained to me that he can't stop "members" from expressing their "views" out there but can give me the e-mail of the person responsible to discuss a deal with (helping out at the wiki article in exchange of that). -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I fully do not appreciate these allegations and that I posted a full point-by-point refutation to this nonsense on my talk page.--Einsteindonut (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. The differences of opinion in article space are minor. The JIDF once did a marginally notable thing, and then disappeared from press reports, so there's not much new to write about them. But some parties involved want continued attention. Hence the drama. So please treat this as a minor disruptive-editor problem. Issue minor blocks and bans when someone gets overly annoying, but don't give it too much attention or do anything drastic. That just encourages them. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely and that's why I never shared the above details with anyone. They just needed to be shared one day in case the disruption wouldn't stop and Wikipedians, regardless of their background, get targeted --which is the case. Anyway, per the archived thread above, I'd say this will remain the last chance. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Putty has asked to vanish, see here. That may well help to reduce tension in this area. IronDuke 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Also putting on the record that I support Fayssal's proposal above. Orderinchaos 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FayssalF and JavierMC. While we can not control other websites and what they do in regards to wiki, we do have a degree of control on their on wiki actions. There have been serious violations here, such as outing wiki users, fronting for other organizations, etc. Therefore, I support FayssalF's proposals. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no evidence that ED represents anything but himself, or has "outed" anyone. The only thing we have is an accusation he is related to the JIDF, and some unpleasant things said about editors here on some JIDF related website. Regarding the latter, the day I see serious action being taken about the statements of editors here on Wikipedia Review is the day I'll consider supporting this proposal. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Fayssal. It is actually irrelevant whether or not ED is linked with the JIDF - as Fayssal says above, neither he nor Puttyschool are here to build an encyclopedia - they contribute little, yet waste vast swathes of others time with their continuous spats, attacks, wikilawyering and general tendentiousness. We are better off without both of them. Black Kite 19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with blocking editors for on-Wikipedia behavior, though that must be done in an even-handed way; we've tolerated far more disruptive editors than ED for quite lengthy periods. Regarding off-Wikipedia behavior, I'm all for blocking for that too, but, like I said, the day I see serious action being taken about the statements made by Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia Review is the day I'll consider taking seriously proposals for blocking editors who allegedly post on other off-Wikipedia sites. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it ironic that Pigsonthewing calls it a "personal attack" when someone abbreviates his name to "Pigs", and admins defend him for it; whereas calling someone ED is apparently OK. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If that is where the discussion is going Baseball might I suggest archiving the thread? But nice find......Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

We consider each case on its own merits and within its own context, otherwise it looks like a blocking version of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Orderinchaos 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A credible death threat?

Resolved

 – Local authorities and Mike Godwin contacted, no further action needed. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this edit [8]. It may just be a joke, however you can never be too careful these days. Maybe someone should consider alerting the school, just in case another 'columbine' appears on the front page of our local newspaper. --Flewis^(talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just posted again [9]. This is the user: 92.16.210.213 (talk · contribs) --Flewis^(talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is 3am on Sunday in Scotland. School's closed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already blocked the IP for 72 hou0rs - a note is also placed by myself in the other board just to give a heads to other admins. --JForget 01:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the info for the IP. Might this be an open proxy? I believe we should certainly let the school know about this, at a minimum. Bstone (talk) 01:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The school is closed.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The police jurisdiction for this appears to be Grampian PD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. I live there.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

And a third time. Even though the ip is blocked, the person sitting behind that computer seemed pretty intent on doing something. --Flewis^(talk) 02:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This site [10] gives a rough location of the whereabouts of that particular ip. From what I can deduce, the ip is located near the town of 'Skipton' by the Yorkshire Dales. That is quite a distance though, from Stonehaven (the location of the school). This is definitely worth checking out. --Flewis^(talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have emailed the Grampian police department and carbon copied the message to Mike Godwin. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. On the one hand, we should WP:DENY. On the other, we'd be foolish to not contact the cops. Dlohcierekim 02:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

DENY is more to say not to make WP space pages or engage in other ways to immortalize vandals like Gwp and Willy on Wheels. In cases of death threats, it is best to follow the procedure at WP:VIOLENCE. Even if it is a hoax, it is best to be better safe then sorry, especially when it comes to human life. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, WP:TOV says we should certainly report threats of violence. Bstone (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV was rejected (for good reason). But it isn't WP:DENY that's relevant here, but WP:BEANS and the old maxim about feeding trolls (which this thread is great for)--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine that TOV was rejected, but it has advice from law enforcement officers, Jimbo and medical/legal professionals. Thus it's a good idea and a good piece of advice. WP:BEANS is about the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard when advocating for ignoring all threats of violence. Are you aware that in New York there are thousands of signs which say "if you see something say something" and it was reported there were only 2000 or so reports since it was first rolled out. Clearly the public governments are asking people to be vigilant and report these sorts of events. Makes sense we should do the same. Bstone (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that any government wants us to bother them with internet trolling. But, look let's agree to differ. If you want to phone in trolling etc., it's no skin off my nose, you do what you think best, I'll go with RBI.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you reconcile the fact that TOV contains statements from law enforcement officials and government agencies which implore Wikipedians to report threats of violence with your opinion that "I sincerely doubt that any government wants us to bother them with internet trolling". Looking forward to your response. Bstone (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm impressed at how quickly we took care of this-- even to the point of contacting the local PD. Good job, y'all. Dlohcierekim 02:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

<EC> And Erik, well said. Dlohcierekim 02:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still waiting for a reply from either party contacted. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've a friend in Grampian police, I'm sure he'll be amused.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• This threat gets a credibility rating of 0.000000001% from me. Bored frustrated teenager venting his anger, sprot and move on. Do you people not know how hard it is to get the wherewithal for a school shooting in Scottishland? We've only had one in my lifetime, as far as I can remember, and that was emphatically not some semi-literate bored kid. I thought we'd decided to WP:RBI and hand this off to an external list, rather than giving ourselves the foolish illusion of being crime-fighting superheroes? Guy (Help!) 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Guy, but that would reduce the drama.....--Scott MacDonald (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • We aren't crime-fighting superheroes? Everyme 17:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No one claims to be a superhero. And a simple email or phone call to the police is hardly dramatic. I don't get paid to evaluate the state of mind of others or to decide whether or not someone might do something. I just turn it over to the people that do get paid (the police) and let them handle it. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

One should use some common sense though. This is obviously time wasting vandalism. In the UK, it is an offence to waste police time.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we take any further discussion to Wikipedia talk:Responding to threats of harm? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 16:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott, what happened to your mailing list idea? -- how do you turn this on 20:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's atWP:VPP, but there are people objecting on either sides, and no one volunteering to actually make the list.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mailing lists have to be created by either a developer or Cary. John Reaves 02:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so. Anyone can create a mailing list.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Official ones do though. -- how do you turn this on 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed at Talk:Barack Obama

Wikidemon has been engaging in harassment, unilaterally closing discussion I started today [11] at the Talk:Barack Obama page, quickly putting a box around it ( first [12] edit summary: ["closed as disruption"], second [13] ["closing again"], third time [14] ["close discussion"], fourth time [15]) and claimiing incivility, weirdly, and making the bizarre claim that restarting a discussion with new information is itself somehow "disruptive". There's a better word for it: intolerance of opposing views and even intolerance of the idea that a discussion Wikidemon doesn't like to see has been started. He's had some support from a few editors, but a few editors shouldn't be able to close a discussion immediately, before other editors get a chance to see it (this is the weekend, when many don't edit), and there are plenty of other editors who normally look at that talk page. Shutting down after mere hours a discussion that isn't disruptive on its face is itself disruptive. There is nothing in WP:TALK#Others' comments that makes this an exception to As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section. (in WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable). It is clear from WP:CCC that significant new information is a reason to restart a previous discussion (Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.)

The childish thing about all this is that whether or not I get consensus, all I'm looking for is a fair chance to show fellow editors new information. The discussion should remain open for a while, say till the end of Monday (early Tuesday on the Wikipedia clock) so that editors who look at the page on weekdays can see what they think. Closing the discussion earlier than that is an example of WP:OWN on a talk page. I don't even get how it is supposed to be intolerable that a discussion exists on a talk page. In fact, it's downright eerie.

If I've made mistakes here -- perhaps I shouldn't have reverted the closing of the discussion, although I'm certain it's against policy, or perhaps I was uncivil myself -- I'm happy to listen to feedback from other editors. -- Noroton (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Other uninvolved editors, that is. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, looking at the thread, I'm inclined to say "it takes two to tango"; your own comments were rather aggressive. I can understand frustration- we've all been there- but you've gotta keep a level head in a powder keg like the Obama article. That said, I agree that Wikidemon's behavior was over the top; attempting to close discussion before it was due (first attempt was less than 60 min. after Noroton started the thread) and attempting to use scare/bully tactics ([16], [17]) do not leave a good impression. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The bogus AN/I reports are getting tired. I am on routine article patrol. The editors at Talk:Barack Obama regularly close, move, and delete several disruptive discussions per day. Particularly unhelpful proposals get shut down quickly,[18][19][20][21][22] as does vandalism.[23][24]

Several claims made here are flat-out wrong. Noroton knows the objection is to the insults, not his proposal, because I advised him several times he is welcome to make it and I would not close it if made without insulting other editors (e.g. [25][26][27]). Under article probation editors may participate on Obama-related articles if they can do so civilly; if not they are unwelcome (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation). The probation page chronicles a block every day or two for editors disrupting Obama-related pages. My closure was in no way unilateral. I did it after making proposals, and with consensus. Another editor closed it as well.[28] I did not close the discussion four times. I make a point to stay within 1RR, and go to 2RR only after obtaining consensus on matters of disruption. One of Noroton's diffs has nothing to do with this.

Inadvertent untruths are understandable for a new editor on his first time at AN/I. But Noroton is experienced and this is his third or so complaint against me here, the fifth or sixth overall regarding his failed content proposal linking Obama to Bill Ayers to terrorism. If there is a next time, a more careful attempt to be truthful, honor the article probation terms against personal attacks, and follow procedures, would be most welcome. I did not get a courtesy notice about this discussion. I will go ahead and leave a notice on the talk page that the closure is being discussed here. I will not revert it again if it is reopened, and if asked by an authoritative party or assured by Noroton that he will stick to the content proposal and avoid complaining about other editors, I will gladly self-revert my closure (although, being the several dozenth time this proposal has been made on the page, it would seem to have no chance of success). Wikidemon (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Shutting down a discussion while you've got an hours-old consensus, thereby blocking any other possible consensus from forming, is clearly gaming the system in favor of editors most avidly watching the talk page. Editors like you who game the system should not expect extra courtesies from the editors they're repeatedly bothering. You falsely claim here that I didn't "stick to the content proposal" when, in fact, discussing the content proposal was the one thing you were most avid about shutting down. -- Noroton (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon. There have been several attempts at discussing this same exact thing already, each met with the same consensus. Noroton is citing "significant new information" per WP:CCC, but this is hardly significant new information. Even Noroton says "There are no new revelations" at the start of the discussion that he attempted to post today. Further, Noroton's comments are needlessly hostile and divisive. I support Wikidemon's closings, and will continue to do so until Noroton shows the ability to be civil. GlassCobra 11:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GlassCobra, what would be the deep, deep harm of letting a talk page discussion continue for a few days? If my comments were "needlessly hostile and divisive", look at Wikidemon's and the editors allied with him in that discussion. The main argument in the past was WP:WEIGHT (possibly because WP:WEIGHT is vague enough for editor POV to be concealed by it -- all other arguments citing policy have long since been discredited). Since WP:WEIGHT was the last argument standing, new, significant coverage erodes it and can overcome it. Or it should erode it if I'm dealing with minimally honest editors. I didn't know if that was going to be the case, or whether it still may be the case if the discussion is allowed to continue for at least a few days. I've dealt with nearly all the editors who were in the discussion before and expected nothing new from them, including no reconsideration of the subject by them, no matter what the new evidence. I did want to see if other editors, including editors who I hadn't seen previously contribute to the talk page, would consider the matter in a new light or reconsider the matter. That can't really happen if discussion is closed after a few hours. Discussion should only be closed when disruption is inevitable and obvious. My comments were focused on how the new information strengthened the case for including mention of the long-running Obama-Ayers controversy, so it wasn't simply rehashing. This is simply the case of a possibly temporary, hours-old "consensus" on a talk page preventing further discussion which might have overturned that consensus. That is clearly disruptive in itself and obviously gaming the system. -- Noroton (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

While I have no opinion on the content, I agree with Noroton that it would not have been harmful to wait longer before trying to force the discussion closed. The article is on enough watchlists that it would be a simple matter to quickly form a consensus as to whether there was anything new to discuss. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the topic comes up almost daily, usually from the same editors. Sometimes twice a day. It has long since stopped being a productive discussion, and moved into the neighborhood of farce. --GoodDamon 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Even if any comments in the thread are not egregious enough as personal attacks to warrant summary deletion under article probation, maybe Noroton and Wikidemon could consider redacting their own posts through judicious deletions here and there (eg, Noroton, his criticism of his faction's opponents when presenting his proposal, etc.? Wikidemon, his subtle threats to maneuver toward Noroton's being banned, etc.?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment w/ proposal: Close this incident. Noroton brings up his perennial favorite subject, Bill Ayers, on this particular talk page endlessly. One might even say mercilessly, as it becomes agonizing to explain, over and over, why his proposals (really, just one proposal rehashed repeatedly over literally the past six months) only ever result in consensus against them. Noroton wants particular content in the article, while the weight of consensus and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is generally against the content. Closing his repeat discussions when they pop up is not harassment. At this point, it is maintenance. Noroton has exactly one topic he is interested in on the Obama talk page, and it isn't improving the article. Calling Wikidemon's closure of disruptive threads harassment is, at bare minimum, incorrect. And as the editor creating the disruptive threads, Noroton is trying to game the system. This needs to, at long last, stop. It needs to stop long-term, and it needs to stop with teeth. I propose a temporary topic ban for Noroton, and that Noroton be enjoined from starting the discussion again (and again, and again, and again) when or if the topic ban expires. --GoodDamon 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If GoodDamon can't provide proof of them, these are smears:

1. Noroton brings up his perennial favorite subject, Bill Ayers, on this particular talk page endlessly. I haven't been watching that freakish page for weeks, much less participating there.
2. really, just one proposal rehashed repeatedly over literally the past six months I haven't been the one who brought it up most of the time.
3. Noroton wants particular content in the article, while the weight of consensus and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is generally against the content. You have never been able to do anything more than assert that a proposal is contrary to a particular policy or guideline. Ever. Other editors have quoted the damn policies to you and it makes no difference. No wonder various editors have brought it up -- they see you POV pushing and think they may get other editors involved because, frankly, you and several other editors preventing consensus have proven yourself hopeless in that regard. But, of course, this AN/I page is about behavior, not content POV pushing. Editors here should know, however, that dealing with your policy-free position is part of the frustration involved here.
4. Closing his repeat discussions when they pop up is not harassment. At this point, it is maintenance. Then you should easily be able to state that a particular argument has come up and point to where it was resolved by recent consensus. Even in this AN/I section, you have failed to answer my point that previous arguments basically revolved around WP:WEIGHT and when new sources are being published, WP:WEIGHT will change, calling for a re-evaluation. GoodDamon, how is your behavior different from being a partisan interested in promoting your candidate rather than in improving the encyclopedia based on an adequate reflection on the sources? If the goal is NPOV treatment based on reflecting those sources, how does your behavior and your statements reflect that? If you refuse to discuss the matter and can't even point to previous discussions of the matter that addressed the same points, why shouldn't any other editor wonder whether you're committed to an NPOV article or instead acting as a POV-pushing games player? This isn't a rhetorical question: If we refuse to state our reasons, we can't assure others of our good intentions.
5. Noroton has exactly one topic he is interested in on the Obama talk page So at one point GoodDamon goes back 6 months to say the topic has periodically come up snce then, a time when I commented on a number of topics related to the article; and at this point GoodDamon says I only bring up this topic. Cut the bullshit, GoodDamon.
6. And as the editor creating the disruptive threads, Noroton is trying to game the system. Beyond GoodDamon's assertion, where is the proof of disruption? Is there a Wikipedia policy requiring GoodDamon or others who don't want to discuss the topic to discuss the topic?
7. the topic comes up almost daily, usually from the same editors. Sometimes twice a day. [14:30, 5 October] If it comes up that often, it should be easy to provide diff. I wasn't aware of this, so obviously I'm not one of the "same editors". I haven't been watching the Obama talk page for several weeks, much less participating there. Just provide the diffs.

If the same exact discussion has come up previously (kind of hard to do when the argument depends largely on major new sourcing that was published that morning), Wikidemon and GoodDamon or anyone else should be able to provide a link to the previous discussion, then ask what is new, and if I can't provide that answer, wait a decent period for others to see the discussion, and then close it after it is proven that it's unproductive. Instead, they do what looks like bullying, contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice, only because there happen to be a good number of Obama supporters asserting their POV on that page. So, GoodDamon, provide the diffs to the old argument. Bullshitters allege; honest editors provide diffs or take back their statements. Which are you, GoodDamon? -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You really want to go there? All right. I've had enough. You know darn well that the leg work to provide those diffs is difficult, and most editors wouldn't do it. But I am not most editors. I am not smearing you when I say that you have brought up the same issue over and over again. Here are the diffs just from the very first edits you made to the Barack Obama talk page. What are they about? Well, see for yourself:

• May 27th - Your very first edit to the talk page. You express support for adding information about Bill Ayers to the article. The arguments against eventually outweigh the arguments for (I need not rehash here the weight and sourcing issues brought up in that discussion). The rest of your edits to the talk page that day are about Bill Ayers. Don't believe me? here are your contributions for that period.
• Also May 27th - You propose wording additions for describing Bill Ayers in more detail... in Barack Obama's biography. The argument continues through to the next day. Again, feel free to check your edits with the link above.
• May 29th - The arguing continues in a new section, after other editors discuss the ongoing attempts to insert language about Bill Ayers. You spend the rest of May arguing for inclusion of Ayers material, with a brief sojourn into the Wright controversy. But one thing stands out... here you say, and I quote, "Personally, I'd rather see a consensus against what I want than all this edit warring and endless debate, but I don't want to give up before trying to get more editors involved." So I'm left to wonder, exactly how long were you planning to try getting more editors involved before adhering to this statement? Based on your behavior since, I have no choice but to conclude you were not being honest when you said that.

So here, we've established that your first few days of editing at the Barack Obama talk page was to argue for inclusion of details about Bill Ayers. There was a massive (and consensus-reaching) thread that followed in the first week of June, and anyone who is interested in seeing that in the current context should start here where you began tallying votes, and then follow the thread through to its conclusion, where you accepted that consensus was against you. In June. Five months ago. Shall I continue? Or would anyone else care to take a look at Noroton's contributions to Talk:Barack Obama and see if they can find more than three edits that aren't about Bill Ayers and how important Ayers is to Obama's biography? Here's a fun game: Select one of the last six months, open your edits for that month, and click on a diff of that talk page at random. Odds are good, it's about Bill Ayers, or about why the previous consensus not to include Bill Ayers doesn't matter. Forgive my snark, everyone, but this is laughable. --GoodDamon 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your diffs show I've participated in the many discussions about Ayers on that page. So have many others, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. and see if they can find more than three edits that aren't about Bill Ayers Subjects I've discussed on that page: Wright, Tony Rezko, the book section. I've done a little cleanup of the political positions section. I've contributed quite a bit to the Early life and career of Barack Obama article. Not that participating in very active, ongoing discussions about Bill Ayers is anything I need to be embarassed about. In fact, I'm pretty proud of the fact that on other pages I've shown quite a bit of research into reliable sources on Ayers that overthrows the many canards put out by editors about him. Yet you're peddling a distortion suggesting that I'm simply a lone nut constantly bringing it up. Don't complain about having to look up diffs: you're the one who put out the smears; it's your responsibility to try to prove them. So I'm left to wonder, exactly how long were you planning to try getting more editors involved before adhering to this statement? Thanks for that smear, too: I said that back on May 31, so I must have been lying because in the months since then, I thought the consensus that eventually formed could be overturned. A consensus based on old information is ripe for change when new information comes up -- a pretty obvious standard on Wikipedia that, for instance, overturns AfD discussions. Your attacks are pretty obviously tawdry. -- Noroton (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This does seem to be an ongoing issue. I bit and had a look through the links, obtained via the "What Links Here" function, and got:

• June 3, Village pump (policy) (initiated)
• July 5 AN/I
• July 9 AN/I
• July 20, AFD comment
• September 3 AN/I
• September 20 AN/I (user reported)
• September 23, BLP noticeboard (Noroton, 1 post)
• September 23, RS noticeboard (Noroton, 1 post)
• September 24, Village Pump (misc) (Noroton, 1 post)

And of course the above. I omitted any discussions which did not have a significant contribution by Noroton. Orderinchaos 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • (after e.c.) I agree that this incident should be closed. We do not need approval here to close disruptive discussions on the article talk page, and to let it be known that discussions begun with expressions of antipathy towards other editors (e.g., from above, "Editors like you....should not expect extra courtesies." "You falsely claim ..." "minimally honest editors", "you and several other editors preventing consensus have proven yourself hopeless", "acting as a POV-pushing games player", "Cut the bullshit", "bullying") are considered disruptive. Perhaps AN/I is a safe haven for venting on other editors, but Talk:Barack Obama is not. Article probation and talk page decorum are community decisions that do not for the most part need administrative tools to enforce. As a community we have decided not to tolerate this toxic attitude there and take the least intrusive way to enforce that, closing disruptive discussions. Again, as I explained many times the immediate issue is verbal abuse of other editors, and I did not object to Noroton contributing on the talk page if he could do so without insult and accusations. I offer no opinion here whether serially repeated proposals themselves are inherently disruptive. Whether Noroton needs a topic ban for that is something we can consider separately, and is only an issue presently if he is willing to contribute civilly. From his comments there and here he does not, but the proof is in the pudding. Will he post to the Obama pages without hostility to other editors? If not, civility is the bigger issue.Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If civility were your real complaint, you'd address it directly and not shut down productive discussion. You conflate the two only because you are one of the most adamant POV pushers on this website, and you're found that, as a means of getting rid of or cowing editors you disagree with, you can fool some third-party editors into thinking you're following policy-related concerns like WP:CIV. You don't give a damn about WP:CIV. If you did, you'd be just as concerned about it when incivility comes up on your side. -- Noroton (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not worth responding here or in article/talk space to editors who sling that kind of abuse. Ignoring does not mean allowing. If that kind of comment or the other accusations made here made again on the Obama pages they will be deleted, closed, moved, or redacted. Hence, I think Noroton is topic banning himself.Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Close as blatant forumshopping. Everyme 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Wikidemon: Again, as I explained many times the immediate issue is verbal abuse of other editors, and I did not object to Noroton contributing on the talk page if he could do so without insult and accusations. All right, let's test Wikidemon's good faith. I removed the closure and restarted the discussion. Let's see if Wikidemon and his cohort can handle that without closing it again, or, when the uncivil comments from Wikidemon's cohort fly as they always do, whether Wikidemon will even notice it. Let's just see. -- Noroton (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• The above comment is unwarranted, an AGF/NPA/CIVIL violation, and toxic. Noroton just re-opened the discussion. That is not what I was proposing. My statement was that I would not revert if it were reopened and "...assured by Noroton that he will stick to the content proposal and avoid complaining about other editors". He gave no assurance, and in demonstrated with two new gripes about me and another about another editor on the talk page that he does not wish to discuss civilly. Another editor has already closed the discussion again as disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, LotLE reverted after discussion was restarted (edit summary: "close continuing disruption and violation of article probation". [29]) Here's what Wikidemon calls a "personal attack" in various edit summaries (one of them [30]). It needs to be seen to be believed:

"Now I wonder if Wikidemon would be concerned about you saying I so breathlessly rushed here, Loonymonkey."

If LotLE finds this so uncivil, one would think he'd be a very scrupulous editor himself. Compare what LotLE himself wrote in the same discussion, yesterday: [31]

"This rehashing of the exact same non-argument, by exactly the same editor, for the dozenth time or more, smells strongly of bad faith and WP:POINT. This nonsensical discussion should be closed immediately, and ideally Noroton should be sanctioned [...] If this non-connection was actually of biographical significance here, it would continue to be significant in a month, and could wait until then for any insertion. It is not of any remote notability for the main bio, of course, and the urgency Noroton feels to include it is nothing more and nothing less than attempts at diverting this article into anti-Obama election campaigning.

Now, I don't personally mind it, and I don't even think it violates the stricter article probation. But apparently LotLE thinks my own comment quoted above is somehow in violation while he makes even stronger comments. This is nothing more than high-handed, double-standard, bullying behavior.

Justifying another closure of a discussion because of it is what I mean by "childish". Can I get this resolved on this page or do I need to go to ArbCom to get permission to actually have a discussion on a talk page? Does anyone really think that shutting down a freaking discussion isn't going to poison the atmosphere even further? Does anyone have any assumption of any good faith on Wikidemon's part anymore? Am I supposed to edit war a discussion closure in order to have an ordinary discussion on an article talk page? -- Noroton (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

More insults? After everything else, "childish" is only an incremental addition. But you do not seem to get it. Edit the Obama articles only if you can do so without complaining about other editors. Otherwise, do not edit those articles. And please stop making up accusations against me. That is simple. Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How much longer is Wikidemon and co. going to be allowed to harras and abuse other users and engage in widespread article ownership before someone here steps in and puts an end to it? Is Arbitration the only way to resolve this? CENSEI (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop playing games here. My editing under no legitimate question, only the subject of abuse. Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly we haven't learned that ANI is not dispute resolution. Grsz^X 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11 - lol. thank you for that. --Ludwigs2 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean, it's not like this same editors have been through this countless times already... Grsz^X 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's like spectator sport, Wikipedia style. Two gladiators battling it out to the death in the ring. Orderinchaos 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

To Grsz11: Frankly, I don't think this can properly be described as a content dispute. The content in question has been rejected repeatedly, and brought up repeatedly by the same group of users. It has become disruptive because hardly anything else can even be discussed on the page anymore. It's just one constant stream of AyersAyersAyersAyers, with only the odd break for Rezko/Wright/BornInKenya/SecretMuslim/CampaignFringeStuffOfTheDay. Seriously, take a look at the edit history for the last 500 edits or so on the page. How many threads have resulted in constructive edits to the page? --GoodDamon 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

Since our last report here [32], LamyQ (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images, the latest being File:ESPANOLA PLAZA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-01 and File:EspanolaValleyVolleyball.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-03. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now a sockpuppetry case against him too, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (2nd). --Uncia (talk) 00:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisting... x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this user is at the very least a PoliticianTexas meatpuppet. Uploading the exact same images as an indefblocked user? The chances of that happening are only slightly better than finding a needle in a haystack. Even without this to consider, this user clearly KNOWS about our upload policies--I counted at least three good uploads in his log. Blocked indefinitely. Blueboy96 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban for PoliticianTexas?

Now that I think of it, is it safe to consider PoliticianTexas banned? This user has 21 confirmed socks and two more suspected socks. Sorry, but that's just too much disruption in a short period of time. Blueboy96 13:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some background: DoriSmith has been tracking PoliticianTexas since about July 2008, see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. Dori and I have been collaborating since late August 2008 on tracking down his image copyright violations , see User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs.

The image search is a losing battle, because it takes him only minutes to find and upload a new image and it takes us hours or days to track down its source so it can be speedy-deleted. The process is eased somewhat because he keeps uploading a lot of same images (after we have caused them to be deleted) and we keep good records (see User talk:DoriSmith/PolTXimgs).

The sock puppet case-building is also a losing battle. As soon as one of his socks is blocked, he creates another one and starts uploading again.

Most of his disruption is due to this copyright-violating activity. His edits are so-so and mostly concern minutiae such as adding tables of elected officials or updating the standings of his favorite high school athletic teams. If he stuck to editing text he probably would not attract anyone's attention.

Dori and I don't see any good solutions to the PoliticianTexas problem. We hope that he will get discouraged and go away but so far this hasn't happened. --Uncia (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(I think WP:CU are going to start hating me...)Is there an underlying ip or small range that can be hardblocked, or are they dynamic/wideranging? Perhaps a WP:Request for checkuser may find that he could be stopped from creating new accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a permanent community ban, although I'm not sure what that would do to change the current dynamic.

As part of an RFCU, I asked about an IP range block a few months ago, and I was told then that it wasn't possible. In the last month alone, he's used:

• 71.30.144.116 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.148.190 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.150.198 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.233.90 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.235.6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 6 Oct
• 75.88.239.68 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 76.26.108.145 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 164.64.135.194 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 207.155.116.232 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 5 Oct
• 216.135.172.188 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 216.243.118.166 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Sadly, it appears that it would take blocking all of k12espanola.org and windstream.net—and I'm okay with that, but I doubt many others would be.

And while I hate to correct Uncia, I just looked it up, and I've been keeping an eye on this user since May, off and on. Personally, I'd like to get back to (gasp!) editing an encyclopedia. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What a community ban would do is enable block-on-sight of all socks and revert/delete-on-sight of all contributions. It would also allow for unlimited checkuser requests. And based on his history, he's going to be back--this will just make it easier for us to deal with him. I've become more inclined toward "revert, block, ignore," but since we're talking about copyvios here ... Blueboy96 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. What's the process, outside a few people here saying, "yeah, that would be a good idea."? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[Note: I modified the above list of IPs to show that he's still actively editing/vandalizing, just with varying anon IPs.] Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Support ban. Definitely. I have some experience with this sockpuppeteer; no redeeming value. Tan | 39 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A user has issued a death threat to an admin

Resolved

 – Blocked. No further action needed. – RyanCross (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alisons B itch Kunt ([[::User talk:Alisons B itch Kunt|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Alisons B itch Kunt|contribs]]) has been blocked, but they have issued a death threat to User:Alison. Does this deserve any further action? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 21:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if User:Alison really is an Irish slut, I could go to her talk page and flirt with her.  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Take that as a no (a rather sarcastic one, for shame!). Thanks for helping out though. Garden. 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No it does not need further action. -- how do you turn this on 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Sure, I speak non-ironic as a second language, though not fluently. You did exactly as you should; nothing more is required unless the user comes back with a different sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In which case we might consider requesting help from a CU to see if there are any other connected accounts. I wonder which CU to request...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know a checkuser, but I've already obtained some kd lang music and a bottle of cheap wine, and I'm hoping she'll be busy for the next hour or so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I think it takes more than a CD and a bottle of cheap booze to pull a checkuser.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's all in caps, so you know they must really really mean it. Alison had better be careful; someone might type mean things at her. HalfShadow 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The blocked user is apparently unaware of a basic axiom: Never mess with the Irish. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• OR the SCOTTISH! Alison rules! (yeah yeah, I'm back...) ...Dave1185 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on their comments, it's probably TougHHead (talk · contribs). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

lol - I just found this now and promptly spat Red Bull all over my laptop. Yes, it's TougHHead and if you think this is bad, you should see the emails;

“ Unblock that innocent user now or ILL BEAT THE FUCKING FUCK OUT OF YOUR FUCKING ASSHOLE! ALISON I AM GOING TO BEAT THE FUCK OUT OF YOU THIS FUCKING SECOND IF YOU DONT UNBLOCK User:76.247.222.101 RIGHT NOW! I GOT AN M1 ABRAMS TANK ROLLING TO FUCKING HUNT YOUR FUCKING ASS DOWN FOR BEING UNFIT TO BE ADMIN! YOU SAID EVERYONE POSTER A LONG FUCKING HISTOrY AND IN FACT I SHOULD BE YOUR REPLACEMENT! NO ADMIN GETS PAID TO BLOCK PEOPLE THAT ArE RANDOM USERS! YOU JUST WONT LEAVE User:76.247.222.101s TALKPAGE AND HIS BLOCK ALONE AND TWEAKENED IT TO PREVENT THAT USER FROM EDITING WIKIPEDIA Ever AGAIN YOU FUCK!

FUCK YOU YOU FAT SLUT!! YOU DID EVIL FOREVER BLOCKS TO PREVENT ANYONE FROM HAVING FUN!! YOU ACTED LIKE A TOTAL BITCH BY ATTACKING USER:76.247.222.101 AND TOUCHED HIS BLOCK ILLEGALLY!! YOU ATTACKED THE AMERICANS AND I SHOULD HAD JIMBO WALES DID THE UNBLOCKING BECAUSE HE HATES SLUTTY WEAK BITCHES LIKE YOU FAT TITS!!! ALSO STOP USING ILLEGAL WORDS LIKE TOUGHHEAD BECAUSE THAT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE A BITCH!!! GO SUCK DICK BITCH!!!"

” — TougHHead

*coffs* - you get the idea. When it comes to this vandal with anger management issues, the best approach is WP:LBI - laugh; block; ignore :-) - Alison ^❤ 01:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's funny -- that's as good as some of the stuff I've gotten from the "George Reeves Person" -- I know it's warped, but I save the good ones in a "trolls and kooks" folder to send to my friends.  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that guy? Did he move back to Croatia? And I don't think "trolls and kooks" is civil. I call it "letters from fans". 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, keep in mind, there's a rule that says e-mail contents are copyrighted, so be careful or he might come after you with a threatening attorney. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And what adds to this was his opposition to the Fuck article diff. Hmmm...wikipedia, changing one mind at a time. This is just too funny.--JavierMC 02:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He was using a fake civility argument. The real deal is that he thinks he owns the copyright to it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, man. I feel a little bit bad now, Alison, since I'm the one that brought TougHHead to you awhile back for some whack-a-socking! It's been awhile since I've gotten those rants (WP:BEANS). Metros (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

LET'S ALL TALK IN CAPS. AH, YES; TALKING IN CAPS MAKES ME FEEL MORE LIKE A MAN. WOULD YOU LIKE ONE TOO? HAW! HALFSHADOOW 02:23, 6 OCTOBER 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh, your letters are so big! Annnnd on a serious note, has that tank arrived yet? Because I'm betting on Alison hijacking it, and using it to fight vandals. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not if I get it first! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not just laughing at them; we're pointing, too! HalfShadow 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Evil forever blocks. Lulz. Orderinchaos 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To try to counter this highly uncivil discussion, I will finish this by addressing TougHHead in dots: .... .... ... ..... ....... ! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

From Duck Soup:

Groucho: Now go out in that battlefield and lead those men to victory.

Chico: I wouldn't go there unless I was in one of those iron things - what do you call those things?

Groucho: Tanks.

Chico: You're welcome.

Ya see, even in a classic film, they can't all be classics. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting THIS CLOSE to issuing a warning against personal attacks to TougHHead! Edison (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and warn TougHHead against personal attacks. No problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the number of "love letters" you have is a strong indicator of how good an admin you are. So, far, this is my favorite: [33]. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some of the most interesting posts are the ones that mean absolutely nothing except (possibly) to the one who wrote it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

living person subjected to self proclaimed biographer posting slander

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Riconosciuto&action=history the multitude of edits by hag2 on this page come from a woman who assisted a convicted serial killer in the harassment of the family of the subject of the page. Her posts are not only biased, but are inaccurate and use her self published material for sourcing. Furthermore, she implicates the subject as being suspicious relative to murders committed convicted murderer, Phillip Arthur Thompson. She has published my home address and phone number in a link to one of her articles, exposing me to further danger, I request that she and her associate, Anne Tweedham be blocked from editing Michael Riconosciuto's page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Riconosciuto

^ a b c d e McCullough, Virginia (2008-02-17). "Who is puppet master, Michael Riconosciuto?". Newsmakingnews. Retrieved on 2008-09-08. ^ McCullough, Virginia (2008-02-18). "Is puppet master Michael Riconosciuto pulling the strings in the Betty Cloer murder trial?". News making news. Retrieved on 2008-09-20.

One unofficial biographer has noted: "While all these details of young Riconosciuto’s technical abilities were true, Michael also possessed a darker side that severely limited his ability to maximize his scientific talents."[6] According to that biographer, Riconosciuto's "darker side" was a picture of a shadowy individual whose early associations centered him squarely in the nefarious world of illegal drugs, money-laundering, and espionage.[6] The biographer further alleges that during the late-1960s Riconosciuto's on-going criminal associations may have been as an undercover drug informant with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Allegedly, Riconosciuto led a double life in San Francisco [claims of instrumental drug busts] mixing and peddling "acid" in the Haight-Ashbury district.[6] Eventually, his shady background would implicate him in several suspicious crimes: the death of Betty Marie Cloer [7], the death of Vali Delahanty[8], and the disappearance of Valerie McDonald.[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.55.211 (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.newsmaking.com Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.newsmakingnews.com. Newsmakingnews.com is a horrible site for using as a source for any WP:BLP related article, providing no editorial oversight and verification of it's contributors works. Looks to be filled with non-notable self-published works by non-notable writers. As far as the Michael Riconosciuto goes, it contains blatant violations of WP:BLP with allegations of incidents. I don't have time to go and clean it up myself, as it is 2:14 a.m. where I'm at, but if someone has the time, that article is a disgrace at the moment.--JavierMC 07:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed the link above, sorry was so late/early this morning.--JavierMC 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on pages of Indian religions by User Nexxt 1

Nexxt 1 (talk · contribs) has been continuously indulging in edit war with everyone. He has repeatedly flouted the 3RR rule on the pages of Indian Religions. He is using dubious sources – medical books, Geography books, communications books etc – to make tall claims on religion and history. Since last few hours he has reverted myself, User:Mitsube and User:Jeff G. as per the following diffs and his contribution history.

• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• [37]

--Anish (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reporting the 3RR violation to the appropriate noticeboard, i.e. WP:AN3. Other than that, I suggest dispute resolution to be tried; they seem to have stopped reverting for now which means a block would be counterproductive. SoWhy 10:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nexxt1 is back to his disruptive behaviour. I have reverted Nexxt 1’s edit as he is using dubious sources like medical and geography books as references for Indian religions. He is not bothering to reply or enter into debate on his sources on talk pages but is making wild accuations that User:Mitsube is my sock which is a serious allegation.--Anish (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nexxt 1 blocked 48 hours for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but the way user Angle reflection (talk · contribs) has taken over from Nexxt 1 after being blocked is a suspect. Angle reflection (talk · contribs) has already started canvassing with other editors for a full-fledged edit war. He is insisting on using same dubious references of medical and geography books to make historical claims on Indian religions page. Please check out this user also. As of now I have reverted his edits.--Anish (talk) 04:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dougweller has full protected Indian religions for three days, which settles things down temporarily. But consider these two accounts:

• Angle reflection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nexxt 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They may be the same user. (One account was created August 20, 2007 and the other on August 24, 2007, plus the name 'Nexxt 1' is suggestive). Canvassing for reverts may be blockable as edit warring. I'll notify Angle reflection that he is being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Gary Cooper

Could somebody please take a look at this article's recent history? Since at least June 19th [38], what is clearly a single editor using a variety of IP addresses has been attempting to insert into the article material about Cooper which other editors have been reverting because some of the parties referred to are still alive (so there are BLP concerns) and because the editor is supposedly a banned user, User:HarveyCarter. The constant edit warring on the part of this person is very disruptive and distracting to people actually trying to work on the article.

The IP addresses involved are:

• 92.8.34.85
• 92.8.39.32
• 92.8.40.83
• 92.8.250.103
• 92.9.88.230
• 92.9.173.136
• 92.8.245.132
• 92.11.44.129
• 92.11.101.98
• 92.11.156.253

• 92.11.165.155
• 92.11.178.28
• 92.11.199.75
• 92.11.222.125
• 92.11.228.193
• 92.11.229.160
• 92.11.242.86
• 92.12.11.250
• 92.12.26.106
• 92.12.34.28

• 92.12.42.28
• 92.12.53.54
• 92.12.59.120
• 92.12.52.197
• 92.12.63.216
• 92.12.118.124
• 92.12.141.78
• 92.12.147.117
• 92.12.152.33
• 92.12.153.142

• 92.12.174.196
• 92.12.180.146
• 92.12.209.253
• 92.12.210.71
• 92.13.89.69
• 92.13.158.54
• 92.14.134.33

Is there nothing that can be done about blocking this person, and is it, as claimed, a banned user? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 10:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's true, you can try and file a suspected sockpuppet case but I doubt that it is helpful. A rangeblock of 92.x.x.x is quite hard to do, it would cause too much collateral damage. I semi-protected the article for now, hopefully forcing the IP to discuss their changes after those countless reverts. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a 92.8.0.0-9.15.255.255 (a smaller range, including all the IPs mentioned above - the smallest range which does) would cause too much collateral damage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be 92.8.0.0/13 (half a million IP addresses!). MediaWiki won't even allow such a block to be made (it'll only go up to /16). Semi-protection, I'm afraid, is the only viable solution, assuming engaging with the editor in question and resolving their issues amicably is a no-go. fish&karate 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The vast quantity of sockpuppetry from this banned editor would suggest that negotiation would only be possible in a Bruce Willis sense. --Rodhullandemu 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

When I saw Bruce Willis, I thought you meant negotiation in the Die Hard sense; that is, no negotiation at all, and the death of the villain before the the film ends. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Or confronting the puppetmaster at High Noon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Olana North

Olana North (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has self-identified as a sock-puppet, and labelled their user and talk pages as such, saying that they have been blocked, although no such block appears to be in place. Is this allowable? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The entries immediately preceding, on the user and talk pages respectively [39] [40] give a clue that the user (with whom you've had some interaction) is not happy about something. Not having read the user's contrib's in detail, I couldn't say what it's not happy about, although at least in part it's obviously not happy with you. [41] It appears to go back, in part, to this rather snippy comment [42] by Olana North. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In short, the user is either telling the truth about being a sockpuppet, or more likely is just "pouting". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Olana is distraught over a past event. I removed the block notices as the user is not blocked. I don't understand the use of the vandal template here. I see no vandalism. I see a productive user who feels they got treated unfairly. Did not see what the problem was. Probably the best course would be to leave them alone unless they reach out for advice or help. And probably it would be a good idea if Andy in particular left them alone. Dlohcierekim 14:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It all involves this Wikietiquette discussion. I would ask both editors to avoid making intemperate remarks and to avoid one another if they cannot get along. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made no intemperate remarks; but have been the target of an unprovoked and unwarranted personal attack. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Which was discussed at the Wikietiquette page. The conclusion of that discussion was unsatisfactory to Olan. So you come here with a complaint about his user page, which has nothing that I can see to do with you. You seem to be striving to continue a conflict rather than to leave it be. What more can anyone do? My suggestion still stands-- you both need to leave one another alone. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I came here with a question. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the answer is--- leave him alone. Generally, what one does on one's user page is their own business. I've removed the sockpuppet template. And you have again used the {{{vandal}}} template-- something Olan strongly objected to before. That was most intemperate. You seem intent on fanning the flames of a conflict that should be allowed to burn out? Dlohcierekim 15:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Generally, what one does on one's user page is their own business. I've removed the sockpuppet template." You appear to contradict yourself. "And you have again used the {{{vandal}}} template" Indeed. Why should I not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What am I missing here? If someone self-identifies as a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user, shouldn't they be indef blocked as well? Either they are the same person, in which case they should be blocked for avoiding their block to edit the same articles that got them into trouble before, or they are not the same person, in which case they should be blocked for trolling/disruption/etc. Right? --barneca (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Confessing to a "crime" does not prove "guilt". They might just be extremely annoyed and are looking for an artificial means to get indef-blocked other than simply asking to be indef-blocked. Or they might actually be a sock. Presumably a checkuser could determine the truth of the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It is also possible for someone to impersonate an indef blocked user. AdjustShift (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The question is, to what extent? If posting a phony block template is as far as it goes, it's not much of an impersonation. If they study the behavior and edits of the blocked user and try to imitate them, that would be an impersonation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at just the page mentioned in the wikiquette discussion List of crossings of the River Severn, on the face of it I would tend to agree with Olana's removal of Pigs-on-the-wing's data line, since it does not appear to make any sense. Regardless of that, in essence, you have a content dispute here. A content dispute is not vandalism. And calling someone a vandal is more of a personal attack than calling you by your own user ID, which in past you have claimed to be a "personal attack". It strikes me that you are seeing personal attacks everywhere, and that you would be well advised to re-focus on what matters, which is article content. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The unambiguous personal attacks raised on WP:WQA were not imagined and are not "a content dispute", As to: "calling you by your own user ID, which in past you have claimed to be a "personal attack"" Please cite me doing so; or calling the editor concerned a vandal. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Given below is the text that you placed at the top of this page

"{{vandal|Olana North}} has self-identified as a sock-puppet ..."

It clearly shows that you identify the other editor as a vandal because you have used the {{vandal}} template. 92.13.89.158 (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, he might have chosen that template simply because it conveniently displays several links connected with a given user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that I'm talking about you complaining when people shorten your own chosen user ID to "Pigs" and then call it a "personal attack". Some might call your reaction "managing other peoples' behavior". I call it "nannyism" - just as your complaint at the top of this section constitutes nannyism. Whatever term is used, that behavior doesn't work. Who cares what they call you? I get called all sorts of nicknames. It's not important. Article content is what's important. Looking for personal attacks is a distraction you've allowed yourself to get pulled into. Focus on the articles, and you'll be much happier. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I think that the whole "Pigs = personal attack?" issue is a distraction that you allow yourself to get pulled into whenever Andy posts here. This isn't the first time you've mentioned it. Maybe it should be the last. How about a nice cup of WP:TEA? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for showing the falsehood of your assertion that I have claimed "the use of my own user ID" to be a personal attack; as to using a word derived from it as a personal attack; you'll have to take that up with Arbcom, who decreed it to be such; I don;t recall ever labelling it so. I made no complaint here, I asked a question, you seem not to {{WP:AGF|AGF]]. I'm quite happy with my track record of improving both articles and the templates which enhance them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to know ArbCom has free time to spend on such a petty, nannyistic issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ICPC; again, I suggest you take that up with them; I didn't. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you did not raise the issue, then, I assume you personally don't care if someone shortens your user ID to "Pigs". (That's assuming your cryptic 'ICPC' means "I can't personally care".) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, where is the link to that ArbCom case? If they seriously made such a ruling, I want to know about it, and then I'll leave the subject alone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You know very well that that is not the case. My name is Andy Mabbett. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an arbcom view on the epithet - it seems that Arbcom did view it as a 'personal attack' (AM having made it clear many times that he prefers to be called Andy Mabbett). Andy seems to be right about Olana North, just as he was about the copyvio last week. Perhaps a promotion to Arbcom ... Occuli (talk) 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes for interesting reading, and I can see why Pigs-on-the-wing didn't want to bring it up himself, as it does not speak very highly of him, for sure. I also get from it that the user Karmafist was asked not to call Pigs-on-the-wing by an abbreviation of his own chosen user ID, but that seems to be a minor and petty issue in and of itself, it's just part of the overall picture. I say again, whatever user ID someone chooses, they bear the consequences of it. If they don't want to be called Pigs, they ought not have that in their user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did User:Pigsonthewing raise a complaint in two places, Wikiquette and here? What reason or motive is there? It seems overkill to attempt to obtain admin intervention over a dispute (if thats what it can be called) with the same editor twice. I feel that there is something else going on here, and it strikes me of an editor trying to use the wikipedia policy guide to beat everyone that disgrees with him around the head. 92.14.113.97 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There were two issues, and each was raised at the appropriate forum. There's no need to create more drama here, is there? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Picking a self-alleged sock user:Sheepcot at random, I look at Sheepcot's edits and immediately see an interaction with Andy Mabbett, aka User:Pigsonthewing. Hmmm. Occuli (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

* Ditto User:ALECTRIC451. Occuli (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of the IP addresses in the conversation above resolve to the same source, as does the IP making threats about being able to find Pigsonthewing (see discussion further down the page). As does the IP that Olana North reverted twice ([43] [44]) shortly before declaring herself a sockpuppet... of someone who, as Occuli notes, isn't just a random previous sockpuppeter, but one who had issues with Pigsonthewing specifically. I'm thinking maybe she wasn't lying. She says she is a banned sockpuppetter. There's some evidence that might be the case. Who are we to argue? AGF and all. --CBD 11:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, what can be done technically to choke off this pest? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and blocked the Olana North account. Given that it started up shortly after Canterberry departed and had extensive overlap (e.g. both accounts also had conflicts with User:EdJogg) I think it is clear that this really was a Canterberry sock. As to preventing further sockpuppeting and/or anon well-poisoning. Neither possible nor worth bothering with IMO. I'd suggest just ignoring this person until they outgrow it. --CBD 11:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Postscript: North Olana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be of interest; see this comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought there was a way to block not just the user ID but also the IP address or addresses that user ID uses. That does not mean it's necessary, but I had thought it was at least possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I did set the system to autoblock IPs used by Olana North. However, most users come into Wikipedia through an ISP which assigns them a different IP address every time they connect to the internet. This means that the only way to prevent them from making IP posts or creating a sockpuppet would be to 'range block' all the IP addresses which that ISP uses. Which would also block anyone else using the same ISP. Ergo, we don't do that. Even in cases where someone has a static IP address or comes in from a small range that we CAN block without impacting other users... blocking such is still no guarantee of keeping them out. They can just go through a different provider. --CBD 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm talking out-of-turn here. The 'confrontations' with me were comparatively minor disagreements, such as any two editors might have occasionally. With Olana North/Canterberry we are dealing with someone who has a passion for editing railway-related articles on WP, and whose contributions are, by-and-large, positive. (For example, this year he was the driving force behind a push to get all the articles noted as within UK Railways WikiProject assessed for article quality - well over 1000 articles at the start of the drive, IIRC.) On the other hand, his 'character' occasionally takes on a more confrontational mode (the phrase 'hot-headed' springs to mind), and this is when he has resorted to sock-puppetry. When Olana North appeared at the beginning of the year I recognised the editing style and tried to warn him, in a disguised way, that further sockpuppetry would not be tolerated by others at WP. Until the last week I was not aware of any significant incidents taking place. That it has taken most of this year before there was any trouble suggests to me that he had been doing a reasonable job at controlling his strong opinions and consequent urge to sock-puppet.

I do not for one minute condone the negative, confrontational, personal or puppet-like behaviour that this editor occasionally exhibits. What I have recognised is that he has been a valuable contributor to WP over the years, and presumably has some form of recurring 'personal problem', whatever that might be, which occasionally causes these lapses. As for blocking him; that has been done before, and he knows enough to be able to work around the blocks. What he really needs is to be able to recognise when confrontational situations are likely to occur, and learn to walk away from them rather than to get involved.

(Incidentally, I am NOT a sockpuppet of Canterberry (nor Pigsonthewing) (check all the IP addresses you like) nor have I ever met him in person. My personal beliefs are that an editor should be given a chance to redeem themselves after an indiscretion (such has gone on here), rather than being blocked indefinitely, and that on balance this particular editor is a positive contributor to WP. I just wish he'd put a sock in his mouth occasionally rather than writing comments likely to antagonise others.)

EdJogg (talk) 12:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Ok, call me crazy here ... from my viewing, Olana has not been disruptive since their "return". Although being banned under one username and returning with another without asking nicely is a "bad thing", it appears that they had changed their stripes. However, someone has a personal beef with the previous nickname, who then noticed similarities, and took up the personal beef again (hence the WQA and this AN/I). Are editors not allowed to be reformed? Do we not run the risk of turning a newly-reformed editor into a newly-unreformed editor? *climbs off soap-box* BMW(drive) 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

And who do you think had that "beef"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, you're crazy. :]

Seriously though, I don't think anyone publicly accused Olana of being Canterberry before Olana indicated so themself. As to reform... threatening to track someone down in real life aint a great indicator of such. If they want to come back and contribute without conflict they should either just do that or announce that they'd like the Canterberry (or whichever other) account unblocked and that they promise not to sockpuppet and/or disrupt again. No biggie. But no, this isn't a case of 'risking turning someone into a newly-unreformed editor'... that ship clearly sailed several days ago. --CBD 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably there could be any number of banned or indef-blocked editors who come back under a new ID and remain undetected. But that would only happen if they either (1) switched to an entirely new subject of interest; or (2) had a complete change of attitude; or preferably (3) both. I would think that is rather unlikely, but whether likely or not, the ones that get caught usually do so because they can't stay away from where they were before. "It's hard for a leopard to change its stripes", as I like to say. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon off-wiki threat

It takes more than this to phase me, but please note this off-wiki threat. Perhaps the poster doesn't realise that their IP address also makes them identifiable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me he's making that veiled threat on-wiki, not off-wiki.--Atlan (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant the IP is making a threat to do something off-wiki. Anyway, if the IP address is stupid enough to leave a comment like that, then he's also stupid enough not to know how easily he could theoretically be found. However, it also points up the risk in using one's real name on an internet site (assuming you are actually using your real name - if not, "never mind"). In any case, it could warrant some type of block of that IP, but it's the only entry for that IP, so such a block might be ineffective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the IP knew exactly that it could be traced, after all, that is what is stated in the message. The fact that there is only one edit suggests, in extremis that the poster sought-out a different machine (at an Internet cafe, maybe) in order to post this.

Also, just because a veiled threat has been made, there is no reason to suggest that the threat will be taken any further.

EdJogg (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

request for block

Resolved

 – Already blocked. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

am requesting block for IP 153.2.246.32 for repeated, malicious and exclusive vandalism:

[45]

Thank you, Journalist1983 (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked a few hours ago. And the vandalism was just page blanking, pretty low down on the scale of maliciousness. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 12:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I be blocked too? Please Please Please? 130.207.180.77 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You can issue a "self-block". That's done by turning off your computer permanently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you die?? 130.207.180.77 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I am immortal. It's both a blessing and a curse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Mr 130.207.180.77 wasn't very nice, was he boys and girls? And now he's got half a day on the naughty step to think about what he did. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a school IP. BLOCK 'EM FOR A YEAR!' HalfShadow 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Another song from Mr. Redvers's Neighborhood: "Block 'em all / Block 'em all / The long, and the short, and the tall." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkey

In the article, I have re-edited the religion section, because I thought it was biased and only looks at the point of view of secularism or kemalism of the country, therefore I believe that section does not provide a neutral point of view for the readers on Wikipedia, because nothing is mentioned about the conservatism present in Turkey, for example the rise of Islamist-governments and the headscarf controversy - which is banned, but worn by many. I have then added this information about the culture clash between both of these ideologies, with reliable sources and is an important information which should be available in the article based on the impact of Religion in the country.

Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision :[46] against this:[47]

Many biased reason's against my edit: There is no place for your islamist agenda in wikipedia..., I know that it tickles your Islamist nerves., The top paragraph entirely for religion, the bottom paragraph entirely for secularism., especially when you are the "dedicated Islamist" of Wikipedia?, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology, Mr. Bangladeshi Islamic fanatic in England, why don't you "get a life" and leave Turkey to the Turks - who definitely know their country much better than you do?, Enough - go see a doctor, You are not making a "summary", you are only removing the parts that you dislike due to your Islamic ideology - Note the word Islamist mentioned in these quotes by User:Ayça Leovinus.

My reason's for edits: I have shortened the section because: the section looks cluttered and unorganized; various info moved to subs; reducing article size (not removed secular), Balancing and adding information (ie Kemalism, political situation), fixing info, now clear according to NPOV, good edit (AGF, NPOV), My revision: shortened sentences, and transferred to related articles, adding few relevant political sit., reducing article size (previous cluttered and unorganized) now), re edited section, added more comprehensive populations of Christians and Jews, and fixed Kemalism, with sources, entry referenced, based on NPOV, balanced of view. Conservate and secular present, not only secular, this should not be hidden., NPOV version: providing info based on two sides of point of views, not only one, but two present in society. Secularism/Kemalism, Conservatism/Headscarf - Note no insults given to users, but giving suitable reasons for the edits.

Mohsin (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any comments? Mohsin (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jarajet89

Jarajet89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has repeatedly removed a useful image from the Jazmine Sullivan article without giving any reason for it. I tried to warn him/her on his/her talk page, but he/she keeps doing it. The image is important to the article, but this user seems to have some problem with it for no apparent reason. I really hope someone can do something about this vandal. --Baby G. (talk to me) (see my edits) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, s/he only removed it twice in the past few days. After the first time you called Jarajet89 a vandal in the edit summary. It's not at all clear that the removal of an image without comment is vandalism. Just discuss it on the talk page. If s/he refuses to discuss it or actually disrupts the article, you can go further down the dispute resolution chain. I don't see how admin action is required here. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to engage the editor and find out what's going on. From a look at his/her talk age there may be a communication issue here - that's a lot of warnings for image issues, a bunch of warnings... hm. Anyone else want to look at this and see if a block is in order? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say a block is definitely in order until he makes some kind of reply to the numerous attempts to ascertain what he is doing. If you look at his contributions, he appears to not reply to ANY attempts at communication. Perhaps a block will get some reaction or at least a reply to questions, but from his past history, it seems doubtful.--JavierMC 22:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? No. We shouldn't be blocking someone just to get their attention. If his edits are disruptive and will be disruptive in the future or if he crosses some bright line, then we block, otherwise we just go our separate ways. In the last 9 days this editor has made two edits to the article in question. Those have been reverted with some pretty strong warnings/assertions. Since 16:03, 6 October 2008, he has made 8 constructive contributions to other articles and hasn't returned to the article in question. The determination of "more harm than good" is another one and should be made with a lot more deliberation and gravity. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, it is not a go as you like and if someone asks you questions, you just ignore them all and just keep doing what your doing without explanation. Are we supposed to read minds? If they refuse to answer and continue on their merry way, this in itself is disruptive. Or should we just edit war and continue to replace whatever information is being removed because we can't get the editor to speak to us so we can either agree with their thinking or try and convince them why we believe it is better another way? What do you think talkpages are for? So we can collaborate. How would consensus work if we just ignored each other?--JavierMC 03:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm not saying that we should take this editor as a model to emulate. I'm suggesting that, absent some real disruption, it is totally inappropriate to block and editor just to get him to respond to talk page messages. My second point was that the disruption Baby G. claims is past tense. Even if messages are not responded to, we assume they are acknowledged if editors continue to make contributions after the "you have new messages" link shows up. So we can assume that at least the literal message "stop" has been sent. Since that message has been received, has the editor returned to the page in question? Was the editor edit warring in the first place? Is it at all a concern to you that Baby G. responded to the removal of the image with the words "Stop, you vandal"? We do not block to enforce Best practice. Likewise we shouldn't block just to prompt communication. What is the likely outcome of a week long block to force him to the talk page? A chastened and communicative editor? Or the loss of a contributor who has 2437 contributions to the mainspace (that is more than me)? If we block him to get his attention and he says "fuck it, I'll leave", was the whole affair worth it? Protonk (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He just went back and removed the image again. I still don't want to block just for the purposes of communication. Protonk (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No ones advocating a weeks block, and nothing I have said should infer that. Blocks are preventative in nature and having to engage in a revert off because an editor is ignoring pleas for communication is preventable in my mind. I for one would not want to have to keep returning to an article I have interest in and constantly reverting the edit of a non-communicative editor. Nor am I of a mind to let the editor game the system by being one shy of WP:3RR and leaving for a day or two, just to return and start the process all over again. That IS disruptive. Like I said previously, every attempt to get a reply to an inquiry made by other editors have been ignored. Communicating isn't just best practices, it's necessary and not doing so shows a lack of care for the opinion of other editors and wastes their time having to deal over and over again with the same problem due to his lack of response. But I'm through voicing my opinion on this. Revert away and enjoy yourself in the process, I for one don't find it amusing.--JavierMC 04:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he isn't gaming the system. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think combining the lack of communication with the massive number of image upload warnings equals an editor who isn't getting the message very well. If there's more image removal, even after your notes on their talk page, then the block button will definitely come into play. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He's done it again. Someone please block him! --Baby G. (talk to me) (see my edits) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Johnny "J"

Resolved

 – reliable source for Johnny 'J's death now found.

There are rumors all over the internet that Johnny "J" has died. I have been unable to find a reliable source to that fact, and have been looking for several days now. There are still no reliable news sources reporting this. It started on a hiphop website that has been wrong in the past, and has been picked up by such sites as worldwideconnected.com and allhiphop.com, which I'm not sure are reliable sources. I reported this at WP:BLPN, and User:Jossi removed the death report and semi-protected the page, but it's been re-added. I don't want to edit war, but this does seem to be a major violation of WP:BLP to the extreme, since there are still no reliable sources. Lhw1 (talk · contribs) reverted Jossi's removal of the death report with an edit summary which says, Sigh, you idiots. There isn't going to be a "reliable source", the media doesn't give a damn about Johnny J. If this keeps up, wikipedia's gonna claim he's still alive in 2028. Use the talk page. (and I note that Lhw1 did not discuss it on the Talk page after having made the revert). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's my point, even with the overbearing primary source evidence pointing towards Johnny J's death, you still refuse to acknowledge that he has died. A brief stub would have been sufficient enough, with information about his incarceration (see talk page). Yes, we all understand Wikipedia's policy of unreliable sources, but Johnny J is considered an underground artist, news about him will not show up on the front pages what you consider "reliable sources". News such as this only shows up on Hip-hop related sites, all of which are run as blogs or forums. That is as reliable as hip-hop news can get. I'm sure many of you are relatively new to the underground hip-hop scene or do not understand of how the it operates--by the word of mouth and blogs, NOT by news articles. Go on any underground artist's wikipedia article and you will find the sources are either from the artist's myspace or from such blogs as AllHipHop. Lhw1 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Then those articles don't meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:VERIFY and should be sent to AfD for deletion. If "the media doesn't give a damn about" a topic, then neither should a mainstream encyclopedia. — Satori Son 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. I gave up on that. But TMZ.com and Contactmusic.com have run a story on it, and his Myspace page now has an "RIP" up on it, so it appears to be true - though the sourcing is still weak. As Lhw1 notes, it may not receive major media attention beyond what it's gotten so far. Some editors don't understand that we don't run with "he's dead!" notices that come off of questionable bulletin board type sites, but ah well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Now reliably sourced - [48] - so this is resolved, I think. fish&karate 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

diff Not sure if this is the right place. It looks like an individual in Lowell, Massachusetts keeps adding unsourced claims to Nathaniel Bar-Jonah about once a day. The last few days there has been this discussion on my talk page. __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated this entry for deletion. He doesn't seem to be more than an ordinary child molester and killer. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The source given has no content relating to the article subject, let alone any war record (of which there is nothing relevant in the article anyway). Upon review of the comments on your talkpage, this appears to be nothing more than a troll. I shall enforce a weeks break from editing WP, since I doubt there would be much useful comment from this source upon the AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive sockpuppet rampage

User:Swamilive, who you may remember from such ANI reports as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity, is back again making still more sockpuppets. There's an open SSP case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220 and a related checkuser case at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/72.35.4.220, but neither seems to be getting any admin attention. This query on my talk page about the record for number of sockpuppets doesn't suggest any indication of stopping. Can someone please take a look at the SSP case and consider if a range block is appropriate? Since the user has self-identified, contacting their ISP may also be an option. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See also the related Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Graham's Packed Lunch. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another option here. This is Swamilive, incidentally. A few weeks ago, I had offered to stop with my sockpuppetry and my vandalism provided that I could create one "fresh start" account with which I could make legitimate edits to existing articles and perhaps introduce new articles which are well-sourced. I believe I brought up this suggestion to both Delicious carbuncle and Black Kite (likely on one of the sockpuppet talk pages). My request was sharply declined, however, despite this policy. My longstanding use of sockpuppets for vandalism purposes requires some trust on everyone's part in regard to my proposed vandalism-free account. I have demonstrated that I am crafty enough to circumvent the protection guidelines in place within Wikipedia, but I insist that if granted a fresh start, I would not make use of the system's loopholes for any reason. Give me a fresh start, and you won't hear about Swamilive again. This I promise you. James Various (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In general, making threats and committing acts of vandalism does not make other users likely to give you what you want. Are you you familiar with the political principle, "Never negotiate with terrorists?" As you say, you have the technical knowledge to create an account and use it to make constructive edits, and probably, no one would even notice that you were a formerly disruptive user. You have not chosen to do this; there doesn't seem to be any administrative action called for.-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not let the appearance of the sockmaster distract us from why I brought this up again. Admin attention required on the SSP & CU cases, and perhaps a more effective block. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:STICK. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Or my personal favorite: "Revert, block, ignore" HalfShadow 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Swamilive, if you go and edit well for a month or so at another Wikimedia project, such as Wikinews and in the meantime don't disrupt or sock here I will likely support your unblocking. But this behavior just wastes our time and yours. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bearian, was your WP:STICK comment directed at me or have I taken it out of context? I'm a bit confused as to how it applies here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with JoshuaZ. If Swamilive edits without disruption in any another Wikimedia project, he may be unblocked. AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

obvious sock needs blocking

119.30.69.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Obvious sockpuppet of User:NisarKand, last incarnation is already-blocked User:Pakhtunking, with almost identical edits, including the same vandalism to user pages [49][50], re-adding the same images again to the same article[51][52] and blaming the same user [53][54]. Passes WP:DUCK with flying colors. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I hardblocked the IP for a month. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He has resurfaced as User:User:119.30.70.82 and User:119.30.75.122. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified Alison, since she's familiar with that individual. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As Nisarkand is back causing problems again, and being his usual self, you can also reblock 119.30.64.0/20, softblocked for a long period. A rangecheck has showed up the following accounts. These are 100%  Confirmed as being NisarKand, so feel free to block them:

1. PitTorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Artimand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Bizmarkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

- Alison ^❤ 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock  Done for 6 months (anon only). -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Henotheism and User:VedicScience

can someone please take a look at these diffs, and figure out how to deal with this. user:VedicScience has been engaged in a whole lot of non-productive character assaults on talk:henotheism, against various editors (not really me, except for a couple of snipes). see: his first post there, [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], this in response to me warning him about attacking other editors, this after I pointed him to the talk page guidelines, and explained (a bit sharply, I'll admit) that it was unacceptable behavior. I've been archiving the off-topic stuff as it occurs on the hope that would stop it, but it hasn't, and I'm tired of cleaning up after him.

while I'm at it, let me air my suspicion that user:ADvaitaFan is really a sock that VedicScience created when he was last on block. the account was created a day or so after the block began, their editing styles, language, POVs and positions are eerily similar, and they have a marvelous mutual support network going. I wasn't going to worry about it, but since I'm making this report anyway... --Ludwigs2 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that someone review my attempts to inform VedicScience of what to do. His responses should be enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

His comments to the sock puppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VedicScience should also help clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. After this ridiculous response, I blocked him for a week. He's clearly not interested in working with other people here. Ludwigs, watch and see what happens with ADvaitaFan during the next week. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The suspected sock is in the same city. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

just to add a note of irony, I'm going to take a modified version of the changes that he wanted to make and edit them in. they weren't bad, really, but all that extra baggage... --Ludwigs2 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Henotheism. It's always something. We need an article about Pollytheism, the little-known religion of the Amazon jungle that worships parrots. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pollytheism is derived from the Catholic tradition, you know - all that cracker eating... --Ludwigs2 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ba-DUM-bum. You've been great folks, now let's all welcome the Atlanta Rhythm Section! Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaawk! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, are they Atlanta Crackers? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We're scraping the bottom of the cracker barrel here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Still...beautiful plumage though, eh? BMW(drive) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The plumage don't enter into it! If you had not nailed it on its perch, it would be pushin' up the daisies! Oh, wait, that's not the Amazon parrot - that's the Norwegian Blue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(laughing too hard to type anything coherent) --Elonka 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're making an assumption that any of the previous 8 posts were even remotely coherent in their own right...BMW(drive) 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

HornetMan16

I would now like to direct the administrator's of Wikipedia to User:ChristianMan16, who is kinda requesting a unblock, since he is banned from the community I think the best thing is to come here. ChristianMan to me (and the stuff I have seen from the past) has changed, and I know some administrator's and user's on this Wiki and the simple English Wikipedia would agree with me, I would now like the community to see his contribution's on the Simple English Wiki pedia here. Does this look like a kid who is wanting to cause trouble? To me no! this looks like a person (who is now a grown man). Now to clarify HM has not socked in almost a year, and I'm by now means trying to belittle his previous action's, but I do think it's time to let him back in. Some feedback please. SteelersFan94 22:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Big no-no. Also, he has created socks in this past year. I've been here since July 2007, and I've seen some socks since then. iMatthew (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry i mint this year and yes he did in January, but I think I even speak for Alison when I say that he deserves another chance. And iMatthew I think your speaking out of spite. Can somebody else please way in on the matter. SteelersFan94 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Steelerfan, IMatthew is here to help. Please don't accuse him of acting out of spite unless you have proof. And if anyone's going to speak for Alison, I think she can do that perfectly well herself. You've raised the subject here; now let people debate it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That, and Steelerfan - you're getting to defensive. You started a threat at WT:PW that had nothing to do with professional wrestling, only a former member. And when somebody stepped in an was bold enough to remove it, you got defensive and accused him. You complained about WP:PW having too much drama, and I agree with you there - but I left the project, and I'm not encouraging it, but if you don't like WP:PW's drama, it may not be the project for you. iMatthew (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the unban. Just a glance at the Simple wiki contributions tells me that this person isn't ready to return here. -- how do you turn this on 00:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

At iMatt. your right I just don't want a user who has been punished enough for his wrong doing's to be blocked any longer. Just give him ONE MORE CHANCE. I'll take the heat if something happens. SteelersFan94 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Too many "one more chance"s. Little to gain by unbanning him. Much to risk by unbanning him. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a dozen times, and, well...you get the point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above - he's not ready to come back. Orderinchaos 00:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• As one of the checkusers involved in dealing with him in the past, and in working with him over the past year on other wikis, I would conditionally support an unban providing he's placed with a suitable mentor. He's come on a lot since he was banned from the project here but I still have concerns over his knowledge of image copyrights, etc. A three-month mentorship would work wonders here and he could return to being a productive member of WP:PW. I'll also be willing to help where I can if he's allowed return. Note: there were a series of sockpuppet accounts made during the year which checkuser revealed were  Unrelated to Hornetman16/Christianman16 - indeed, they were created to just get the guy in trouble and seal his fate here on enwiki. They should, of course, be discounted. I can provide details if needs be - Alison ^❤ 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Nevermind. I just saw the diffs to the canvassing on Simple :( - Alison ^❤ 07:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, not needed. 25% of his edits are to his userspace on simple. Very myspacey. A user who was previously very disruptive, needs to show stellar work that would be of great benefit to enWP before he could be considered reformed. Not seeing that yet. Viridae^Talk 04:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above as well as this. Daniel (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think this is a good idea, yet. He's caused a lot of trouble in his time, and I don't think I can quite forgive him for it yet. --Deskana (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Previous unban appeal: March 2008. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Based on his Simple English Wikipedia contributions it's pretty clear he's not going to benefit this project any more than he benefits that one. Giggy (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I've never involved myself in a discussion here, but today I have something on my mind that might help. Today in modern society you are told to do the right thing. Now if you do the wrong thing you are punished. You are also looked down on. Either it be a extremely bad thing or small. Lets look at a crime of a man by the name of Seung-Hui Cho. In no way should he be forgiven of his acts ever even if he was still alive. If he was sorry for them or was not in the right state of mind he should still not be forgiven, but only if he had not planned them. If had just thought of it that day maybe. I forgive the Chris Benoit stuff, that was an act off the top of his head. Now look at those two amazing crimes. Why is it that because someone vandalized a few pages or made a few socks; crap maybe he did both I wasn't around or paying attention when they happened; is looked upon as if he was as bad as Cho. I see people like IMatthew, who I have nothing against, look at people who do these type of things, and act as if they should never get another chance; that is how I see you look at it, I could be wrong. If he wanted to vandalize pages he could just go to the other wikipedias and vandalize there, but from what I've seen he isn't doing that. Now I've seen people who should be blocked because all they did was vandalize. I feel everyone should have a second chance. Is making another account that bad? Not in my mind. Why is it that everyone looks at this type of stuff as if it was as bad as murder or rape. It isn't a crime. Maybe this guy should be given a chance. If he screws up and does the same stuff then it was a mistake. It isn't going to destroy wikiedia. And remember this is coming from someone who has been blocked before. It isn't fun and pisses you off. Also about benefit stuff. Is Wikipedia a company? Are we all looking to make this the greatest web site known to man? We have users who come on here and do nothing but whine and complain (see every WWE and TNA ppv from 2008) about stuff, but because this guy went down the wrong path on here he shouldn't be given a chance because he isn't writing articles to an amazing extent or participating in every discussion on the site, he doesn't benefit English Wikipedia. Doesn't that sound a bit childish? Are our standards too high?--WillC 08:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I find the comparison to Cho completely irrelevant, and the implication that Hornetman is treated here like a rapist or murderer completely inappropriate. Everything else you say is neither here nor there and doesn't convince me at all to unblock Hornetman16. Keep him banned.--Atlan (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Hello there. I mainly edit on Simple English Wikipedia, so my comments are about the user "ChristianMan16" there. To my knolwedge, the user has made good contributions to mainspace (list of his mainspace contribs on SEWP), though he is sometimes focused on User space and project-specific talk pages. I do not recall having problems with his contributions on Simple English Wikipedia. Please note that Simple English Wikipedia allows multiple accounts per user, except for voting purposes. (I am not aware of his having multiple accounts on Simple though) For this reason I would not see a problem with letting him contribute to the English Wikipedia again. All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 09:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• I was not active when this all happened, so I can only speak about what I see now. His simple contributions look okay and I would not even see the aforementioned diff as canvassing, as it also allows people to come here and !vote against him. I'd say unban on probation - if he is unbanned, he will be watched by dozens of editors and admins anyway. Let him back, if he does one false step, reban him instantly without discussion. Worth a try and we got nothing to lose really. We just have to avoid long discussions if he does a false step. SoWhy 10:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Far too many chances, and blew all of them sky-high. The fact he actually stalked Allie across several wikis is a deal-breaker for me. Blueboy96 12:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Stalked' is a bit of a strong term, IMO. He was just being a bit impatient - Alison ^❤ 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • He's what, 12 years old? Agree with Allie, stalked is way over the top. I very much doubt Allie lives in fear of him and his "stalking". -- how do you turn this on 16:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote from the subject: Tell them that they look at my past and say "nope" not look at the changes I've made in myself and the possibility of being a wonderful editor. SteelersFan94 16:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose an unconditional unblock. SteelersFan, I would suggest waiting until next year, and then propose an unblock involving probation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose an unblock at this point. I'm not particularly bothered by the one canvassing edit on Simple Wikipedia, but his other recent contributions there (particularly his retirement) lead me to conclude that he is unlikely to be a stable and productive editor on this project. Should note that I received an e-mail notifying me of this thread, based on my participation in the previous thread on the subject (where, if I recall, I also opposed his unbannination). Avruch ^T 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Let me try something here. Now I have had experience with him and heard from others about his past, some of which I never saw (because I wasn't a registered user yet). I can't think of why I am doing this, but if you all approve, I'd be willing to engage in a 1-month long mentorship program with hum. If the community would like, I would be willing to mentor him for a month, to see whether he has changed or not, and whether he should be aloud to stay here or not. Should he mess up at all, even once - he'd be re-banned, but should he do well and become a constructive editor, he may stay.

Again, I'm not sure If I myself believe he deserves this, but if the community agrees to those terms, I'd be willing to offer mentorship. iMatthew (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I probably support that. Unlike the most of you, I do indeed trust him. I am an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia, where Hornetman (ChristianMan16) is an active contributor and trusted editor. He works hard there, and is basically the only wrestling-contributor on there, and I think he should be given a chance to return here, even if that is only by mentorship. -- American Eagle (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I support as well. HM/CM16 is a worthwhile contributor at SEWP. Sam ^Blab 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem was never his work ethic. He "worked hard" here on enwiki as well. But as you say, he's basically the only contributor to wrestling articles there. He runs into a lot less resistance on simple, which is what always set him off. Just look over on simple wikipedia, at his complete inability to deal with this situation in a rational manner. No, I think simple wikipedia is a better place for him, where he's given something of a wider berth than on enwiki. I'm pretty sure he won't be able to deal with the tight leash he'd be on, if he'd return to enwiki.--Atlan (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I'd support that, too. He's not a bad guy and some of the stuff he did (and it's ancient history in WikiYears™) was nothing compared to some folks who have been rehabilitated. I'll personally put a bunch of time and effort into keeping him safe and out of trouble if he's unblocked. He's been kinda holding out for this for some time and he's really been trying hard. Let's just cut him a little slack here, folks ... - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Xinunus back at an IP address

Resolved

Based on Special:Contributions/199.209.144.211's edit this user seems likely to be indef blocked user Xinunus. Could someone take a look and block the editor if they agree with that assessment? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely him. This IP was blocked a few hours ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Should have checked the block log. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Whatever404 removing AfD notices and deleting AfD discussion (without any consensus to do so)

He twice deleted [60] [61] all comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okorie_Okorocha an replaced them [62] with opinion that the AfD was incorrectly filed because the link from Okorie Okorocha was "red linked". As you can see from [63], the initial link was correct, so his claim that link was red is simply false.

He previously deleted the AfD notice on a different article Scene (youth subculture), again claiming that it was improperly filed [64], and he was warned for his action, which was considered vandalism [65] by a third editor.

His disruption of the AfD process must be prevented. Thanks, VG ☎ 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

His claim may have been true. I have recently seen redlinked AFD links that had to be purged with a null edit. --NE2 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that claim entitle him to close the AfD by himself and discard other editor's !votes [66]? Besides, AfD discussions with too few !votes are normally relisted, which seems to be the case here. VG ☎ 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but he could reasonably believe that it does. --NE2 00:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been blown way out of proportion. Let's just calm down and assume good faith. Can we try to discuss this with the user, instead of just plastering his talk page with meaningless templates? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the user on his talk page of this thread. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I should revert the AfD back to a the non-blanked revision, and add a notice for the closing admin to relist it for 5 more days. Does this sound reasonable? Other options? Also, I didn't template him at all; someone else did that for a different article. The first time he blanked the AfD [67] he gave no details other than "the template at Okorie Okorocha was not filled out correctly", even though all evidence indicates that it was filled out correctly, so I just left him a note that he has been reverted because he did not give any substantive explanations for his unusual AfD closure [68]. VG ☎ 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are no objections to my proposal, I'll change the AfD to reflect it. VG ☎ 02:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The link upon the Okorie Okorocha page (within the template) was redlinked when I visited; two days after the filing. AfDs are closed within a matter of days, so for the AfD to be that much closer to decision without there being a simple way for interested editors to weigh in is not acceptable. The article does not get its "day in court", so to speak, if the "witnesses" cannot find the "courtroom".

It may be noted that until happening upon this article, I had no idea who Okorie Okorocha was. I have not voted and will not vote on this AfD, as I have no personal stake whatsoever in the outcome of this particular AFD.

Reading the above and ensuing discussion... can someone direct me to the appropriate people who maintain the MediaWiki software? Or would someone be willing to raise the issue? Thanks, Whatever404 (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Another point I would like to make (it's probably irrelevant, but): In regard to VG's claim about the process that ensued at Scene (youth subculture), the filing editor and the reverting editor were the same person, it was not a "third editor" that called my edit vandalism, but the same person who filed it. Also, I had good reason for deleting the AfD template, which I noted in the edit summary: at that point, no AfD had been filed. (I did indeed click the red link that time, there was nothing there.) If you want more detail, read this user talk discussion. Whatever404 (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

About AfD red links

I've just seen a red AfD link myself for Call_Me_Crazy. When I clicked it, it did work, it just took me directly to editing the AfD page, even though the AfD page is not empty, i.e. the link is [69]. I can imagine see how this may deter someone from participating in AfD. But it's a software glitch in MediaWiki, and there's no problem on how the AfD was filed. I suspect the link will become blue by itself. Is this a known bug? VG ☎ 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A null edit will turn the link blue. I've seen this several times recently, and from what I understand, it is caused by the page being cached before the AfD is actually created. - auburnpilot talk 03:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way to make it so that the link will not be red, when it ought to be blue? Is there some way to make the page re-cache upon filing the AfD? Whatever404 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this bug is easily triggered by WP:Twinkle because it does three edits (article, AfD page, AfD list) in quick succession or possibly even out of order. It may be possible to avoid the bug by having Twinkle pause a bit more after each edit. Fixing this issue reliably will require some experimentation. In the mean time, the AfD template could be adjusted to say "(click even if this link is red)" after the AfD link in the template since a red AfD link works, except it takes you to the AfD directly in editing mode. Someone with admin rights would have to make this (hopefully temporary) adjustment to the template. VG ☎ 04:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an update for the Call_Me_Crazy example: the link is now blue for me. No edits have been made to the article in the mean time. So, just as I suspected, the cache problem solves itself after a little while. VG ☎ 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I made a null edit, as I referenced above. You simply open the edit page and click submit, without changing anything. - auburnpilot talk 14:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, VG, on identifying both short-term and long-term approaches to this issue. I think the adjustment you suggested for the template should be made. Whatever404 (talk) 04:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a drive-by comment: many templates have this problem; I recently posted an article to FAC, and the template on the talk page notifying users of the FAC discussion page was a redlink for at least a few hours until the cache reset itself. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually more an issue with Twinkle than the template code; more importantly, I think that papering over the isue in the template code will just lead to more malformed AfDs (e.g., the original tagger forgets to complete the process, and some inexperienced user comes along and posts something random because the template told him to) instead of blank or unadvertised AfDs, rather than fewer problem overall. The issue is that creating transcluded pages the way Twinkle does it (very fast and out of order) can always result in a stale red link, because there's no way for a user-side program to control the way the server caches are updated. The acutal solution is that AfD automation scripts should finish their work by using action=purge on the affected article, after all the other steps have been done. Better yet, they could delay about a minute and purge then. That should guarantee, at least as far as it can be guaranteed, that the link will go blue. Of course, you could add a "check the page in case it already exists" warning on top of this, but I don't think it's necessary if the original problem is handled. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AFD log

Resolved

 – Reporter fixed the problem. – RyanCross (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The AFD log for today is not working. Schuym1 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I just had to purge the cache. Schuym1 (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actaully, the top of the page didn't work and it was fixed. Schuym1 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neel Kashkari - minor vandalism

Please watch Neel Kashkari for minor vandalism by anons. Yesterday, this person wasn't notable. Today, he's the U.S. Treasury's new "bailout czar", with $700 billion to spend. So we have a new article, watched as yet by few editors, and it's taking a few hits. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Range Block of 82.132.136.192/27

• 82.132.136.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.194 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.195 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.196 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.199 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.203 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.204 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.209 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.210 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.211 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.213 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.216 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.219 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.220 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 82.132.136.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

This guy has been vandalizing pages for months now, including user pages ([70] [71]) and other pages like Sienna Miller. He's been going around feeling good about himself because he can change his IP by switching his Iphone on and off [72]. Luckily, he's in a pretty small range. There's only 32 ips in there, and all of them have been the same person going back and forth on the same IPs or have been allocated but unused thus far.

The most recent edits have been made by 82.132.136.207, 82.132.136.215 and 82.132.136.207. The latter two made edits were made on the same day at the same article. The last one made the most recent edit and was a used IP from a couple of months ago. All of them must be the same guy. At this point, I would assume that it's safe to make a range block that expires within about a month. ~ Troy (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done for two weeks. We can extend if that works, but I'm not sure it will, so I didn't block for longer. Well-written suggestion, Troy.--chaser - t 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'll keep an eye on it. ~ Troy (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be okay to do, per checkuser, but one thing; don't hardblock it, whatever happens!! It's teeming with legit editors including about a half-dozen UK admins :) - Alison ^❤ 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI

CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disrupting WP:AN3 for his own points. He's personally attacked other editors who have been working to check his obvious bias. [73], [74]. And has been pushing his POV on the noticeboard [75]. Grsz^X 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I support a block for personal attacks after warnings, disrupting Wikipedia and soapboxing. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Block for 2 weeks, this is would be the user's 4th block, previous one for 1 week. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To keep things clear I wasn't working specifically to check CENSEI's bias. I haven't edited the article in question for two weeks. I simply filed a 3RR report on an third-party editor who was up to 6 or 7RR on a potential BLPVIO. CENSEI disrupted two 3RR reports I filed today, called me "despicable", etc. He's revert warred the insults into the noticeboard, three times now.[76][77][78] There's a very small group, perhaps down to a group of two now, who make wild accusations and personal attacks every time someone tries to deal with disruption under Obama article probation. I seem to have been singled out for special abuse. Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I never called you dispicable, only your actions, much like Erik the Red said on my talkpage [79], but let me guess, somehow that wasnt a personal attack but mine was? CENSEI (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The behavior of the other editors involved her has been a subject of this board several times before, so there is really no need to bring it up again as it should be well known by now. The tag teaming that Wikidemon and co have engaged in on any editor who makes an disagreeable edit to one of their pet articles is despicable, quite frankly. They frequently WP:BITE new editors and take turns reverting edits they disagree with making sure that they do not engage in 3RR acting in a team so each one can make their own small contribution to an edit war. Explanations are rarely given for their edits aside from the occasional edit summary and they aggressively harass any editor who tries to engage them. Continually plastering my talk page with warnings and deleting my comments from ANI pages is harrasment designed to provoke a response, one that I have fully given.

There was no WP:BLP vio, that was red herring thorn out to provide cover for the edit warring.

Blocking me standing up to a bunch of bullies would be most unfair indeed. CENSEI (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocking you to prevent further disruption of the project however, would be. Grsz^X 04:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that I am not the only person disrupting it now am I? CENSEI (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to never edit any article on the Obama article porbation list if someone with authority would lay down some discipline to the editors who now dominate and own the aricles. CENSEI (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is not about me, not about Eric the Red, not about Grsz11, and not about any of the other half dozen or so editors CENSEI has been antagonizing in the past few hours . Grsz11 chose to bring CENSEI's abuse, edit warring, disruption, etc., to the attention of the noticeboard for disrupting a 3RR report. These reflexive attacks against me are very, very tired. My editing has been fine. I have been on this board as the subject of abuse lately, and also to deal with disruption on various articles. My editing has not been under any serious, reasonable question. Please leave me out of it. Wikidemon (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin make a formal warning to CENSEI for personal attacks, so the next time he starts like this he will be directly blocked without so much drama? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the same apply to editors making personal attakcs against me and harrassing me? CENSEI (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Believe it or not I had a long term editor of this project tell me that WP:IAR would allow for a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Unfortunately if some admins do not like you then those few will not hesitate to throw personal attacks at you and get away with it. Best course of action- avoid those who you have issues with and work on parts of the project which interest you but doesn't have their participation. Bstone (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I can be blocked for allegations of personal attacks and what not, but fellow editors who behave the same way, and in this case much worse are given an atta boy? I would concur with your best course of action advice, but doesn’t that just encourage article ownership? CENSEI (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

censei, WP:IAR was written so editors wouldn't apply rules blindly without looking before at the context, it's not a bad thing. There are some attenuating circumstances, for example, when an editor has been provoked by an abusive user to the point where he will explode and make a very uncivil comment about the provoker (I'm not saying that this is the case here, I'm just talking about a case I have seen a pair of times). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP violations continue: [80], [81], [82]. Grsz^X 15:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a potentially more serious issue. We have just concluded a month-long RfC. Additionally, there is a serious BLP issue regarding unproven, unreliably sourced allegations of murder against Bernadine Dohrn that one commentator is claiming raises Foundation issues. I tend to disagree that the Foundation is in a position of liability here, but it is edit warring to both overturn an RfC outcome and revert in disputed BLP violations. I will not revert war any further with this editor on this, and will have to step back in the interest of not getting hopelessly tangled up in this drama. However, we do need to figure out what to do about dealing with article disruption and implementing the RfC results. Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus in the RfC, and your continual repetition that there was does not change this. In addition, I have not been adding material tha Violates BLP to any article, unless you have take this issue to the BLP noticeboard and got some comment to the contrary. Lets get an uninvolved Admin or tow to certify the RfC closure and what the disposition of it was.

And just for some backgroud, Wikidemo is claiming that the following: Grathwohl, Larry, "as told to Frank Reagan", Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen, Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, New York, 1976 pp 168, 169, ISBN 0870003350, is not a relibale source. Thats ridiculous. CENSEI (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a content issue. Content issues are not decided here. However, no, an involved informant's recollection of hearsay testimony he gave the FBI 30+ years ago is not a reliable source for accusing a living person of murder, even if it is printed in a book. Accusing a living person of murder in an article is a serious issue that one editor, as I said, raises Foundation issues. The refusal to respect the RfC result - the last stop in dispute resolution as I understand it - raises a question of where to go next. Wikidemon (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong on so many counts Wikidemo .... where to begin. First, the informants recollection wasn't 30 years old. The book was published in 1976, making the materials only a few years old. Secondly, its not up to us to decide if the informant is "relaible", the author Frank Reagan, did that for us (yeahhh!). In addition to Reagan, Grathwohl has been used as a source in a number of other reliable sources. Lastly, this issue was never specificaly settle on in the RfC (which only touched on th terrorism issue), so there is no point in you lying about it. CENSEI (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, a report that there has been an accusation of murder is not, in itself, an accusation of murder, especially if it is accompanied by appropriate denials or refutations. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 16:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that depend on the source of the accusation? If I level an accusation of something silly... say, vegetable sacrifices at Sean Connery... Would that merit inclusion in his biography? I'm by no means a reliable source, so the accusation would stay out. Let's say I somehow recruited 5000 bloggers to reiterate my violence to vegetables accusation; it still wouldn't qualify for inclusion. So the source of the accusation needs to be examined. --GoodDamon 16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The book was published in 1976 by an established author. Grathwohl's testimony was also picked up in a 1981 Tod Gitlin Nation article: White Heat Underground. CENSEI (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Scjessey

I'd like to add that CENSEI has just filed a malicious AN3 report on me as well (report) -- Scjessey (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Attention needed

CENSEI has been attempting to game the system, here and at AN3. His personal attacks persist and he continues to violate WP:BLP policies with no intention to stop.

• [83] Here he makes accusations at AN3 in an attempt to divert attention from the violation.
• [84] Makes an attack.
• [85] Calls warnings by neutral users spam and trolling.
• [86] Uncivil comments.
• [87] Again uncivil and confrontational.
• [88] Describes others attempts to warn him about his behavior as "borderline harrassment."
• [89] Claims that he is being "bullied" into edit warring.
• [90] Uncivl accusations.
• [91] Inserts BLP-violating material with no consensus.
• [92] Undoes a revert of above and labels it "vandalism".
• [93] Another bad BLP edit,
• [94] and revert.
• [95] Opens a bad report at AN3 in an attempt to game the board and detract attention from his actions.

CENSEI's actions need checked. He's been blocked [96] for edit warring and disruption before and it's clear he has not learned. Not only does he need blocked, but a community ban needs serious consideration. Grsz^X 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's give him one more chance. If he is blocked (for two weeks, as I have suggested) and continues to violate 3RR and BLP and NPA, then a ban should be considered, but now a block is appropriate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam

Resolved

I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but could someone please have a look at Special:Contributions/Htomfields -- someone is adding the same external link/url to a whole lot of unrelated articles. I would revert it if I knew how to do it all at once, but I'm sure I'd be more comfortable if an admin did instead. Orange Knight of Passion (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Chris G reverted his edits already. I warned him, no need to block -yet-. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On matters of Turkey and Kosovo, et al

Series of skirmishes and discussions, beginning with [97], and including [98], [99], [100]. Seems to be strong POV involved, as well as multiple IPs, coming from same source. Quieting down now, but despite this [101] and similar accusations, I have little knowledge of the contentious areas and no inherent POV--just noticed unilateral edits which appeared to be vandalism. Input would be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As you already know, and acknowledged, this is a hub with multiple IPs that are randomly assigned amongst several users. I have only posted as one person, but have had 2 separate IPs appear without any doing of my own. You have already accepted that, yet now use it as "Evidence"?

I voted to INCLUDE Turkey in the "List of European countries by population" yet questioned the inclusion of Kosovo, as there is no verifiability of it being a uniformly recognized country(like Turkey is). Is that "vandalism"? You have also yet to respond to why you chose to INCLUDE Kosovo without first beginning a discussion.

The Ataturk article is clearly POV and reads like a fansite. I admit that my revisions strayed into anti-Ataturk POV, but as the article stands now, it is most certainly NOT NPOV. When questioned on this subject, the person who started this avoided the issue at hand and merely made aggressive postings and warnings. As things stand now, I have started a "POV" discussion on the Ataturk discussion page, and started a "Kosovo" section on the European countries by population page. The person here has posted replies on both discussion pages without actually addressing the issues at hand. Somebody else has also attempted to derail/hijack the Kosovo discussion. 41.245.136.129 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of multiple IPs, even if done innocently, gives the appearance of several users supporting a view, that's why it is worth mention. As for Kosovo: it was already included in the list; my rationale for keep, pending further discussion, was explained. There is adequate international recognition to prevent a user from unilaterally deciding to delete it. The warnings re: Ataturk were appropriate; taken together, these edits appeared to constitute strong POV when first encountered, and merited warnings. If this can lead to a constructive re-addressing of the Ataturk article, with sourced content, it is welcome. JNW (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed a "disputed" tag that he added to List_of_European_countries_by_population. If we had to add a disputed tag to every Balkan article where someone disagrees with the consensus on wikipedia.....well... there would be no un-tagged article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Block needed

Resolved

As per results at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Girl Get it, CHECKORUP (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned User:Brexx. Could an available admin please indef block?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Done already :) I tagged the pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User Talk: WikiCheckee

Resolved

 – No administrative action is needed. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A block is needed he has removed about 10- 15 warnings from his talkpage including two i gave him today. A block is need he got away with about 12 image uploads without any warnings. I don't know who editors leaving warnings don't notice things like that. I come across two users like Wikicheckee everyday its ridiculous. Ogioh (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's actually no rule against removing warnings from your talk page - it is understood by most administrators to be acknowledgment that you've read them. I'll check into contributions. :-) - Philippe 18:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Honest, but i've been on talk pages that have been warned for removing their warnings? Ogioh (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't have been. It is completely allowed to remove warnings from your talk page...again, it is evidence they have been read. --Smashville^talk 18:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the warning about deletion, but user has not uploaded any images since the last warning; however some clue about image policy needs to be applied, and will be if it happens again. --Rodhullandemu 18:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that should not be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while the block is still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors). It should also be noted that these exceptions only exist to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Editors who insist on reverting the removal of warnings have in the past been blocked for harassment and/or 3RR. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

KK, i think we can call this one resolved. Ogioh (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Thesamami

Thesamami (talk · contribs) seems to be an account devoted to promoting the news aggregration site Wopular. The contributions consist only of adding links to Wopular, sometimes replacing links to normal new sources with links to Wopular, and including links to pages that aren't about a specific article but are effectively search results that change over time (a violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID). I posted on the user's talk page about it, and my post was removed. Should anything be done? —KCinDC (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of your warning isn't a problem; as far as we're concerned, we know they saw it. Since the posting of links continued, I've left another warning. Let's see if they want to read (and follow) the guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

216.188.192.218 has a history of being a vandal

Resolved

 – Already warned.--Kralizec! (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They recently vandalized the LHC article. Looking at their history it shows adding smart-ass comments and blanking pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.16.58 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729

The User:Hubschrauber729 has been deleting citations for Israeli footballers religious beliefs and personal life. He tries to use his own interpretation of Wikipedia rules to remove content. He refuses to debate his removal of content and acts as a sort of ruler over any article that I have edited. Even in instances like the Dudu Aouate article and the headlines he caused in Israel for saying he would play on Yom Kippur, the user took off the categories. Secondly, a player like Oshri Roash, whose reference clearly states how visible he has become as Under-21 national team captain and his persistence to be a religious Jew, have been taken off his page. He took down Alon Harazi being the grandson of Holocaust survivors and many other interesting facts that are all cited! He deleted conversation that I put on his talk page and hides behind his own interpretation of Wikipedia law. I am requesting that he not be allowed to touch anything related to the Wikipedia Israel portal since he lacks knowledge of Hebrew and can not even do a simple search for references or citations. He is simply a vandal. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Content dispute, I would suggest; therefore you need to take it to dispute resolution. I might suggest that you also WP:AGF, as the position as outlined by Hubschrauber729 might have some merit in it - the religious beliefs of football/soccer players (certainly those outside of Israel) are not usually notable - for instance, the Roman Catholic country of Italy plays matches on the Sabbath seemingly without comment. Also, it isn't usual for a players parents or grandparents history to be notable (unless the relative was also a player) and I would further suggest that an Israeli citizen being descended from a concentration camp survivor is not (regrettably) so unusual to be notable of itself. I think you need to review WP's guidelines on subject notability and perhaps open a dialogue with Hubschrauber729. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alon Harazi is a Mizrahi Jewish name. It is notable that his grandfather was a holocaust survivor from Poland because it qualifies him for an EU passport and to be listed as an Israeli of Polish descent. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I did try to have a conversation with him but he removes all my comments from his talk page (and labeled it 'crap' in the edit summary) and refuses to have any dialogue! I have no problem debating notability etc. but when someone says that Dela Yampolsky being one of the few non-Jewish players on the Israel U21 side has no relevance, than it shows me that they are unwilling to even debate. -NYC2TLV (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have given Hubschrauber notice of this discussion, and an informal warning regarding the edit summary when reverting you. Let's see what they have to say, if anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All I have been doing is removing the category "Jewish footballers" from articles that don't have information regarding them being Jewish. As far as Dudu Aouate, I must have missed that. Also I thought stating a players religous beliefs was a violation of WP:BLP. Even as Jews being an ethnic group, its sort of hard to differentiate when something says "John Doe is Jewish". And about the edit summary, when someone says they are "stooping to my level" and calling me a vandal, im going to remove it because I believe it is nonsense. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to have to go on a one by one basis, but all these people are ethnically Jewish. You asked for citations and now I am bringing all the citations and adding to their personal life sections details of them participating in active Jewish communal life. So why did you take the categories out on Kfir Edri, Johan Neeskens, Tomer Hemed, Oshri Roash, Dela Yampolsky etc. etc. etc. I am not trying to make these guys Jewish. I routinely take the category out of profiles like Steven Lenhart and post on David Loria's talk page a source that he is not Jewish. -NYC2TLV (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lara Logan gossip

• Page: Lara Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page 6, the gossip column of the New York Post, has reported that Lara Logan, a CBS reporter, is under investigation for taking souvenirs from Iraq. [102]. InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy. He also has included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source and an edit war and that Richard Johnson, the writer, is a reporter. He is a gossip columnist. Please note from the horses mouth:

Richard Johnson, Paula Froelich, Cindy Adams and Liz Smith bring you celebrity gossip from Hollywood to the Hamptons. [emphasis added] from (note the url's use of the word gossip to boot) www.nypost.com/gossip/gossip

Page 6 has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Also, note from this ABC News report that Richard Johnson, a "Gossip Columnist", acknowledges Page 6 payola.[103] To add to the lack of reputation of Page 6, see this article: [104] which states, "Former 'Page Six' Gossip Admits to Making Stuff Up! (For His Novel)". This is gossip. I'm all for adding this information when and if a mainstream source known for fact checking actually reports on this. However, I don't want to edit war on this matter. InaMaka is currently banned for 31 hours because of 3RR violation (his second) -- and please take note of the general tenor of his talk page. I brought this matter up on ANI/BIO at WP:BLPN#Lara Logan gossip but no action was taken. At this point in time, a Wikipedia BLP has the accusation that a) Lara Logan stole and b) is under investigation. The source? A gossip columnist. Isn't this sort of thing what WP:BLP is designed to preclude? Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Six is being sued for another story they ran, and later admitted that they didn't verify the facts: [105] Arakunem^Talk 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They won't let me use blogs to reference the types of music played at baseball parks, so I don't see how they could allow blogs on subjects like this. "Taking souvenirs"? What did they do, forget to pay the sales tax? Next thing, they'll be arresting dead soldiers for taking the "souvenir" of the bullet that killed them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section; the most reliable source was indeed a gossip column. I've also warned the (currently blocked) user InaMaka about BLP violations, and posted a note to Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy. Hopefully that will be the end of the problem. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I am being harassed by both User:Elonka and now, sadly, User:Jehochman who both are trying to identify the IP addresses associated with my account. I encourage someone to look through my contributions to see what I'm talking about (I do not wish to link to the issues here because of the issues I'm currently dealing with external to Wikipedia). I have notified WP:OFFICE of the stalking issues and the relevant page User:Jehochman created, but I'm not sure how to deal with this problem of administrators who have essentially invited people to stalk my IP. Is there anything I can do to get them to stop? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)