Eagle Eye

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

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)

"JIDF Threats" is a self-admitted sockpuppet account which, in their own words, was created in an effort to try to complain about an off-wiki site and to try to connect me to the JIDF - a baseless allegation. I have fully stated my pro-JIDF bias. By doing so, it does not mean that I have anything to do w/ the content on their site. It should be noted that I have fully discussed these issues on my talk page including, but not limited to, my request for checkuser for the account in which I think created this "sock" in order to make these allegations. Is there a better way to request a "checkuser?" I'd like to know as it appears nothing has been done in this case except for this suspected sock puppet thing, despite the fact that, as you can read a precedent had been set in the recent past w/ someone else doing the exact same thing and it appears that the person's sock and master account were indef. blocked. (Or maybe not?) I guess now anyone can create socks in order to try to hide behind baseless allegations and not face any sort of sanctions whatsoever. Personally, I'm happy that the JIDF is paying attention to these double standards and bias in WP and if they are paying attention to all this and do anything on my behalf, I'm thankful, because G-d knows the majority of editors, admins, and Arbcom members haven't done squat except complain about my valid complaints and try to block and threaten to ban me, etc. All of this is discussed on my talk page. Feel free to contribute in an effort toward justice, so the air may be cleared and I can at least TRY to get more involved on WP at a more productive level (which would have happened a long time ago if everyone would have just stopped freaking out on me because I'm a pro-Israel, proud Jew, and a vocal supporter of the organization in question, etc.) Due to complaints about me posting on this board, this is all I want to say here. Please bring it to my talk page if you have any issues with me. I just got out of a block and I'm not looking to start any more trouble. Just wanted to state my piece here and get back to business. Thank you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:43, 8 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)

I fully refuted this bogus claim in a long discussion with Nishidani which people may find on a previous version of my talk page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:15, 8 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)

Just to put in the records, that I also agree with FayssalF proposal above, and all neutral POV that also agreed with the above proposal, neither Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) and may be neither me as well(as I only contribute when I found something far away from facts) are here to build an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is better off without both of us.« PuTTY^SchOOL 07:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of those on the JIDF list I really do not care whether ESD is banned/proscribed/punished/held to account/penalised or not. His edits are minor his knowledge base does not appear large. He is an irrelevancy and should be ignored. Time is better spent on editing and if that doesn't suit ESD and JIDF, I do not care. ESD and JIDF are boring and eminently forgettable...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No Personal attacks there, Mr. Excitement! The size of my knowledge base is my business, thank you. Now run along and pull some more material from Electronic Intifada to continue your quest to make WP as non-neutral as possible, (because that will make you memorable)! --Einsteindonut (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Back up your slur or remove it...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know, every day and every minute it is clear that Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) is not here to build an encyclopedia, but with a tendency to vandalize, can anyone revise the history of this article and tell me what is wrong with the yellow color, especially it is a Wikipedian article « PuTTY^SchOOL 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page for the article, Putty. This is not the place. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No Eddy, it is the right place to show your JIDF method of attacking Wikipedia« PuTTY^SchOOL 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this right here is a perfect example of a reason to lock them both. HalfShadow 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with that. During periods when both parties are blocked, the article sits there, with nobody making any edits. I'd suggest keeping them both blocked for a while, at least from that article, for disruptive editing and incivility. We all have better things to do than monitor those two. --John Nagle (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The drama needs to stop somewhere. Orderinchaos 07:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree, decreasing the number of Wikipedian’s by two in order to enhance Wikipedia is by all means the right decision, especially there are thousands or may be millions of true editors other than both of us. How many new Wikipedian’s join every minute? « PuTTY^SchOOL 08:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how or why my recommendation that he bring up his "point" on the talk page of the Hezbollah article itself (because the AN/I board is not the place for it), is a "perfect reason to lock" us both. Furthermore, peopl are chiming in yet there has been yet another accusation of "vandalism" with no proof offered whatsoever.

One thing is clear though, I came back on here and started editing the Hezbollah article and stayed away from Puttyschool for good reason. Why he had to "wikistalk" me and revert my work is beyond me. It is my hope that people stop wishing for me to be blocked and banned when I am doing my part to stay away from Puttyschool. I do not feel he has made any valuable contribution to this project. I'm not here to edit war. If people stopped having a general problem with me and stopped various allegations, you'd see more editing, contributions, and an effort to bring much more accuracy and NPOV into this project. From my understanding, alleged vandalism is a serious thing here, so it is my hope that you people could address THAT (and the fact that there is absolutely not proof whatsoever) rather than trying to get me blocked and banned, it would be MUCH APPRECIATED. Thank you.--Einsteindonut (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow what a NPOV you are talking about « PuTTY^SchOOL 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the place, and I made far more edits to that article. I don't see the purpose of trying to make that article look "pretty" w/ the yellow, so I took it out. If you have a problem with that edit, then bring it up in the "talk" area of that article, not here. I worked on that article before you did. Since we do not agree nor get along, I'm trying to not work on the same articles as you. If you could do the same, I'd appreciate it. I'm trying to not get blocked and banned and trying to stay away from you and your own biased editing. No one else seems to have a problem with me removing the yellow border. Again, if you have that much of an issue with it, please bring it up in the talk area. I'm pretty sure the admins are sick of us both, so I'm trying to keep my cool, but I find your provocations very annoying.--Einsteindonut (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Staying away from each other is a good idea. But more than that, when you've reached mainspace, actual articles, you have gravitated to contentious topics, and edited in what appears to be a fairly non-neutral way. In at least two cases you've touched off edit or move wars. You might want to consider 'improving an article' and 'countering bias' to be two distinct categories, and work at the former while avoiding the latter. Otherwise, if you persist in turning Wikipedia into a battlefield, you will not be likely to be here for very long. And yes, making an edit intended to make a page less attractive is problematic. Jd2718 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're bringing up cases that happened when I first got here. I have not seen color added to any other article except for the Hezbollah one, and I actually thought it was ugly, which is why I took it out. It looked like an attempt to make the page look pretty, but I did not see it that way. My interest and expertise is in issues of the middle east and actually combating bias in the media. I feel I have a right to work on the articles in which I so choose, but have made an effort to stay away from one editor in particular. If I get blocked or banned again, I will be back and next time I will know how to fly under the radar. I believe improving articles and countering bias are equally important, especially since WP tries to pride itself on "NPOV" - if that is the case, then my POV is much needed here. In fact, it is b/c of my POV in which so many people take issue with me. I have a right to my POV and I believe WP could be far more balanced with it. I'm sorry I'm just not an anti-American/anti-Israel leftist like the majority of editors seem to be. That being said, I'd think pro-American and pro-Israel editors who lean to the right should be more than welcome (if this project truly is interested in NPOV.) I do not work to turn WP into a battlefield. It very much already is and is very obvious. That is why there are terms like "edit warring" in the first place and why there have been so many issues in the past. Why has this thread been up for so long? It really doesn't need to be the very first topic on the AN/I board like this forever. If all this undue attention continues, I can almost smell my new internet connection now. --Einsteindonut (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've watched the ridiculous position at JIDF and seen you misbehave for so long that I'd lost hope in the project dealing with this disruption. As a result, I responded to your ridiculous manifesto at your TalkPage. Seeing that project admin is not toothless after all, please feel free to remove my words "Thankyou for that. Perhaps the rest of us can now go away and work on articles, using only Reliable Sources, to policy.". But I see you've hastily (13 minutes) removed the whole discussion! What a pity to conceal the evidence! PR^talk 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one small comment: I see User:Einsteindonut carefully removing every single unsourced name + quite a few sourced ones in the article Cinema of Palestine. But that the article Cinema of Israel has lots and lots of unsourced names for some reason doesn´t seem to bother him at all! Now, that makes me go "Hmmm". Regards, Huldra (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Results

The uninvolved editors above seem to reflect a strong consensus that Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Puttyschool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been seriously disrupting Wikipedia with their soapboxing and battlefield behavior. I think four or five days of discussion is more than sufficient. Therefore, I am implementing the blocks that FayssalF has suggested. Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I will set these to one year instead of indefinite, and log them at WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman ^Talk 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Einsteindonut has requested unblock and posted a point by point rebuttal on his talk page. I warned ESD more than a month ago[8] and have been watching their behavior ever since. The situation has not changed for the better, in spite of many warnings and chances to improve. Jehochman ^Talk 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It should be both of them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it has to be. HalfShadow 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is both of them. They are each blocked for a year. Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant: neither one should be unblocked. HalfShadow 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I blocked them in the first place. Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettable. But the threats left on the protected version of ED's page does rather confirm his connection to the JIDF. The use of the first person plural is particularly revealing.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and following my post above, ED has sent me this offline "first person plural my ass. i don't even think you're jewish and if anything you were behind the anti-semitic attacks in the first place. it will be fun watching your edits from afar as well." I hope he likes opera and Greek myth.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

ED has "retired" from Wikipedia, leaving behind an angry message. Amusingly, after all the complaints from ED about being "censored", his is the last edit, six days ago. We can probably close this incident. Some minor vigilance for future sockpuppet problems is indicated, but that's about it. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

HornetMan16

Resolved

 – Currently no consensus to lift the ban.--Atlan (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wrestlinglover, no that doesn't help at all. Your talk of your own personal philosophy of forgiveness and punishment of rapists and murderers is highly insensitive and offensive to real victims of crime. And it's also ludicrous. Please point out one rapist or murderer who is punished by banning from a Wikimedia project. Ridiculous. Sarah 08:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Also, you might like to know that no, we're not here to "make this the greatest web site known to man". We're here to build an encyclopedia and anything that gets in the way of doing that is an unnecessary distraction. Sarah 08:14, 9 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)
      • Is he 12-years-old though? If so, why does the opening post say that he's now a "grown man"? Sarah 08:14, 9 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)

• Oppose unban. I don't really care about what happened a year ago as a year is very long time on Wikipedia and it's plenty of time to grow up and mature. However, having looked through his Simple contributions I think he's still very immature and I think overturning the ban at this point would be a bad idea. Sarah 08:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC) And after the feedback he got about him canvasing on Simple for support on this WP ANI discusion, he goes and asks someone else to do that canvasing for him! [9] This dude just doesn't get it. I think either this discussion should be closed and archived by an uninvolved admin as it is now hopelessly corrupted by the user's actions or Simple user's comments need to be discounted. Sarah 08:20, 9 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)

Well, what have we got to lose? He knows apparently that he has no right to expect an un-banning anytime at all. We allow him to return on our terms (I think iMatthew's proposal is sound) and if he does not want it, he can decline it. And if he does accept it and then breaks it, we can tighten the leash to strangle him, to stay within the metaphor. No matter what happens, there is nothing to lose. If he starts again what lead to his ban, then he will be instantly re-banned. So, again, imho we have got nothing to lose from unbanning him with strict probation. SoWhy 22:07, 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)

Oppose. I don't think he has enough experience yet. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yup, good idea. We should try hard to get him to stay as close to article space as possible. I'd be happy to offer some mentorship to him as well, and I'd start off by working on a few articles with him. He needs to be eased back in slowly. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, never

See this.

"I'm retiring since No one really cares. I started editing regularly here to improve the wrestling articles here and most importantly to me rub it in enWP's face that I could change..I have spent a year here and nothings changed...everyone still HATES me on enWP. I've really done nothing more than waste my time here....it makes me cry looking at those comments. I was looking forward to possibly getting a 18th birthday present of unbannishment but instead I got spat in my face. I figure I better retire here while I'm ahead."

Strongly oppose any mentoring or anything after that. Daniel (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I think he was just saying that because he got his hopes up and then it looked like all hope was over, He's just told me that he likes the idea. SteelersFan94 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I care little. We should never be letting this immature editor back. Daniel (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel... you already stated your opinion above. Is it really necessary to rub it in? Just trying to keep the heat down. -- how do you turn this on 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What would it take from CM back in now? SteelersFan94 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything. He's shown himself totally unsuitable to fitting in with the community. Daniel (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote from CM: Tell Daniel he's got a bad attitude. Now Alison thinks he could come back, and she's the blocking admin and has been in contact with him the most recently and even she agrees he's changed. SteelersFan94 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell Hornetman16 he has a bad attitude, as proven by the fact he was banned from the English Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Daniel, I wouldn't disagree with him much, honestly. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And for full disclosure, you're another editor from Simple. I'm seeing a pattern emerging. Daniel (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, Daniel, I'm not just "another editor from Simple." I am an administrator there and an active user here. By this "pattern," you mean the overtaking over Simple Wikipedia? For goodness sakes. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Allowing sockpuppeteers to return and edit legitimately only serves to degrade other legitimate users, and it also weakens the community spirit and determination to fight vandalism of all sorts from all fronts. Call me prejudiced, but I adamantly refuse to be associated with this sockpuppeteer. To me, he will always be a vandal, never a real user. Once bitten, twice shy. No matter what he does on other encyclopedias, this user is not a contributing user. Never was, certainly not now, and never will be. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to have to say this, but Simple is a project of about 20-something mostly (not all) disaffected and banned EN users who are trying to get unbanned here, so being an admin there really doesn't mean much here. Also, in the spirit of "admin = no big deal", your being an admin there is irrelevant; you are "just another editor from Simple," just as Daniel is "just another editor from EN WP" (and frequently gets told that whenever he posts to Simple). Sarah 08:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with that characterization. The notion that "most users" on Simple are banned from the English Wikipedia is greatly overexaggerated. As far as I know, Jonas D. Rand (Ionas68824), ChristianMan16 (Hornetman16), ShockingHawk/StaticFalcon (ThePageChanger), and SwirlBoy39 (was later unbanned) are frequent Simple users banned on en. Possibly more. On the other hand, everyone else is in good standing on en: Giggy, Tholly, Kennedy, American Eagle, RyanCross, Creol, Eptalon, The Rambling Man (b'crat and admin on en), Isis (Isis4563 on en), Cassandra (??? on en), Majorly, Gwib, Fr33kman, Swatjester, Chenzw, and Tdxiang, from just the "most active" list. That's 16/19 unbanned en users. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, Hb, but "mostly (not all) disaffected and banned EN users" is very different to "Most users on Simple are banned from the English Wikipedia". Some of the people you mention ARE disaffected here (heck, I sometimes count myself as a disaffected EN user) and some I wouldn't exactly count as regular Simple editors. Swat, for example, has made less than 250 edits there in 8 months. And there are others. Adding to your tally of banned EN users going to Simple, is also Nathan Noblet. Sarah 22:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Swat may be relatively new but he's shooting for getting simple:Sniper up to a good article status, so I counted him as an active user. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, what a sweeping generalization, Sarah. Please retract those comments. Yes, there's a handful of banned users, but some of the most respected and, may I say it, best editors from English Wikipedia work there (examples The Rambling Man, Giggy, Tdxiang, Isis, Phaedriel etc) and of course people like Eptalon and Creol, both checkusers and bureaucrats. Your comment is degrading to those who work hard on Simple. It's not mostly "disaffected and banned EN users" at all, and being an admin there is the same as it is here, and anywhere else. -- how do you turn this on 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing out the trend of Simple Wikipedians supporting this user being unbanned, with the converse pattern for non-Simple Wikipedians. I believe it correlates with Simple's decreased community inclusion standards and increased acceptance of social networking, relative to the English Wikipedia. That's why it's relevant. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because we know and trust him. You guys don't, but that should be changed. -- American Eagle (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, American Eagle. Do YOU know the background of each and every one of these editors? For all we know, they may have a reason why they don't trust him, such as reviewing his contribs shortly before banning, or being personally involved with some of his sockpuppet cases, yet you act like as if their reasons don't matter or that they are invalid, and that the SEW's opinions matter more. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

American Eagle, I also find it, funny, here, that you use your status as an SEW administrator as leverage in this debate on enWP. Whereas, in the Razorflame 9 fiasco, you simply relied on SEW contributions [10] to try to discount the recent rash of opposers that had effectively sunk the ninth bid, ignoring the fact that four of the five "new" opposers were enWP administrators, or in the case of Daniel, also the chair of the Mediation Committee (as pointed out by Creol). hbdragon88 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what "status" someone has. It's the relevance of their comments here that is what matters. Whether AE is an admin on Simple, or whether Daniel is medcom chair has nothing to do with anything. -- how do you turn this on 10:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Daniel here. You can't commit the amount of sockpuppetry he has and then get so surprised that people aren't going to be annoyed at letting you back. Even then, if you are serious about getting back, stand up and actually respond to criticism like an adult. To get that emotional about what people on an internet encyclopedia are saying about you is just immature. Better he act like that now than when he first faces criticism somewhere here. Also, looking at his simple edits, I really don't see a whole lot of interaction with others (on article contributions not on user space). He hasn't even edited a talk page since July. I really don't care about people's article space edits so much as talk space. We've blocked great contributors who refuse to civilly talk about anything. The discussions are an most important part of this project. And frankly, the fact that he felt the need to go to the main talk page to announce his retirement concerns me. I wouldn't feel like making a post at Talk:Main or here that I'm retiring, for whatever reason. Maybe it's different but that's just odd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

On the third hand, the fact that he is just eighteen years old implies that his maturity can be expected to increase significantly going forward, which in turn implies that he may yet return to constructive contributions in the future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

His latest act of melodrama over on simple wikipedia shows he certainly hasn't done much maturing in the past year.--Atlan (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, when we talk about 'unbanning" him, I and Aaron both know that that doesn't mean that your going to just turn him loose and do what ever, He and I both know that he has to prove himself, and there's only one way to do that, give him a one month trial, and if he does good let him stay. SteelersFan94 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hbdragon88, you'd have an excellent point, but it is different. All the users I stated (as far as edits) were users who came over from English without any prior experience. That is different with this case. I have 1,425+ edits here, Shapiros10 has 4860+, Steelerfan-94 has 1535+, and Alison has 33180+. It's very different. Steelerfan-94, that is also my point. -- American Eagle (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, being an outsider here, I want to know what he has done. I know he sock-puppeted, and was disruptive here, but what is keeping him from returning? I mean, I really want to see him succeed. He's proven himself to me, and I grown much trust for him. But I know the ChristianMan who has worked hard to Simple Wikipedia, not the sock-puppeteer you all know. Please, can you give the problems you have with him - I'd like to know what is yet keeping him from returning to edit here. Thank you. -- American Eagle (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a fair question, on the principle that as this was a community decision it does need scrutiny, and if the strength of opinion of people whom I trust is any indication, the diffs and evidence and backstory to this are probably sitting around somewhere. (I'm also an outsider, for the record.) The question from those people seems to be (and I may have misinterpreted) whether on en, where he is likely to encounter more opposition, he is likely to behave as constructively as he has at simple. Orderinchaos 07:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Allowing sockpuppeteers to return and edit legitimately only serves to degrade other legitimate users, and it also weakens the community spirit and determination to fight vandalism of all sorts from all fronts. Call me prejudiced, but I adamantly refuse to be associated with this sockpuppeteer. To me, he will always be a vandal, never a real user. Once bitten, twice shy. No matter what he does on other encyclopedias, this user is not a contributing user. Never was, certainly not now, and never will be. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please let's just give him a one month trial. He has learned from his mistakes, he's smart enough not to do anything disruptive again, he knows that this is his last chance. I agree he should be on a leash so short, and his edit's should be reviewed after the one month trial obviously. And he wanted me to say this: "I think everyone should be aware that I have a mental illness called Bipolar disorder. I have other sicknesses that I have listed on my Simple English Wikipedia user page. Please mention them on WP:ANI." SteelersFan94 23:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate he has illnesses, but it doesn't mean we make an exception for him. I don't agree to a one month trial. His contributions (on Simple) during this whole discussion have confirmed my opinion on this. He needs to stay away for longer, and come back once he's grown up. -- how do you turn this on 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He needs to never come back. If there was a consensus for a Global Wiki ban, I would have recommended it for the user in question here. And given how SteelersFan94 is advocating for this sockpuppeteer so fervently, I would have good reason to suggest that them two are colluding in some plot against Wikipedia as well. Alas, WP:AGF does not allow me to do that. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Never is a bit harsh I think. I'll be willing to change my mind if I saw evidence of him acting like a rational individual. I don't see anything like that though. People do grow up and change though. -- how do you turn this on 00:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: illnesses - as an occasional supporter of and reporter to SANE's StigmaWatch, and as someone with several friends with bipolar and ADHD, I get more than a tad annoyed when behaviour like this gets blamed on bipolar disorder. On looking at the Simple userpage, he only claims to have ADHD, allergies and asthma. People should accept responsibility for their own actions and try not to stigmatise others who have the exact same conditions and can edit in good faith. Orderinchaos 06:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Abusive sock-puppetry

Hi Steelerfan-94,

This is basically what I wished to discuss with you in email. On the 8th of May, you created two Confirmed sockpuppet accounts User:HornetFather19 and User:HornetUncle. There are also others. My questions are 1) why did you do that, and why specifically did you want banned editor User:Hornetman16 to take the blame, 2) why exactly should I not indefinitely block your account right now for abusive sock-puppetry? It bothers me enough that you were socking, but that you were doing it to ensure someone else was blamed, well .... - Alison ❤ 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC) This is why. I owe it to him! SteelersFan94 01:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Steelerfan-94, please do not post private emails to a public forum like WP:ANI without the sender's permission - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not, it' from my talk page. And I'm making me tea and cookies. I'll pick back up on this tomorrow. SteelersFan94 01:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll simply confirm it came verbatim from this diff, upon a quick investigation. Orderinchaos 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to unban Hornetman to ease your guilty conscience.--Atlan (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

By now this thread is only becoming a drama magnet and a lousy attempt to clean a user's image. We already have what is being asked for here, consensus has been established before and the current result is leaning the same way. For the sake of avoiding more HM related drama lets leave it here and close the thread, otherwise we will continue seeing rants and "melancholic" posts trying to play the system. Enough is enough. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think this one should go to the archives. Orderinchaos 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, isn't it? All this drama was initiated by a sock puppeteer/advocate of a sock puppeteer/crusader against drama on Wikipedia... GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not why I'm doing it. No one here new I did it so what "image" did I need to redeem? And the reason I did it was because I knew/know that he's changed. Besides what's one month to see if he's changed? SteelersFan94 14:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there actually any admins who are even willing to entertain the idea of unblocking him? I interacted with him plenty of times during his stay here and saw nothing promising. Unless there is an admin seriously considering unblocking him, it's time to close this and move on with life. --B (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As it is clear there is no consensus right now to lift the ban, I've marked the issue resolved.--Atlan (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI

Resolved

 – User blocked for 31 hours. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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. [11], [12]. And has been pushing his POV on the noticeboard [13]. 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.[14][15][16] 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 [17], 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)

And I could understand an editor exploding or having an outburst who though I was provoking them, but the repeated nature of the harassing tags and threats on my talkpage even after repeatedly asking them to stop is consistent with a pattern of harassment and intimidation, not someone ignoring the rules once because I pissed them off. CENSEI (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI, warnings are an attempt to deter a user from continued bad behavior. If you actually read them and took them in, we wouldn't be here time and time again. Grsz^X 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DTTR. CENSEI (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP violations continue: [18], [19], [20]. 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)

How dare I bring to the attention the fact that you made 10 clearly questionable content reverts on one article in 36 hours .... the nerve! CENSEI (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, how dare you try to get an editor blocked for reverting BLP violations and NPOV violations RS violations and then attacking the editors who call you out on it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If I called refrigerator a dog, would it play fetch with me .... calling something a BLP violation doesnt make it so. NPOV violations are very much in the eye of the beholder and dont immunize Scjessy from the 3RR, or in his case 10RR rule. CENSEI (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

But what they are violations, it's kinda different. You've been told this. Please stop playing dumb. Grsz^X 02:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As the only explanation that anyone has tried to offer for why they were BLP violations were not only few and far between but also bordering on ridiculous to down right fabricated you repeating a baseless charge really does little to change my mind. CENSEI (talk) 13:26, 8 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.

• [21] Here he makes accusations at AN3 in an attempt to divert attention from the violation.

• How dare I question the motivations of a 3RR report. Anyone who does that is clearly gaming the system[22][23][24]. What was the disposition of that 3RR by the way? CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [25] Makes an attack.

• Wikidemon had no right to remove my comments from the 3RR page [26]. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• They were trolling and personal attacks. He had every right to do so. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thats certainly seems to be your opinion and you are entitled to it, but remeber what they say about opinons and that other thinkg and how they all smell just about as bad. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• [27] Calls warnings by neutral users spam and trolling.

• Judging by Eric cotnributions here and elsewhere, he is hardly neutral. And after all, like my man Sjessey says, sometimes you just gotta rm BS from POV-pusherCENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral does not mean "agreeing with you". Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• No but neutral would certainly indicate that you dont have any conflict of interest here or a prior editing conflict with me. Oh yeah, that neutral. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• [28] Uncivil comments.

• It would nt be the first time Wikidemon has misrepresented someone in an attempt to get them blocked, and as I told him, If he thought I violated 3RR he should have filed a seperate complaint. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [29] Again uncivil and confrontational.

• Right, compeletely uncalled for .. right along with the comments calling me "childish and immature" and Eric's declaration that he was "ashamed to have you as my Wikipedia co-editor". CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Your attacks dripping sarcasm toward other editors are indeed childish and immature. I haven't heard anyone say those kinds of things toward other people since high school. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you. but naturally, you had a good reason for your incivility. A reason so good that I could never reach that bar. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• [30] Describes others attempts to warn him about his behavior as "borderline harrassment."

• Its my talkpage and If I dont want harrassing and threating messages there, it is my right to remove them, just as others do. [31] CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• You shouldn't remove recent warnings from your talkpage, so that reviewing editors can see whether or not you have been warned for your actions. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• its not gone permanently, a link to the differences can be provided. It would also seem to conflict with WP:DTTR. CENSEI (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• [32] Claims that he is being "bullied" into edit warring.

• An interesting interpretation of that to be sure. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [33] Uncivl accusations.

• More like accusations of incivility made in a civil manner. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [34] Inserts BLP-violating material with no consensus.

• Do show me where this concensus exists. You refer to it so often that it should not be difficult to find. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [35] Undoes a revert of above and labels it "vandalism".

• After all, no one else has labeled a content revert as undoing vandalsim. [36] CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Borders on vandalism. CENSEI, labeling a living person who has not even been brought charges against a murderer is vandalism. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Didnt label anyone a murderer guy, only repeated an allegation from a reliable source that the above mentioned was involve din a murder. I suppose that means your characterization of the above borders on a distortion. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• [37] Another bad BLP edit,

• Once again, show me the concensus that material from the book: “Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen” by Frank Reagan is a BLP violation. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• [38] and revert.
• [39] Opens a bad report at AN3 in an attempt to game the board and detract attention from his actions.

• No one had called attention to my actions, and if the reprot was 'really bad then the earlier ones filed agains Norton and Berdov were "bad" as well. Or does this "bad" reprot filing only apply to some editors? CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't disrupt a 3RR report with personal attacks against other editors, again. And don't impugn my honesty. If I see an editor pass 3RR in a way that disrupts an article, and who not heed a caution to stop, I will file a 3RR report again. It is utterly uncalled for to call me names for that or accuse me of plotting anything. 3RR is an electric fence to prevent undue article reverts. That is what it is there fore. You edit warred against three other editors who were removing your hostile attempts to interfere. If you do it again, someone will likely remove it again, and you are running very close to a long-term block or topic ban.

• What you call a "personal attack" I call pointing out the obvious. But then again your condemnation for disrupting a 3RR report probably only goes so far. [40] [41]. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, CENSEI's abuse of 3RR filings is another problem. I see he's filed six or so in the past month and a half, all weak, some clearly in bad faith, and all sneak attacks on editors he has been edit warring against. Now I understand where he dreams up the accusations he makes about other people on the 3RR board. This is rather abusive. So to CENSEI, do not do that again either. No abusing WP:ANI/3RR either to file bogus reports or to disrupt legitimate ones. And please don't insult our patience by claiming that other editors are doing the same thing. Wikidemon (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• "six or so in the past month and a half", more like 4, so there is one lie of yours that’s easily enough dispensed with. And how many have been filed against me and Noroton that have come to nothing? Or shouldn’t I mention that because it makes you look like a grade A hypocrite. CENSEI (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• What an utterly obnoxious, horrible attitude here, accusing me of lying and hypocrisy. I won't bother looking at the diffs. I'm probably right but who cares? It's not even worth responding to this kind of trolling. I see no point dealing further with this editor. I should not have to deal with this nonsense as a cost of editing Wikipedia, and I will not. If administrators will not ban or block this editor, the community ought to deal with him without administrative tools. Revert any disruption, delete any incivility, and do not let him poison things here further.Wikidemon (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI's actions need checked. He's been blocked [42] 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)

I've got only a little time, so I clicked on a couple of diffs above, and, sure enough, it's bullshit. The two I clicked on were edits that called Bernardine Dohrn a terrorist. She was a terrorist. The reliable sources are there, even in one of the edits cited (and the other was in a lead paragraph and didn't necessarily need a citation). It's not only bullshit, it's tiring bullshit. But I expect this will be over in four weeks. Just watch where you step. -- Noroton (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah is a terrorist, nobody will argue that. Yet does his article state that he is? No. We don't use the word terrorist, it's as simple as that. Grsz^X 02:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Run Run Rudolph, its is simple as that. CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Because that's the model stable article, right? Want me to go change it? Grsz^X 02:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, nearly every version of that article for the past 24 months describes him as a terrorist ..... I wonder whats different here ..... hmmm .... let me think about that one for a while. CENSEI (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got no dog in this fight, but to claim that Wikipedia doesn't "use the word terrorist" is just plain silly. And for the record, Ziad Jarrah is in Category:Lebanese terrorists, a subcategory of the well-populated Category:Terrorists by nationality. — Satori Son 18:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why CENSEI isn't blocked as a username violation. Is there a reason he's allowed to edit under the name of a company??? Sarah 00:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whodathunkit. I didnt even know CENSEI was the name of a company. CENSEI (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

He's a Navy guy, and in the Navy, CENSEI supposedly stands for "CENter for Systems Engineering and Integration". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Close, its a nickname someone gave me. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeh, that's a pretty common nickname. I used to get called that a lot before they settled on "Bugsy". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Baseball Bugs. I didn't realise it had a naval meaning. Sarah 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

One way to look at it is that Ayers and Dohrn "played" at being terrorists. Rudolph really was a terrorist. The former are university professors and the latter is a convicted murderer sitting a cell for life, so there ya are. Maybe it's only good luck that Ayers and Dohrn never killed anyone (that we know of). But they changed their ways, and Rudolph didn't. The worst you can say is that Ayers and Dohrn are former terrorists, which sounds rather silly if you think about it. "Terrorist" is a political term, so it can only be used if reliable sources use it. Wikipedians can't assign that label by themselves without violating POV policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

CENSEI has now filed a malicious 3RR report against Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Please, someone, anyone, review this. The 3RR report is laughable, with each edit being utterly unrelated to the next, and this is just after another 3RR against Scjessey resulted in sharp words for CENSEI. This needs to stop immediately. It's highly disruptive wikigaming. --GoodDamon 02:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I closed it. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The last one filed against Lulu wasnt deemed malicious and it did have merit although it turned out to be stale. But by all means, I encourage any uninvolved admin to look into Lulu's edit warring. It almost seems as if editors like GoodDamon think that if they can whine loud enough about legitimate 3RR reports then they wil limmunize themselves from them .... well not on my watch ladies. CENSEI (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The one you most recently posted looked more like a fishing trip. I examined the diffs and saw no violation by Lulu. And, as a side, I am an uninvolved administrator. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI just fails to understand that continuous reversion of contentious BLP and POV material does not result in a 3RR violation, nor does removing POV material that CENSEI agrees with. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the threshold before enough is enough? The incivility is an unnecessary pox here - we're not here for our health, and having our efforts undermined and being repeatedly called names substantially degrades the experience of contributing to the encyclopedia. That in turn hurts our productivity and makes the encyclopedia a worse one to read, not just a worse place to be. I do not see any recent productive editing from this editor - other than deleting two negative statements about Dick Cheney he has devoted nearly all of his attention to fighting other editors, whether by launching administrative procedures, opposing others' administrative procedures, adding and edit warring over disputed content, or contentiously removing others' content. Nowhere do I see an article cleaned up, expanded, improved, etc. The editor is not even on good behavior now that he is under scrutiny here. Lately he seems to be wikistalking perceived opponents, filing reports on them and reverting their edits. Called on serial filing of questionable and/or bad faith 3RR reports he goes out and files another one one the same editor out of a grudge. Questioned on civility, the taunts and insults only increase here on this page. Questioned on edit warring, this editor unashamedly launches into one edit war after another on POV-related content while we are discussing the very issue.[43][44][45][46] (this is just the past day or so - one can go as far back in the contribution history as one wants and find a similar pattern). Wikidemon (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm really tempted to throw him to an admin with an itchy trigger finger because of his belligerence - he's contesting my rejection of his newest 3RR report for, what I can gather, no other reason than to get it reversed. I'm not about to keel over to him. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the two axioms about disruptive editors: "Why are you still messing with this guy?" The guy is begging for a lengthy block. Why deny him that? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not to block people I'm talking with unless they're clearly trolling. Appealing a decision is not trolling in and of itself. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm an optimist and hope that a warning will suffice. I can count on one hand the number of relatively long-term editors I've asked to have blocked, and still have room for five fingers. I think perhaps CENSEI's POV is enough of a factor that s/he should be encouraged to edit in other articles, but even though I'm the one who asked for admin attention, I'd really prefer blocking to be considered a last resort. --GoodDamon 04:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of a lengthy topic ban at the very least, per the probation for articles related to Obama. CENSEI's disruption continues at Bill Ayers, with "tag team" edit-warring and incivility on the talk page. Previous blocks have not curbed this editor's disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well considering that you have again violated 3RR on Bill Ayers (oh I know, they were all "blatant BLP violations"), I would argue that its you who need a time out for edit warring. I have made exactly 2 edits today, and none of the reveision. CENSEI (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Page protected Bill Ayers, since it looks like edit warring between multiple users. --slakr^\ talk / 19:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help us. There is no need for article protection. We have consensus on what to do about "terrorism" across these articles - we just came off a month-long RfC on the subject. CENSEI is continuing to edit war across multiple articles, disregarding the consensus (or in his view, the lack of consensus, which produces the same result) not to associate various living people with terrorism. He just got the Bill Ayers article fully-protected and is edit warring against the RfC result on the Weatherman (organization) as well. I think we're done here. The RfC is the last collaborative step in the dispute process, and he is not respecting the result. CENSEI is not tenable as an editor on these articles, period. After all of the above he simply will not stop. It appears he will not quit until someone forces him to do so. Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Would one editor saying that another editors edits is nothing like taking a shit on policy and consensus qualify as incivility? CENSEI (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering he's referring to your edits, it sounds more like an apt description. HalfShadow 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! That's gotta hurt! >:) Beware of crushing a CENSEItive ego. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In a case like this, I'd rather be CENSEable. HalfShadow 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a CENSEItional idea BMW(drive) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey look at that, everone gets to be an asshole around here! Neat-o! CENSEI (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good to see that through all this brouhaha, you've retained your CENSEI of humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And the best part about all of this is the concensus that the editors have been droning on about is the exact poopsite of how it actually went down! Imagine my suprise to see it taken out of context. CENSEI (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...'Poopsite'? *cough* HalfShadow 02:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin attention still needed

This editor continues to be highly disruptive. It appears the individual is now watching the contributions of a group of editors who have complained about his/her behavior and is reverting the edits they are making - often with misleading or rude edit summaries, and even removing warnings left on other editors' talk pages. A topic ban is essential, and a lengthy block is desirable. Administrator apathy on this issue is perplexing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's apathy, so much as exhaustion. This particular user keeps opening fishing 3RR reports and incidents on other editors, and those take a lot of work to clean up. Give it time, I don't doubt this will attract attention soon enough. --GoodDamon 11:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... I hate to bring this up, but CENSEI is trying to edit in a BLP violation in the Obama article again. Of note is his 2nd revert here; the edit summary reads "a school can be "Islamic" without being a madrassa, I quoted this strait from the article." But nothing of the sort appears in the cited news story, a debunking of the notion by CNN from early in 2007. CENSEI knows this is false, and yet has twice (so far) tried to insert the BLP violation as if the ref supports it. I'm sorry, but I'm beginning to hesitantly move in the direction of supporting a topic ban or block. This has to stop, and it has to stop now. --GoodDamon 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaand, he just hit 3RR. --GoodDamon 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Three reverts in 24 hours is the limit of acceptability. If CENSEI reverts again, please report it at WP:3RR. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again with the lies Damon, when will you learn that people can actually, you know, check into these things and dont have to rely solely on your word for them. CENSEI (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. --GoodDamon 17:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR is the guideline, but if he's playing the "3 reverts every day" game, then that's against the rules, as it's "gaming the system". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to apply this standard to everyone, but somehow, I dont think that would fly. CENSEI (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The revisions are these.[47][48][49] Utter disregard for this AN/I, article probation, consensus, NPOV, etc. Do we have consensus for a community ban from the Obama pages? Wikidemon (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Regretfully. I really don't like supporting this. But we've moved beyond absurdity. --GoodDamon 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Now he's going to start hollering at us for CENSEIrship...) HalfShadow 17:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Without having to read the whole megillah, I take it this CENSEI guy is trying to be a crusader for Rush Limbaugh and his relentless smears and fearmongering about Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... Since the contributions could basically be described as RezkoAyersAlinskySecretMuslim(repeat x1000)... I'd say that's a fair summary. --GoodDamon 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First let me apologize that I don’t worship at the altar of our new Obamessiah ... I am sure that if elected I will follow the law of the land and pay homage no less than 6 times a day, while facing 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, to our newly crowned demigod. Leaving that be for the moment, when have I mentioned Rezko, Alinsky or secret muslim? I know that lying about other editors has become second nature for you Damon, but do you have any links to support this? I wont hold my breath. CENSEI (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like CENSEI pretty much does that already, between Bush and Limbaugh, so he will have had plenty of practice. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Marvellous. Clear proof of bias along with a veiled personal attack against a user. Why hasn't he been blocked yet?) HalfShadow 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And introducing the claim that he went to a "Muslim" school, while citing an article that asserts it was not a radical school, while leaving out the part that it's also a public school, not a Muslim school as such, is a fairly sneaky way of trying to slip this smear in. Kind of like those who try to put "Jewish" in the lead of every public figure that's Jewish, even if there's nothing about their public life that has anything to do with Judaism. That character needs to go and take his right-wing POV somewhere else. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is strait from the article ladies and gentilmen,

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10. [50]

so lets dispense with the lies about what is an did not in the article please. Edit warring to exclude perfectly valid and well sourced material is just as bad as any bullshit (in this case) BLP violation. CENSEI (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Perfectly valid" and "well-sourced" does not necessarily mean it must be included. It must also pass WP:WEIGHT (particularly with this being a summary style article). There is also a question about whether or not it is even relevant, since Obama is a Christian (for a quarter of a century). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, its good to see that you have dropped the BLP canard. As for relevancy, I'll deal with that on the talk page.

As an aside, doesn’t anyone find it a little bit worrying that these editors would edit war so vigorously over one word in the article, which even by Scjessey's admission above, does not violate BLP or any other policy? CENSEI (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that removing a BLP violation that has been debunked multiple times via bulletproof reliable sources on a high profile article that is under article probation (where YOU must get consensus to add) is not edit warring, it's adhering to the policies of wikipedia. Stirring the pot on these long dead and debunked "controversies" is disruptive. --guyzero | talk 19:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As Scjessy said above, this aint a BLP issue, so you can put a fork in that one. CENSEI (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the kind. You are misrepresenting what I said - another one of your disruptive tactics. --

Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 31 hours. Now we can get some work done. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Irony

Kinda ironic he is accusing others of whitewash, when he flat out removed an entire section of sourced information from an article on a Republic congressman. Grsz^X 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs for disruption

CENSEI started going on yet another article ( Steve King ) after final warnings against disruption by myself and another administrator. I've blocked him for 31 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh CENSEItional. HalfShadow 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he is removing any comments from editors he doesn't like on his unblock request. Any editor can comment on an unblock request. He is attacking others and removing their responses. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Technically that's allowed. Just look at it this way: He's well on his way to digging himself so deep a hole, he'll get out faster by digging down. HalfShadow 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 21:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that issue - yes, he's allowed to remove those comments, and please don't beat up on him for doing so 8-) We expect blocked users to be grumpy and vent.

I am concerned that he's going to be further disruptive when the block expires, but WP:AGF applies and working cooperatively to try to get him to understand what he did that got him blocked is appropriate, which I'm trying to do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 10 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)

It seems to me that when there is specific published RS controversy about his religious beliefs in relation to his field of notability, that the material is relevant. Whether religion is relevant otherwise i think depends on the degree of notability; ditto for grandparents--for really notable public figures we do seem to include that sort of information, but not routinely for everyone with an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Being Jewish doesn't mean that it is your religion. It is an ethnicity too, and most articles on Wikipedia note the person's ethnicity. Everyone from Sacha Baron Cohen to Jordan Farmar are noted for being ethnically Jewish, even if they don't believe in it. So naturally, Category:Jewish footballers from Israel should be noted too. -NYC2TLV (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this conflict a symptom of a wider problem with our categories? Category:People by race or ethnicity and all its subcategories (such as, potentially, Category:Catalan world citizens) is an invitation to label as many BLPs in this manner as possible. At least it will be read as such by a large number of editors. As a result, statements about ethnicity (possibly sourced) will be added to many articles where they don't belong. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't just debating the use of the categories but also the user's preference to consider Jews only to be a religious group. The user targets specific articles but remains silent on pages he edits of footballers of Turkish descent ala Ramazan Ozcan etc. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jews for the context of a WP article or category are people who self-identify as jews in any meaning of the word they personally care to use. We should no more argue tis than about the actual racial identity of someone who self-identifies as Black, or the particular sexual preferences of someone who calls himself gay. . In the extremely rare case where it actually is relevant to an article there will be sources discussing it. In my experience, people here or elsewhere who get involved with wether a person fits or does not fit into an ethnic or similar category are either trying to make a POINT, or are indulging unproductively in gossip. . DGG (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't even true. Jews in Wikipedia aren't just those who self-identify as Jews, but also Jews who are considered Jewish according to halakha, ala Bobby Fischer. I am only trying to apply the category to those who the category should be applied to. By applying Category:Jewish footballers to an Israeli footballer who is indeed Jewish, I don't think I am trying to make a point. The user we were talking about is claiming that it has no relevance whatsoever. Even if they are black, or Jewish or Asian, according to Hubschrauber729, it has no value or purpose and shouldn't be on their profile. -NYC2TLV (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have a resolution? The user is still targeting every contribution that I make to Wikipedia. -NYC2TLV (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

This section has been blanked as part of the compromise close at this MfD; it is available in the history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Signature/timestamp for archiving: Daniel (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greasemonkey script

I've been using this for a while now.

//Greasemonkey can't seem to be able to access the embedded variables such as wgUserName
//unless you do this. This make it easy to tell if you're logged in, much simpler than 
//checking the edit token.
var cdata = eval(document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0].innerHTML);

//This punts you to the login page if you try to make an anon edit.
if(wgAction=="edit" && wgUserName==null) location.href = wgServer + wgScript +
    "?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=" + wgPageName;

— CharlotteWebb 13:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I should remind everyone that there is already a big difference in the editing screen between a logged in user and not-logged in user which should hopefully alert you what's happening Nil Einne (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It never alerts me. :( Protonk (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I rarely fail to notice as my preferences are set to a different 'skin'. People could try setting their preferences to a different skin (appearance of the screen). Sticky Parkin 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my version: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/7209. It disables the save button if you're not logged in. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Use unsafeWindow. --slakr^\ talk / 20:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:IRDT

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive481#Questionable Username
• IRDT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IReceivedDeathThreats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I re-blocked User:IRDT, this time indefinitely. His 24-hour block expired, and the first edit he made was to go back to his old User Talk page and start in on the "death threat" stuff again. He then started agitating on Mangojuice's user talk page about the block on his old name [51] [52]. Clearly, this is not what was meant by coming back with a new user name and being a good editor.

As I pointed out in the archived thread linked above, the patience of the community is not inexhaustable, and tying up our time, energy, and resources arguing with someone who seems to be here only to make some utterly inexplicable point and engage in Wikidrama is disruptive and unproductive to the community. --MCB (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the block, this is pointy to the extreme. Between these two accounts, they've been active for two-and-a-half years, and only have 122 edits to the mainspace. Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a need for this block. I didn't agree with the original username block, and I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the "agitating" on Mangojuice's talk page. Even if the community decides he can't have his original name, I see no reason to not give him a chance with the abbreviated version. His behavior hasn't been great, but I can understand why he'd be annoyed with recent events. --Onorem♠Dil 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We did give him another chance, twice. First by permitting him to use a new account without a provocative username, but essentially all of the edits from that new account were either to make grievances about admins, talk about his old username, talk about "death threats", or argue. He was then indef-blocked (not by me) and then that block was shortened to 24 hours, with the idea that when he returned we would see if he would move on from contentious editing and start contributing. Unfortunately, that did not occur, and his first edit was to reconstruct the provocative, chip-on-shoulder user page for his username-blocked account. Further edits did not demonstrate moving on, either. So, yes, he's had plenty of chances. --MCB (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since other people expressed the idea that the block may not have been good, both on this page and his talk page, it's understandable that he'd like to clear that subject up before moving on. --Onorem♠Dil 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see a problem with the original username. How about ISeeDeadPeople ... is that bad? If the person actually received a death threat recently, I would expect they're more than sensitive about things, especially if the "authorities" didn't handle the death threat well. As I said before, they are opening themselves up to questions whether they insist or not, plus they will get the "IRecieveTelemarketingCallsAtDinner" "jokes", like it or not. BMW(drive) 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The original name was discussed exhaustively both here and at WP:RFCN. The issue was not the inherent inappropriateness of such a name (unlike those that are obscene phrases, attacks on religious or ethnic groups, threats to hack/vandalize Wikipedia, etc.) but that it was disruptive as used by the user, who made multiple and difficult-to-understand references to death threats, demanded attention on his user page, etc.. He has continued that line of editing with his new username. Believe me, if he had not made provocative and pointy edits with that username, and if someone had asked him about it and the answer was something like "oh, it's an old band name" or similar, there would be no issue. But instead it was used to stir up Wikidrama. --MCB (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The "exhaustive" discussion at RFCN lasted 2 hours, and I didn't see a consensus in the previous ANI discussion that the username was a clear problem. --Onorem♠Dil 23:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to follow this one...this block is pretty inappropriate. I mean - essentially the only thing he is guilty of is having his block lifted. Especially when - as he states - he was given permission to have the language on his page. So...he's told it's okay to do it. He does it. When he does it, he's blocked... --Smashville^talk 23:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(resent indent) Lucasbfr's comments were extremely unfortunate. First, he removed the unblock decline message of a longtime admin (Sandstein) and replaced them with a poorly-phrased "permission" to do something which was one of the things that got the user blocked in the first place. Nevertheless, that "permission" surely did not refer to the blocked account but to the new one. And "You can state what it means to you on your userpage" does not mean repeating the whole provocative business about death threats and instructing other editors what they can and cannot say. I simply can't understand what motivates this user to return again and again to this issue instead of just going on and editing productively. --MCB (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It seemed as if the user was OK with his ID being IRDT, but as you point out, as soon as he was "unleashed", he began trying to get his original ID unblocked. He's seemingly hung up on that ID, and for reasons that he won't share. He's basically playing a game of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And as you suggest, his snippy comment on his IRDT talk page, about how he had to change his original user ID due to certain wikipedia editors, is a broadly-leveled personal attack and is inappropriate, even if one specific editor may have thought it was OK. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When he emerged with his new identity, IRDT compared his having to change his name to being raped. He also claimed that being blocked was to get him "out of the way" so his article could be deleted. Do we really need that kind of attitude around? Grsz^X 02:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And now he's asking for a friendly admin to file a WP:RFAR for him [53] to allow him to keep his name. A request for arbitration on a user ID??? That boy is seriously obsessed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And he was blocked for it. The point is - he hasn't done anything since his unblock to be blocked again...we can't just go back and resentence because we didn't like the original result. --Smashville^talk 04:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

After his block expired, he did nothing except lobby for getting his old ID back. How does that further the interests of wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Smashville, this block is not "resentencing". It's for his conduct since the block expired. I supported your reduction of his block to 24 hours on the presumption that he meant what he said when he wrote, "Ok, fine. Going away, for now. Sorry so much admin effort was expended on this. I'd like to go back to productive editing, as defending myself is obviously not working." [54] But instead of doing that, he started right in on the death threats stuff and "Don't ask me to elaborate or do anything to compromise my safety or pseudonymity. Yes, that means you." on his old user page, which is the material you removed from that same page on October 2, with the edit summary "remove rant by blocked user". And then he went on to try to get his old username unblocked, even though he has a new one that was not blocked, despite all the people advising him to move on from that. --MCB (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He's playing a game in which he simultaneously draws attention to himself and then refuses to comment on it "for safety reasons". That's technically known as "jerking people around". Also known as "disruptive behavior". Amusingly enough, IRDT also stands for "Inflatable Re-entry and Descent Technology". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's that essay, "Wikipedia is not a substitute for professional therapy"? It seems appropriate. Orderinchaos 07:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you show me where he was "jerking people around" prior to the username block and userpage blanking? I don't know if he was being disruptive before all of this started, nobody has bothered commenting on that as far as I've seen, but I don't see anything wrong with the username or userpage. I acknowledge that he's acted very poorly since it all started, but I still don't see why it all started. --Onorem♠Dil 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, a user gave him permission to do that. He provided the diff. The diff is in this discussion. And then he got blocked for it. I mean, there was obviously not a total consensus that his username was inappropriate. My issue is with the fact that he was specifically told he could do it...and the fact that he is adding references to IP talk pages shows he doesn't entirely understand Wikipedia...so someone needs to explain to him why he can't do it instead of just blocking him for something he was told by an admin that he could do. --Smashville^talk 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did anyone give him permission to continue taking verbal shots at anyone who questions his user ID? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Which verbal shots would those be? --Onorem♠Dil 13:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, too...but I did just see that he wants to take his username to ArbCom...oh come on. Why is it so hard to edit under a username that doesn't disrupt the project? How does having the username IReceivedDeathThreats protect a person when they are editing anonymously? The more I think about it, the less sense it makes...I don't really agree with the second block...but if he doesn't get the point and doesn't stop wasting everyone's time, I don't really see an alternative... --Smashville^talk 14:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the block on the basis that the user has made few positive contributions on both accounts, the username was wholly inappropriate, and that his veiled crap post-block was pointy and annoying. Sorry, administrators have little patience for this childish crap, and if you want to waste our time with it, then you can be shown the door. seicer | talk | contribs 13:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support a block, though not necessarily a permanent one. "IReceivedDeathThreats" is not the username of an editor who wants "safety and pseudonymity". It's the username of an editor who wants attention, who wants to provoke an emotional response in everyone who sees it. Considering the contribs of IRDT, this editor is not ready to help build an encyclopaedia, and they have made that quite clear: [55]. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal re:IRDT

Following up on what I just posted to his user talk page, I'd like to make the proposal that this editor be permitted to continue to edit under a new username under the terms below:

1. User:IReceivedDeathThreats and User:IRDT remain indef blocked, and their user and user talk pages protected for now. (They can be deleted at some later date; the contents would be available to admins in case this came up again.)
2. The user may register a new account with a username unrelated to the previous two and otherwise compliant with WP:U.
3. The new account will not be history-linked or otherwise associated with the previous accounts (i.e., this is not a user name change).
4. The user agrees to make no further reference to, or requests regarding, these two previous accounts (or blocks) in his edits, or any posts regarding any of the matters ("death threats", "personal safety", etc.) that were the substance of the WP:ANI and WP:RFCN discussions, and may not edit the user pages, user talk pages, or user subpages, of the previous accounts.
5. If the above is not complied with, the new account will be blocked.

Basically this is a fresh start without prejudice, with the hope that he will go on to be a happy, productive, anonymous Wikipedian. I did not intend the current block or the preceding one to be a community ban; this should provide a means by which the user can continue to edit. --MCB (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - sounds reasonable. Are these conditions as formal as a community ban? Grsz^X 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Formal in the sense of being specific, yes, but since we will not know what his new account is, and hopefully never will, this will have to be the documentation of the editing restrictions. --MCB (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree The editor should be allowed to edit under their ORIGINAL name, however, effectively the same proviso's with regard to DRAMATIC use should be in place. BMW(drive) 23:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there's very little likelihood of his being able to edit under his original username, given the discussion in the archived ANI thread and the RFCN. Beyond that, the revisions of his user page and user talk page would be there for people to bring up and comment on (unless they are deleted and/or oversighted), which is what we want to avoid. --MCB (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support Wait and see - It's really up to the user whether to decrease the drama. If he keeps his ID but has to remove the in-your-face comments on the user page, that probably won't be good enough for him, as it would erode the point of having that user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, we don't really have that option. His IRDT account is blocked. So the alternatives are basically (1) he stays blocked; (2) someone unblocks him; or (3) he edits under a new name as above. --MCB (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't awake. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, or why bother? Under both identities, the user has 120 mainspace edits in over two years of being registered. It's to his great advantage to just start clean somewhere, and lose the whole "I was threatened/raped" attitude about his old user name. Assuming good faith on him just not realizing that he could start over, this should have happened for him long ago. I was going to suggest this, but MCB beat me to it. He gets a brand new start and we gets to stop talking about this. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - If the user truly wants to contribute to WP henceforth, then the selection of a new username and constructive participation are welcomed. As Dayewalker says above, losing the attitude and the plea for attention will go far in finalizing the issue.--JavierMC 03:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• This seems pointless. This user already had a fresh start with an unrelated account. If they accept the essential conditions of this remedy - that they should neither be mentioning death threats nor linking back to the first (?) account User:IReceivedDeathThreats - then they can go ahead and edit using User:IRDT, which could be unblocked on acceptance of the conditions. Adding another account to the mix just makes it harder for admins to ensure that the conditions are met. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that it wasn't really an unrelated account, he seems to have felt obligated to "explain" what the letters stood for, etc., and if/when that happens again, we'll be back in the same place. Plus, the revisions of his user page and user talk page would be there for people to bring up and comment on (unless they are deleted and/or oversighted). And if someone innocently asks "what does IRDT stand for?", either he answers, which leads to drama, or he says something like "I'm not allowed to say," and boom, instant Wikidrama. Much better to have a complete fresh start with no possible link to all this cruft. This does not need to be monitored by admins or mentored by anyone - if it works out, we would never know who he is or what he's doing, so long as it isn't abusive editing. --MCB (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rest assured that his new account, if known, will be "watched". But if he creates a new account and doesn't tell anyone and doesn't refer to the old account - then he's good. In fact, given his lack of response, maybe he's already done that. (AGF) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand where MCB's proposal was coming from. Perhaps we should just mark this resolved, in a "we'd all be happiest if we never heard from you again" kind of way. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, unblock IRDT, remove the drama, and get them a mentor. BMW(drive) 13:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see comment immediately above. --MCB (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

There's a lot of stuff going on in regards to this user, most of which is summarized in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines. There's a decent amount of criticisms of User:Huaiwei for uncivil comments, and it's getting out of hand, especially in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Singapore Airlines#Withdrawing from RfM. I'm not sure if this is the place to report anything of this sort (or what to do in this instance), but I think it's starting to get out of hand. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Singapore Airlines fleet, especially this thread for additional examples. (I have not been at my best there either, and I'm aware of this, but I think Huaiwei's behaviour is much worse.) Yilloslime (t) 04:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• That is, effectively, like a pot calling a kettle black so I would suggest that you not comment any further. Thank you! ...Dave1185 (talk) 05:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, I'm fully aware that in posting here I'm opening up my own actions to scrutiny. If I didn't feel confident that anyone who examines the page would agree that Huaiwei's behaviour has been a lot more inflammatory than mine or anyone else there (e.g. [56], [57]), then I wouldn't have chimed in. And, the 15 blocks in his blocklog and this user RfC would suggest that the issue is a recurring problem for this user. Yilloslime (t) 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• This editor (Huaiwei) has what appear to be 15 blocks for edit-warring, occasionally with a side of incivility. Fifteen. And now, he's... being uncivil and edit-warring. I am not going to act unilaterally at this point, because I've worked with Yilloslime and have high regard for him which may color my judgement, but I'd like some outside admins to look this over, because I feel pretty strongly that a last-chance-warning or a prolonged vacation from Wikipedia are in order. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I recon you are less familiar with my editorial history to form the above conclusions. While I am aware that there is no justification to editwar, 12 out of my 15 edit-war blocks involved disputes with User:Instantnood, a dispute which went all the way to the ArbCom three times over (and that dispute had nothing to do with aviation nor Singapore...but on Chinese politics). Out of the most recent three blocks, one involved disputes with User:Sparrowman980, and the other with User:Coloane, both highly notoriously disruptive users which even User:Russavia has frequently revert-warred with[58]. The only time I felt I have overstepped in enthusiasm was the most recent edit-war block on 20 February 2008.
• As for Yilloslime's assertions over my unilateral "incivility", I would plead for all neutral reviewers to look through the cited discussions and form their own opinions. If, after over four years of contributions to this site, I have remained as negative and incorrigible as they claim, I am highly doubtful I would have been able to make any positive contributions to this site...all 34,000 edits and counting.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Coloane was indeed an unusual user. My implementation of an AN/I consensus for a topic ban on him got him so worked up that he wrote to Jimbo under the title "Disturbed by the Administrator". Orderinchaos 12:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Guys, let's not forget about leaving a notice for the above-mentioned editor if you are going to have a section here that would require him to be answerable to. Fortunately, I have done so on behalf on all you oh-so-forgetful-folks here. Personally, I have worked with Huaiwei on a few article and I know he is just like me, passionate about things we all feel connected or inspired by, thus resulting in a kind of wiki-attachment to the page. Note that I endorse WP:DGAF so I don't have such problems. That is all. ...Dave1185 (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• And you also happen to have biases that agree with that of Huaiwei's. Hardly a voice of reason or a voice of neutrality. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• So sue me! Perhaps it is time for you take a look at WP:Dispute resolution before you would consider engaging people on such an underhanded approach because it is not very gentlemanly to be voicing about another person behind his back, eh? I call that downright sneaky and underhanded. According to WP:DR, it would be best to ignore you and bid you adieu~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• This, coming from someone who just took offence with my use of the word "cronies"[59]. He considers it having negative connotation, and thus labels it as "extremely uncivil", when I merely used that term to avoid having to type out the same few names[60]. And yet even in this AI, he publicly dismisses someone for being biased against him and being devoid of reason or neutrality. May the above conduct speak for themselves.--Huaiwei (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As a point of information - Cronies is an extremely negative word in English, yes. It has no non-negative connotations. Please do not use it in Wikipedia discussions, as it is uncivil and a personal attack. You may not have known that, but please don't do it again. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't dismiss Dave's statement. I only dismissed the righteous tone in his statement. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Right... Be specific then, define the "righteous tone" part in my statement for me, will you? ...Dave1185 (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, self-righteous tone is a more apt descriptor, as well as unnecessarily snide. "Fortunately, I have done so on behalf on all you oh-so-forgetful-folks here." "That is, effectively, like a pot calling a kettle black so I would suggest that you not comment any further." "According to WP:DR, it would be best to ignore you and bid you adieu~!" And yet you haven't acted according to WP:DR, either. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• As an alternative to personalizing the discussion, people could comment at this RS noticeboard topic on if the sources used to generate the lists of aircraft (which are the core of the dispute) are acceptable as RS. Once you have a clear decision on that point, an article RfC would be relatively simple way of dealing with a clear keep/delete question. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• And I believe TimVickers has struck the nail on the head. It has become far too fashionable for a select group of individuals to spend an impressive amount of energy discrediting me as a person, rather than the topic(s) in question. I would think it a matter of concern if there is anyone attempting to invoke an editorial ban on an individual based on a charge which is applicable to both sides, and using it as another weapon to push through a disputed article merge request by gagging the their main opponent. I certainly hope that my concerns will not come to light.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Huaiwei, I guess you just agreed that your "references" are invalid, if you'll read the RS discussion. Tim, this entire discussion has been personalized a while back, it's getting to the point where I think someone need to step in and put an end to it, something I'm not in the position to do as an involved party. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm personally of the view there's very little to do here. This seems more like a content dispute that's become a bit personal and perhaps if the content or sourcing issues were resolved, the dispute would be as well. Orderinchaos 13:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you just look at the RfM and all the involved talkpages, you'll notice that content issues have been in dispute for so long. The RfM is barely getting anywhere, either, with one of the primary parties having backed out BECAUSE of incivility issues. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Overturning admin’s action by another admin

Anti-Christian violence in India was protected by an admin due to User:Jobxavier’s excessive pov pushing and blind reverts. The user (Jobxavier) was also blocked for one week along with article by admin User:Akradecki. However, another admin User:YellowMonkey unprotected the article as well as Jobxavier. Is it justifiable? Does the admin YellowMonkey’s new intervention-action invite much vandalism into the article by Jobxavier? I strongly feel that admin User:Akradecki’s earlier action was sensible and YellowMonkey’s action was unwarrantable at this stage. Any comments? --Googlean ^Results 03:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You too have previously been blocked for using sockpuppets as attack-dogs in religious disputes. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, per YM you have a block history, and if this is really a good-faith concern, how about trying to discuss it with them before running into ANI with it? Tan | 39 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that Akradecki was the original admin who locked and blocked the page. I think that YellowMonkey's action was correct because the blocking admin was reverting the blockee. This is what should be specifically examined. Khoikhoi 04:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And given YellowMonkey is a checkuser, I'm inclined to believe his comments about sockpuppetry. Daniel (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Akradecki's action would have been acceptable had he not decided engage himself in the edit war with Jobxavier. Just look at the article history: Akradecki reverted Jobxavier, Jobxavier reverted Akradecki, Akradecki reverted back and fully protected the page. It is acceptable to revert someone before fully protecting the page if the previous version is in violation of Wikipedia policies, but in this case, Akradecki was already a party in the edit war when he decided to protect the page. And, protect the page and block the other user? If it's a two person edit war, we only use one of the options, not both. We do not issue blocks as punishment. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

is in violation of the biographies of living persons policy, only. :) Daniel (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

( Just curious, whtz is the BLP violation here ? -- Tinu Cherian - 10:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) )

Ah yes, WP:PREFER. I remember that policy being tossed around after the whole Battle of Opis editwarring/wheelwarring debacle. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point that legitimate (Note: A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.). Many established editors use it when they don’t want to be disclosed their identity in controversial subjects. However, WP:RFCU is necessary when they misuse it. --Googlean ^Results 04:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Two of your accounts have been on the receiving end of blocks for sockpuppetry. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 04:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I feel this is a kind of retribution that I reported the issue here. Did you mean that I have used sock ids in any of these discussions/articles in recent times? As a check user, could you please elaborate it? What about our policy I quoted above on legitimate id? If using different ids in different areas of subject is against our policy, I strongly feel that our guideline on Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts has to be re-written. The moment I created my id, I clearly mentioned the disclaimer in the userpage itself. Please elaborate. --Googlean ^Results 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I already noted this fact before you reported me, per the discussion at WT:INB. I'm just pointing out that although you are wuick to complain about other people's editing antics on religious dispute pages, you had a bad hand account for battling it out in a similar way. Two of your previous accounts have been blocked for bad-hand sock battling on religious rioting articles. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Users make mistake, when there is be short of knowledge about our policies and guidelines. But I have not used any sock ids recently in any of these subjects. Now days, I hardly use other ip’s and id’s to make minor edits in WP, not in any of these controversial subjects as I don’t want others to see my identity. Presently I mainly working on Anti-X violence in India related issues, which is the recent attack against Christians in India --Googlean ^Results 05:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins User:Jobxavier has been personally attacking me on one of the article WITHOUT provocations. It is about time one Admin took note of this and did something about it. There have been repeated caution to this user, even through mediation by an **independent** Admin. So go easy on Akradecki. Recordfreenow (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is because of User:Jobxavier’s disruptive edits, I posted this issue here as I did feel that the previous block was ok. --Googlean ^Results 08:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I defer to Yellowmonkey's judgement, although, as I posted on his talk page, it would have been courteous if he'd at least let me know of what he was doing. It was not my intent to dive into the edit war - policy allows for the reversion prior to blocking by the admin in cases of vandalism, which I believe that this had risen to the level of. I did not, and do not, consider myself one of the warring parties here. However, I also feel strongly that the ongoing POV-pushing behavior as exhibited by Jobxavier is unacceptable, and since Yellowmonkey has lifted his block, maybe he'd like to step in and address Jobxavier's continuing trend of incivility as exhibited here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest accuracy in naming

(I'd propose this on the talk page, but it'd never be read : )

I'd like a general requirement that (since this is a page for incidents) that the page of the incident be in the top header. Else, if the post concerns an editor's actions (presumably across several pages), that the editor's name be in the header.

Having statements which may be unfounded accusations (like "harrassment" or "Admin abuse") in the headers, isn't very helpful, and really would seem to be a very bad idea.

And second, to not have the headers have links (per the mainspace MoS). It's easy enough to:

• [[link to page in question]]

or

• {{user|jc37}}

at the top of the entry.

I'd like this to be added to the top of this page in the comments, directly below the statement about new entries. (Or wherever else is deemed appropriate. - jc37 04:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Having usertemplates (ie. {{user|name}}) stuffs up section linking, so simply User:Name would be better. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting no linking in the section headers at all. - jc37 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like links in section headers. They are convenient. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer a template directly beneath the section header, a la {{main}}, over links in the section headers. Links in the headers just strikes me as sloppy for some reason. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I do agree templates in section headings are problematic. Links in headings are ueber-bad in content space... probably a matter of personal taste on talk pages, and definitely a harder habit to stamp out regardless. I'd generally support moving templates like {{user}} or {{userlinks}} out of headings, optionally instead placing them first thing in the section (which I try to do when posting new threads, myself). And yes, more specificity in heading names is nice. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Count me as well against links in section headings. Below section headings, {{La}} and {{Userlinks}} help much for checking page histories before opening 300kb articles (or user pages with dozens of userboxes). — Athaenara ✉ 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why they simply haven't coded it so {{}} links can't be used in topic headers; they work but they cause the goto arrow to not work. I've been fixing them when I see them, but I'd rather not have to at all. HalfShadow 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok I added the text, please feel free to adjust if you can think of a way to make it more concise or clearer. - jc37 08:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

I believe the unsigned User: 67.140.85.123 is editing his own page again (after being blocked from doing so, then warned twice), but is now avoiding block by not signing in. This might need a check user request, but I am not exactly certain how to go about doing that.

I suspect that User: 67.140.85.123 is actually User: Skinny McGee, who in turn is the subject of an article about his band.

• 5 Aug. Skinny McGee changes title of CD [61]

• 6 Aug. Warning given to stop editing Midnight Syndicate User_talk:Skinny_McGee#Midnight_Syndicate

• 6 Oct. User: 67.140.85.123 changes title of CD [62]

• Geolocate [63] for IP indicates Chardon, Ohio (hometown of band)

• According to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Skinny_McGee, Geolocate also points to other IPs in the same 67.140 zone in Chardon, Ohio which are already confirmed to be associated with Skinny McGee and other alias'. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on how to re-open the case, but in regards to that IP, I suspect that you're right. Unfortunately, the larger block of IPs involved (67.140...) is in a dynamic range, so there's nothing we can do there. ~ Troy (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Namzso (and User talk:Tmoszman)

This is a single-purpose account whose only focus is to continually remove references to conspiracy rumors about Paul Wellstone's death, against consensus. There is no assertion that the rumors are true, only that they existed. [64] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that the rumors themselves are based solely on conspiracism. The point is that it is factual that there were rumors and suspicions. The SPA is basically trying to enforce censorship. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

His other contributions have to do with purging anything from the Norm Coleman article that casts him in a bad light. So it's clear what his POV agenda is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He has also reverted 4 times in the last 11 hours or so. I am in process of notifying him of this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've turned him in at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also speculate that Tmoszman is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, given the similar single-purpose nature of their activities along with the obvious similarity in their names. It's also interesting that Namzso's first edit was the day after Tmoszman's last edit. [65] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bugs, granted that you have a strong suspicion on the two, I think you might want to make a RFCU from a CU-capable admin on that issue. Cheers! ...Dave1185 (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't doubt they're the same guy, but it looks like one simply replaced the other. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bugs, you could try a reverse psychology move on him. Lay a trap and see if he would respond to it because most socks are quite full of themselves, even priding on the fact that they aren't being noticed or caught yet. But, we all know better, right? You can fool somebody sometime but you can't fool everybody everytime. Sooner or later, he's going to make a mistake and we'll be ready, eh? ...Dave1185 (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Since the one seems to have stopped just before the other one started, I'm not sure it matters at this point. I'm waiting for someone to respond to the 3RR complaint, but that page doesn't seem to turn over quickly like WP:AIV does. However, there are other users ready to confront that guy, which is one reason I didn't also violate 3RR by reverting him again. We'll see what today brings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Now he's invented an SPA for this purpose. [66] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You can banish him by writing his name backwards. No wait, that's vampires. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or by tricking him into saying it backwards. Wait. That's Mr. Mxyzptlk. Imagine; being forced to vanish just for saying 'Kltpzyxm'... Oh fu...*POP* HalfShadow 20:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected for three days as a result of the 3RR complaint. I hope that editors who feel strongly, either for or against the inclusion of a conspiracy theory, will join the Talk page of the article and make an understandable case for their position. Anyone who suspects the abuse of multiple accounts is welcome to file an WP:RFCU. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually just one user, under several guises, who keeps reverting it. His narrow focus of edits reveal a pro-Republican POV agenda. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And he's been at it for months now, so 3 days isn't likely to make any difference. It will more likely devolve into several established editors taking turns reverting the guy, while he will likely use his various red-links to keep it going. But we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's far from clear that there is any Talk page consensus on whether to include the newspaper reports of conspiracy rumors. (The Talk discussion has now died out). An WP:RFC would be one way of handling it that avoids resuming the edit war. A recent complaint says that the conspiracy can only be cited to fringe sources, and I haven't seen any effort to rebut that claim. The James Fetzer book about the rumor seems to lack an ISBN and may be self-published. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The red-link socks claim that the book is self-published and that therefore it disqualifies it as a source. The problem is that no one is saying there was a conspiracy - they're saying there were rumors of a conspiracy, which the presence of that book demonstrates. After the plane crash of another Democratic Senator in 2000, Mel Carnahan of Missouri, conspiracy paranoia was understandable. The red-link socks are on a mission to expunge anything that makes the GOP look bad, specifically in Minnesota - which is why his entire focus is the Norm Wellstone and Norm Coleman articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that all this critique of other editors' motives (these 'red-link socks') will help others at Talk:Paul Wellstone reach a consensus. If the conspiracy rumors are notable, they should have registered somewhere in the land of reliable sources. The fact that they are noted only in self-published material or blogs is not persuasive. These rumors might have been noted in actual reliable sources, but somebody would have to do the research to find that out. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no indication that that user is interested in anything about consensus. He couldn't persuade, so his answer is to foment an edit war. The only reason I'm even watching the page is because someone tried to revert a picture I had uploaded - one that I took, yet. At some point here I'm expecting the more involved defenders of the page to take part in this discussion. If they don't, I'll stop watching the page and let the red-link slug it out with them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, the Strib apparently covered the rumors in their June 3, 2003, edition. That is apparently no longer online, but some ambitious sort who wants to go to the Hennepin County Library this weekend could probably look into it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats against User:Daniel J. Leivick

Resolved

 – User indef blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In this Revision User:Paulinacopp makes an explicit legal threat against administrator User:Daniel J. Leivick. I am not sure of this is a regular vandal or a serious threat, but Wikipedia:No legal threats states that these should be reported to WP:ANI anyway.Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• User has been indef blocked by Smashville. WilliamH (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Child porn

This IP editor (note edit summaries) seems to have earned more than a 48hr block IMHO. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that we have no evidence that the person that made those comments will be back at that IP address in 48 hours; indeed since there are NO other edits from that IP before the spate of vandalism, from a person who OBVIOUSLY is an experienced user at Wikipedia would seem to indicate that the person who made those edits will be at a different IP address the next time he shows up. As such, a longer block will have absolutely no effect. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Measuring on a recent case, where an experienced editor used an IP to edit war, I'm thinking that a (well deserving) longer block will have better chances of outing this abuser. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP and likely to have a different user tomorrow. A longer block at this point would be pointless. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

An abuse report would likely be more helpful at this point. Or, just call the ISP directly. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mind the question, but how do we know that this IP is dynamic? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I don't quite see a pattern that would have us contacting the ISP provider. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's listed in DNSBLs as dynamic, contains ".dyn." in the rDNS, has no edits outside of the two minutes it was used for here, and see also [67][68]. My guess is that the IP can remain static for up to a week at a time, and that the computer may even be a compromised zombie with an open proxy. But still both the machine and the user are likely to have changed IP before the block expires. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeffrey Steingarten

I have now run across two editors who are reporting the death of Jeffrey Steingarten, the food writer. There is nothing on Google news that indicates that he has died, and one of the reports of the death was a severe BLP violation. It would be helpful if others keep an eye out. Thanks. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Themanwhoateeverything (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indef-blocked as vandalism-only account. Likely sock 72.140.76.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 48 hours. Note that "The Man Who Ate Everything" is the title of a book by Steingarten; this appears to be a SPA attack account. --MCB (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Ashton being disruptive

User Gerry Ashton is being disruptive to make a point. Here on WT:MOSNUM, there is a debate about bringing the formatting of numbers on some of Wikipedia’s mathematics articles into conformance with the rest of Wikipedia’s articles on our technical and applied mathematics articles. The details of the dispute are arcane, but it essentially is debate over delmiting long numbers so they can be parsed easily, such as 2.718281828.

The tone of Gerry’s tenor in the debate on WT:MOSNUM has escalated this morning so he hauled off and posted these two notices on my talk page announcing that he was nominating two templates for deletion.

You should know that the {val} template was extensively discussed long ago on MOSNUM (here on Archive 94) and was further discussed on WT:MOS (here on Archive 97). In both cases, there was a broad-based consensus that the envisioned template {{delimitnum}} was a good and it was well-received by the community. This all transpired in February of this year. The only thoroughly disaffected editor who opposed the template was Gerry (here on MOSNUM Archive 94). He hated the idea and tried to block it with the suggestion that a consensus should also have to be obtained on WT:MOS. Well, a while later—as I mentioned above—that is precisely what eventually happened; I later noticed an issue there about the formatting of scientific notation and told them of what had been discussed on WT:MOSNUM. We had a great discussion that resulted in a tweak to the proposed template. The clear consensus in both venues was that it was a good idea.

Note: The {{delimitnum}} template never worked well for long strings and much greater favor was found with a {{val}} template created by SkyLined. The {val} template is used in a wide variety of Wikipedia’s articles and is used extensively on Kilogram, which just received GA status. The deletion of {val} would be terribly disruptive. The template can also be used to create values in what is known as “concise form” like h = 6.62606896(33)×10⁻³⁴ J·s. This is the same, SI-compliant way the NIST shows the value (see example). We need this tool.

Now Gerry, who has long opposed these templates (he wrote “I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is a bastard.” ) [69] knows full well that these templates were well-received in the community and that the templates—particularly {val}—are used extensively in Wikipedia’s articles. This is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. May I ask your assistance in this manner. The nominations are as follows:

• Here for val and…
• Here for delimitnum

I ask that Gerry be sanctioned for this move. He knew full well this move would be highly disruptive. Greg L (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete anything, I merely suggested what I consider to be the best course of action. Now that the Val template is being debated, I think it should be done away with before this bad idea spreads to more articles. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• You didn’t “*merely* suggest” anything. All the articles that use these templates now have little notices imbedded in them advising that the templates they rely upon are in peril of being deleted. And this stunt is not how would calls for debate; we already were debating a related issue here on WT:MOSNUM. You just thought you’d up the temperature a little on a long-term annoyance to you.

  The record of how well received these templates are in the community is clear, I’ve cited the links above. There is clearly a general consensus on this and SkyLined put a lot of effort into the {{val}} template to make sure it was in conformance with that consensus decision. There is no debate; only an editor who disagreed with the consensus view, got angry this morning, and went out of his way to disrupt Wikipedia.

  This move is nothing but a pure case of WP:POINT. This goes well beyond the bounds of what could remotely be considered as constructive and was intended to be purposely disruptive. I ask that Gerry be sanctioned for this. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Administrators should be aware of the latest eruption of a long debate [70] here at WP:MOSNUM. I have suggested mediation on that debate, and I shall do so to the two users named here as well. I don't think this is an administrative matter for the moment, although administrators can easily see for themselves the tone of the debate over this and related issues. Physchim62 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Administrator action (sanctions) are certainly indicated here. The ongoing debate was over another issue. This stunt was intended only to be disruptive. Gerry should be blocked for at least 48 hours for this stunt. Greg L (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I partially agree with Greg. Both of them have been disruptive in more than one discussion at WT:MOSNUM, but I don't think sanctions should be considered, including pre-emptive editing of templates with general approval (if not a full consensus). But I don't think that administrative sanctions should be considered.

  Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don’t think we can let Gerry get off scot-free on this. The {{val}} template (at that time known only as {{delimitnum}} had been extensively discussed and well received on both WT:MOSNUM and WT:MOS (here and here). Gerry made his opinions known back in February ([71] and here) but his arguments failed to gain any traction with the other editors. Gerry full-well knew this. The current debate on WT:MOSNUM regards a different issue (what to do with some math articles that do things their own way). His response, nominating two templates for deletion knowing full well they had broad community support (he was there debating it at the time), was intended to be at least disruptive today, and, had it succeeded, would have been a form of vandalism. I think at least a 24-hour block is in order here. Greg L (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My view is that the Val and Delimitnum templates were an interesting exploration as to what could be done. I think there were fewer than 10 editors following the discussion, two of which were not satisfied with the direction. Although many of the editors seemed pleased with the progress, they still have problems which, in my view, make them unsuitable for anything but experimental use. Since the use of these templates in actual articles seems to be spreading (although still fairly small), I believe it is necessary to stop them before they become a fait acompli that can, unless editors carefully inspect each use, introduce numerical errors (if the Val talk page is correct).

I also think the fact that MOSNUM (the guideline, not the talk page) was never edited to allow grouping digits to the right of the decimal is evidence that the temlate does not have wide acceptance. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I appears Gerry is attempting to deflect the discussion away from his conduct. That is what ANI’s are for—not to debate atomic-level details of the formatting of numbers. Like Dweller once wrote: “What consenting mathematicians get up to behind closed doors is their business, but please don't do it in public.”

  There were many editors back in February who participated in the discussion about the two templates Gerry doesn’t like. It has been half a year since then and most of these editors have since lost track of the issue; this isn’t unusual. That there would be only a few still thinking about it now—particularly someone who strenuously objected to it in the first place—isn’t surprising. But there are rules of conduct here and under no circumstances are editors to be intentionally disruptive. We certainly can’t permit editors to use disruptive stunts to re-open debate on an issue that was thoroughly discussed, achieved broad consensus to be made, and directly resulted in a Bugzilla request of the developers to produce the special parsing functions to enable the template. This is simply an intentional disregard of the consensus view that consumes other Wikipedians’ time and effort. It is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I think at least a 24-hour block is in order here. Greg L (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, this is likely to go one of three ways: (1) The topic is so obscure that no-one cares and no-one else will comment here on it, so you won't get enough support for a block (which you seem to have asked for at the end of each of your four posts here so far - he won't get blocked merely because you keep asking for it); (2) Lots of people will comment and support a block for nominating two templates for deletion (unlikely, in my opinion); (3) Lots of people will comment and reject the notion that we should be blocking for making nominations at XfDs (deletion debates). My opinion is that XfDs get a different audience to that found at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM, and are a legitimate alternative opinion. Not to be done frivilously, of course, but not to be rejected out-of-hand either. WP:CCC as well - those debates you pointed out were in February and March, 7-8 months ago. It can be extremely annoying when someone drags the discussion to an XfD venue, but sometimes you have to grit your teeth and bear it. If the arguments for keeping are good enough, they should work anywhere, regardless of the discussion venue (well, in principle at least). One exception, I think, is when you have a pattern of nominations and re-nominations, either within the same subject area, or of the same templates. Even then, though, you will have to have a very good case. I don't think you have enough for a block here. (Disclosure - I've been active on WT:MOSNUM recently, over the date linking issue, so I'm peripherally aware of both Greg and Gerry, and recently had a dispute with Greg. Regardless, I hope I've managed to make an objective response here. Since posting this, I've also commented at one of the TfDs here) Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Edwahunn0800

Resolved

 – User indeffed as a sock. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This account was created two days ago, and has been used for nothing except vandalism and disruption. The sophistication of the disruption suggests that this is not a new editor. The user has been warned several times already. Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of indef-blocked User:Edwahunn. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The user is now abusing the "unblock" template on his talk page. Full protection of the talk page may be necessary. --PaterMcFly (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He's stopped for now. He's seems to have had a question about his block. Dlohcierekim 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Help on RfC Closure and Certification

Would an uninvolved and non-interested Admin please certify the results of this RfC and please officially close it.

It’s a long RfC and quote complicated with a great deal of information and evidence posted, but it would do so much to putting an end to the current edit was surrounding nearly 1/2 dozen articles.

Much appreciated. CENSEI (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My position [72] -- Noroton (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would welcome help finalizing and certifying the results of the RfC so that we can put a lid on the further, ongoing revert warring on the point. I have no idea how one might go about such a thing, but in the meanwhile the outcome of the RfC is pretty obvious not to cover accusations against certain people of being terrorists in their own BLP. I do have a hard time fathoming how anyone could take the RfC outcome otherwise given that a majority of editors were against it. Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the closure be deferred to November 4. Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And in the meanwhile what? Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For once I agree with Wikidemon. Since I don’t trust his creative interpretation of the RfC results, I dont feel any obligation to abide by any hollow claim of "consensus" referenced to it. CENSEI (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Frehley 0

I really don't know if this is the right place to report this anymore, since the whole concept of reporting a grievence has become so bureaucratic, but this user is a single purpose account that has done nothing but use Wikipedia as a soapbox for some kind of on or offsite campaign against another indefinetly blocked user here. Based on his contributions (posting on me and User:The Hybrid's talk page, and the YouTube URL name he is spamming here 'BigBossVersion0' (a previous username on a different wiki if I'm not mistaken) that Frehley 0 is a SPA of User:Big Boss 0 (block log). Big Boss 0 was indefinitly blocked from Wikipedia in 2007 for not doing anything and bringing petty disputes with the same person he is addressing in the YouTube video to Wikipedia and this is the same thing Frehley 0 is doing, so I kindly ask someone to block the SPA account for obvious reasons. — Moe ε 01:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

An indef block for harassment and spamming might be in order. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton

Resolved

 – editor blocked for one week (reported by Wikidemon (talk) 02:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Is edit warring for placement of a contentious section on Weatherman (organization) and is out of control.

• [73]
• [74]
• [75]
• [76]

His attacks and disruption needed checked please. Grsz^X 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be out of control now - lots of cursing and edit wars. Edit warring insults onto my talk page[77][78]...threatening to "not let [me] get away with it"[79]...Just committed WP:3RR violation at Weatherman (organization)...Wikidemon (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other editors

As opposed to Wikidemon, who's been out of control for weeks and months. -- Noroton (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, what the hell do you two expect? Wikidemon has been misrepresenting the results of the RfC and provoking Noroton for weeks now! Continually harrasing him and other users with harrasing talk page tags and ANI threads about him every couple of days. I think you two (and more) are the ones who could use a not so gentile hand for all the people you have chased off of Wikipedia with your ganging up on them. CENSEI (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but it's completely irrelevant here. It's kinda stupid to be edit warring in information that's already on the page. Grsz^X 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Both Noroton and I have asked that a third neutral party certify the RfC and close it after Wikidemo has made his willingness to misrepresent the outcome of it every occasion he has. We are the ones trying to end this without provoking an edit war. CENSEI (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI, how do I explain this to you? The RfC bit on Weatherman was already on the page! Grsz^X 02:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why the fuck are you fighting it? Noroton (talk) 02:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Because you can't put the same content in an article twice! Grsz^X 02:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

(relisting this - still building consensus --Uncia (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Since our last report here [80], 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)
• 71.30.147.211 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 8 Oct
• 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)

[Ditto. --Uncia (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)]]

• Support ban. Definitely. I have some experience with this sockpuppeteer; no redeeming value. Tan | 39 05:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• I support a ban as per Wikipedia:Banning policy and, as needed, the use of {{Db-g5}} as per WP:CSD#G5: created/uploaded by banned user while banned. — Athaenara ✉ 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• A ban is sounding reasonable. This is not someone who is interested in working with other editors within the bounds that have been set up with regards to copyrights, verifiability, etc. Much effort of many editors is being wasted in dealing with this, and if a ban would make it easier, that would be good. Aleta ^Sing 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support, IDK a-lot about this user but just a glance at the situation would tell you that a ban would be the best for everybody. SteelersFan94 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with SteelersFan. I don't know this user, but looking at the situation, I believe a ban would be a good idea at this point. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Created another new account

If you look at the contributions and history, it's clear that (as expected) he's created a new account: he's now editing as DeLaCueva (talk · contribs · logs · block log). As I asked a couple of days ago, what's the process to get him banned? And after that, what's the process from then on--go to RFCU, which takes a few days, and then clean up after him again every time? Or can Uncia and I just come here and report his new accounts and get him shut down asap? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's actually simple to enact a community ban--determine whether there's a strong enough consensus that this user has exhausted the community's patience. When that happens, any socks he makes can be blocked on sight, and any and all contribs he makes can be deleted and reverted on sight. Most of his socks (or in LamyQ's case, meatpuppets) are relatively easy to spot (though I'm not quite certain about DeLaCueva), so reporting them either here or at WP:AIV should be the fastest way to whack him. Blueboy96 12:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's entirely possible DeLaCueva isn't one of his socks--but any time someone comes on WP and in their first three hours (1) creates an article about an Espanola school, (2) edits three pages to point to the new article, (3) reverts a fourth article (twice) to go back to a previous sock's edits, (4) removes SP tags from his user talk page, and (5) clearly doesn't know/care about either Edit summary or Preview, I'll tend to guess that it's another PolTx sock. Not to mention that those two reversions would have put him over 3RR if he'd done them using the IP he started with that evening. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this thread there are four supporters of a ban (DoriSmith, Uncia, Tanthalas39, Athaenara) and no opponents. Is it consensus yet?--Uncia (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban now also supported in this thread by Aleta and Steelerfan-94; total 6 in favor and 0 opposed. --Uncia (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Including me, make that seven, if you want to count an impartial observer of this ANI page, after reviewing the history. I think it's a shame that IP range blocks aren't possible. It's also a shame that there isn't an article or upload protection level between "semi-protect" and "full-protect" that prevents uploading and editing by users with less than some threshold of productive mainspace edit history. =Axlq 19:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

With the addition of GameShowKid, Axlq, and Blueboy96, I count it as 9-0. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm.... You're gonna seriously consider a community ban on the basis of the opinion of nine people? Come on, get real. Maybe this person deserves to be banned, I don't know from that, but it ssurely can't be done in such an off-hand fashion, as if nine people accurately represent the will of the community? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look up at the top of this section, Uncia says, "still building consensus"--that's the current status. He and I were just keeping a count of noses because people are adding opinions all over (and with the addition of Erik the Red 2, it's at 10-0). No one, to the best of my knowledge, is talking about closing this yet. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a sockpuppetry case against DeLaCueva and 71.30.147.211, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PoliticianTexas (3rd). --Uncia (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also support a ban, but let's see the result of the sockpuppet case first. If it turns out that they are sockpuppets, then the user could just be blocked indef for socking without discussion here. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you go through the whole history (which I don't recommend, btw; it's fairly dull), you'll see that he's been blocked indefinitely 24 times. Twenty-four accounts, all of which have been blocked. Any time one is blocked, he just opens another the next day and starts all over again. That's why this has gone to talking about a ban. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning having a discussion about a ban, I'm sure the history warrants it, I was questioning the idea that the ban might be put into effect based on such a small sample. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 23:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. You don't know shit. seicer | talk | contribs 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ew. Well, to the extent that we don't seem to know where to go with a clear consensus that, in order to streamline cleaning up after all those still-proliferating socks, the banning policy should be applied, user DeLaCueva is just that much almost right ;-) What's next? — Athaenara ✉ 04:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Based upon the SSP result, the indef on the main account, the proliferating sockfarm, and the general disregard for copyright and site policies, I'll support the proposal for a ban. Durova^Charge! 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Orgone, again...

can someone please help straighten this out? once more, Orangemarlin and Tmtoulouse are adding a POV tag to the article, but refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page. this issue was raised previously at a now-archived discussion here, at which point they stopped adding the tag. but now they are back at it, see here and here. note further that OrangeMarlin's edit (the first link) was marked as minor, and that his edit summary clearly indicates that he has no interest in discussing the matter.

I wouldn't mind discussing the issue and trying to resolve whatever POV they seem to think the article has, but their actions make it appear that they simply want the POV tag to remain as a permanent feature of an article. This is not the way a dispute template is supposed to be used. Can someone please get them either to (a) state the nature of the POV problem so it can be resolved and the tag can be removed, or (b) stop placing a tag on an article that they have no interest in improving. I'd rather put this article to rest so I can do other things.

thanks, I appreciate it. --Ludwigs2 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the general sanctions template to the talk page and will watch the article for a while. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I'll make another request on the talk page for an explanation (assuming one hasn't arrived already), and then remove the NPOV tag later today if none arrives. --Ludwigs2 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

group of biased editors

The users Wikidemon (talk · contribs), GoodDamon (talk · contribs), and Grsz11 (talk · contribs) consistently band together, regardless of what time it is with seemingly no edit histories linking them together. The reason for my assumption of this is this edit which in my opinion is an example of them e-mailing each other and ganging up on Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs). They preform the following:

• Not allowing sourced, relevant pieces of information into the article through their team of fake consensus as seen here.
• They try and stop discussion from taking place as seen here.
• They both delete parts of talk pages alleging personal attacks as the reason (although they're aren't any) as seen here and here

Not to mention leaving template warnings on my talk page and the talk page of Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) that are blatantly misleading in their intentions. This is an on-going problem over the last few days/weeks with these editors. I would like an admin to take a look at this. Thank you. Digital^Ninja 03:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The accusation that these editors are Campaign staff is a very serious accusation to make, and constitutes a personal attack in the way you have made it without any evidence to support it.

I strongly suggest you drop this. --Barberio (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Accusing long-standing Wikipedia editors of a conspiracy is a bad idea. The discussion that was closed and ended was basically this discussion. I would stop this line right now, this is bound to go badly for you... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that they may not be campaign staff, but they are biased never the less. I'm trying to AGF with them, but it's not the first time they've been talked to regarding closing down discussions prematurely. I'm going to stay away from the Obama article for at least 48 hours until I calm down out of good faith. It would be nice if they would as well. Digital^Ninja 04:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trying to AGF with them? If starting an administrative noticeboard complaint with a header that accuses them of being campaign staff is an attempt to exercise good faith, I'd hate to see you assuming bad faith. Durova^Charge! 05:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to stay away from the article for a while, I think that's a good idea. However, suggesting someone else do the same is a bit ridiculous. Dayewalker (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion this evening concerned, among other things, a gross violation of WP:BLP on the Barack Obama page, which is under probation. I am the one who closed it down here. There was nothing premature about it. A BLP violation cannot be allowed to stand, especially such an obvious one. No amount of discussion makes a BLP violation OK for the article. And the warning DigitalNinja links to is from a POV-pushing editor who has been topic-banned. --GoodDamon 04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll stay away until I have a clear head. It was just a suggestion that others do the same, either way I will. I strongly urge that the situation is examined by someone more familiar with Wikipedia than myself, and I stand by that. Digital^Ninja 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just have to point out I was in no way asking that they BLP violation you're speaking of be included. I was speaking about my well sourced link to the Fanny Mae funds. And the top banned person you are speaking of is leaning the wrong direction (he's pro-obama). I was simply calling attention to having the discussing shut down prematurely, in my opinion. Either way, I'm going to take a break for a while. If anyone needs a response, please message me on my talk page and I'll reply this weekend. Regards. Digital^Ninja 04:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. If you're referring to User:Curious bystander, he's actually quite the opposite, and was topic-banned for attempting to insert poorly-sourced negative content and attacking editors who disagreed. --GoodDamon 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't bother responding to accusations made against me - if anyone takes this seriously I could. A self-imposed article break is a great idea for DigitalNinja, and I certainly appreciate the respectful tone in the above comment. The talk page and editing process have become quite a mess in the past couple days from a number of seemingly unrelated vandals, trolls, tendentious editors, SPAs, etc. It would be great if we could get an impartial adminsitrator to volunteer for hall monitor duty but I'm afraid they've all been chased off. So the duty falls on those established editors willing to be persistent and thick skinned. One of the tools in managing the talk page is to close down disruptive discussions. Another is to leave messages, templated or not, regarding article probation, editing practices, etc. That's what we're supposed to do -- certainly before edit warring, rushing to file AN/I reports, or using the talk pages to get into arguments with disruptive editors. It would be most helpful if we could have an authority figure urge the editors on the page to take more seriously Wikipedia's policies more seriously regarding civility, edit warring, NPA, etc., as well as article probation, if and when they do return over at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First, wikidemon warns Grss about over-reverting, then wikidemon takes over reverting and finally Grss emails wikidemon. So why are they taking turns reverting someone's edits and apparently coordinating their efforts? It seems like an organized attempt to control certain articles. Also, if possible, I don't know how this works, but feedback from people involved in "their" articles is not really appreciated. I'd also like to add that wikidemon has come off as threatening, as if he had some authority to ban, and has closed off conversations (here and here) instead of answering questions I'd put forth regarding policy. I'd like to note that some people have dropped in, in support of my edits, but haven't signed in because they are apparently afraid of retribution by the "clique." Additionally, the content was not a BLP violation, it was factual and relevant for an encyclopedia article - but apparently not a fluff piece.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Wikipedia users email each other, there's nothing wrong with doing that and you're going to have to find more than that to prove something dodgy is going on here. I agree he shouldn't be arbitrarily trying to shut down discussions. I actually thought you guys were being hard done by and that this report should be taken more seriously. But then I started looking at the diffs provided when I noticed that you lot wanted to add into the middle of a sentence about Obama's religious beliefs, information that he has been declared the "Messiah" - "Obama is a Christian whose religious views have evolved in his adult life and has recently been declared the Messiah by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan". And I thought, who's POV-pushing? Sarah 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be a bad example, but I also said in the discussion that maybe I should've put it in the "political and cultural image" section. When a major religious leader, especially from the area in which you live, declares you to be the Messiah, then that is notable and should be included in some shape or form. They also shot down the discussion of him belonging to the Chicago CSA since it is a socialist organization, and that is apparently slanderous. Oh, and there is video of Farrakhan declaring Obama the Messiah, and it was recently shown on Fox News - this isn't something I made up and it was sourced. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors shut down discussions all the time on the page, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's one of the ways to keep things peaceful on the article. It's not arbitrary and it's not over POV. Discussions that use the talk page as a forum, for racist vandalism, to provoke trouble with other editors, or that degenerate into incivility and attacks with no reasonable likelihood of improving the article, all get closed. Personal attacks are deleted or redacted often. If you look at the page at any given moment about half the articles are closed, and that's with a 5 day archive. You don't even see the stinkers that got deleted - lots of N-words and talk about gay people. Most troublemakers get the hint, and if they don't they get blocked - usually they are simple vandals or sockpuppets. This backfires sometimes where we run into a tendentious or misguided fighter, or someone bites the newbie. But it's all routine article maintenance. Again, it would be wonderful if we could have an administrator in the house to shut down and delete disruptive talk page contributions, but without that the community hast to do it. I can't speak to each of the examples below, but I'm pretty sure none of the below editor's discussions were not shut down until he started getting abusive in his comments to other editors.Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being racist now? Or is it just subtle enough for you to deny the accusation? Also, you are flat out lying when you say that you shut down the discussion because I was being "abusive." Here is where you shut down the argument, and it was right after I proved YOU were wrong about simple logical deductions.TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. But I will accuse you of very low comprehension of what you are reading. I don't accuse you of racism or sockpuppetry, and I don't lie, so please stop making things up. That is indeed among the conversations I and other community members closed for growing uncivil after they had degenerated past the point of any possible improvement to the article.Wikidemon (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah so your answer is that your accusation of racism was just subtle enough for you to say "that's not what you meant." I suppose this accusation of sockpuppetry when you refer to "those" editors doesn't include me now does? I can't wait to hear your twist on that one since you are obviously refering to me and DigitalNinja. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Some better examples of edits they've shut down:

1) I sourced an article that Obama had been bumming cigarettes while on the campaign trail, but this wasn't notable enough to be included. HOWEVER, the fact that he promised to quit WAS notable enough to be included, and if you look at the article now, you'll see that it states that Obama quit - when that is at odds with the facts.

2) There is a small blurb on the Annenberg Challenge, Barack was chairman of it, I sourced that the 110 million dollars spent on improving education, under his leadership, didn't improve education in any measurable way. This is his only executive experience, and the results of it aren't "notable" enough to devote half a sentence?

3) The weakest of the three, I sourced that Barack signed a contract with and was endorsed by the Chicago DSA, which I use a simple syllogism with in order to summarize his association - syllogisms are allowed and not OR. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing disruption

One of the problematic editors here, Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is WP:Canvassing some rather aggressive editors he knows have harangued me here in the past.[81][82] Can we please wrap this up before it gets mean and nasty? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have their email addresses like you do with Grzz, et all, and so I can't privately get a posse to come to my rescue. I've noticed that you've spent MONTHS on this board - why is that? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to counsel this editor about what's wrong with that kind of attitude but I am obviously not getting through. Perhaps someone else could help. To give a few pointers about Wikipedia, everyone here has everyone's email address. I'm not sure where to find it but there is a system for sending private emails to anyone who has indicated an email address in their "preferences" tab. Next question. I am on this board for three or four reasons. As a long-term Wikipedian who has written close to 100 articles and cares about free content more generally on the Internet I try to keep an eye on the goings on here. It's like a citizen attending a city council meeting. Where I feel I can help with a comment or question I'll jump right in, mindful that there's business to be done here on AN/I and it's not just a gab-and-complain session. Third, I am one of those "troll patrol" people you sometimes hear about. When I see something getting out of hand I do what I can, and call it to the attention of the administrators if I think it's ripe for a look. With only 1,400 administrators here we non-admins are often the eyes and ears of the admin volunteers, and we have an important role to play because we are often out in the trenches, article-wise, and spot small problems before they become big ones. Finally, people often drag me here to complain about me. I think I've become some kind of mascot among disruptive editors who wish I weren't standing between them and whatever nonsense they're trying to pull here. You should know that from your egging on the recently blocked editor who is vowing to devote his Wikipedia career to revealing my badness and doing me in.[83] Hope this helps. And please, until someone who will listen to can get to you with this advice, please do not assume that other editors here who disagree with an edit you wish to make are all engaged in some nefarious conspiracy. You might pause to consider the possibility that they are not only sincere, but might have a good point as well. Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the section heading - it was sensationalized.Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good idea - although knowing that the original heading read "Barack Obama Article and Campaign staff and/or biased support white-washing everything" does help readers get a sense of context for what the filer of the report might have in mind. Wikidemon (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well as I pointed out to you before - which you scrubbed from your talk page. If you were so interested in an open discussion, then you wouldn't have closed the discussion on the Annenberg et all, information. You flat out declared the conversation was over and then closed it after I pointed out that simple logical deductions are allowed according to wikipedia policy. You then berated me for not assuming good faith after you shut it down when I proved you were wrong. As for "canvassing," you are doing that secretly not only through emails, but you were also trying to get an admin involved on your side here. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone, please counsel the above editor on good faith, and making paranoid unsubstantiated accusations about other editors. I'll give a set of diffs in a minute, but this editor is severely misguided, which is leading to a lot of disruption.Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't mean you maintain it in the face of evidence to the contrary. I proved you were wrong on the Barack talk page and then you closed the entire discussion. What am I supposed to assume?TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith means that you do not use conjecture, supposition, and syllogism to "prove" that editors far more experienced than yourself are in some kind of a plot to do evil on Wikipedia. Whatever kind of evidence you think you have that everyone else on the talk page is evil, obviously that is the kind of evidence you should not be making that sort of decision on.Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are using multiple straw men. It is really quite simple - I proved your argument didn't fit with wikipedia policy, that I was correct and you were not - and then you closed the conversation. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not arguing with you. I'm telling you. You need to change your attitude towards other editors and editing the encyclopedia if you wish to continue editing here. Particularly on the Obama pages because they are under article probation. The sooner you do that, the sooner we can all get back to editing. If you continue, you are going to get blocked. That would not do anyone any good. So take a breather. You obviously won't listen to me, so listen to some other experienced hands if and when they take the time to look over this. Wikidemon (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Grsz11

Frankly I don't know how my name came up in this, other than the fact that I sent Wikidemon an e-mail. Today was the most active I've been at the Obama page in months (5 months to be exact), so to make an accusation of a continued campaign to shut out other opinions is outlandish. Also, none of the "evidence" presented refers to me, and I would like my name redacted. Grsz^X 05:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to be here either. We have inexperienced or just confused editors lashing out at things. You know that expression about catching a tiger by the tail? I think we have some confused angry editors by the tail. We're just at the wrong place and wrong time here. Sorry I haven't had a chance to read your email yet. You do have every right to send what you want to others, but in general I do prefer to be transparent about everything except certain sockpuppet-related issues, and of course any social networking matters that don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with.Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's exactly why I left an e-mail instead of a message, imagine that. Grsz^X 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, what seemed like you two coordinating your revert war, by taking turns so you don't get 3RR, was simply a misunderstanding. Again - my bad. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean really, if we were tag-teaming, I wouldn't have gotten blocked. Grsz^X 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Locust, you making personal attacks as you did above isn't going to convince anyone. It just makes you look paranoid. Just because more than one person disagrees with you doesn't make this a conspiracy. Any editor can email any other (who has email enabled), and many editors post on the relevant talk page to inform them to check their email. Dayewalker (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry dayewalker, but if you look up a bit, I showed the sequence of events - Grsz11 was reverting posts until he got to his limit, Wikidemon warned him to stop, and then started doing the same reverts on his behalf. This is just a matter of record and I outlined it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Looked it up. I'm right. Again, more than one editor disagrees with you, so more than one editor has been reverting your edits. There's no grand conspiracy here, just a content dispute. Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I can't force you to read the evidence I've presented, which is obvious since you seem to think I was talking about reverts to me, when I was talking about reverts they've both conspired on against someone else. Again, I presented the evidence way up there, but if you can't be bothered to read it, then why can you be bothered to form an opinion?TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Well-informed opinion formed, thanks. You're making personal attacks based on the faulty assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be conspiring against you, based on the fact that one editor warned another about breaking WP:3RR. Dayewalker (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that's not the whole story now is it? Not only did he warn him about 3rr, but he then went and continued the edit war on his friend's behalf. As if that wasn't bad enough, they are emailing each other for who knows what purpose. This group of people have organized to edit war with the appearance of propriety and it is unacceptable. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole story is as I have said above, more than one person disagrees with you. If that happens, more than one person will change your edits, especially if it involves WP:BLP. Why does it require a conspiracy for two editors who disagree with you, both active, to both revert your edits? As for a group of people organizing to edit war, your attempt at canvassing this evening certainly seems that. Dayewalker (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are being completely unreasonable. As I have said before, the evidence I presented was of them working together in a revert war against another editor - not me. Why can't you understand this? Why do you refuse to look at the evidence? One of them starts an edit war, the other one messages him, and then continues the edit war on their behalf while secretly emailing each other. Why do you keep on attacking me by saying it is a disagreement with me? The evidence I presented had nothing to do with me. You need some perspective or to step back and let more reasonable minds prevail. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And there's your next round of personal attacks. My mind is quite reasonable, thanks. Based on what I see on this page, this conversation won't help, so I'll just let my part of this thread end. Dayewalker (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How are they "secretly" e-mailing if he mentions it on the talk page with a giant header? --Smashville^talk 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You think that is their usual MO? They screwed up - usually they aren't putting that kind of evidence on wikipedia. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So we're a secretive cabal of Obama campaign staffers again? Uh-huh... So, how much longer does this "incident report" have to stay open? If necessary, I'm happy to have a checkuser run on me, just to clear up this nonsense. --GoodDamon 18:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser won't prove anything and you know it. If possible, i'd like to see the emails your little group has going back and forth between each other, but I don't see that happening. TheGoodLocust (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

GoodDamon, I think the admins are more amused than anything else, and playing with him at this point.<cabal-secret>Calling all agents. Uh-oh, he's on to us! Did he catch us implanting the electrodes? I hope he didn't read our white paper on the famous aluminum defense. Lay low for a while, I think we can hoodwink all of the admin agents here.</cabal-secret> Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wise trusted authority figure needed

A look at the past day or so of editing from Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) shows some serious problems. The question is why, and what to do about it. I don't think he's trying to misbehave. He simply doesn't seem to have a good grasp of what we're doing here in terms of content and behavior policies. Here are some diffs that may help. Please, folks, if you are neutral and wise and will take the time to guide him he can make a productive editor. If you let him continue he's headed to the block log for sure.

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH)[84][85][86][87][88]
• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[89][90]
• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[91][92][93]
• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[94][95][96]

WP:AGF problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105]
• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[106][107][108][109][110][111]
• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[112]

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[113][114][115][116][117]
• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[118][119][120]
• "bullshit"[121], "whitewashed"[122] etc.[123]
• random disruption on talk page[124][125][126]

Again, I'm not advocating for the editor to be blocked or banned, but could someone please put a foot down here? Thanks, 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've recreated an unthreaded version of my comment so that people can get a grasp of this. Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

commented version

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of WP:SYNTH)[127][128][129][130][131]

That is a mischaracterization of what I said. He signed a pledge with a socialist political organization and that is relevant. Also, at least one other editor agreed with me on this. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And many more did not, pointing out that this deduction was not covered by WP:NOTOR. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And by "many more" you meant yourself and one other editor. Also, your argument that it wasn't "obvious" betrays your lack of understanding of simple logic. I used the EXACT type of logic that was explicity allowed under NOTOR. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[132][133]

The article says he quit smoking, and when I bring up the fact that he "bums smokes", which was the sources wording, not mine, it suddenly isn't notable. Also, at least one other editor agreed with me on this.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, many others did not. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, by "many others" you mean "Wikidemon."TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[134][135][136]

Not only was that on a talk page, but your assertion that he isn't is ridiculous. Me and another poster were flabergasted at how unreasonable you were being. Bill Ayers founded a terrorist organization, it was defined as such by the FBI and he bombed buildings - he is a terrorist.TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And this was a rehash of a rehash of a rehash, ad nauseum. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is a rehash since you and wikidemon refuse to see reason. A person founding and FBI-declared terrorist organization who participated in terrorist activities is a terrorist. You are plainly being unreasonable by your refusal to admit that. What term did you want us to use? "Freedom fighter?"TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[137][138][139]

The 3rr was redacted by the admin when I pointed out that I wasn't reverting. Farrakhan did say that, there is video, and he is an important religious figure - especially in Chicago. Oh, and at least one other editor agreed with my change, maybe more if you hadn't started throwing random threats around. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And this was the gross WP:BLP violation I referred to earlier. If Farrakhan says something absurd about somebody, that absurdity doesn't belong in the subject's BLP, any more than if I say it. --GoodDamon 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet you have never explained how it is a BLP violation. Farrakhan is not only a major religious figure, but he is an important citizen in Chicago, especially Obama's district as they live in the same neighborhood. Obama has marched with Farrakhan, Farrakhan was named man of the year by Obama's church, Farrakhan and OBama's pastor went to Libya together, Michelle Obama and Farrakhan's wife have spoken together on boards. Again, Farrakhan is a major religious figure, and a major player in Chicago social circles, but the best you can come up with is that it is "somehow" a BLP violation. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148]

Just like your friend called my posts "random garbage" "trolling" and a few other choice words. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[149][150][151][152][153][154]

Well if you didn't take turns in revert wars and secretly email each other then it wouldn't look that way now would it? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[155]

You closed a conversation after I proved you wrong - I can't AGF with you after that. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[156][157][158][159][160]

You've accused me of racism, sockpuppetry, subtlely threatened me and closed my conversations. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[161][162][163]

Because you were trying to whitewash the conversation, which only moved there after you closed it down on the Barack talk page. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• "bullshit"[164], "whitewashed"[165] etc.[166]

And you friend Grss said "fucking" - what is your point? Oh and last time I checked, about 5-6 other editors agreed with me that it was "bullshit." TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• random disruption on talk page[167][168][169]

By "random disruption" you mean I restored the evidence you whitewashed that the other editor found of you and Grss conspiring together? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not advocating for the editor to be blocked or banned, but could someone please put a foot down here? Thanks, 06:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(STOMP) Did that help? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually find this whole thing pretty funny. The entire complaint seems to be predicated on the fact that a user has his e-mail enabled...but the user who is doing the most complaining on this ANI has his e-mail enabled...You're going to have to find a lot better evidence than that to prove anything... --Smashville^talk 15:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not predicated on the email that is incidental. Grss was close to 3 rr for his reverts, wikidemon cautioned him to watch out, and then wikidemon started doing the exact same reverts on Grss's behalf. These is how these people work - they tag team edits they don't want into submission while giving subtle threats to those they are trying to suppress.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not tag team editing when a large group of unconnected people, who have stated and concurred in their reasoning for their editorial opinion, and who have given legitimate chance for someone to make their case, all take turns reverting the insertion of unacceptable material into an article from a single editor set on adding it. That is called consensus editing. --Barberio (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all they aren't "unconnected" - that's the point, they are communicating to coordinate their efforts. Second, you are hardly a neutral source since you are heavily involved in the article I mentioned. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this simply. Drop this matter. You are wrong. Your theory that there is a conspiracy based on the fact that one person e-mailed another is so mind-numbingly inane that it hurts my brain trying to figure out how someone could actually think what you are thinking. You are doing nothing more than disrupting the project. Stop it now. --Smashville^talk 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a strawman - you keep on bringing up the email like that is my only evidence. That is merely circumstantial. All it takes is a cursory glance at wikidemon and gooddamon's activities on the Barack Obama talk page to see how they shut down all edits they have an idealogical conflict with - regardless of revelancy or facts. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is probably going to be your last warning on this issue.

Please read the terms of the community approved article probation on articles and edits related to Barack Obama, and either understand that this applies to you and moderate yourself by stopping being a combative and aggressive editor, or refrain from editing these articles at all. You are currently risking a block for up to a year for your behaviour if you continue. --Barberio (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

I've taken myself off the case in terms of policing these articles, because I find it unpleasant, unsupported, and unrewarding.Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs) appears to be a single-purpose agenda account, and the diffs cited above provide ample evidence of issues with assuming bad faith, personal attacks and personalizing the dispute, canvassing, and a WP:BATTLEfield mentality. The article probation specifies a low tolerance for this sort of thing. On the other hand, he's not been edit-warring that I can see, rather just going on at the talk page. I'd like to reserve this section for commentary from uninvolved editors and admins as to a) whether anything should be done under terms of the article probation, and b) if yes, what? MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest one final chance to back off and be civil, with a formal warning that if he doesn't, he will be blocked till after the election. --Barberio (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You aren't uninvolved Barberio - isn't this thread supposed to be for those without an agenda?TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is classic disruption, anyone who disagrees with Locust is either involved or agenda-pushing. For the record I was completely uninvolved, and you didn't even try to listen to me either. Dayewalker (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And anyone, or when several anyones in many of the recent cases, disagree with the article owners, they are involved in disruption. Classic. CENSEI (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself have never edited this, or any other, related article. From my point of view, the central problem with this situation is in major violations of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE with regard to the Obama article:

1. The use of unreliable sources in the interest of providing "balance" to the article
2. The misrepresentation of information from "fringe" or "unreliable" sources as reprsenting a prevailing or mainstream viewpoint
3. The demand for inclusion of trivial or irrelevant information, out of balance with that informations importance to the article
4. A misrepresentation of NPOV to mean "not to MY point of view".

I have no idea who is in violation of these NPOV problems, near as I can tell all sides are. I would support an explicit statement that allows uninvolved admins to block any user who deliberately continues to violate NPOV in this way after being warned to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other than the ANI here, I have not been involved in the related articles...The entire article probation seems written to prevent the exact behavior TheGoodLocust is exhibiting. And he seems to have no sign of backing down from his personal attacks...(and consistently making bad faith accusations despite common sense is very much a personal attack, in my opinion). --Smashville^talk 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If content you add is repeatedly removed by multiple editors, the logical explanation is that there is something wrong with that content. Going straight to conspiracy theories and implying that other users have banded together against you is both irrational and disruptive- and maintaining that behavior after being warned by a rather large number of uninvolved editors is doubly so. I support Jayron's solution. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That isn't logical at all. They've been camped on on the Barack Obama board for months chasing dissenting opinion away. That's just a matter of record - just because a few of them have gotten together to do it doesn't make it "logical" or moral. You've heard of group think right? TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A-Fuckin-Men! CENSEI (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...it seems that we actually do have users contacting other users editing these pages to try to influence discussions... --Smashville^talk 19:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I told two users about this ANI because they've had similar problems with this group of editors. This was already mentioned. And, not that it matters, but I support Jayron's proposal too. I am reluctant to believe, due to the wikilawyering of the offending group,that the rules will be applied equally to all, or if it will just another hammer that they'll use to suppress dissent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't understand why a group of editors communicating about keeping POV-pushing edits out of an article is somehow more objectionable than a group of editors communicating to push their POV into the article. —KCinDC (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't communicated with anyone to game the system and push edits. I just contacted this about this ANI because they know what kind of a problem this group has been. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that? We have evidence you've communicated with each other. You've already violated WP:CANVASS...how are we to know you're not e-mailing each other off wiki conspiring to violate other policies? --Smashville^talk 20:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but telling two other people who probably know more about these users problem behavior than I do isn't a problem. Plus, if I was doing "canvassing" then you'd expect a lot more people coming out of the woodwork in my favor - that is obviously not happening. These editors have a record of not just communciation, but COOPERATION - actions speak louder than words buddy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind at least reading WP:CANVASS? Explain to me you doing it with clear hardcut evidence isn't a problem, but it is a problem the other way despite any evidence. Wikipedia is BASED on cooperation and consensus. So if you have a problem with people cooperating or agreeing on Wikipedia, then you have no intention of being a constructive contributor. --Smashville^talk 20:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also guess it was implied but not specifically stated, I too support Jayron's proposal. --Smashville^talk 19:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be so glad when these elections are over. Meanwhile, Thegoodlocust, you are finding merely that others disagree with you, and some people hae emails enabled. You are quite new to Wikipedia; you have only edited Barak Obama, and to a lesser extent, Sarah Palin. I strongly suggest you leave the articles of political candidates alone this election, and learn the ropes on less contentious topics. You can easily find articles which need attention at Category:Cleanup. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What is it first come first serve? This group of editors have been resisting any change they disagree with no matter the relevancy or the source. Just come over and look at what they have reverted. I've given plenty of examples here about things that don't "make the cut." They have decided him quitting smoking is relevant, but when I point out he hasn't quit smoking, with a good source, they just excise that and leave the "fact" that he quit in the article. That is just one ridiculous example. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, you're not trying to work with them. You're warring with them. Go read WP:TIGERS, take a deep breath, and think about it. Its not "first come, first serve" its "Wikipedia is not a battleground" and frankly, basic concern that you are unfamilair with our policies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert a BLP violation continues: [170] --guyzero | talk 20:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Notice how I added, "a sister organization of ACORN" with a good source, and it was immedietaly reverted? This is the kind of crap I'm talking about - NOTHING can be added to the article unless it is some pro-Obama fluff. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The link shows you adding false content, with a 2007 source with content which a) does not support most of your edit and b) the part it does support has since been corrected. You're posting McCain ads, and looking for sources. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you edit Barak Obama, you must approach it from the attitude that you want to write the most balanced, accurate, and well-written article possible. You research, and what the sources say is what goes in, using NPOV, CON, and so on to determine content and phrasing. This is not a propaganda war zone. Now, slow down and calm down, seriously, or you may be blocked for disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

96 hours for Mr Locust. Tolerance for WP:TE has its limits. Moreschi (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, now you are part of the conspiracy --Smashville^talk 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I know, this guy really is excellent :) Moreschi (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block. TheGoodLocust seems to have been confusing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules with Wikipedia:Break all rules. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree...I don't think any (logical) person would believe that the English have a pro-Obama agenda. --Smashville^talk 21:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire poll-able world outside the US is pro-Obama, including Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom, not to mention Australia and Taiwan. Of course, Obama's popularity overseas is actually a negative - it just makes him even more suspect to Joe Sixpack. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So, uh... Just for the record, can we close this now? As one of the secret cabal members editors named in it, I've rather get back to editing articles. --GoodDamon 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say so. I've just declined an unblock request from Thegoodlocust; if any admin disagrees with my reasoning, let me know. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, can I formally protest TheGoodLocust's block...or if so will I be accused of being disruptive myself? If it's the latter, just disregard this and no response is necessary. Regards. Digital^Ninja 23:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you can protest all you like. However, three admins (including myself) have now reviewed Thegoodlocust's block and determined that it was appropriate. I think it unlikely that a protest will do any good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is kinda not cool. Grsz^X 04:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And this. Grsz^X 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Disruption by Jaimaster

user:Jaimaster is an aggressive POV pusher on global warming related articles. Since arriving here in August and fomenting multiple edit wars, he has been warned about this behavior, both by myself [171] and user:John (an uninvolved admin I asked to look into his behavior). [172] (Having reviewed your recent contribution history, and as an admin who has no previous history in this area, I independently agree with Raul that your behavior merits a block. ). This has not dissuaded him. During his latest round of POV pushing (using the false edit summary Gave the section a copy edit cleanup), in the global warming article, he changed several instances of "caused primarily by human" to "attributed to human activities" - a pretty clear attempt to white wash the article. I reverted, and (as par for the course with him) he began to revert war. I reminded him of the previous warnings about his disruptive editing, and he threatened to open an ANI thread on me. I'd like someone to look into his repeated disruption. Raul654 (talk) 05:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that a neutral admin will fully investigate this and find it to have contain no substance. I believe this ANI has only been posted in response to my statement of intent to post an ANI of my own regarding Raul654's behavior, per my response to his "warning" left on my talk page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244306725&oldid=244305293

I acknowlege that as a new user I was overly cynical in my attempts to remove what I perceive to be systematic bias from the GW articles, however I am absolutely confident that my editing behavior since discussing the matter with John on the 4th of August (that discussion available for review here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John/Archive_28#Disruptive_user_in_need_of_block) has improved dramatically, and has included none of the actions alleged above. Jaimaster (talk) 05:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I think both of you are behaving very childishly. "Stop disrupting our articles..." and, "Over the next few days, we'll find out if the wiki is based on..."

Stop treating this like Battle of the Giants and start trying to do what's best for the project. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done what's best for the project - which is to revert his attempts to white-wash the global warming article (changing "caused by human activities" to "attributed to human activities"), using a false edit summary to do it. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Admin threatening ban over content dispute

Administrator Raul654 has threatened to ban me for "disrupting" the global warming article with this grammatical clarification -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&diff=244262247&oldid=244195678

Per this talk dif -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJaimaster&diff=244305293&oldid=240621874

I am at a loss as to how correcting a major grammar problem in the first line then going on to replace "caused by" with "attributed to" counts as "disruption". The latest official IPCC stance (IPCC being regarded as the most Global Warming reliable source) is 90% confidence in causation, lending itself to "attributed". In any case the reversion of the "attributed to" took out the correction of the major grammar problem on the first line, with no attempt made to fix it.

I believe this warning is a nothing more than a deliberate attempt to bully, and is in contravention of administrator guidelines per

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Admin#Misuse_of_tools

Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor),

It is my opinion that this warning should be withdrawn. Jaimaster (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that this thread was started in response to my above thread, describing Jainmaster's disruptive behavior (for which he has previously been warned by multiple admins). Raul654 (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Check the chronology. What you say here is not possible without a time machine Raul. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a dispute over the use of sources is a grammar problem. That seems to be a total mischaracterization of the situation, and totally disingenuous on yourpart Jaimaster... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume the "major grammar problem" is the missing "the" before "increase"? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayron32, dispute over the use of sources? I dont follow. The dispute is over "attributed" vs "caused by". Neither was a direct quote from a source.

Roger, the first line was horribly written. Im quite happy with calling it a major grammar problem. Jaimaster (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not. And let's not snopak those crucial adverbs out of the discussion: there's a huge shift in meaning between "caused primarily" and "mostly atributed". This should have been discussed on the talk page first to obtain consensus. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On review i pasted the wrong link (to a talk page comment of all things. I do not know why). This has been corrected. The link now points to the Global Warming edit that Raul654 says is "disruptive". This should clear up for Jayron32.

Roger, is not discussing a change of this type on a talk page, then reverting it back when the bathtub is thrown out with the water with a note of "inaccurate watering down" (which is most certainly was not) disruptive? Jaimaster (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a simple matter of principal to me. I believe I am being bullied because Raul thinks skeptics are equal to holocaust deniers (I can find a dif to support that last), and per our past interactions he knows I am such a person. If you, the impartial administrators of wikipedia, agree that my edit was disruptive and not a mere a content dispute, and as such warranted the warning given, please block me for a period you deem appropriate for wasting your time. Otherwise all I want is the warning withdrawn. (added - I wont be back till Monday au time to answer any other questions. TGIF, have a goodun) Jaimaster (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jaimaster's edit in the diff above was in no conceivable way merely "grammatical" or a "copy edit". It was a substantive edit which sought to dramatically change the paragraph to say something different than what it had said before. His edit summary was innacurate and misleading, and it's practically impossible, despite as much AGF as I can muster, for me to believe that it was not deliberately designed to be deceptive. Because Jaimaster's posts here indicate that he is intelligent and well understands the meaning of words, I find it difficult to believe that he truly thinks his edits were simply superficial alterations that did not radically change the meaning of the statements in the paragraph.

  Whether Jaimaster should be blocked or not is not my business, I'm not an administrator, but he certainly should be admonished to use accurate edit summaries, and not to change the fundamental substance of controversial articles without consensus on the article's talk page. While the center of the matter is indeed a content dispute, blocking may be appropriate for Jaimaster's behavior in editing without consensus and in attempting to hide the nature of the edit. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• That was no grammar edit, but a meaningful content change. Given the high profile and high controversey (never mind history) of the article, the proposed edit should have been brought up on the talk page first. At the very least, the edit summary, along with Jaimaster's post here about the edit fixing a "grammar problem," was wholly misleading. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2008
  • Calling a substantial content change a grammar change is, IMHO, tendentious editing, and depending upon the context would be good grounds for a block - at the time it was done, that is. And it should be taken into account if the editor's behaviour is subsequently be questioned. Doug Weller (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a warning to Raul654's. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Raul, it's a *huge* no-no to threaten to block someone when you are involved in a content dispute with them. This ArbCom ruling maintains that the editor is allowed to question your actions and this ArbCom ruling clearly says that admins are only allowed to use their tools during a content dispute in an emergency. This is not an emergency but rather a simple content dispute. Threatening to block during a content dispute that is not emergent is a violation of policy and ArbCom rulings. What say you? Bstone (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to say, the warning was ok but Raul may not have been the one to make it, which is why I left one myself. Although I understand why Raul uses his admin tools on this article (and he may indeed see it as an emergency), it may be time to talk about whether there is community consensus for this, or whether it's allowed on some core articles, for some trusted admins. If the latter is true, I wouldn't mind seeing this written into policy. I see worries whichever way the consensus would go so I'm neutral but I do think it should be talked about. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, Gwen, pursuant to this ArbCom ruling admins are instructed to not issue warnings etc while in a content dispute but instead use the appropriate noticeboards to ask for uninvolved admin attention. Raul did not do that and has violated the ArbCom instruction to admins. Bstone (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote verbatim where the decision says that administrators can't issue warnings. I am not seeing it. Administrators can't use tools when involved in a content dispute (and should not threaten to do so either), but any editor can issue warnings when called for. A warning means, "there is danger, be careful". Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Raul said "I'm going to block you" and not "You will/may be blocked." Gwen Gale (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the editor above asserted. My comment specifically recognized that threatening to personally execute a block while involved in a content dispute is problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three topics in this thread. Thanks for clarifying your take. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, Raul very clearly said he will block the fellow. That is very different from issuing a TW warning or similar. It was a handwritten and threatening note coming from an involved admin regarding a content dispute. Raul should certainly know better. There is no way to whitewash this. Bstone (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everyone (I think). The edit in question was not a simple copyedit, the summary was misleading, continued reversion without discussion is disruptive, Raul is involved in a content dispute and he should not block Jaimaster. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But any of us uninvolved administrators can, if there is a need. Hopefully the parties will sip tea until they realize that this is just a website. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I’ve reviewed the edits of Jaimaster and I find his edit summaries to be misleading. Jaimaster should avoid this type of edit summaries. AdjustShift (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The diffs weren't "grammatical corrections" at all but attempts to subtly bias the entire sections. Please don't hide behind the excuse of grammar corrections for policy violations. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Per an earlier comment, I am in favour of a tier of trusted admins being permitted to use the sysop tools regarding articles in which they are currently involved in editing (outside of emergency actions). The definition of "trusted admin" is one of; any admin that would not use the sysop tools in respect of an article that they are currently editing or otherwise involved in - except in an emergency. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. I have no problem with Raul (or others) being a gatekeeper for the global warming articles, or even running checkusers to look after various areas of the encyclopedia, but he and they do need to recognise when a line gets crossed and they need to ask for opinions from others (and, to be fair, Raul does do that in most cases now), and think carefully about the threat carried by some of their comments. Not everyone stands up for themselves like Jaimaster has. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Agree with Carcharoth. New global warming editors are frequently bitten by Raul and others who quickly roll back good faith edits and cite mysterious consensuses from years ago to justify it. Except for obvious vandalism or sockpuppetry, I believe that we almost all agree that admins should not use or threaten to use their privileges (including rollback) to advance their own position in a dispute. Oren0 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Note that they may be justified in that. Linking to the older discussions would be a good step. Organising the older and perennial discussions into a FAQ would be even better, but I think that's already been done. See Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Syn, Steve Nardelli and User:Umbrello

Shortly after a call for fans of The Syn to edit their Wikipedia article from the owner of their official e-mail list (14Hour) and subsequent complaints of anti-Syn bias on Wikipedia, a new Wikipedia editor appeared with the username Umbrello. Umbrello Records was founded and is run by Steve Nardelli, lead singer in The Syn. Umbrello is a single-purpose account and has only edited articles on The Syn and on Nardelli. His user page was basically the same as the article page for Steve Nardelli, although he latterly said this was just because he was using it as a sandbox.

I suspect user Umbrello probably is Steve Nardelli; he has form for promoting himself on the Web (see this material since removed from The Syn article). I had tagged both articles with coi notices and done npov tidy-up, although Umbrello and an IP editor who is clearly the same person (24.47.192.90) has removed the coi tags (see diff) but hasn't yet explicitly addressed whether he does or does not have a COI. I previously placed a message on the COI noticeboard. Meanwhile RexerX appears to be a sock (or meatpuppet) for Umbrello (makes same sort of edits, had identical user pages for a while).

Some edits by Umbrello, RexerX and 24.47.192.90 are useful. However, 'they' have removed most of the critical material from The Syn article, some of which had no citations and probably should have been removed anyway (see diff) and some of which did have citations (see here). They have added overly praiseworthy material that cannot be supported (see diff) and twisted quotes (see this versus my fix here).

I have some history off Wikipedia, good and bad, with Nardelli and The Syn, so I would rather someone else patrolled this situation. Can anyone review behaviour? Bondegezou (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty damn likely this user is strongly connected to Umbrello Records. Notice Image:Steve Nardelli.jpg is marked as {{pd-author}} while the image is pretty clearly watermarked as the work of Martyn Adelman, who is a member of The Syn, and its sourcing information is "from The Syn website". Might want to inform Umbrello that they're the subject of an AN/I thread, btw. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Sockpuppets confirmed and indef blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, while checking my watchlist, i came across three incidents of mass deletion from Muslim apostate related articles such as Ramzi Yousef, List of people who converted to Christianity and List of former Muslims. The vandalism was done by three separate accounts. A user named FarhadS1N deleted the entire "Conversion to Christianity" section in the Ramzi Yousef article, even though it was sourced with credible and reliable newspapers such as NY times, CBS news, wtc. Another user JMDU removed Ramzi Yousef's picture and deleted his entry from the "List of people who converted to Christianity". Yet, another user Iman19 did the same in the "List of former Muslims" article. These striking similarities raised my suspiscion that they were operated by the same user.

Upon close checking of their contributions, i found that their edits were done within minutes of each other. For instance, FarhadS1N's was on 8:16, Iman19's was on 8:20 and JMDU's was on 8:22. Also, they have each made only one edit which was to the aforementioned articles.

Faced with these facts, i can say with the utmost certainty that they are in fact sockpuppets. As such, i request any interested administrator to revert their edits, block these accounts indefinitely. I also suspect that these sockpuppets were created by a user who already has a normal account in wikipedia. Therefore, i also request to perform a usercheck and trace any other accounts that were created using this IP address. Joyson Noel (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser says  Confirmed as apparently the same user:

1. 2sar1dhar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. JMDU (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Iman19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. FarhadS1N (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

And  Likely match for Malieek (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

all above accounts have been blocked for illegally using multiple accounts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Spartan815

I'm concerned about this account Spartan815 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I reverted some vandalism from the user. Then I looked at the contribs. this user had no edits since spring of 2006. Then today we have a small string of edits, all appear to be vandalism. I left a level 3 warning, but i'm concerned it may be a comprimised account or something. At minimum I think the account needs some eyes on it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment by User:ScotBartolo

Resolved

Scotbartolo (talk · contribs)

Recently, I speedy-deleted Clikatat ikatowi and Clikatat Ikatowi (only difference is in caps) under CSD A7 (unremarkable band). Yesterday morning, I started receiving harassing emails from User:Scotbartolo (the only contributor to the band article) telling me that he "can't believe" I deleted his article, calling me some rather nasty names, accusing me of abusing my power as an administrator, and asking me if I work full-time at Wikipedia (which I obviously do not). He also seems to believe that I am a different person that he's had some sort of past trouble with.

I asked him to address me in my Talk page instead of sending me off-wiki emails, and he replied with "I'll contact you however I please." (This harassment continued on into this morning as well.)

Below is the email exchange I had with this user, with name and address specifics censored:

emails redacted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, this behavior is unacceptable. What say you? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Started with a block and disabled his e-mail...unfortunately he already has your e-mail address from your response. --Smashville^talk 15:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's okay - I'll deal with that. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Although he was brilliant enough to tell you who he was and where he was from and then continued e-mailing you after you told him to stop...which means if he keeps it up, I'd give his ISP a call. --Smashville^talk 16:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's how admins should deal with harassers. Good job! AdjustShift (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the sender owns the "copyright" to those e-mails, so you might hear from his lawyer. Meanwhile, since he's obviously an idiot, maybe you could ask him what his street address is, telling him that you want to visit and personally explain things. Then see if he's surprised when the men in the clean white coats turn up at his door instead, coming to take him away, ha-ha! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If he becomes particularly troublesome, I'll escalate it to his ISP, but I doubt it'll be necessary. I already told him after his most recent message that I'd be sending further messages from him to my spam filter, so I expect I might get one or two more angry messages from him that I won't need to pay attention to. He can, of course, contest his block, but I doubt he will. It's really nothing more than a temper tantrum. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The guy seems like a bit unpleasant but a bit of research suggests that the band may be notable. They've been mentioned in the New York Times and google news shows a few mentions. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all fine and good. The CSD criterion is about assertion of notability, and the article at the time did not satisfactorily assert (at least, in my opinion) the band's notability. I told the user via email that if he could address the notability issue, he was welcome to recreate the article, and I did not try to discourage him in any way from doing that (except to point out that he had a potential WP:COI since he was one of the band's members). At that point, though, it was pretty obvious that he was more interested in telling me where I could stick it than working constructively, so it's probably a moot point anyway. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally like Joshua's pre-redaction description instead...--Smashville^talk 20:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that I should have not deleted the page? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ohhh, I see. :) Note to self: Scan the history before replying. Yes, I'll agree to that! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of comments by Satori Son

I have removed a comment by an anon user at Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking as I believe it does not comply with our guidelines on WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages and WP:No personal attacks. The comment has been restored by another anon, and I kindly request review by the community. Thank you. — Satori Son 16:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While there is potential for escalation, I don't think the comment should be removed. The "attack" isn't personal; it's built into the context of the article and is possibly true. I'd let the thread unfold (if it goes anywhere at all). Tan | 39 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll grant that as personal attacks go it isn't horribly offensive, but it reeks of WP:HARASS and WP:OUTING.

Even setting aside the harassment issues, WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages clearly states "Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects)." At best, a post at WP:COIN may have been warranted, but otherwise this appears to be an attempt to embarrass and intimidate an editor with an opposing viewpoint on the specific article. — Satori Son

It's the kind of comment that contributes nothing to improving the article. It personally attacks gregalton. Furthermore, I'd bet euros to dollars that the IP is the banned sockpuppeteer Karmaisking (talk · contribs), who has an obsessive fixation on both the topic and on the specific editor singled out for criticism. I'd suggest revert, block, ignore, or at the very least deny recognition. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought of the possible Karmaisking connection, too, but 24.184.170.21 (contribs) and 24.188.32.250 (contribs) both resolve out of Amityville, New York, US, and Karma is located in Sydney, Australia. Still very inappropriate behavior, though. — Satori Son 20:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, both policies at once! Accusations of non-existent COIs are personal attacks. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever for the n-th time

Resolved

User:BalkanFever has tons of ANIs and Witiquette-s opened against him cause of his poor treatment of fellow contributors. As a result of the latest one he got sort of an official warning. That was just a week ago - and here's what he states in an edit-summary today: reverting the vandalism by the anon scumbag. I know someone might've done something wrong, but does this justify calling him a scumbag? Or that one (in Macedonian): Die, die, dirty "bitch" (or more like a male prostitute in the dirtiest way a man from the Balkans could say it)? Or: go away, go away (a word I don't know but it certainly means something like the one from the previous comment) dog? And that's just on one talkpage. On one of the previous ANIs we were discussing his comments there, like oh hell no. you are disgustingly biased. please hold while i vomit. seriously, stay away and btw are you a steak or a kebab?. He also has the habbit calling everybody a vandal when he is in a content dispute like here: [173], but I view this as a minor offence given all the others. I can't possibly dig it up right now, but he used to tell annons to f*ck off and so on. And mind you he was blocked at the time before he created his current account for things like: :No, Assfuckers (has a nice ring to it :D) use it as a pejorative term. It offends Macedonians because most of them aren't from Skopje. And even if they are that is not their national identity. Americans don't call Georgians Tbilisians. Пичка ти грчина. Alex (the one in Cyrillic has a similar meaning to "f*ck your mom") and subsequently calling me a tone of nasty things. --Laveol ^T 16:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for the edit summary here after he was warned about language less than 1 week ago. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Great Sphinx

Please see this. Apparently, I'm an "evil" editor. It's almost certainly the same user as User:Puttyschool, but I'd like someone to verify this. ~ Troy (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have started a checkuser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Puttyschool based on the evidence provided here and by looking at the contribs history of the involved users. Please await the results of that checkuser. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep make sure my eye on it. I won't be surprised if any more issues happen soon, though. ~ Troy (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFCU came back as inconclusive, which does not disprove the connection between the two accounts. If the editing patterns between the Great Sphinx continue to show a strong correlation to prior edits to the article, then the duck test should still be enough to block. If you think there is enough evidence, then please be ready with comparative difs to show so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so if there's any further disruption, I should probably notify the user and contact someone immediately. Should be enough, right? ~ Troy (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's threats and Elonka's WP:OUTING

This section has been blanked as part of the compromise close at this MfD; it is available in the history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Signature/timestamp for archiving: Daniel (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Review for possible incivility, assumption of bad faith, etc.

Alansohn (talk · contribs)

The user is subject to these editing restrictions for one year. I believe in this exchange today, he crossed the line into incivility, assumptions of bad faith, abuse of process, and trolling. This is recurring conduct—accusing those who disagree with him of misconduct, and misrepresenting their comments or positions; see also this related DRV, and this exchange. Please review. Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't block on that incident alone, but I would merely warn and say that any further infringement on his restrictions will result in a block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether a warning or block is merited, I've been too involved in arguments with him recently for me to be the proper one to do it; a neutral observer should step in, evaluate his conduct, and take steps accordingly. Postdlf (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest that the ArbCom's editing restrictions on Alansohn would mean that any block would not be for "that incident alone" since they follow from past acts judged by ArbCom. The restrictions are plainly a warning to stop wasting the community's time and goodwill in the future, has the warning been heeded or not? While I see wikilawyering and mild abuse of process (and wilfull wasting of other editors time) in the two threads on Kbdank71's talk page, I don't see "uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" per se, which is what the ArbCom restrictions specified, but neither to I see reformed conduct, IMHO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI: User talk:Alansohn#Blocked. Postdlf (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the block was an overreaction based on what I have read - exchanges often get heated in deletion debates and this is no more heated than average. However, anyone who knows me knows that as an inclusionist my view here is not impartial. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppets?

Not sure what, if anything, can be done about this, so I'll ping here.

There is a net community of video editors called "YouTube Poop" who like to remix various cartoon and video game materials into a "humourous" nature. This community considers themselves to be notable enough to warrant inclusion here in Wikipedia, either by an article, or just mentioning in various articles. One of the more prolific was Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), who was blocked for threatening another editor. He has returned at least twice this far, Moleman 9001 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) and Moleman 9002 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), each being blocked due to the primary issue of making threats. I won't provide many diffs here, unless requested, but the main accounts listed here should give some light into the issue.

Now, for disclosure, I also accused Moleman 9000 of being a sock of another user, Particleman24 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log), who appears to have decided to vanish after I filed an RFC against Particleman24. The contributions were too similar for me to overlook, but a checkuser comes up negative. The sock case is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Particleman24

Most recently, Hammerthingys42 (talk · contribs) appears with basically the same material. And for the main point of my rambling, that there appears to be a forum for this community which has posted challeges to either blatantly vandalize Wikipedia, or somehow get their community recognized by Wikipedia. If you were to look at [174], you'll see some of the older discussion.

So, to close with my opening statement, is there anything that can be done, other than watch? I'm not sure I could go to SSP, since that takes a significant period of time, and AIV would probably reject my request. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's easy. SSP would just be a waste of time. If there are abusive edits, just block them right off. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, but being under the WP:3RR, since this is not vandalism, I would be wary. [175] and [176] could have easily escalated into an edit war, similar to what you might see in Mid-September on [177]. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hammerthingys42 has not continued past a Level 1 warning, so immediate action is not necessary. But I believe there's enough evidence in this ANI report to justify a one-week block if he continues to make edits promoting YouTube Poop. It's quite safe to call this abuse, especially in the presence of an off-wiki campaign to encourage it. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally not interested with playing Whack-A-Puppet with the people who want to push this... thing continually by referring to it in articles of the topics they use in their videos, what can be done about this for the future beyond WP:RBI? treelo _radda 21:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not just add all the data you've submitted here to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Particleman24. This will allow you to refer to it in the future. The behavioral case may be strong enough to justify blocking all the meatpuppets indef even though the RFCU didn't reveal commonality of IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal Threats from POV Warrior

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Zycriss has been on a crusade to redefine evil, hell, and cancer in spite of a 24-hr block and repeated warnings. Now he/she has threatened[178] to kill me. This is one user I think we can do without. C1k3 (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef block the user. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Barneca already has. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Although, just in case he's right, in these tumultuous financial times I think buying shares in Arm & Hammer would be a wise move. --barneca (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. joseph school of san jose city

St. joseph school of san jose city was moved to a capitalized version, and the redirect deleted, but that shouldn't mean that the AfD discussion is closed just because the entry was moved. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was closed by a non-admin. This should be reversed. Obviously there was a mistake made somewhere along the line. -- how do you turn this on 00:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But how are users going to look at the article in the corresponding AfD if it is redlinked? My rationale was that the redirect should not have been speedied while the AfD was up, or at least until after the AfD was completed. But since it was speedied, there was no purpose to keep it open as there is no clear way for users looking at AfD's to see the article. MuZemike (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You should have moved the AFD to the correct corresponding name. Please reopen, and move it. Thanks. -- how do you turn this on 00:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks, I was just about to ask that when you answered it. MuZemike (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To become notable

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

What can I do to become notable enough for an article? The only requirement is it can't be expensive, and it has to be something I can accomplish overnight. Thanks!! 75.40.204.26 (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See our notability guideline; see also our verifiability policy; see also our guideline about autobiographies. I strongly suggest you don't do anything to make you "notable". -- how do you turn this on 00:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumping off the IDS Tower might work. Especially if you hit the MTM statue. So look before you leap. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific Wikipedia administrative action you are requesting in this regard? Given the above two responses, I'm not sure I want to know.Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is really the wrong place for such a question, so I'll close this thread as resolved. If the user wants more help, they can use the help desk, or someone's talk page. -- how do you turn this on 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bulbous

User:Bulbous has been using the Talk:Haile Selassie page for some time as a soapbox to make off topic attacks against the Rastafarian faith, as well as ad hominem attacks against me, in a manner that is really quite offensive to me, and have nothing to do with making edit changes to the accompanying article. I had merely pointed out to another editor that it was appropriate to also include Haile Selassie's own stated and reliably referenced views in a biography article, rather than rely solely on others' second-hand views about his political policies. Bulbous then rushes in, to derail the conversation into a discussion of how Rastafari has supposedly been repudiated. He has been continuing this pattern for a while as User:Squeakbox has also experienced his ad hominems. I am tired of being continually baited like this and am asking for it to stop. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel has been using the Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia article as a personal venue to pontificate on his views of the subject as being divine. Any editor who edits this article in such as manner as Til objects to has his edits reverted, usually without adequate explanation. The fact that User:Bulbous has provided challenges to these edits/reversions, in fact and in principle, is always mischaracterized as an attack on Til's value sets as opposed to defense of the truth and Wikipedia policy. This complaint is further evidence of bad faith. Bulbous (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The following [179] illustrates Til's continued reversion of a false statement which Til called "factually correct" in an edit summary. This figure is completely incorrect and was sourced by Bulbous, along with continued discourse on the article's Talk page, in which Til did NOT participate, despite being the principal involved in continued reverts. Bulbous (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redacted. In viewing the remainder of this page, it is clear that this is not the place to address content disputes. Bulbous (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd template problem

Resolved

 – Punctuation is once more important. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone more familiar with {{Recent death}} and {{Unreferenced}} take a look at the page James Benson and fix whatever is happening that's messing up the first line of text?

Some wierd interaction with the templates? Did a template get mangled recently by accident?

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a missing apostrophe. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Rick Astley-related vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked handed out, rollbacks done, my edit history looks like I'm a bot. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user is randomly redirecting articles to Rick Astley. The first one I encountered was [[::User:67.185.122.33|67.185.122.33]] ([[::User talk:67.185.122.33|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/67.185.122.33|contribs]]), who is a Comcast customer out of Washington state. When I gave them a vandalism warning, they stopped, and [[::User:72.178.108.234|72.178.108.234]] ([[::User talk:72.178.108.234|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/72.178.108.234|contribs]]), who is a Road Runner customer out of San Antonio, Texas, picked up the same behavior. After I gave them a warning, they stopped, also, I don't know if this is one user or multiple people disrupting, but it's good to keep an eye on Recent Changes. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A What Links Here check on the Rick Astley entry shows lots of vandalistic redirects. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some kids doing some Rickrolling. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert them and block if necessary, same as always. Chances of sock/meatpuppetry are slim to none. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I've reverted all of the IP's edits and gave the IP a {{uw-redirect4}}. S/he seems to have stopped after I gave the final warning, but it's worth keeping an eye on. – RyanCross (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably something been announced on 4chan or similar. That's why the IPs are completely different - lots of different people. -- how do you turn this on 03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I found 66.153.158.183 (talk · contribs) also which was just blocked by Cirt (talk · contribs). – RyanCross (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We now have users undoing the vandalism reversions. See the history of Watermelon. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is playing Whac-A-Mole with them. They'll get bored soon. -- how do you turn this on 03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are blocking on sight now if they see this type of redirecting. This will probably be taken care of soon. Just revert if you see this kind of redirecting if you see it. – RyanCross (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked several IPs and rolledback (ha!) all the rickrolling. Boring... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Should also protect the vandalized articles since (I've been told) 4chan people often set up automated vandalism mechanisms. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes related to "Rick Astley" (show linked to) is a useful page for seeing these types of edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

UserRafaelRGarcia

WOW!!! NOW HE'S CHANGING THIS INCIDENT REPORT!!! See Revision as of 04:35, 11 October 2008 (edit) and 05:33, 11 October 2008 ON THIS PAGE. He's changed the title and the order to make it seem like it's about me. Is that allowed? (Wallamoose (talk) 05:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

User: Wallamoose

Wallamoose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Wallamoose received a Level 4 Warning from Bwilkins due to his verbal abusiveness towards an administrator and towards me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244470322&oldid=244456434 . However, he continues his campaign of abusiveness and sarcasm, in contravention of the Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244508955&oldid=244508416 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RafaelRGarcia&diff=244506106&oldid=244504717 . I insist that he stop. Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244510320&oldid=244507456 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244510865&oldid=244510058 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Olbermann&diff=244509491&oldid=244509140 , among other links. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose's response: This user keeps harassing me. He's commenting to other administrators about what I put on my talk page and following me onto boards where he's never posted. If you could offer some suggestions on how to make him stop that would be fabulous. I'm sure he will be on here soon making all kinds of accusations. But keep in mind I've tried to just go about my business and do my own thing. Yet, he keeps following me to new boards like the ACORN board and the Keith Olbermann board. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Today, Wallamoose was given a Level 4 warning by Bwilkins for his behavior. However, Wallamoose used section headings to mock the WikiElf who gave him the Level 4 Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=prev&oldid=244495761 . Administrator Bearian also gave Wallamoose a warning last month: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=238586467&oldid=238584660 . Proof that Wallamoose has been stalking me since last month is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=239058140&oldid=238811258 . Here, Wallamoose had blocked my Good Article nomination of William Rehnquist to complain about the Clarence Thomas article more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_Rehnquist/GA1&diff=241734629&oldid=238501623 . Even user Censei, who's been blocked for disruptive editing, recognizes the severity of Wallamoose's actions, and gave him a warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wallamoose&diff=244185878&oldid=244023418 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose used purposely inflammatory section headings on his own talk page, and even tried to vandalize my talk page with them in the past. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARafaelRGarcia&diff=243565025&oldid=243564902 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=243962889&oldid=243962645 AND http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWallamoose&diff=244012446&oldid=244012276 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly a retaliation. I've tried asking for help to get him to stop stalking me, it seems he's allowed to go through my history and harass me. Many of these citations are old and have already been dealt with. Now he's deleting my comments from a talk page where he followed me to harass me. Some nerve! I can already predict I will be punished for reacting to his harassing me. But if I knew how to make him stop I would do it.(Wallamoose (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Incorrect. None of the links in the first paragraph contributed to your Level 4 Warning. Neitherdid the first link in the second paragraph.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Both of you stop it and leave each other alone. Its a wide wiki - surely you can find a place to work away from each other. Shell ^babelfish 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)