Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive482

living person subjected to self proclaimed biographer posting slander

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

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

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

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

Block template feature preventing blocked user from editing own talkpage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to remove the talk page lock feature when blocking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A user has issued a death threat to an admin

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

” — TougHHead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Duck Soup:

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

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

Groucho: Tanks.

Chico: You're welcome.

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

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

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

I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the number of "love letters" you have is a strong indicator of how good an admin you are. So, far, this is my favorite: [1]. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Xinunus back at an IP address

Resolved

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

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

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

AFD log

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Neel Kashkari - minor vandalism

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

Gary Cooper

Could somebody please take a look at this article's recent history? Since at least June 19th [2], what is clearly a single editor using a variety of IP addresses has been attempting to insert into the article material about Cooper which other editors have been reverting because some of the parties referred to are still alive (so there are BLP concerns) and because the editor is supposedly a banned user, User:HarveyCarter. The constant edit warring on the part of this person is very disruptive and distracting to people actually trying to work on the article.

The IP addresses involved are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linkspam

Resolved

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

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

request for block

Resolved

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

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

[3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkey

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

Furthermore, I have also added the Kemalist ideology to balance between both of these concepts. But in the article it is reverted by two users: User:Turkish Flame and User:Ayça Leovinus (<Part of the 37 Wikipedia sockpuppets of Shuppiluliuma), their reason mainly given: No Islamist ideology allowed on the article, and only favoring secular information, but I have provided two balanced information for the article section, so I believe these two users are reverting my edits due to based on their own ideologies, but not caring about how information is provided for Wikipedia users, and that is what I have done by editing the section, providing a neutral point of view, but however these users are trying to hide these facts and informations, which I think is not a valid reason to revert my edits. Please review this, Thank you!!! My neutral revision :[4] against this:[5]

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

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

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

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

Johnny "J"

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

Now reliably sourced - [6] - so this is resolved, I think. fish&karate 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion closed at Talk:Barack Obama

Wikidemon has been engaging in harassment, unilaterally closing discussion I started today [7] at the Talk:Barack Obama page, quickly putting a box around it ( first [8] edit summary: ["closed as disruption"], second [9] ["closing again"], third time [10] ["close discussion"], fourth time [11]) 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 ([12], [13]) 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,[14][15][16][17][18] as does vandalism.[19][20]

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. [21][22][23]). 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.[24] I did not close the discussion four times. I make a point to stay within 1RR, and go to 2RR only after obtaining consensus on matters of disruption. One of Noroton's diffs has nothing to do with this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, LotLE reverted after discussion was restarted (edit summary: "close continuing disruption and violation of article probation". [25]) Here's what Wikidemon calls a "personal attack" in various edit summaries (one of them [26]). It needs to be seen to be believed:

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

If LotLE finds this so uncivil, one would think he'd be a very scrupulous editor himself. Compare what LotLE himself wrote in the same discussion, yesterday: [27]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obvious sock needs blocking

119.30.69.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Obvious sockpuppet of User:NisarKand, last incarnation is already-blocked User:Pakhtunking, with almost identical edits, including the same vandalism to user pages [28][29], re-adding the same images again to the same article[30][31] and blaming the same user [32][33]. Passes WP:DUCK with flying colors. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henotheism and User:VedicScience

can someone please take a look at these diffs, and figure out how to deal with this. user:VedicScience has been engaged in a whole lot of non-productive character assaults on talk:henotheism, against various editors (not really me, except for a couple of snipes). see: his first post there, [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], this in response to me warning him about attacking other editors, this after I pointed him to the talk page guidelines, and explained (a bit sharply, I'll admit) that it was unacceptable behavior. I've been archiving the off-topic stuff as it occurs on the hope that would stop it, but it hasn't, and I'm tired of cleaning up after him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed Range Block of 82.132.136.192/27

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

This guy has been vandalizing pages for months now, including user pages ([39] [40]) and other pages like Sienna Miller. He's been going around feeling good about himself because he can change his IP by switching his Iphone on and off [41]. Luckily, he's in a pretty small range. There's only 32 ips in there, and all of them have been the same person going back and forth on the same IPs or have been allocated but unused thus far.

The most recent edits have been made by 82.132.136.207, 82.132.136.215 and 82.132.136.211. The latter two made edits were made on the same day at the same article. The last one made the most recent edit and was a used IP from a couple of months ago. All of them must be the same guy. At this point, I would assume that it's safe to make a range block that expires within about a month. ~ Troy (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Block needed

Resolved

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

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

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

Olana North

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

The entries immediately preceding, on the user and talk pages respectively [42] [43] give a clue that the user (with whom you've had some interaction) is not happy about something. Not having read the user's contrib's in detail, I couldn't say what it's not happy about, although at least in part it's obviously not happy with you. [44] It appears to go back, in part, to this rather snippy comment [45] by Olana North. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both of the IP addresses in the conversation above resolve to the same source, as does the IP making threats about being able to find Pigsonthewing (see discussion further down the page). As does the IP that Olana North reverted twice ([46] [47]) shortly before declaring herself a sockpuppet... of someone who, as Occuli notes, isn't just a random previous sockpuppeter, but one who had issues with Pigsonthewing specifically. I'm thinking maybe she wasn't lying. She says she is a banned sockpuppetter. There's some evidence that might be the case. Who are we to argue? AGF and all. --CBD 11:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ec) Ok, you're crazy. :]

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

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

Anon off-wiki threat

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

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

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

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

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

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

User Talk: WikiCheckee

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't really think it is evidence they've been read. If you leave a message on my page I can easily remove it without reading it.--Crossmr (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Thesamami

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

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

216.188.192.218 has a history of being a vandal

Resolved

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

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

Lara Logan gossip

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

Page 6, the gossip column of the New York Post, has reported that Lara Logan, a CBS reporter, is under investigation for taking souvenirs from Iraq. [48]. InaMaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) argues that this is a reliable source and has adding this information into the article: Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy. He also has included blogs and other non-reliable sources in support, arguing that sometimes blogs are allowed. I have attempted to discuss this matter with him at Talk:Lara Logan#Iraq Looting Controversy and all I get in response is that the Post is a reliable source and an edit war and that Richard Johnson, the writer, is a reporter. He is a gossip columnist. Please note from the horses mouth:

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

Page 6 has no reputation for accuracy or fact checking. Also, note from this ABC News report that Richard Johnson, a "Gossip Columnist", acknowledges Page 6 payola.[49] To add to the lack of reputation of Page 6, see this article: [50] which states, "Former 'Page Six' Gossip Admits to Making Stuff Up! (For His Novel)". This is gossip. I'm all for adding this information when and if a mainstream source known for fact checking actually reports on this. However, I don't want to edit war on this matter. InaMaka is currently banned for 31 hours because of 3RR violation (his second) -- and please take note of the general tenor of his talk page. I brought this matter up on ANI/BIO at WP:BLPN#Lara Logan gossip but no action was taken. At this point in time, a Wikipedia BLP has the accusation that a) Lara Logan stole and b) is under investigation. The source? A gossip columnist. Isn't this sort of thing what WP:BLP is designed to preclude? Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Six is being sued for another story they ran, and later admitted that they didn't verify the facts: [51] Arakunem^Talk 20:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

I appreciate the timely resolution, SS. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anything that turns up on this page tends to attract more eyes and a better chance of quick reversion if the blocked editor starts doing it again after his block expires. Lara Logan certainly does attract trouble, though. There are endless Google references about her, and not many of them elevate her character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Abusive IP 77.42.134.215

• 77.42.134.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Using abusive edit summaries and edit warring. Insulting edit summary Dr.K. (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try WP:AIV, but he only has the one entry, so it's unlikely he'll be blocked. Keep an eye on him and see if he, or possibly other IP's, post the same kind of stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Baseball Bugs. Nice to see you again. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

User:Ramu50

Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing multiple templates tendentiously, such as Template:AMD processors, Template:CPU technologies and Template:Sun Microsystems. He has been asked and warned by multiple editors repeatedly to cease his tendentious editing and from making personal attacks. Recent personal attacks directed at me include these: [52] and [53] at Template talk:AMD processors and this one: [54] at Template talk:CPU technologies. In Template talk:AMD processors, Ramu50 has accused me of "collaborating with other editors against him" and being "unqualified to content at Wikipedia" or something to that effect. In Template talk:CPU technologies, Ramu50 has attributed statements which I do not recall making without any proof such as a link to diff, in addition to telling me to, "Get real idoit...". In all cases, a brief look at the edit histories of the templates' and associated talk pages will provide more ample evidence of tendentious editing and personal attacks.

There have been two prior incidents reported by other editors as a result of Ramu50's tendentious editing and personal attacks, one at the Administrators' noticeboard and the other at the Wikiquette alerts. However, the concerns raised by me do not appear to have been resolved. Rilak (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Negabandit86 and NegativeEnergyChip321

A couple of weeks ago, I warned Negabandit86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) against creating a particular article or write a section in another relevant article regarding a fictional character that has no clear or relevant third party references concerning the character's existance. I warned Negabandit86 multiple times and it became apparent that he understood the warnings. However, yesterday, while viewing my watchlist, I found a questionable edit to another article by NegativeEnergyChip321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and when viewing his talk page, it became clear that Negabandit86 had "recruited" NegativeEnergyChip321 from a Wikia or similar fan project. Today, when I checked my watchlist, I found the article recreated by NegativeEnergyChip321. I deleted it, again, because I had not seen any references concerning the character's existence in relevant third party sources, and because it was clear that NegativeEnergyChip321 was a meatpuppet and had no other constructive edits, I indefinitely blocked him. Was this the right course of action? And should anything be done concerning Negabandit86?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd warn him and make it clear that another attempt at meatpuppetry will result in a long block. It's one thing to mess around and get yourself blocked, but I hate the idea of potential new users coming here and getting themselves blocked due to "encouragement" from others. I'm going to notify him of this section as well, in case he has something to say in his defense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, forget that. I see the nonsense at User talk:Ryulong. You are a much more patient man than me. He's been warned about his off-wiki meat puppetry. One more time and I'd whacked for a while (maybe not permanently though) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Moleman 9002

Resolved

So, User Talk:Moleman 9000 was indef blocked for making fairly nasty personal threats. User Talk:Moleman 9001 is also a indef blocked, self-admitted sock of Moleman 9000. Now appears User:Moleman 9002. I'd rather not go to SSP, it's pretty blatant and obvious, so I'll post here, hoping for some wikilove. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Pretty obvious indeed. Fram (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Swamilive sockpuppet rampage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checkuser is complete (thanks to newly minted checkuser NishKid64) if any admin would like to deal with [Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220 the SSP case]. Note that the IP in the case title is halfway through their week-long block and, as far as I know, there's nothing preventing more socking from the tbaytel.net IP ranges. Thanks to those who helped. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/72.35.4.220. It appears no other blocks are necessary at this time. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Sharankapoorkapoor

Resolved

 – Account blocked for both block evasion and disruptive editing; articles deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User Kapoorsharan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sockpuppeteer who previously introduced a network of hoax article about Indian television shows, including creating weak offwiki sources (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms). Most of his known previous accounts were blocked.
He is back as Sharankapoorkapoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and started creating pages again. Can someone block him and delete the 9 pages he created please? I'm about to undo his other vandalism. Thanks. --Amalthea^Talk 02:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jarajet89

Resolved

 – Blocked at AN/3. May or may not solve the problem. Protonk (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Posted to 3RR. That will probably get a quick response. Protonk (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No comment. --JavierMC 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's good. I'm glad you resisted the temptation to make some comment here. That shows maturity and character. I was just going to leave a snarky comment, but I'll elaborate. If I can deal with someone and assume that they aren't irredeemable and perhaps just need to be engaged in a positive sense, I'm happy. If it turns out that they don't respond to a real request for communication that isn't a block or a warning, then I am equally happy to be wrong. We don't lose anything in waiting until actual disruption occurs before blocking. Reverts are cheap and easy. Blocking due do actual edit warring is easy. It pisses me off quite a bit to see that you swore off this dispute, leaving me to deal with this mess that you predicted and then when I move through a perfectly reasonable course, you drop by with a snide comment. I tried to talk to the editor as if he were a real person. Failing that I made an unambiguous warning. Then I reported him. He will probably be blocked. He may stop due to a block, he may not. It doesn't help to drop by and let me know how smart you are. It honestly just upsets me. So hence the response initially. Protonk (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Woah. Dude you need to calm down. My comment was on 3RR being fast not on all that you went through to try and rehabilitate this user. That's laudable as far as I'm concerned. Don't react with a chip on your shoulder by coming here and making assumptions of my intent. I have no problem telling it how it is and it wasn't a snide remark to you, but on the process at 3RR recently. One further thing. Don't ever in the future make disparaging comments about me until you take the time to review my contributions to this project and get a feel of who I am and my intent here. Ask me what I meant and you'll get the truth from this editor. Your AGF went right out the door with this above comment and I find it highly offensive.--JavierMC 02:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. In my experience, "no comment" in a forum like this is best expressed by not leaving a comment. If you remark "no comment", what am I to make of it. Even assuming good faith, it still comes off as snide. You could argue that it is unfair for me to say it was an attempt for you to sound smarter than me. That's fair. But it felt snide. I was hurt. That was me telling you that. So let's try this. You chimed into a thread. I responded in a manner that didn't help matters. You reciprocated. We went down that chain until things got out of hand. So in the end, no blood no foul. Fair? Protonk (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair. Meet ya on a article in the future and perhaps we can contribute together in helping it reach GA or even FA sometime. Cheers.--JavierMC 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

He twice deleted [55] [56] all comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okorie_Okorocha an replaced them [57] with opinion that the AfD was incorrectly filed because the link from Okorie Okorocha was "red linked". As you can see from [58], the initial link was correct, so his claim that link was red is simply false.

He previously deleted the AfD notice on a different article Scene (youth subculture), again claiming that it was improperly filed [59], and he was warned for his action, which was considered vandalism [60] by a third editor.

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

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

Does that claim entitle him to close the AfD by himself and discard other editor's !votes [61]? Besides, AfD discussions with too few !votes are normally relisted, which seems to be the case here. VG ☎ 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think I should revert the AfD back to a the non-blanked revision, and add a notice for the closing admin to relist it for 5 more days. Does this sound reasonable? Other options? Also, I didn't template him at all; someone else did that for a different article. The first time he blanked the AfD [62] he gave no details other than "the template at Okorie Okorocha was not filled out correctly", even though all evidence indicates that it was filled out correctly, so I just left him a note that he has been reverted because he did not give any substantive explanations for his unusual AfD closure [63]. VG ☎ 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

About AfD red links

I've just seen a red AfD link myself for Call_Me_Crazy. When I clicked it, it did work, it just took me directly to editing the AfD page, even though the AfD page is not empty, i.e. the link is [64]. I can imagine see how this may deter someone from participating in AfD. But it's a software glitch in MediaWiki, and there's no problem on how the AfD was filed. I suspect the link will become blue by itself. Is this a known bug? VG ☎ 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If you implement the header clock in your Preferences/Gadgets you can do purges much more easily - clicking on the clock does a purge. – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

More copyvio by User:LamyQ

Since our last report here [65], LamyQ (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images, the latest being File:ESPANOLA PLAZA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-01 and File:EspanolaValleyVolleyball.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-03. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Community ban for PoliticianTexas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 71.30.144.116 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.147.211 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 8 Oct
• 71.30.148.190 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 71.30.150.198 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.233.90 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 75.88.235.6 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 6 Oct
• 75.88.239.68 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 76.26.108.145 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 164.64.135.194 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 207.155.116.232 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) ←used 5 Oct
• 216.135.172.188 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• 216.243.118.166 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Created another new account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Veggiegirl

Veggiegirl (talk · contribs) This has persistently continued to add unsourced, contentious BLP violations into Daisy Lowe, despite the fact that I have explained why the content is inappropriate and defamatory, and past their final warning. Rather than block this user myself (though allowable), I'd prefer someone uninvolved just check over the situation. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Which part of her edit is a BLP vio? Looks like there's a POV/OR thing about her first becoming famous for the paternity test, but isn't the rest already substantiated in the article? ThuranX (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page? "She first became well known to the media in 2008 for her brief relationship with Producer Mark Ronson". That assertion is defamatory (trying to assert someone is only famous because of their partner), unsourced and untrue. This editor has asserted they dislike the subject of the article and is trying to defame them as a result. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It may be unsourced, but there's no way it's defamatory if it's true. If she was unknown to the media, then had a brief relationship with Ronson, which brought her to the attention of the media, then the statement is true and doesn't defame her in the least. People are often thrust into the limelight because of their associations, whether it's a lover or spouse or celebrity business partner or the big shot politician you hit with your car. Bottom line is, if the statement is true, it ain't defamatory. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole point is that it isn't true. She was the subject of a BBC documentary long before she ever met Mark Ronson (not that I need to prove it as untrue...). Seraphim♥Whipp 12:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. At the mo her past relationship with MR isn't mentioned in the article at all that I can see, so this version isn't 'true' either. I think that Veggie will come to a compromise in time, if it's genuinely true that this lady has bee in magazines etc prior to going out with MR, as the article currently says. Both her relationship with MR and the documentary seem to have happened in 2008, by the way.:) Sticky Parkin 12:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Have you tried posting to WP:BLPN? Sticky Parkin 12:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much for wikipedia at the moment, but I've been checking in to peek at articles on my watchlist and that's it. Cases of BLP problematic material are serious and yes, I will take the strictest ruling of that policy. BLP/N is for "cases where outside persons are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time." Whatever you people want to do is fine. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a pass at the article, and have restored the material in what I think is a non-contentious way -- not in the lede, but in the part that already mentions her working with Ronson. Also, it's not characterized as her first coming to the media's attention, just that she had a brief romantic relationship with him. I did a bunch of other clean-ups as well. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You did an awesome job. Would you mind watchlisting it? I think it's time for me to take a break. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have done so. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 12:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Seraphim♥Whipp 13:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone resonably regular at BLP/N, I can say whatever the intention of the noticeboard it's often used when a BLP issue arises and outside comment or help is needed to resolve a dispute. I would personally recommend you take a BLP issue to BLP/N before the AN/I unless you need someone to be blocked. P.S. Perhaps you missed this part "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing Biographies of living people policy issues which require outside intervention. These may include disputes with tendentious editors" Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually in some jurisdictions (albeit not England) truth alone is not sufficient to prevent defamation. Be that as it may, whether the comment was defamatory should not be our primary concern Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war on pages of Indian religions by User Nexxt 1

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

• [66]
• [67]
• [68]
• [69]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I request Check user for Angle reflection and Nexxt 1 to verify sock puppetry. --Anish (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I read the instructions at WP:RFCU, and there is no code letter that directly covers a case like this. They suggest opening a WP:SSP instead. In lieu of a full SSP filing, and since the evidence is already here in this section, per WP:QUACK I'm blocking Angle reflection three months as a sock of Nexxt 1, and extending Nexxt 1's block to two weeks for block evasion and abuse of multiple accounts. Any review of this action is of course welcome. Angle reflection did not respond to the offer to present his case here, and has gone back to reverting at Indian religions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed per CU. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The block of Angle reflection has been extended to indefinite based on the CU confirmation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On matters of Turkey and Kosovo, et al

Series of skirmishes and discussions, beginning with [70], and including [71], [72], [73]. Seems to be strong POV involved, as well as multiple IPs, coming from same source. Quieting down now, but despite this [74] and similar accusations, I have little knowledge of the contentious areas and no inherent POV--just noticed unilateral edits which appeared to be vandalism. Input would be appreciated. Thanks, JNW (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Could you link/verify that your stance is indeed the consensus on wikipedia? I have added something to this effect on the relevant talk page? Certainly wikipedia should follow official international recognition, eg th UN? If Kosovo is listed as a European country, then why not North Cyprus, Abkhazia etc? Please do not paint me as a vandal or troll. I am merely questioning why this is wikipedia "consensus", if indeed it is? 41.245.136.129 (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, you had raised valid concerns that I had failed to notice. I have explained my arguments on the talk page. For consensus, you can check, for example, the talk page of WP:MOSKOS. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Renamed user 19

Renamed user 19 (talk · contribs)

User was blocked for having the name User:B988a4299d07c0f61fbc8378965438f0, account got renamed, no reason to remain blocked. Plain and simple. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a thread where this editor was also caught using alternate accounts deceptively? Also, wasn't this editor about to be RFC'd/Project space banned when they were renamed? If they are not requesting unblock, I see no reason to go unblock them. MBisanz ^talk 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Deceptively, I don't think so, but yes he did try to use another account. Maybe because the first one was getting a lot of off-wiki harassment, call me crazy if that seems reasonable. To your second point, no, they were not about to be project space banned, not even close. There are users who wanted to file an RfC, but nothing close to a ban, and being subject to an RfC doesn't make someone a bad editor.

Thirdly, they did request an unblock to fix the name change, but got turned down, which is something I would have challenged if it were not for someone doing the rename anyways. So he's renamed, and that's the ONLY reason he was blocked. What's the problem here? I can understand if you don't like him, but we don't block people because we like them or not. -- Ned Scott 21:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: Are we talking about Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles (talk · contribs) who renamed quite a few times here? D.M.N. (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles seems to indicate differently on the alternate account usage. CUs generally don't confirm a connection unless there is abuse of some sort. MBisanz ^talk 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Elisabeth Rogan was the only one after his RTV. The only other one was from a year ago. No abuse was cited beyond a concern that he might be doing good hand/bad hand. This is why I would like to encourage him to return on his existing account. -- Ned Scott 21:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, I would like to make it so he feels welcome if he wishes to return (he left because of off-wiki harassment). I give you my word that if he returns that I will keep an eye on him and/or file any kind of user RfC that people might feel is necessary. This is a simple request and it's fully in line with policy, so please will someone just do the unblock. Talking about it is more effort than actually unblocking him, so I don't see what the issue here is. -- Ned Scott 21:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of user conduct issues in this case, but "Renamed user 19" isn't an appropriate username - it's a generic one for a user that has left the project. If this editor wishes to edit again, they will need to select a different name and I will happily rename them. WJBscribe (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing under WP:UN#Similar usernames? Fair enough. He did ask to be renamed to User:A Nobody in his original request, would that be okay? -- Ned Scott 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:A Nobody seems like an acceptable username to me, but I'm not sure that would still be the name he'd want were he to start editing again. And indeed, given the harassment issues, he may prefer to start a fresh account. WJBscribe (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear on if he is allowed to start fresh with a new account or not. It's a big reason why I wanted him to be unblocked, because it seemed that people objected to him starting fresh. If he is allowed to do so then that will satisfy most of my concerns. -- Ned Scott 22:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether those accounts are blocked or not is kind of immaterial. I look at it this way. If he comes back on a new account and says "I am LGRdC", then it is no big deal. If he comes back on any of his other accounts and says "I want to be unblocked and edit under X name" then the same thing happens. Either way it is acceptable for him to return to editing. It is unacceptable for him to return to editing under a new name with a fresh start. Period. Those accounts being blocked or not doesn't really change that. Protonk (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe he has every right to start fresh, and if he really is the subject of off wiki harassment then even more so. This is a right given to all editors in good standing, and LGR is no different. I worry about people going after him to "unmask" any new account he might make and then blocking those accounts. I would prefer, for open transparency, that he continue to use his main account if he wishes to come back, but that is not a requirement. It would also be easier than dealing with people who believe like you do. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just like you and me, he only has the right to leave. I don't wish him any ill will. I don't want him to be harassed. But I don't want him to spend months and years testing the patience of the community only to start fresh without any possibility of redress. The reasoning should be obvious for the purposes of future deterrence. WP:RTV says, in bold: "the "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity." I don't want to unmask him. No one here does. but frankly the cat is out of the bag. If he is telling the truth then whoever is harassing him already knows details about him that are connected to his previous account. Anyone with a reasonable level of deductive skill can tell (even without his IP edits) where he lives and what his interests are. The claim that he needs to be able to edit here AND be renamed in order to avoid harassment is not supported by the facts. And for my own aggrandizement, what do you mean by "It would also be easier than dealing with people who believe like you do"? What do I believe? Why do I need to be "dealt with"? Protonk (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All editors have a right to edit anonymously, and even to start fresh if they are in good standing, which I feel he was even if he has annoyed some editors. I guess it is debatable regarding if he is in good standing or not, but even then we've set up the situation to where a number of trusted admins would know about the connection between the new and old account, for the sake of allowing someone to start fresh. I feel he only now has that right since he's no longer "vanished", what with having his talk page undeleted and there being a notice on his old user page.

My apologies about that last comment ("It would be easier than dealing.."). -- Ned Scott 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Naw, It's my fault for getting my hackles up. I respect his right to edit anonymously, but we have a community here. We can't operate that community if there is no memory of actions. Let me be clear (since I think I might have muddled it). I welcome his return, but I insist that he accept some community feedback about his previous account and the actions regarding and immediately following his vanishing. If he never wants to return, that is his choice. I don't make a habit of mentioning his old user name and I expect that others will not either. I don't think that he is welcome to start a new account with a clean slate. Even if he were welcome to do so, Durova made a good point at one of the previous AN/I threads about him: he has been here long enough that people "know" what his edits look like. If he starts a new account completely divorced from the old one, it will eventually be found (when he returns to XfD). That isn't a "we are going to hound you" kind of statement. It is just a matter of fact that people have distinctive habits and that others tend to remember those habits. Honestly I think that the best thing for him (should he want to come back) is to undergo a rename and accept some feedback in the form of an RfC for previous actions. If he returns anonymously it will only upset people more. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Alert

Timmy Appo (talk · contribs) left me a message on my talk page clamoring to desysop Alison. Besides the fact that I can't do that anyway, I suspect the user may be a sock of 76.247.222.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and TougHHead (talk · contribs). Can we get a check on this? bibliomaniac15 23:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering this edit, I don't think there's any doubt of it. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed - and  IP blocked - big surprise all round :) He's been going around vandalizing various other wikis, too - Alison ^❤ 02:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony Feld

Tony Feld (talk · contribs) - Anyone feel like looking into this user's contributions? Doesn't exactly look like a case for AIV, but there's very little evidence that this person is here to make a positive impact. Some edits are OK, some are flat out vandalism, others still are somewhat harassing. --Onorem♠Dil 22:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's the user's first account, looking at the history of pages the user has edited, I found several accounts, most already indef blocked, that had edited some of the same articles, added similar nonsense to user talk pages, and vandalised in similar ways. For example this diff:[75] by Mariusz Zielinski (talk · contribs) and diffs such as this:[76] by Tony Feld (talk · contribs) (for which the user was blocked for 24 hours). These are the other accounts that may be related (listed in the order that they were created):

• Mr. Conrad (talk · contribs)
• Mariusz Zielinski (talk · contribs)
• Mariusz Paul Zielinski (talk · contribs)
• Bill Conrad (talk · contribs)
• Brian Barbera (talk · contribs)
• Squidward Tentacles (talk · contribs)
• Flatts (talk · contribs)
• Mojo King Bee (talk · contribs)
• Flatts the Flounder (talk · contribs)
• Uncle Dee (talk · contribs)
• Bubble Bass (talk · contribs)
• Flatts Flounder (talk · contribs)
• Aloysius Snuffleupagus (talk · contribs)
• Ben9201996 (talk · contribs)
• Doy-doy people (talk · contribs)
• Jerry Stamm (talk · contribs)
• Jim10271949 (talk · contribs)

I think at least some, and maybe all of these accounts, may be the same user. There is also a "Tony Feld" account indef blocked/banned on another wiki, which was created before the account on Wikipedia and has the same user page. —Snigbrook 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a checkuser request waiting to happen. - jc37 04:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You just reminded me. I really am Mr. Conrad, the grouchy old man. --Tony Feld (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Block requested

Background

A few months ago, Jsn9333 (talk · contribs) was blocked twice due to his disruption of the Fox News Channel article (including a block for using sock/meatpuppets in an attempt to influence consensus). A topic ban was proposed by R. Baley (talk · contribs) and put in place following a discussion on this noticeboard (see WP:AN/I#Proposed short term remedy). Jsn9333 ceased editing under his account a few days later, following a block for violating the terms of his topic ban.

Today's issue

On September 15, a couple IPs (98.169.210.188 & 65.222.174.121) from the same geographic area (resolve within 11 miles of each other) showed up pushing the same agenda as Jsn9333 and making identical edits to the FNC article.[77] [78] The IPs confirmed my suspicion of sockpuppetry when they began referring to me as "autoburn", a name only one other editor in my 2+ years here has ever called me (see User_talk:Jsn9333#FNC). The IPs are no doubt the same editor, have attempted to support themselves on the talk page, and are very likely Jsn9333 (who was obsessed with the references within the FNC article). Per the principles of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango, I'm requesting a sock-block for both IPs (appear to be home vs work) rather than placing it myself (since I'm no doubt involved, but these IPs are quacking loudly). Best, - auburnpilot talk 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Helpful summary of the original situation from administrator R.Bailey can be found here. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

98.169.210.188 (talk · contribs) has now violated the 3RR, which he was blocked for previously.Edit: revert 1, revert 2, revert 3, revert 4, revert 5. Block would be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AuburnPilot (very tempted to call him Autoburn, because it sounds cooler) that the IPs are operated by the same person, and that this is a reappearance of Jsn9333. I have therefore blocked both IPs indefinitely; from the WHOIS links on the bottom of their contrib pages, both IPs appear to be non-portable and therefore safe to block for an undefined period. If I am misunderstanding the nature of these IP addresses, please change the block length to something that won't cause undue collateral damage. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, non-portable does not mean single user. They could, for example, be logging in via Wi-Fi at various Star Bucks or using a bunch of public computers in a library. Indefinite IP blocks should be reserved for situations with much more evidence than this of their single-user nature; indeed I can't think of many reasons for an indef IP block except for open proxies. This block should be shortend (maybe a week or so). Perhaps, if he moves a LOT within a range, we could institute a range block of some sort... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I have changed the blocks to 1 week on both IPs. We'll have to keep an eye out to see if this guy returns. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet another Hdayejr sock

Requesting assistance, multiply banned user Hdayejr, who comes and vandalizes my talk page about every other day (at least until it was semi-protected) is back again as 71.72.160.96 (talk · contribs). His first edit [79] was to put a ED link on my page (I didn't click on it), since then he's only been reverting my edits [80] [81] and making strange statements [82]. Can an admin please block the sock, please. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP also removed this paragraph from this page. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's him all right. Here's the diff of the report removal. [83] Dayewalker (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That particular IP address will be taking a short break. I make no promises of reduced disruption, mind you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That was intelligent: 'Let's go where all the admins hang out. It's a foolproof plan!' HalfShadow 02:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In another act of brilliance, the IP spelled "encyclopedia" wrong. Is the IP dynamic? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope, direct allocation. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Yeah, he's about as sharp as a rubber ball. His IP seems to be dynamic, here's a list of some of his socks I was keeping until it became apparent he was just going to hop around. He comes around with poorly spelled vandalism, we RBI, block a few socks, my page gets semi-protected. Eh, it's a living. Dayewalker (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness gracious, does this guy ever give up? Man, some people need a better hobby, or at least a girlfriend! This guy has all the symptoms of someone who is in dire need of female attention... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I'd suggest we start the 'Wikipedia Escort Service for the Prevention of Recurrent Vandalism' (WESPeRV), except (a) it's probably illegal, and (b) I might start vandalizing pages. ah, well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs)

The whole point is that having someone else voluntarily handle your genitals generally changes your perspective on the world. People who get regular doses of poontang don't see this sort of behavior as "fun". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Range is pretty consistent, so we know which area he lives in (midwest) and who his ISPs (2) are. When blocking his dynamic IPs, probably good to leave a {{sharedip}} on the talkpage so that users blocked by accident will see and complain - preferably to the ISP abuse desk. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

IP at Murad Gumen

Over at Murad Gumen, there's a situation with IP user 24.67.253.203 (talk · contribs) repeatedly removing what appears to be sourced material. [84] [85] [86]

This seems to go back a while. With this edit [87], he appears to be committed to not allowing discussion on the matter.

On the talk page, it seems that previous discussion and consensus appears to warrant it staying on the page, but since this is a WP:BLP matter, I thought I'd bring it here for a quick look-see from an admin. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory edit summaries

Resolved

 – by rangeblock. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous editor using the IP 84.127.79.132 has made a series of empty edits, apparently in order to make defamatory claims about another editor in the edit summaries. Although this vandal has been blocked, the blank edits and summaries remain. Could an admin please remove these totally? RolandR (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. All of these are really disgusting, venomous, and potentially libelous personal attacks. I think they all should be deleted also. — Becksguy (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Child_porn; it appears to be something of a campaign. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, all the NPA edit summaries by this IP (that said the same thing) have been deleted. Thanks much. — Becksguy (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Masonic conspiracy theories

Resolved

 – no issue - obvious sock Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was the article protected when all the IP was doing was rephrase a sentence from bullshit to what the source actually says? The same goes for this article, which was protected because the IP was putting a 'citation needed' template next to an unsourced allegation that has been disputed for the last 2000 years, as described in the article itself. The article itself, which starts off by describing the practice as a false allegation, does not even tell why the allegations are false. If it is indeed libel, then no one would mind proving reliable references that would refute a belief that has been held for two millenniums in many parts of the world. And please don't avoid explaining why this travesty is occurring by dismissing this as anti-Semitism. Ablee (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC).

Disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Baldness article

Resolved

01001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps disrupting (Possibly using IP's as well) the article by remove the current image and infobox which the only reasons given that it's an "ugly offensive image[88]" and the discussion by the user hasn't been very constructive at Talk:Baldness#Either a good looking bald guy goes here or no image. Now the user has made a threat to have me banned[89]. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: You could try WP:MEDCAB (or WP:MEDCOM), or just try to gather talk page consensus. See also WP:DR. Dendodge|Talk^Contribs 01:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is the changes made are not constructive and the discussion on the talk page also hasn't been constructive. Bidgee (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

YOu made the first threat.01001 (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please also note incivil statement from IP editor on this topic here. Gazimoff 01:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not me. But it shows someone else tried to contribute constuctively also, and he was teed off. I read some of the discourse. What did you do to get him so angry?01001 (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "constructive" about wishing someone a horrible death...--Smashville^talk 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the guy or gal was constructive until he got angry.01001 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Their only other edit was vandalism of Flying Spaghetti Monster. Again, there is nothing constructive about wishing the death of another user. --Smashville^talk 02:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And what personal attacks did I make? I do not appreciate you accusing me of making personal attacks.01001 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd class this as a personal attack. Gazimoff 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That was in response to the threat I received.01001 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

urmm [90] template warnings are not threats. Bidgee (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, your actions were much harsher than mine.01001 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What "threat"? Can you show a diff? Bidgee has never edited your talk page outside of templates. --Smashville^talk 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You threatened to block me. How is that not a threat?01001 (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a template (See:Template:Uw-delete3). You got warned as you removed a image that isn't copyrighted and the infobox without an consensus. Bidgee (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, templated warnings are not threats. --Smashville^talk 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• It is interesting that you claim not to be the same editor 0100 - A check of the history on this page seems to show some clear sock or meat puppetry going on between this editor and 4 alternate IP's detailed below. Edit pattern is the same, responses to adjustment are similar. Can you tell us if any of these IP's are yours?
• 81.178.58.73 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 141.154.59.105 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 83.85.131.52 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 98.197.13.104 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 82.21.96.88 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 74.14.144.180 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 71.37.47.143 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

--VS ^talk 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP is not mine.01001 (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, can you show us evidence of diffs of threats against you that give you the right to threaten Bidgee with a block? --Smashville^talk 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The editor who was screaming [91] is Senator Palpatine (talk · contribs) who is, surprise surprise, Grawp. It is likely that IP edits after the IP was blocked are from /b/ or are open proxies, since those are common grawp tactics. 01001 appears to be innocent of any behavior not reflected in his actual contribs. Thatcher 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've since applied temporary semiprotection on User talk: Bidgee in response to the level of IP harassment there. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was threatened by blocking for less than adequate cause.

Resolved

 – editor has accepted that template warnings are not threats - will continue with discussion at relevant article --VS ^talk 02:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to know if the users that threatened have administrative status. If they do, why? And it should be revoked for abusing it.01001 (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone has the right to warn you for actions that are considered disruptive to the project. --Smashville^talk 01:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was done in the matter of a threat. If it was proper according to the rules here, something is wrong with the rules here.01001 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See above, Wikipedia:AN/I#Baldness article. Looks like you've been saying some ugly things in a content dispute. Dlohcierekim 01:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It was done in the matter of a template, there was no threat. --Smashville^talk 01:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for not knowing the protocol for threatening someone on Wikipedia.01001 (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted - does that conclude this complaint?--VS ^talk 02:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but I still want that ugly offensive image taken off the baldness article.01001 (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• That is a matter for discussion at the article talk page - you should start that discussion there and await consensus before adjusting. Can I now close of this complaint as resolved?--VS ^talk 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible block evasion

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

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

• 5 Aug. Skinny McGee changes title of CD [92]

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

• 6 Oct. User: 67.140.85.123 changes title of CD [93]

• Geolocate [94] for IP indicates Chardon, Ohio (hometown of band)

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

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

Legal threats against User:Daniel J. Leivick

Resolved

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

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

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

user:Edwahunn0800

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

User:Frehley 0

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

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

User:Noroton

Resolved

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

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

• [95]
• [96]
• [97]
• [98]

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

He seems to be out of control now - lots of cursing and edit wars. Edit warring insults onto my talk page[99][100]...threatening to "not let [me] get away with it"[101]...Just committed WP:3RR violation at Weatherman (organization)...Wikidemon (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Other editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overturning admin’s action by another admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggest accuracy in naming

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

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

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

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

• [[link to page in question]]

or

• {{user|jc37}}

at the top of the entry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child porn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's listed in DNSBLs as dynamic, contains ".dyn." in the rDNS, has no edits outside of the two minutes it was used for here, and see also [102][103]. My guess is that the IP can remain static for up to a week at a time, and that the computer may even be a compromised zombie with an open proxy. But still both the machine and the user are likely to have changed IP before the block expires. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)