Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

More abuse by User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Resolved

 – blocked indef per AIV report, quack quack! Therefore archived. Please?

This has gone way too far. This user has persisted in added erroneous information to a large number of articles. In particular, I was horrified that this user has made a highly racist edit and got away with it.[1] It seems that the user is attempting to push forward fringe views. Note that I have reported this user aleady a few days ago for personal attacks and possible sockpuppetry.

In fact this user has been accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator on this same page (you can also see my other report about the user in question on the link provided as well) [2]. Also, the edit histories of the sockpuppet user pages and talk pages contain extremely racist content about Turks, Mongols, Altaic peoples, etc.

To add insult to injury, the user is still allowed to edit. I urge the administrators to take action against this user now. I really have a bad feeling that this case will drag on and eventually end up in ArbCom. I am sick and tired of seeing this user's racist rants and spurious edits. 122.105.147.101 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You might try WP:AIV, on the grounds of vandalism and also an inappropriate user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading someone mention that with the new unified IDs, we should be expecting non-english character IDs on the english wikipedia (this was made I believe in the case of one being all arabic).--Crossmr (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has not been warned at all, so AIV would be inappropriate right now. I suggest warning the user and taking it from there. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The complainant at least owes the Chinese editor a warning, for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, his username "ㄏㄨㄤ=huang ,ㄉㄧ=di" literally means Emperor in the Chinese language and I expect that he wants to be treated like one on Wikipedian. Here's the new, Emperors are a thing of the past and consider him to be on my radar from this moment on. Whatever inflammatory or racially charged statement he makes here will earn him the wiki-gressional medal of blocking. --Dave1185 (talk) 01:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like he won't be able to get away with being uncivil in Chinese. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out Um....it doesn't seem like Chinese Huang Di to me. Huang Di in chinese is: 皇帝. NOT ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Unless of course, wikipedia uses something that's a Internation version which I wouldn't know (only know basic chinese). Google actually gives me this weird translation: Ⓒ ㄤ 's construction of hot (http://translate.google.com/translate_t#zh-CN%7Cen%7C%E3%84%8F%E3%84%A8%E3%84%A4%E3%84%89%E3%84%A7%0A ) Lots of words characters sound the same in Chinese, they don't mean the same thing.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this edit is cause for concern[3]. Why else would the user name in question be used? 122.109.121.250 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Huangdi in Zhuyin. But that's besides the fact. Someone should give Huangdi a strong and final warning that if his behavior continues, he will find himself unable to edit the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given Huangdi a stern warning. I've found other editing abuses by him as well as his massive user page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already a User:Huangdi - the same name, but in the Latin alphabet instead of Zhuyin. The similarity might be a problem. --Amble (talk) 08:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this user has already been accused of sockpuppetry by an administrator. The content in the edit histories of the sockpuppet accounts are even more disturbing. Perhaps we have already forgotten about the sockpuppets? The initial report (which has not been resolved yet) about the user in question can be found here[4]. In that report, two sockpuppets of this account are named: Vietnameseis*******notcantoneseisvietnamese and User:Nefbmn. The first account has been indefinitely blocked but only for a violation of the username policy. The second account remains unblocked and seems to serve primarily as an "attack" account.

By the way, this user edited Cantonese people some time ago, quoting a source out of context and inserting his own spurious analysis[5][6][7]. An attempt to remove his edit has failed because another editor thought that I was vandalising the article[8][9]. That other editor has been contacted for comment. 122.105.149.69 (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

the anon editor 122.105.149.69 is also known as David873, who has been blocked for disruptive editing, and harrasmentㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant! The Emperor has finally appeared, and none too late to face the music here. Guys, please take note of his sockpuppets, disruptive edits (all listed above) and lastly for throwing a smoke screen in-front of us now thus thickening the plot. Let's go through them now and see what can be done to render the man a well deserved block. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

this anon editor 122.105.149.69 first says im wrong about northern chinese being a conglomerate of peoples. now in this comment he made at Talk:Cantonese people he blatanly contradicts the statement about my edit he made in this noticeboard

it goes as follows-

What the above information (which seems to have been lifted from Vietnamese people) does not tell us though is the origins of the Cantonese people themselves. Also, people in this so-called "Southern Chinese population" do not necessarily have to be of Chinese ethnicity, ancestry, etc (just like how a lot of "Northern Chinese" are largely descended from Manchus, Mongols, etc etc). After all, the Vietnamese population itself shows high levels of intermixing and I believe the "Cantonese population" would show this as well. Thus, a claim that "vietnamese people have more chinese DNA than their own" is ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. Its unfortunate that the term "Han" appears to have been misused as "Han" and "Chinese" are certainly not the same thing! For example, no one in their right mind would call the Manchus "Han Chinese"; however, calling them "Chinese" might be appropriate depending on the context. 122.105.147.127 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185, your username sounds suspiciusly close to the blocked user David873 AKA 122.105.149.69, how do we know your not his sockpuppet? plus your user oage said exactly the same thing as his?ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Look up the same page with links to other Users and you can find many more Dave with that same display... so are we all one and the same? Think before you speak again. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

you have the same text diaplayed on your userpages, plus you both accused me of being a sockpuppet of the same hong kong editor. ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

My statement to User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Let me state this clearly here, I tagged your discussion page twice (how covenient of you to delete this part prior to tagging me a sockpuppet due to my tagging of you as one!) with regards to some controversial un-referenced minor edits (can be easily interpret as hoaxes which I did tagged you for) which you've made prior to this confrontational episode, informing you that it is against wiki-policy to add original research materials into any article that could be construed as being biased and not upholding the WP:NPOV during editing. I did not at any stage call you a racist although your actions speaks clearly of your intent.

Next issue was your username, which we all felt was really not in compliance with English Wikipedia's policy on Usernames so I tag you again but your reply was this "i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)".

This effectively resulted in me tagging you as a sockpuppet since you have already admitted to it and wouldn't even consider about how best to salvage the situation, thereby testing our patience with you which was already wearing thin. Your reply to me was a counter-accusation of me being a sockpuppet of another David and anon IP 122.105.149.69 (that IP is from Optus NSW Sydney Australia while mine simply reads as Qala Singapore) based solely on the evidence that my user page is the same as them having the exact same words: This page intentionally left blank., that effectively becomes your factless claim and false accusation which I don't believe any sane and level headed admin would even close an eye to, given that they have been rather patient dealing with you prior to this confrontational episode. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Another piece of just came in confirming that User:Nefbmn is indeed User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ and vice versa. Best part of the joke, this happens right after the blocking of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. Click to find out more → Special:Contributions/Nefbmn! Admins, you have the evidence now to act and I shall rest my case. Cheers! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 is a sockpuppet of David873Nefbmn (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong it wasnt just that, you and David 873 accused me of being the EXACT SAME sockpuppet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefbmn (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

let me state this to you, considering the fact that you arent evn an admin, you have no authority to tag me any more than you claim that i DONT have the authority to tag you.Nefbmn (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[10] Let me state this clearly here, I tagged your discussion page twice (how covenient of you to delete this part prior to tagging me a sockpuppet due to my tagging of you as one!) with regards to some controversial un-referenced minor edits (can be easily interpret as hoaxes which I did tagged you for) which you've made prior to this confrontational episode, informing you that it is against wiki-policy to add original research materials into any article that could be construed as being biased and not upholding the WP:NPOV during editing. I did not at any stage call you a racist although your actions speaks clearly of your intent.

"Next issue was your username, which we all felt was really not in compliance with English Wikipedia's policy on Usernames so I tag you again but your reply was this "i dont enjoy having to copy and paste my username instead of typing it. i ws just trying out a new account with a weird name.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"."

funny how the username policy says non latin usernames ARE allowed. Dave is lying blatantly in my face, go check out the policy.Nefbmn (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note Checkuser User:YellowMonkey  Confirmed that ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs) is Nefbmn (talk · contribs).[11] So he is currently evading his block and so not even allowed to write to accuse somebody. I once encountered this insulting user, who were busy to falsely accuse anyone against his agenda as "vandal". Abusive sockpuppetry/block evasion are all no-nos.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

wrong Caspainclue, you were removing information from Lelang due to nationalistic korean reasons...... then do an ip trace on David873 and Dave1185....Nefbmn (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong? You went for forum shopping to admins and made racist comments against Korean editors. Technically', I have not even met you with your current sock account. You're just confessing yourself as evading your block.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Feeble/factless complains by User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ

Dave1186 personal attack

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn has been indef blocked for vandalism and identified as a SOCK of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ avoiding a block. Therefore archived. Please?

[12]- he called me a "dammed horse gnat"Nefbmn (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user was swatted with an indef-block. Gnat's all, Folks! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

False accusation by David873 AND his sockmaster Dave1185

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn has been indef blocked for vandalism and identified as a SOCK of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ avoiding a block. Therefore archived. Please?

they have both accused me of being User:218.188.90.194. do an ip trace and you will see it is false.Nefbmn (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

More abuse by User:Dave1185

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn has been indef blocked for vandalism and identified as a SOCK of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ avoiding a block. Therefore archived. Please?

he has used his anon ips to remove my sockpuppet notices on his page. ill leave the admins to do the ip trace and sort this out. Hugs and kisses!Nefbmn (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

122.105.149.69

Resolved

 – No AN/I action necessary, needs to be taken to WP:SSP. Therefore archived. Please?

i suspect this user 122.105.149.69 is also known as the blocked account David873. he seems obbsesed with stalking and harrasing me.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think these are sock puppets of a blocked user, please take it to suspected sock puppets. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave1185 AKA David873 AKA 122.105.149.69

Resolved

 – Needs to go toWP:SSP, no WP:AN/I action necessary. Therefore archived. Please?

these 3 are all the same.

1. the content on Dave1185's user page matched exactly the one the blocked user David873 put on HIS userpage.

2. all 3 listed above are obssesed with getting me blocked.

3. They all have made similar warnings on my page while they are clearly not admins.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

i can now confirm that Dave1185 and David873 are 100% the same trolling, harrasing, and unconstructive editor, they have both accused me of being a sockpuppet of someone in hong kong, both have the same material on their user page, at least before David873 got blocked.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

look at the edit history of User:Nefbmn.

both dave and david put the exact same warning up, they both put "this page has been intentionally left blank" on their userpages too.

they are 100% the same all someone needs to do is look it up becuase David873 was banned from editing for harrasing and trolling.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:It seems that this is the beginning of the final chapter in the tragic demise of User:Dave1185 (no sarcasm intended by the way; you could almost be excused for thinking that the whole saga was a sick joke). Knowing that he is going to be thrown out shortly (he's blocked as of writing), this user has falsely accused User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ of being a sockpuppet of User:218.188.90.194 in a final act of desperation. Nefbmn (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this is the beginning of the final chapter in the tragic demise of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (no sarcasm intended by the way; you could almost be excused for thinking that the whole saga was a sick joke). Knowing that he is going to be thrown out shortly (he's blocked as of writing), this user has falsely accused User:Dave1185 of being a sockpuppet of User:David873 in a final act of desperation. 122.109.98.33 (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is something that needs to be discussed at WP:SSP not here. --JavierMC 01:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the old days, one might have said this whole discussion is something that needs to be submitted to BJAODN. Orderinchaos 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one might. In this case, the punch line to the joke is that the complaining user is the one who ends up with the indef-block. It's always funny when that happens. I especially liked the complaining user's final entry: "He called me a horse-gnat!" I can almost see the tears streaming down that teenager's face just before he discovers he's indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sad, isn't it? The fact that he refuse to own up to his own mistakes but yet continue to tag both my user and discussion page with the so called "Sock tags" repeatedly after I tag him for his confession for using another account prior. First, he use ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ to tag me but when he was indefblocked and couldn't get it unblock, he resorted to change to Nefbmn to continue his prank. Fortunately, an alert Admin saw through his masquerade and indefblocked him again. Bugs, I can also imagine the tears streaming down it's face, if not why would he/she/it be so bothered by my statement of "damned horse gnats!" as I cleared my pages of his filth? My last conclusion is, "it" is from Hong Kong but now studies in the States hence the different IP and it's blazon challenge to checkuser him, knowing very well that it would be a US IP instead of his original HK IP. As Bugs bunny would've put it, I'm no Elmer Fudd but he can fool me sometime but he can't fool me everytime! Cheers all~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now he's got socks vandalizing various user talk pages. The vulgar stuff is one thing, but flying the Vietnamese flag on my page is really going too far. Also, I was expecting to see a picture of a horse gnat. Elusive little devils. Hard to capture on film or video. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Conflict and Possible Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn BLOCKED COMPLETELY by Admin Bearian! QUACK!

A report that showed up on AIV. I've just moved it here since it'll probably get answered here a bit better.

"Nefbmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for harrassing me on my user page and discussion page, I had deemed him as an apparent sockpuppet of User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ who was blocked following an earlier complaint by me that ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ was harrassing me on my user page and discussion page. --Dave1185 (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"
"Dave1185 himself is a sockpuppet. his former blocked account was David873.Nefbmn (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)"
"see his list of sockpuppets on my page, and plus i wasnt harrasing him at all, all i was doing was putting up a sockpuppetry warning."

--EoL talk 00:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dave1185 ann Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ would be pertinent to link here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As would the log for Nefbmn's userpage, showing the account was created by a blocked user. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It was a username block, so, account creation was enabled intentionally so he could create another account. --EoL talk 00:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I just realized that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this. --EoL talk 00:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I stand firm that I don't operate any sockpuppets and you can run a checkuser on me now and see where my IP comes from, it should read Qala Singapore. However, the sockepuppet User:Nefbmn had tagged User:David873 and anon IP:122.105.149.69 (from Optus NSW Sydney Australia) as my socks. This is ridiculous! For more info, read this! --Dave1185 (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oiy. Looks like I guess we know who's the sockpuppet. Now we just need a blocking administrator. --EoL talk 00:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, it all makes sense now. I suppose that would explain the comment about "not wanting to copy and paste" the username; a 40-something char long username would be a bit difficult to type every time, while a zhuyin username would be rather easy to enter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible related cases

DavidtheProxyusertoevadeblocks

Resolved

 – Blocked already, never mind. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't following the discussion above, but DavidtheProxyusertoevadeblocks (talk · contribs) just seems to be oddly named and worthy of an admin look or two. Thansk in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked by Slakr. Dayewalker (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds, smells and seem really like you-know-who... check his userpage for more details! ...Dave1185 (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Raisininthemoon

User:Raisininthemoon is guilting of harassing User:Baseball Bugs. Just look at this outrageous diff. This type of harassment should not be tolerated. Please block User:Raisininthemoon indef from editing. AdjustShift (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser on the vandal's username? Anyone? ...Dave1185 (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, an admin should block User:Raisininthemoon. AdjustShift (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's either another sock of User:Nefbmn or a copycat. Thanks for y'all's help dealing with this swarm of "horse gnats". 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So I did coined the term correctly, huh? XD ...Dave1185 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. :) Actualy, I'm not exactly sure what a horse gnat would be. I've seen horse flies, and maybe a horse gnat would be a horse fly only way much smaller and insignificant. Horseflies bite, and it hurts. Gnats are somewhat annoying, but harmless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the user has been blocked indefinitely by User:Alison. --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. Harassment should not be tolerated. AdjustShift (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So many sockpuppets, so little time...

Look at the taunt that this anon IP User:162.84.138.33 posted on my discussion page, I checked the anon IP and it says that it is a suspected sock of User:218.188.90.194 here, who has been blocked. Amongst his other blocked accounts are User:ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, User:Nefbmn and User:Vietnameseischinesenotcantoneseisvietnamese. There seems to be no end of this happening... help from admins? Please? ...Dave1185 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have not blocked, as this is a dynamic IP with one edit about 15 hours ago, but this would be better dealt with at the suspected sock puppets page, or requests for checkuser. Black Kite 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can you please bring this up to the suspected sock puppets page, or requests for checkuser because the above-mentioned user can be extremely disruptive and abusive. Read this! ...Dave1185 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, http://kr.youtube.com/user/david873AKAdave1185

Is the YouTube account really yours? If not, and it was created by ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, this is a serious identity theft and racist attacks, and you should ask admins at YouTube to delete it first.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries! I noticed and although I do watch clips on Youtube, I don't have an account there and I'm least bothered by it. Though you could help me ask the site admin to remove it, the guy is obviously peeved and trying his luck now with youtube to get back at us or me to be exact. My answer to him would be this: "Want a cookie?" ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have my account at YouTube, so I could not help you for that. I think you should be worried. Because if you google your ID, you will notice that your name linking Wikipedia comes up.--Caspian blue (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• No worries mate! Although I think the Youtube user Dave1185 should be the one worrying... please note that I endorse WP:DGAF. I will quote this from DGAF: "Wikisuffering (wikiconflict and wikistress) is caused by wikiattachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by Wikidetachment (not giving a fuck).". Cheers and have a great weekend~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Block of sockpuppeteer/vandal

Resolved

 – User:Nefbmn had been BLOCKED COMPLETELY and his baseless report swatted. Archive? Please?

I have indef blocked User:Nefbmn as noted at User_talk:Nefbmn#Blocked_completely. If anyone wants to review this block, please do so, but I think the histories of the user page and talk page is reason enough. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• In the final analysis, I was proven right but the lingering question remains... he falsely reported me here as a last ditch attempt of face saving measure and how am I supposed to be cleared from the above report now? Help? Anyone? --Dave1185 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nefbmn certainly didn't correctly fill out that report (after all, he was a sock himself). Still, does the report need to be urgently dealt with? ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a court of law. If a trolling party lodges a bad faith report, I'd say we trash it. Orderinchaos 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Argh, didn't bother to read someone else had reached the same conclusion and acted accordingly. :) Orderinchaos 09:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Sorkin

Resolved

 – No new drama, no new additions to this section, and the editor is behaving post-block. Steve ^{T • C} 18:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone may want to take a look at what's going on over there, where an editor who appears to be an SPA (188 mainspace edits, 184 of them to this article) appears to be deliberately editing a BLP article with a political agenda. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 22:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I started a thread at BLP and a few others have now looked in and are keeping an eye on it. I wish I had more time to help out, but that was the best I could do for now. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Help needed with Aaron Sorkin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Likely either the subject or someone connected. Be nice, eh? Guy (Help!) 22:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think Aaron Sorkin would use bigger words... --Smashville^talk 01:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Would a full protect for a few days be in line? --Smashville^talk 01:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

NM, I reverted it to the FA-status article again...and sent him a 3RR warning. He has two full page reverts and a revert of one tag in the last 24 hours... --Smashville^talk 01:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

He's just reverted back. Is there consensus for a 3RR block? -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I warned him before he did it...so he's definitely aware of the rule...and he's shown that he does read his talk page...I have a feeling a solid 5th revert will come while we discuss...since I reverted him, it would be out of line for me to do it...and I'm not about to link all 200 or so of his edits to the 3RR noticeboard... --Smashville^talk 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

I have just blocked Homely Features (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for the stated reason of edit warring and 3RR violation, but also to protect the wiki from damage and abuse. I welcome a review of this block especially since I am certain the user will appeal through an unblock request. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally users are blocked for blockable offenses, especially when they have been warned not to do so. Good block. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse obviously from me...5RR after the warning is a pretty straightforward block. Seems like he's likely a sock of someone else, too...of course, the question is which user... --Smashville^talk 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as I thought, the blocked user has posted an unblock request. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline it. He violated 3RR by multiple reverts and so should be blocked. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I do enjoy after all that MBK being reverted for vandalism...snicker --Smashville^talk 01:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I need another admin to take a look at this guy's talk page. He's constantly under the impression that he's correct. I believe that he intends to get right back to what he was doing when the block expires. I'm not able to talk sense into him and think that a longer block may be in order to prevent damage to a FA. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, this person has found THE TRUTH about Sorkin, CapsLock and all. Experience has shown that people such as this very often have trouble restraining themselves. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've left another note, trying to explain the situation and give him an idea of what to do to move forward productively. We'll see how that goes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting to the FA version and blocking the problem WP:SPA looks to me like the right result for the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 07:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that while I agree with the block, as it might encourage the editor to curb his/her incivility, I spent a long time yesterday stepping through the diffs. Of concern is the editor's lack of civility, both in edit summaries and at the FAR page. The "hacking and slashing" at the article noted by others, and the speed at which this is being undertaken, also hampered efforts to determine whether the edits are truly constructive. Despite all this, I didn't see too many edits that I would consider harmful to the article, and those that could be construed as such in isolation did ultimately seem to be part of a wider plan of improvement. I wouldn't endorse every diff I've seen, but I think we've a chance for a net gain here. In short, I was content to leave the article be for a short time to see what Homely Features managed to do with it. I think it would be a mistake right now to continue barring the editor from making his/her edits to the page when the article could end up in much better shape than before the FAR began. If the editor gives assurances that he/she will use appropriate edit summaries that properly outline the rationale behind every edit, and will stop issuing borderline insults at the FAR page and everywhere else to the article's previous contributors, we should tread a little more softly on this one. The editor can be a valuable contributor here. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I have actually shut down the FAR. When flaming outweighs suggested improvements, it's better to close a review. This editor has serious temperament issues. Perhaps he can be a valuable contributor but until he makes a clear statement that he understands cooperative editing, I would actually suggest extending the block. Marskell (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Closing the FAR was a good decision; it was getting in the way and acting as no more than a vehicle for the editor's frustrations with the article. Without that, dialogue on the user talk page should resume, and if it is made clear that no further outbursts will be tolerated, and he/she agrees to this in a statement alongside a commitment to using proper edit summaries and a promise not to violate WP:3RR, I think that would go some way to resolving the situation. I can leave another note on the user talk if you want, requesting such a commitment, but I think it would be better coming from an admin. I know the softly-softly approach can be frustrating to admins who have to deal with vandalism, POV-pushers and trolls day-in day-out, but as I say above, it is clear that the majority of edits to the article have been genuine improvements, and in its current state several problems persist. It's just a pity the editor's temperament hasn't matched the maturity of his/her article-building skills. Steve ^{T • C} 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

At it Again

Well, I just saw the block on the user expire and he's gone right back to what he was doing before. I do not have the time or the desire to deal with this, but it does not bode well. I already support any block that may be imposed. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But I did an detailed summary of all my edits with a long explanation of them on the talk page.Homely Features (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused on this one. I agree the editor should have been blocked for his 3RR violation and he was and it has now expired. Here's where my confusion comes in. Prior to his edits on this article, the last real article talk page activity took place in late June 2007. Now User:Homely Features comes along in October 2008 and begins making edits on the article, leaving edit summaries for his edits, albeit "screaming" the summaries would be more accurate, yet all his edits are reverted, no conversation or explanation is given on the talk page for this reversal. Considering the amount of work this editor did in his "rewrite" (which the FA template on the talkpage says to be bold in doing to improve the article if it can be done), I would think a simple cursory revert without an in-depth explanation of what was wrong with his edits, was a bit drastic. Then he is admonished on his talkpage that he should have used the article talkpage prior to making his edits to gain a consensus. How is this inline with WP:BOLD and where is the contentious or sensitive past article edit discussions on the talkpage? The article talkpage was basically stale, or is this a FA rule that after reaching this status, any further edits must only be made under consensus? Hence my confusion.-JavierMC 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he was told in about 3 different forums and his talk page why his edits were being reverted. --Smashville^talk 03:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see. I went and read the other conversation. I wasn't aware there was a whole other thread instead of the main article talkpage. With the edits made after the block expired, it appears he has repeated his indiscretions against consensus. His misunderstanding or apparent unwillingness to adhere to the process is landing him in hot water. With his declarations of wanting to improve the article (AGF), it's unfortunate he doesn't "get it", but the process is necessary. I've struck my previous remark.--JavierMC 05:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor now seems to be taking a more reasoned approach to his/her edits, with a detailed explanation on the talk page of what he/she believes is wrong with the article. The section concerning the infobox photograph also seems to indicate that the editor is happy to discuss and compromise on these issues. The situation appears to have resolved itself amicably, so perhaps this section should be marked as such. Thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it's entirely resolved, Steve. There's a mighty mass o'edits on the article itself that followed the editor's post to the talk page - done without any discussion from other editors, and started within a minute of the post on the talk page. I am nowhere near familiar enough with the article to say whether the changes are good or not, and frankly I don't have the time to go through those edits and determine that, but I think there's still something to be considered: consensus takes more than a minute to determine. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RTV revisited

It seems that an old friend has come back again from being vanished (see archived AN section) and has engaged in a game of sockey as reported here. This was discovered after another user observed similar comments at various AfDs and after making a comment on my talk page here in which I am not sure is an admission or not. (I don't think that is my call to make that judgment.) MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems premature to open this thread at this time. The SSP report hasn't given a conclusion. There was a CU done recently that didn't turn up these results, and another one could be requested. What action would we discuss here, without the facts in hand? Durova^Charge! 01:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not be disingenuous, Durova. It's absolutely obvious who's editing from those (and related) IPs. I personally have no problem with it, though many of his edits to articles are useless at best and arguably detrimental rather than constructive. His contributions to AfDs are so lame that I can't imagine any closer paying them any heed whatever. As long as he doesn't get up to his old tricks of adding bogus "references" to articles, etc., I agree that there's no action that needs to be taken; but there's no reason to live in a world of make-believe. Deor (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC) First sentence stricken per request on my talk page. Deor (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, let's not be disingenuous. I happen to know where he lives and I doubt very much he has the skill to disguise his IP location. He's easily checkusered. Why not go there? Durova^Charge! 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the strikethrough. I've gone ahead and requested checkuser. Let's see what it has to say. Durova^Charge! 01:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief it doesn't take that much skill. But it does sadden me that this issue has arisen yet again. For the record, I'm not convinced that I assumed too much good faith last time around. I knew somebody was trolling us, I just didn't think it was Grand Roi (but in hindsight it seems I was quite wrong about it). — CharlotteWebb 20:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, requesting a checkuser on cases of obvious sockpuppetry is a waste of the checkusers' time, and should be discouraged. Admins should feel free to act as they think appropriate when they encounter an obvious sockpuppet. Nandesuka (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher was quite helpful and polite regarding this request. If it ought to have been discouraged I trust he would have done so. It's important for those of us who aren't inclusionists (and I'm not one either) to remember that not all inclusionists are necessarily the same person. Durova^Charge! 17:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say, I found Thatcher's "resolution" of the CU less than enlightening. I hate all these behind-the-scenes shenannigans; WP should be more open than that. If LGRdC wants to edit, he should do so openly, under whatever name he chooses; if he is unable to do so, he should refrain from editing. It isn't as though adding empty "References" sections, moving periods, and posting jejune opinions in AfDs are invaluable contributions. But I've wasted more attention on this guy than he's worth. Deor (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the point? Since his talk page has been undeleted, and everyone knows what his account has been renamed to, he's no longer "vanished". If he wishes to continue editing as an IP or with a new account, then let him. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the last interminable discussion about this pest, Durova said "If the editor does return on someting [sic] other than his main account (or in an appropriately transparent and undeclared [sic] manner) then I'll consider myself obligated to follow through as appropriate" and "If he changes his mind and comes back there will probably be a conduct RFC," so I guess the ball's in her court, as the rest of us aren't privy to all the relevant information. Deor (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Block template feature preventing blocked user from editing own talkpage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to remove the talk page lock feature when blocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose Removal If we could learn Rollback and Huggle blocking, we can learn this tool, as soon as the bugs are worked out. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral but please, please, if it's kept, flip the language to "Prevent user from editing own talk page...", with a checkbox that is unchecked by default. The current message/action is horrendous from a CHI/human-factors point of view. ALL the other checkboxes (except "Watch..., which is neutral) are worded such that checking the box further restricts the user's activities. (Prevent account creation, Prevent user from sending email, Autoblock any IP addresses used) but then this one says "Allow...", in a case where it will very rarely be invoked. That's just asking for mistakes and unintended consequences. --MCB (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

When this editor first appeared on the law page with his single issue pushing, I was inclined to be accomodating. And then it came up on the competition law page, using "neutrality tags" and again I did what I thought was reasonable to deal with the views being pushed. Then it seemed to get worse, and uncompromising, so I gave a warning, because a disruptive pattern was developing. But it didn't help, because soon enough, the editor had learned how to exploit the formal Wikipedia channels. And so this review appeared, after I (and other editors as always) had rejected the plugging of these views as slanted. On these pages, of course, we have to summarise, and encourage editors to expand the subpages. But no. Here are examples of persistent reverting, without talking when explanations were already given:

• Six times trying to get one sentence by an economist about an economist into the law page intro, explained on the talk page here: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]... and when he'd been told be me and others that he wasn't going to get it, he brought a featured article review (which I was disappointed to see veteran editors condone).

• Again in an introduction (my experience is people argue over that mostly) of the competition law page, one sentence which was changed because of grammar mistakes - explained here - reverted three times: [19] [20] [21] ... after which point I'd really had it.

• And this is probably the best, on the History of economic thought page, trying to keep a section on chicago economists expanded (the same thing as in the above two pages), when it'd been explained that it was condensed for style, and the sub-page was expanded to match: one potato, two potato, three potato, four... five potato, six potato, and there'll be a seventh potato and more unless there's some kind of intervention.

• Here is Vision Thing deleting large tracts of prose (without moving them anywhere) four times: once, twice, three times, four times

• Here he is trying to insert the same odd notion that Proudhon didn't say property is theft, but property is freedom in the law page: [22] [23] [24]

• Here he is putting up a few more tags, when he doesn't get his way: [25] [26]

This editor is intent on spreading his views with a strange mix of anarchism, and what's known as the Austrian school of economics. It's persistently bias editing across the three pages you can see. He may be doing it on other pages as well, but it's got to stop. You'll see from my own talk page, that I've been scolded for going too far in using bad language. I've not brought complaints before, because I just try to get on with editing myself, rather than get bogged down in these discussion forums. But I've been persuaded that it might be the only resort when people who are asked politely, then asked again, then asked firmly, then pleaded with, then warned, then mocked, then castigated, then insulted, just won't quit. The other side, of course, is that he hasn't contributed anything, except I think a footnote or two, and a sentence or two. It's perhaps characteristic, but it's always over one sentence or one paragraph again and again and again. Wikidea 23:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Vision Thing has registered a complaint here a couple of days ago, accusing Wikidea of personal attacks. As a result, I have blocked Wikidea for 48 hours. In the meanwhile I have had an exchange with him on his talk page during which he has acted consistent with a good faith but frustrated editor (I have ended up unblocking him, although I only did it one hour before the original block would have expired anyway). I'm not saying that proves Vision Thing's guilt, I'm only saying that I don't think Wikidea can be accused of bad faith or any other form of genuine malice, and, as such, I believe that his recent block should not be taken into account when considering this complaint. --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Vision Thing is that he believes so much in his own truth that he sometimes decides he can impose these views of him or even edit WP policies as he likes them even without any dialogue. In this particular case, I have to say that Wikidea's attitude was not an ideal one; I once warned him and advised him to be more polite. But it was VisionThing who started tagging the article with some inacceptable POV tags, and initiated a FAR IMO not in order to improve the article, but to push his personal vendetta with Wikidea. In addition to all this stuff, reading the detailed and well-exposed diffs of Wikidea, I get the impression that VisionThing may be wikistalking Wikidea.

Important notice: This is a case I cannot be objective, because I have repeatedly co-operated with Wikidea, an editor I highly esteem, in the Law article (and he has also asked me to review the History of Economic Thought article). But I do have the right to make my own conclusions and remarks, which are the following:

• VisionThing and Wikidea have entered into editwars in more than one articles. Most of these editwars started when VisionThing removed material he didn't like or when he unilaterally tagged articles as POV.
• Wikidea was not always polite towards VisionThing, something that infuriated the latter.
• I disagree with calling VisionThing a troll, but the latter shouldn't remove material he doesn't like (as he did more than once) without prior discussion.
• If VisionThing wanted to convince us that his Law FAR was sincere, then he should have been more active (as Ottava and Ceoil have been), and limit his long-lasting absence from the FAR page.
• Because of the articles he edits, and where the edit wars occurred, VisionThing gives the impression of wikistalking and provoking Wikidea (the FAR could be regarded as one of these provocations).
• Wikidea is a great editor, creating and expanding core articles. This should be taken into consideration when judging his (sometimes overwhelming) frustration.

In any case, one thing is sure: This cannot go on like that for ever. These two users is difficult to co-exist, and some adm action seems necessary. Now, if they cannot find a modus vivendi at all, then I am afraid ArbCom might be the ultimum refigium, but this wouldn't be nice for neither of them.

I close speaking about things I do know, the Law article and Wikidea's great contributions there: some days ago he announced that he will never again edit the article. His absence is already noticeable and bad for the article. I cannot say the same thing for VisionThing's absence during the last weeks. As a matter of fact, I could say exactly the opposite!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I came here via a message on my talk page. Perhaps it is to offer some insight, which I hope to do. This is in part from a problem with a FAR. One user put up a FAR, and at the time, I originally pushed for it to be closed, because it became obvious that the original complaint could have problems. After that was made aware, other users wanted to focus on their own problems with he law article and continue the FAR, and I don't remember much from Vision Thing after that. The two have a clear problem with each other, and Wikidea has shown that he is willing to listen to the community in changing parts of one article that he has fought over with Vision Thing (but that article is since being worked on by some others, so, I don't know). That's just a little background info as I see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that I read this thread as well, I must say that I am annoyed! Wikidea was punished for incivility (and PA?!), while nobody of the eloquent critics of a prolific editor's behavior, found a word to say about VisionThing's misconducts. Shame!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, incivility and PAs -- but I suggest you ignore that complaint, I believe everything related to it has been resolved. Wikidea has been incivil, administrative action was taken and he promised it won't happen again; while Wikidea's incivility might have annoyed VisionThing, that has no bearing on the content dispute and disruptive behaviour discussed here. --Gutza ^{T T+} 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Gutza was only trying to do the right thing, and I'm giving up on name calling, because it obviously hasn't worked. Wikidea 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Query about ANI archives: I've never seen this happen before. Are AN/I archives intended to be edited? Wikidea came off his block to add a comment to the archived ANI thread, continuing more of what led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a history with Wikidea, and this seems to be a straightforward content dispute. I see there's some POINTy acts on VT's part, but it's unclear how administrators can help. For example, VT apparently tried adding Hayek's quote to the lead of Law because of user's longstanding complaint that a novelist's quote is in the lead. VT might have a point, but he shouldn't violate WP:POINT to make it. Anyhow, I hope that Wikidea does in fact stop the namecalling. Cool Hand Luke 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidea is a thoughtful editor, creating and expanding core articles such as the History of Economic thought and Economics... I have found him to be cooperative... and always interested in preserving content... where that is possible and relevant. This should be taken into consideration when judging his (sometimes overwhelming) frustration. I did groan when reading the dialogues between the two, both parties are obviously frustrated... however everyone has p.o.v. Because I have found Wikidea compromising and cooperative... I think when someone starts deleting big pieces of information... its extremely frustrating unless there are lots of explanations and reasoning for doing so. I hope for a friendly outcome here. skip sievert (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget Tha Otha Side

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget Tha Otha Side

-- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please look at this wikipage, created on 04 October by an obvious member of the Dade County band whose music is being discussed. The db-band template is being consistently removed, without any discussion. Thanks for your attention.Raymondwinn (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first lesson is to actually use the person's talk page and discuss it with him. He might not know about the history or see any edit summaries. Second, just AFD it. If it's easy enough, it'll be deleted in just about the same speed. At least give the person a chance to understand what's going on and be told. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Third, there is an assertion of notability ("The single features fellow Dade County rapper Trick Daddy who dose the chorus of the song. Production for the track comes from Miami Music Producer Gold Ru$h"). It's arguable and probably nowhere near enough, but it is there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User Strayson

Strayson (talk · contribs) This editor has been going through several articles and removing information, and leaving an edit summary of lack of reference or citation. I have left a message on his/her talkpage here asking that they stop removing the content and instead tag it with citation needed or fact, and allow time for others to find sources to keep the information. However, they have made approximately 20 or more edits already to several articles without giving time for citing. I'm not sure what we should do here, but I think the edits should be reversed and the cite template added, instead of removing so much content. I also noted that another editor has left a message on the users talkpage, with the same request about removing content, yet the editor has continued to do so. Should something be done here?--JavierMC 04:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified him of this thread. He has no edits to talk pages, other than wiping all the warnings away from his own talk page. If he doesn't respond soon, a last warning and then a block if he continues. Civility requires that he respond to people's questions, not play games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reversed most of these edits. Note that Strayson is now adding contentious material to the lead, with a pre-emptive fact tag, as in Carbon footprint. Gaming the system, I'd say.Cap'nTrade (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the earlier versions of his talk page. I had several altercations that revolved around the same type of edits: removing material when adding a fact tag was more appropriate. I chased him around adding references that were very easy to locate indeed. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 05:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok this guy needs to be stopped. He obviously has an agenda other than improving this encyclopedia and seems to be pushing a personal POV with his edits. He is misrepresenting referenced material by changing the wording in opposition to what the reference provides. Here's one example diff where he makes it appear as if the reference can only be attributed to one person when in fact it is a collaboration of no less than 19.^{see reference}. He has still not responded to messages left on his talkpage nor made an appearance here after notification of this thread. Rickey81682 gave him a final warning on his talkpage about his editing habits, which he apparently is choosing to ignore. I think it's time to block.--JavierMC 06:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide another diff please? That one appears to be a good faith edit to improve readability. I have refined it further. Thanks. Answering own question. e.g. [27] [28] - Atmoz (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I blocked him for 31 hours. I told him he needs to stop and respond and he decided to wait another half hour before continuing. The controversial part is not what bothers but the lack of response. Even someone who edits well but doesn't response isn't helpful here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there an entry on here just a couple of weeks ago about assuming good faith when unsourced items are removed? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that he's refusing to explain his actions, it's kind of hard to do so. HalfShadow 00:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He lost all good faith when he started doing edits like this. Adding controversial sentences with an unsourced tag is not amusing to me. He knows perfectly well what he's doing and he's being a hypocrite removing some sentences and adding his own. If nothing else, he should at least respond somewhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Trexon

Trexon (talk)
Only one edit so far: adding link to porn image on talk page. I'm concerned.

(Disclosure: I created this account on the ACC tool. My bad, sorry.) Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Still the account's only edit, so it's probably abandoned. Page's been deleted, too. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, this user was created by you, PrinceOfCanada, but you're concerned about its edits? What's going on here? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User troublesome again and again (Einsteindonut)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Both users have been blocked and will be watched for continued un-wikilike extremism from either perspective.

---

Please check the last two edits by this editor, Einsteindonut (talk · contribs), I think his/her account and IP address must be blocked forever cause of his/her last two edits. posted on 03:04, 4 October 2008 by User:PuttyschoolSorry « PuTTY^SchOOL 07:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a complete violation of WP:NOT#SOAP but I'm not absolutely sure it requires eternal bannination. A somewhat shorter block, however, may be in order for this and a range of other problematic edits. Orderinchaos 09:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No one can imagine that here in Wikipedia, we can receive such comments, which is very offensive, hateful, horrible to a whole country with 7500 years of history, I don’t even think that blocking forever is sufficient« PuTTY^SchOOL 09:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wikipedia, I don’t know if this is one of my rights or not, but blocking Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) for only 72 hours is by all means not enough especially this is not his/her first time to use such comments with me and with other editors« PuTTY^SchOOL 10:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In general things work on an escalating basis. We usually do not block users indefinitely for a few occurrences - initially they are given the benefit of the doubt until even good faith cannot accommodate what they are doing. Then a block ensues which reflects the community's wish for them to rethink their approach. If they do not then do so, then a longer block is tried. If it keeps going, the cycle repeats, the blocks get longer until someone (uninvolved, I mean) concludes that a community ban is a good way to proceed, proposes one, and people sick and tired of seeing the person acting in the way they are support it. To be honest, I think that is where this one is heading. But we're still at a late stage of the "benefit of the doubt" phase, and if this user (ED, I mean) proves me wrong with their conduct, I'm prepared to eat my words. But 72 hours is reasonable (it's three times as long as the block reason usually attracts). In general, the presence of clear and obvious adversaries in the process complicates things and makes it harder for admins to decide what to do, or even want to get involved to begin with. I've seen cases in the past where out and out trolls have gotten off in part because they have been able to allege harassment from good faith users they have been bothering, and the evidence actually seems to exist. Orderinchaos 13:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Putty, was he right or wrong when he said you suggested that Wikipedia editors should turn to Jew Watch to learn the truth about Jews? I ask because this post of yours makes it look an awful lot like you did. Why not Stormfront? Seems to me that if you want to dish it out like that you ought to be willing to take it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This post probably didn't do much to de-escalate the situation either. - Atmoz (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look at this user's block log--apparently he was blocked before for sockpuppetry, per this subsection of the previous ANI discussion. For a week that time--is 72 hours enough? Blueboy96 17:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the two should maybe keep the hell away from each other. Einsteindonut does something Puttyschool doesn't like and PS comes here screaming 'Ban 'im forever!' Rinse and repeat. HalfShadow 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at the previous ANI discussion, that was my thinking as well. But what about Einsteindonut's socking? Blueboy96 18:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

72 hours seems proportional, especially given the recent reduction of Eleland's block from indefinite to 3 months to 1 week. Einsteindonut's conduct was less egregious, so a shorter block is reasonable. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

see [29]

JIDF Threats (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know how editors are trying to show that 72 hours is enough, but can anyone show me a comment worst that this shits by ED, I saw hear editors blocked for one month and more for a very trivial comments compared to this comment, if any one believes that 72 hour is enough and we can take this as a rule, any other editor can use the un-polite and un-respectable part of humans personality to post similar comments about ED believes or even ED country and can afford 72 hours block « PuTTY^SchOOL 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool, for the love of God, would you please can it? Both of you find something to do away from each other. Please. HalfShadow 00:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I’m more to be a Secular than a spiritual, so talking using logic works little bit more with me « PuTTY^SchOOL 00:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster; his block isn't getting extended just because you want it. HalfShadow 01:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t believe in this strange link you posted which is totally unrelated to using a logical method of thinking as I said« PuTTY^SchOOL 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's really nothing more to say here, but for the sake of it, I'll just add a comment, having already come across PuTTy and ED. Both of them were at it for one time too many. However, while ED was rightfully blocked, an infinite block would, as said before, not apply at this point. Also, PuTTy seems to be asking for the permanent block as if it's a punishment. Please refer to Wikipedia's BLOCKING POLICY and Wikipedia's BANNING POLICY. There's a wide difference between the two, simply put: blocks are to prevent further disruption, and bans are to punish the user (and are used only in extreme cases). Can we resolve this already? There's no point in further discussion if it's not going to result in anything. ~ Troy (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, bans are NOT used to punish the user. They are implemented when the community's patience is exhausted, and has lost all realistic hope of the editor being collaboratively productive. That is not a punishment. Such a view is both wrong and poisonous. —kurykh 00:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply misspoke. ~ Troy (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It can turn out to be a "punishment" to the one blocked or banned, but it's purpose is to permanently stop disruption. This is the argument that's used in reference to death penalty vs. life imprisonment. The result is the same either way - permanent removal. Meanwhile, I don't see anything in Einsteindonut's rant that warrants any kind of lengthy block. He's expressing anger, soapboxing, yes - but Putty simply wants to get him banned for personal reasons, and that doesn't cut it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I don’t have any personal reason and ED comment with not about me, but it was a general hate comment, he commented about a country not about a person« PuTTY^SchOOL 01:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a "hate" comment, it was an "anger" comment. Many observers think that the problems that various middle-eastern nations have are problems they have brought upon themselves, and they like to use Israel as a scapegoat or a distraction from the real source of their problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ED thinks "Israel should take back the Sinai" and this is not a hate comment, do you think Egyptians can accept such comment as a peaceful comment?, can't you check ED article Jewish Internet Defense Force, and see descriptions for such comments « PuTTY^SchOOL 03:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion regarding something Israel could do to defend itself. That doesn't make it a hate comment. Nor does it necessarily make any practical sense. Meanwhile, certain other middle east countries want to destroy Israel, literally. That's hatred. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This can’t be an opinion about defend as you said, this can be an opinion about increasing certain countries by one, which means more hatred in the reign. and this is why I’m saying it is the most a hateful, vile, horrible comment written in Wikipedia« PuTTY^SchOOL 04:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop beating a dead horse, Puttyschool. In effect, Einsteindonut wrote that Israel should take part of Egypt's territory. That's not a hateful comment. If ED made a vile remark about you, your mother, or your sister, that would be hateful. Give it a rest. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 04:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We are like all countries, Our land is a piece of every Egyptian like our families. Any way tell us your classifications for such comment« PuTTY^SchOOL 05:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Those two (Puttyschool (talk · contribs) and Einsteindonut (talk · contribs)) have been going at each other for weeks now, without accomplishing much other than generating a large number of edits which cancel each other out. This is apparently a spillover from some multi-year flame war on Facebook. I'd suggest at least putting them both on 1RR per the general sanctions on Israel-Palestine articles. Banning them both from the Jewish Internet Defense Force article is an option worth considering. There's really not much more to be said about the JIDF anyway, unless and until the organization gets some more press coverage. The few reliable sources available have all been cited. --John Nagle (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a user of facebook, and I don’t have time for trivialities on facebook « PuTTY^SchOOL 05:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Puttyschool blocked for 72 as well

In line with the discussion above, I've blocked Puttyschool for 72 hours as well. His continued stale edit-warring and over-the-top comments are bad enough, but his antisemitic references to the New York Times as the "Jew York Times",[30] and his justifications for doing so, complete with a link to the antisemitic Jew Watch site,[31] are too much, and certainly worse than anything Einsteindonut posted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The main issue is that neither user seems to have got that Wikipedia is not for flying the flag of offline struggle but about collaboration and compromise. Both accounts have been signed up in the last three months, we're looking at 299 mainspace to 1034 total for Puttyschool, 271 to 1046 for Einsteindonut. The majority of those are either reverts or minor edits, and in areas such as Jewish Internet Defense Force and other such venues which are already problematic even without their presence. Both seem to spend more time in AN/I than editing. Both have used ridiculous and incendiary rhetoric and claims to further their case. Both seem to think the only solution is to get their opponent banned. This is not a case yet for a community ban, but what are others' thoughts on this matter (now that we have some clear air for a couple of days)? Orderinchaos 10:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Article-banning them both from the JIDF article would be a start, I think. Black Kite 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for his explanation on why "Jew York Times" is not a hate comment. Reckon I'll have to wait about 3 days for that. Darn. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think asking for rationalization from either of these two is probably going to be a WP:DEADHORSE issue, to be honest. This is a textbook case of two editors who really need to be made to stand in opposite corners of the room, hence my suggestion of banning them from the middle of the room - the JIDF article. No doubt they'll still manage to argue about things around the edge of the room, though. Black Kite 14:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it is not like beating a dead horse. We cannot go through all this everyday or every 72 hours. I totally agree with both Jayjg as well as Orderinchaos. I am thinking of blocking the 2 users indefinitely as explained in a thread below. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"If I were an admin" (sung to the tune of "If I Were a Rich Man") I would suspend the both of them to expire at the same time - 72 hours or whatever - and then see if they behave. If not, I would double the time. If they still don't behave, keep doubling it. At some point, they might decide how badly they want to edit wikipedia. Two axioms: (1) How badly do they want to edit? and (2) Why are we still messing with these guys? Those are the two general guidelines that should drive decisions about misbehaving users. You're basically asking the second question. I'm thinking you shouldn't quite slam the door on them yet. But it's getting close. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good analysis. I must just add something like "how could Wikipedia benefit from allowing them to edit (they edit so rarely) use talk pages against our guidelines and policies disruptively further?" They have been warned more than enough by multiple administrators. The thing is that we've got through 3 ArbCom cases and both editors are aware of the cases' remedies. We cannot spend months with every user who decides to slam those remedies at the wall. This would suggest and encourage new problematic editors to come and disrupt the project for a couple of months before leaving being blocked. Wikipedia was fine without their bickering and attacks and editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right; there is no right to edit Wikipedia. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 14:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I can't argue with your logic. You're pretty much at the "one more chance" stage at this point. This whole deal reminds me of the classic Star Trek about the two guys who were the last survivors of their respective races and were determined to fight to the death. I think that episode was "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". It also turns out to be a good metaphor for the seemingly perpetual stalemate in the middle east. And your answer at this point is, "We don't care what you do, as long as that battlefield is somewhere other than wikipedia!" Einsteindonut has only been on wikipedia for about 2 months, Puttyschool for about 3. Maybe they don't totally get the rules yet. But it starts to look like they are simply using this site solely as a battleground, and are unlikely to contribute much that's useful. So if another block doesn't open their eyes, it's probably time to bring the hammer down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with FayssalF. Puttyschool is a classic antisemite with nothing to add to Wiki. Einsteindonut baits and attacks anybody who disagrees with him, using denigrating and sometimes hateful language. Although I agree with his view that Wiki editors on average tend to have an anti-Israel POV, I do not see the general anti-Semitism he sees and I find his methods wrong. Both have been given multiple chances already. Since the block is 72 hours, let it expire. The first thing either of them does, block them permanently. Then watch real carefully for new sock puppets. Putty's already asked for his account to be close. I kinda think they will both be back breaking the rules, since I don't think either of them knows how to be civil.Sposer (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You're onto it. At most, one more chance; and watch for sockpuppets. As with most disruptors, there can be a brief flurry, but there are eventually enough barriers raised that they go away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

213.233.128.120

Resolved

I'm not sure whether or not this is the right section to log my complaint, but a IP address user who has been remarked against me, his IP address is 213.233.128.120.HMR 10:57, 05 October 2008 (UTC)

• OK, this IP address hasn't edited for four days, so a block would be pointless here. However, if they start editing again in the same way, please post the details at the administrator intervention against vandalism board. Thanks, Black Kite 10:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever

This user has been personally attacking me and other users for ages. I've filed a report on Wikiquette [32] but this issue has not been resolved. He's now back with even more aggression [33] [34]. Please can someone protect me from this abuse?--   Avg    11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a warning regarding the use of language in their talkpage summaries. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job, we must not tolerate any kind of personal attacks. AdjustShift (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that Avg should also moderate his language [35], and I'm going to suggest him that he stops implying that anyone contradicting him is an irredentist [36]. It's very tiring to edit Balkan-related articles where you are getting accused all the time of being X or Y depending on what you edit. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're referring to a content issue and I've limited myself strictly to BF's behaviour here. It was never my intention to enter into content issues, therefore I'll reply to your talk page on the irredentist issue. Whoever is interested they can follow the discussion there.--   Avg    19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, this is about your behaviour denying any discrimination against minorities on Greece and claiming that any source or map mentioning minorities is forcefully suspicious because it's promoted mostly by nationalist groups and saying that stuff should be removed from Greece because greeks find it offensive[37]. I'm sure that BF can point at more examples of this, and then you can start to see why some editors will complain that they are "tired of his bullshit". --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric once more you're bringing up a content issue. Okay, I got the point, you do not agree with me. However, no matter how much we disagree, there is always a level of civility that we all must abide to. --   Avg    22:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a level of civility which you certainly do not adhere to, but I'm not going to waste my time collecting the diffs. Any passing admin is free to mark this as resolved now. BalkanFever 07:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame

Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) Massive POV edits and moves on a large scale. Thoughts? AIV seemed like the wrong venue. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was about to post an AIV against PrinceOfCanada-HG (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) ... this user has most horrific use of Huggle, etc that I have seen in ages. Nothing but templating, many of them wrong, a poor understanding of WP:VANDAL, being very very WP:BITEy. He's given level 4 warnings, but never actually explained what the user did wrong. PLEASE someone stop him. I have tried to advise on his talkpage, but of course it redirects to his normal talk page, so he doesn't even see. BMW(drive) 12:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some diffs would probably be helpful here, BMW. I'm not saying they don't exist, but it's difficult to find anything unusual for someone who uses Huggle. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, rather than post 4 diff's, have a look at User talk:Turkish Flame's talk page at the 4 warnings, and how easily I solved the issue underneath. On top of that, [38] was a the receipt of a pretty serious vandal templating, considering the edits in question were AGF edits. In fact, my first note to that user was to welcome him, then to try the sandbox...which he did. I can do a lot more easy hunting, but he's done dozens of templates/reverts today based on "vandalism" that I would bet 1/2 don't meet the criteria. BMW(drive) 14:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:Blanche of King's Lynn (bottom section), which is pretty horrible. I am looking further at this at the moment. Black Kite 15:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Have left a warning regarding use of automated tools on his main account talkpage. Black Kite 15:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a thought: try engaging me in discussion first, rather than leaving rude messages on my talkpage. I know you don't like me, but you could at least pretend to be civil, especially to a fellow Canadian. Cheers. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

SmackBot changing date formatting in artlces in violation of MOS

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

SmackBot is going around delinking dates in articles. Yes, that is a good thing, however he is changing the format of the date from one to another, i.e. from "March 27" to "27 March" without prior consensus on articles. This I believe is violation of MOS. Please see [39][40][41] for what I mean. The bot is also removing commas after dates and before years, so instead of March 27, 2008 it is March 27 2008. D.M.N. (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed this. Unlinking dates I have no objection to, but the subjective changing of date formats at the same time is perhaps worth avoiding. ~ mazca ^t | c 12:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing this post I dropped a message at User talk:SmackBot#SmackBot problem, referencing this thread, which is supposed to have the result of automatically stopping further bot edits.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked though quite a few diffs and have not seen an instance of March 27, 2008 to March 27 2008. Anyone have a diff? Note that 27 March, 2008 to 27 March 2008 is not that case because with autoformatting the first comma wasn't displayed. Gimmetrow 13:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[42] - The first diff I provided. It was [[March 27]], [[1971]]. The bot changed it to 27 March 1971 thus removing the comma. Normally, if it's simply [[March 27]] [[1971]] the comma would appear magically, but this wasn't the case here, the comma was actually inserted. The bot fails to insert a comma if date autoformatting is removed i.e. [[August 8]] [[1980]] as a random example shows up as August 8 1980 with a comma, while the bot is changing it so no comma is shown - the bot should be inserting a comma like what happens with Lightbot's script. (see for instance here as an example) D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In that diff [[August 7]] [[2006]] is converted to 7 August 2006 - which is the correct DMY format without a comma. Above it was claimed [[August 7]] [[2006]] is converted to August 7 2006 - which would be wrong, but I haven't found an example. Gimmetrow 13:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:DATES#Retaining the existing format:

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic.
• In the early stages of writing an article, the date format chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic. Where an article that is not a stub shows no clear sign of which format is used, the first person to insert a date is equivalent to "the first major contributor".

So, it should have stayed the same. The comma should have really been inserted. D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There are two very different issues. One is whether the date formats should be switched between MDY and DMY - the other is whether that switch was performed correctly from a technical perspective. Above you claimed it was performed incorrectly from the technical perspective - your example was March 27, 2008 to March 27 2008, by which I understood [[March 27]] [[2008]] to March 27 2008. If that is happening, yes that is technically incorrect, but after looking at numerous diffs now I have yet to find this technical issue. [[March 27]] [[2008]] or [[March 27]], [[2008]] to 27 March 2008 is, however, technically correct - if the date were displayed autoformatted as DMY, the comma would be absent. Whether DMY and MDY should be switched at all is a completely different issue. Gimmetrow 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I was on about. No problem originally (well apart from datelinking), but no comma was inserted in unlinking dates. D.M.N. (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So what you are saying by that diff is that there is no comma issue, as 13 June 1941 doesn't take a comma. So it looks like we are only presented with the MoS problem. I say "only", but it is not insignificant and will lead to huge numbers of wasted edits by users manually changing the dates back if it continues.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing technically wrong with [43] - no comma was displayed in DMY format, and after linking removed still no comma. There are technical issues with some of the edits (mainly not doing everything, so it takes another edit to either complete or undo), but I have yet to find a problem with commas. Gimmetrow 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If a bot is going to do this sort of thing, it should insert the comma, and leave the order alone; it's the order on which users have strong feelings. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A bot has no business making a change in dating convention. De-linking is one thing, but changing how the date is then displayed, i.e. changing it from MDY to DMY, needs human intervention along with talkpage consensus. We have already went through an extensive month long and more discussion concerning this at talk WP:MOSDATE, and for a bot to be taking such action is counter to that process.--JavierMC 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Javier here. Now my ultimate preference would be to standardize on ISO 8601 (yyyy-MM-dd) for all dates, I'm realistic enough to know that isn't likely to happen anytime soon, so the best consensus in the meanwhile is to leave the dates the way they are currently formatted, while getting rid of the unnecessary links. --Cyde Weys 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Off wiki problems re project from jidf.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I make one last point to clarify one thing. This should possibly have been posted above at [44]. 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 [45], [46]. Hope that clarifies my original posting here. JIDF Threats (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 [47] 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. [48]. 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)

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 [49], followed by this [50] - in other words, a deliberate attempt to do exactly the same thing as Eleland to see if he would be blocked for the same time. In the end, he was blocked for less time than Eleland, thus making his protest moot. Such disruption does lead me to believe that we would be better off without him (and the same goes for Puttyschool, for that matter). Black Kite 15:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have got 4 good reasons to...

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

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

I say a member because:

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

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

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

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)

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

Vandal on 118.137.x.x range

In the past couple days, there's been a vandal on 118.137.x.x IPs that has been doing rather subtle but repeated vandalism. The IP's I've identified so far are:

• 118.137.68.103 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.21.140 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.20.170 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )
• 118.137.48.87 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

The MO of these addresses are to repeatedly put insert false information into articles about anime series and companies, specifically that certain companies are owned by or series licensed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer or other major American studios. Their most common targets are Sunrise (company) ([51], [52], [53], [54], [55]) and TMS Entertainment ([56], [57], [58]), but they also add this information to a wide variety of articles ([59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]) as well as miscellaneous vandalism to other articles (changing the station an anime series is broadcast on, adding a list of uncofirmed character to a video game article, adding false info about actors in a Mexican TV series).

Repeated warnings to stop have been ignored, and at least two of the IPs (118.137.21.140 and 118.137.68.103) have been blocked, but then the user shows up again on a new IP. I'd like to request a rangeblock to stop this user, if at all possible. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contributions of the IPs and they are guilty of persistent vandalism. It is quite possible that one vandal is using these IPs for vandalism. A rangeblock is required. AdjustShift (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Requests for checkuser is thataway! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Whois shows that the range 138.136.xxx.xxx-138.137.xxx.xxx is owned by an Indonesian ISP. Seems likely the vandal just has a very dynamic IP and would show up within this range. Would a rangeblock be to nail their whole subnet? Seems a bit extreme to deal with what's likely one vandal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, filed a RFCU report. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 19:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(resp to Mendaliv)It would depend if there is anyone else regularly editing en-WP from that range, and a range block need not be of any great time length to alert the individual of our intent to stop their vandalism. That is, however, something a CU will be able to determine with their tools. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've checked the range, and discovered that it's 118.137.0.0/17 (up to about 30000 users would have to be blocked). Normally, from what I've seen, if the CIDR range is /24 or higher, then a rangeblock is not too hard to ask for. But /17 seems too risky :P Of course, we'll see what the CU has to say about this one. ~ Troy (talk) 00:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gah, and I can't watchlist everything, as the user usually hits new articles with each new IP address. Oh, and 118.137.48.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back - he's only hit TMS Entertainment so far, but I'm sure he'll hit more articles. Should he be blocked? NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 05:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is an Indonesian ISP there may not be any other addresses editing en-WP, or so few that block exemption makes it a viable option. This is why it should be a CU determination, as they have the tools to see the entire ranges' contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've alerted Nihonjoe about this. He blocked 118.137.0.0/16 twice before because of the MO. I think this time, he didn't notice this recent breakout. I just hope he replies ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dole n' Kemp

Resolved

 – Blocked. Caulde 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Dole n' Kemp (talk · contribs) has been around since September and all contributions appear to be vandalism. —KCinDC (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User also claims on his/her talk page to be Fatbutt, who is blocked indefinitely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the contributions and blocked indefinitely. Quite obviously a VOA. --Smashville^talk 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanity check on Shirley Manson

Resolved

I've been reverting on sight IP socks of an indef blocked editor (User:Nimbley6/User:Bennet556). This editor has an obsession with Scottish topics, particularly Scottish singers. In the past few minutes, I've reverted >3 times on Shirley Manson and I'd appreciate it if someone could sanity check my reverts - am I being obsessive, am I in breach of WP:3RR, etc. I don't like reverting this much - it makes me feel hypocritical...! Cheers,  This flag once was red  22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly another sock, but also a dynamic IP so I've blocked it for a short while. Reverting isn't a problem here. Black Kite 22:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watched "Johnny Jackson AKA Johhny J's" entry.

/* Death */ ThugLifeArmy.comhas spread many rumors in the past, the are the only "journalists" to be reporting his death that supposedly happened almost 24 hours ago in LA county jail. He isn't very famous, but most long time hip hop fans, and all fans of Tupac Shakur know who he is. I believe that if he had committed suicide in LA County jail last night, that one of Los Angelos's credible news sources would have picked up the story. As it is, according to google news, only one web site, Thug Life Army has reported this "news". No other website has picked up the story, which tells me that no one can confirm it's credibility.

Thug Life Army has numerous moderators, any of which could have created this as a rumor, or reposted it without confirming, for any number of reasons or vendetta's. I personally know of several other times that Thug Life Army has been involved with unreputable activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff F. Pierce (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This concerns me as well, and I'm going to revert the article to prior to the edits claiming his death until some more sources start to emerge. The one presented is not very good, in my view. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

May want to throw a semi on there. IP's are coming out of the woodwork to say he's dead. HalfShadow 02:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I still can't find any actual reliable sources that confirm this death, most of what's out there is blogs or close to it, but editors insist on adding the death thing. Could someone else please look over this situation, because I'm getting cranky and tired and need to go to bed. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just semi-protect it for 24hours. Eventually some reliable source will pick it up if true. If anything, committing suicide while in jail and police custody will be reported by the LA Times or some other reliable source, even if his fame as a musician is not massive.--JavierMC 07:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The All-hip Hop Article is just a rewrite of the original Thug Life Army Article. There has since been proof found that he is / was in LA County Jail. But the fact that he is in jail is for from proving the suicide. This supposedly happened on the 3rd. Two editions of the LA Times and LA Daily News have been published since then, none of which include any mention. Also worth noting is that his myspace ( http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=125249677 ) had someone log on the 4th, the day after his reported suicide, and whoever didn't post any information regarding his death on the third. talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

A credible death threat?

Resolved

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

I'm a little concerned about this edit [65]. It may just be a joke, however you can never be too careful these days. Maybe someone should consider alerting the school, just in case another 'columbine' appears on the front page of our local newspaper. --Flewis^(talk) 01:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just posted again [66]. This is the user: 92.16.210.213 (talk · contribs) --Flewis^(talk) 01:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site [67] gives a rough location of the whereabouts of that particular ip. From what I can deduce, the ip is located near the town of 'Skipton' by the Yorkshire Dales. That is quite a distance though, from Stonehaven (the location of the school). This is definitely worth checking out. --Flewis^(talk) 02:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

an editor is reverting to bad images

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WPAR&diff=243068154&oldid=242446188

PNG images are supposed to be better than GIF and JPG images, particularly since JPG compression is lossy. But an editor is reverting the substitution of PNG images on radio station articles and is tagging the PNG images for speedy deletion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WPAR&diff=243068154&oldid=242446188 He should be blocked and the PNG images restored and untagged. -- 192.30.202.21 (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a {{hangon}} tag to the PNG page; the rationale for deletion seems incorrect - the PNG is (a) a different format to the GIG, and (b) at the same resolution.

You should probably try and discuss this with Rtphokie (as I plan to do now) - it's possible that they have a good reason for this changes and for tagging the image for deletion.

(Disclaimer: not an admin)

Cheers,  This flag once was red  03:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What? Like keeping an image they uploaded from being deleted as an orphaned image because it was replaced with a .png? Not sure if that's a good enough reason.--JavierMC 03:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, mate! I/we won't know until Rtphokie replies. But the image is tagged with {{hangon}}, so for the time being there's no harm, no foul. There are, however, at least a couple of other images in a similar state - I believe one of them at least has been raised with Rtphokie by the IP editor already. I've not tagged these; I'll leave that as an exercise for 192.30.202.21.

Cheers,  This flag once was red  03:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) TFOWR, sorry I was commenting on the edit summary he provided with his edit, not on your actions. Thought you might have missed it.--JavierMC 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I assumed you were commenting on Rtphokie. I saw the edit summary, but thought they might have a valid reason for choosing the GIF over the PNG - I can't personally think of one, though.

Incidentally, won't the history of the GIF transfer through to the PNG, anyway?

Cheers,  This flag once was red  04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed at Talk:Barack Obama

Wikidemon has been engaging in harassment, unilaterally closing discussion I started today [68] at the Talk:Barack Obama page, quickly putting a box around it ( first [69] edit summary: ["closed as disruption"], second [70] ["closing again"], third time [71] ["close discussion"], fourth time [72]) and claimiing incivility, weirdly, and making the bizarre claim that restarting a discussion with new information is itself somehow "disruptive". There's a better word for it: intolerance of opposing views and even intolerance of the idea that a discussion Wikidemon doesn't like to see has been started. He's had some support from a few editors, but a few editors shouldn't be able to close a discussion immediately, before other editors get a chance to see it (this is the weekend, when many don't edit), and there are plenty of other editors who normally look at that talk page. Shutting down after mere hours a discussion that isn't disruptive on its face is itself disruptive. There is nothing in WP:TALK#Others' comments that makes this an exception to As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section. (in WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable). It is clear from WP:CCC that significant new information is a reason to restart a previous discussion (Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.)

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

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

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

Honestly, looking at the thread, I'm inclined to say "it takes two to tango"; your own comments were rather aggressive. I can understand frustration- we've all been there- but you've gotta keep a level head in a powder keg like the Obama article. That said, I agree that Wikidemon's behavior was over the top; attempting to close discussion before it was due (first attempt was less than 60 min. after Noroton started the thread) and attempting to use scare/bully tactics ([73], [74]) do not leave a good impression. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The bogus AN/I reports are getting tired. I am on routine article patrol. The editors at Talk:Barack Obama regularly close, move, and delete several disruptive discussions per day. Particularly unhelpful proposals get shut down quickly,[75][76][77][78][79] as does vandalism.[80][81]

Several claims made here are flat-out wrong. Noroton knows the objection is to the insults, not his proposal, because I advised him several times he is welcome to make it and I would not close it if made without insulting other editors (e.g. [82][83][84]). Under article probation editors may participate on Obama-related articles if they can do so civilly; if not they are unwelcome (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation). The probation page chronicles a block every day or two for editors disrupting Obama-related pages. My closure was in no way unilateral. I did it after making proposals, and with consensus. Another editor closed it as well.[85] I did not close the discussion four times. I make a point to stay within 1RR, and go to 2RR only after obtaining consensus on matters of disruption. One of Noroton's diffs has nothing to do with this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

Since our last report here [86], 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)

Possible interwiki vandalism (User talk:195.221.155.2 195.221.155.2 (talk · contribs))

See User talk:195.221.155.2 and 195.221.155.2 (talk · contribs) for full report. Same IP adress (Utilisateur:195.221.155.2) was blocked on French Wiki.

This (French) user, engaged in childish vandalism since years ([87], [88], [89], [90], [91] ([92], has a troubling pattern related to a user of the French Wiki, who appears to make constructive edits.

Thus, on April 4, 2008,fr:Rafael Sánchez Mazas was created by Vincent D. Rousseau, and, just a few hours before, a link was added to the French article by our user here (195.221.155.2) to the English Mazas article (see dif).

Same for Latin Kings created on French Wiki by Vincent Rousseau, born in 1990.

Same also for Music of Ancient Rome, modified on the same day that Vincent Rousseau modified the French version of the article.

Tazmaniacs (talk) 14:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Just a quick notice of the degeneration of the Palin article talk page into partisan bickering (my candidate is better than yours type, with personal insults.) I attempted to close the section where this is occuring, but was promptly reverted so the slugfest could continue. I have left a warning that article, topic, and site blocks and bans are possible outcomes when this type of thing continues unabated, and specifically advised the combatants to take a step back, read Writing for the enemy, Tigers, or Mastadons, and to focus on the article when they return. Although I have hope, I have no great confidence my adivice will be heeded, hence, I notify you all here. Please assist in reining in the hostiles and encouraging them to refocus their efforts. I will support (and even cheer wildly) at any short blocks deemed necessary, as I would strongly prefer to keep this article unprotected and if the fighting moves into the article space that is what will happen. Thanks, KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Scurrilous vandalism mirrored on scraper sites

A user posted a request on the BLP board to have his deleted article (which he restored) left in place, as scraper sites have been reflecting old version with unpleasant vandalism about this user, and he is afraid of what might happen if an employer, for example, were to Google his name. He wants the restored page left up temporarily to "clear out" the vandalism on mirror sites. His request is here Questions: 1) Can someone immediately protect the restored deleted article, at least until a longer term decision can be reached? 2) Will what he's doing actually help his cause? I don't know enough about the tech side of it to know. IronDuke 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is already protected... still curious about the tech end of it, and what people think. IronDuke 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)