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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"JIDF Threats" is a self-admitted sockpuppet account which, in their own words, was created in an effort to try to complain about an off-wiki site and to try to connect me to the JIDF - a baseless allegation. I have fully stated my pro-JIDF bias. By doing so, it does not mean that I have anything to do w/ the content on their site. It should be noted that I have fully discussed these issues on my talk page including, but not limited to, my request for checkuser for the account in which I think created this "sock" in order to make these allegations. Is there a better way to request a "checkuser?" I'd like to know as it appears nothing has been done in this case except for this suspected sock puppet thing, despite the fact that, as you can read a precedent had been set in the recent past w/ someone else doing the exact same thing and it appears that the person's sock and master account were indef. blocked. (Or maybe not?) I guess now anyone can create socks in order to try to hide behind baseless allegations and not face any sort of sanctions whatsoever. Personally, I'm happy that the JIDF is paying attention to these double standards and bias in WP and if they are paying attention to all this and do anything on my behalf, I'm thankful, because G-d knows the majority of editors, admins, and Arbcom members haven't done squat except complain about my valid complaints and try to block and threaten to ban me, etc. All of this is discussed on my talk page. Feel free to contribute in an effort toward justice, so the air may be cleared and I can at least TRY to get more involved on WP at a more productive level (which would have happened a long time ago if everyone would have just stopped freaking out on me because I'm a pro-Israel, proud Jew, and a vocal supporter of the organization in question, etc.) Due to complaints about me posting on this board, this is all I want to say here. Please bring it to my talk page if you have any issues with me. I just got out of a block and I'm not looking to start any more trouble. Just wanted to state my piece here and get back to business. Thank you. --Einsteindonut (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully refuted this bogus claim in a long discussion with Nishidani which people may find on a previous version of my talk page. --Einsteindonut (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have got 4 good reasons to...

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

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

I say a member because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since our last report here [8], 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Well, what have we got to lose? He knows apparently that he has no right to expect an un-banning anytime at all. We allow him to return on our terms (I think iMatthew's proposal is sound) and if he does not want it, he can decline it. And if he does accept it and then breaks it, we can tighten the leash to strangle him, to stay within the metaphor. No matter what happens, there is nothing to lose. If he starts again what lead to his ban, then he will be instantly re-banned. So, again, imho we have got nothing to lose from unbanning him with strict probation. SoWhy 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

No, no, never

See this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American Eagle, I also find it, funny, here, that you use your status as an SEW administrator as leverage in this debate on enWP. Whereas, in the Razorflame 9 fiasco, you simply relied on SEW contributions [13] to try to discount the recent rash of opposers that had effectively sunk the ninth bid, ignoring the fact that four of the five "new" opposers were enWP administrators, or in the case of Daniel, also the chair of the Mediation Committee (as pointed out by Creol). hbdragon88 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

He twice deleted [14] [15] all comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okorie_Okorocha an replaced them [16] with opinion that the AfD was incorrectly filed because the link from Okorie Okorocha was "red linked". As you can see from [17], 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 [18], and he was warned for his action, which was considered vandalism [19] by a third editor.

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

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)[reply]

Does that claim entitle him to close the AfD by himself and discard other editor's !votes [20]? Besides, AfD discussions with too few !votes are normally relisted, which seems to be the case here. VG ☎ 00:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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 [21] 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 [22]. VG ☎ 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [23]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been disrupting WP:AN3 for his own points. He's personally attacked other editors who have been working to check his obvious bias. [24], [25]. And has been pushing his POV on the noticeboard [26]. Grsz^X 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

To keep things clear I wasn't working specifically to check CENSEI's bias. I haven't edited the article in question for two weeks. I simply filed a 3RR report on an third-party editor who was up to 6 or 7RR on a potential BLPVIO. CENSEI disrupted two 3RR reports I filed today, called me "despicable", etc. He's revert warred the insults into the noticeboard, three times now.[27][28][29] There's a very small group, perhaps down to a group of two now, who make wild accusations and personal attacks every time someone tries to deal with disruption under Obama article probation. I seem to have been singled out for special abuse. Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you dispicable, only your actions, much like Erik the Red said on my talkpage [30], but let me guess, somehow that wasnt a personal attack but mine was? CENSEI (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring and BLP violations continue: [31], [32], [33]. Grsz^X 15:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment by Scjessey

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

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

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

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

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

As the only explanation that anyone has tried to offer for why they were BLP violations were not only few and far between but also bordering on ridiculous to down right fabricated you repeating a baseless charge really does little to change my mind. CENSEI (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention needed

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

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

• How dare I question the motivations of a 3RR report. Anyone who does that is clearly gaming the system[35][36][37]. What was the disposition of that 3RR by the way? CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [38] Makes an attack.

• Wikidemon had no right to remove my comments from the 3RR page [39]. CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• [41] Uncivil comments.

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

• [42] Again uncivil and confrontational.

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

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

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

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

• Its my talkpage and If I dont want harrassing and threating messages there, it is my right to remove them, just as others do. [44] CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• [46] Uncivl accusations.

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

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

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

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

• After all, no one else has labeled a content revert as undoing vandalsim. [49] CENSEI (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• [50] Another bad BLP edit,

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

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

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

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

• What you call a "personal attack" I call pointing out the obvious. But then again your condemnation for disrupting a 3RR report probably only goes so far. [53] [54]. CENSEI (talk) 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

CENSEI's actions need checked. He's been blocked [55] for edit warring and disruption before and it's clear he has not learned. Not only does he need blocked, but a community ban needs serious consideration. Grsz^X 19:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Admin attention needed

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

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

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

Series of skirmishes and discussions, beginning with [56], and including [57], [58], [59]. Seems to be strong POV involved, as well as multiple IPs, coming from same source. Quieting down now, but despite this [60] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SA, you've got to be really careful when you're editing not to edit whilst logged out. It can give the appearance that you're doing it to evade your restrictions, regardless of the intention. In the future if this happens, request oversight of the edit and redo it once your logged out edit is gone. You can ask an admin to delete the revision pending oversight. Jehochman and Elonka are trying to do the right thing in all this, they're not harassing you. I do suggest we move on from this incident - no need for blocks for editing whilst logged out or incvility, but please take note that people are concerned about some of your recent comments. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that when called on the logged out editing, ScienceApologist does not take ownership of the edits which are apparently theirs. It happens all the time that editors get logged out and re-sign their posts. I am having trouble understanding what that's not happening, and I very much dislike that SA is playing fast and loose with the definition of harassment. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of being slapped around by you guys, but on the rare occasions that I fail to relog in (I have no clue why Wikipedia sometimes randomly logs me out), I do NOT own up to those IP edits for the precise reason that I do not want anyone to know any IP address associated with me. There are too many stories of what disreputable individuals have done to certain editors once they figured out their location. Now, if there is a way to clean it up, so that maybe one individual knows what happened, then do explain. Otherwise, privacy trumps all other issues. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, request oversight and then redo the edit. You don't have to get an admin to delete the edit first, but it can be quicker than oversight (obviously it would have to be an admin you trust). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if someone happens to be editing at the same time, they may pick up on that IP address. Houston, I think we have a problem. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notification

The best approach would be for the editor to determine what his own IP actually is (or are), and notify an admin that he trusts. In short, be up front about it - avoid the "appearance of evil". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia logs you out after 30 days. It is not the editor's fault that he doesn't realize he is logged out, because it happened automatically. Of course he doesn't "own up" to the edits, that's like saying, "This is my IP address. Feel free to stalk me." Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)That's why I use a different skin for my ID. If wikipedia has logged me out, it defaults back to the original, and I notice something's wrong. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist needs to be especially careful though, because of his Arbcom restriction. Instead of denying the edits, he should have actively done something about it, like, get them oversighted. -- how do you turn this on 22:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he can be excused for not having time to do so or forgetting to do so. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I start wikipedia, I start on my watch list, so I know immediately if I've been logged out. Maybe the user here needs to do that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. I get to Wikipedia through a "favourites" entry that brings up my watchlist, and keep that window on the left-side of the toolbar. (That's IE/Windows-speak for all you Mac-heads) I always go back to that window to check my watchlist - so logouts have never been a problem for me. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I also always use Preview, just to further admire my dripping pearls of wisdom before committing them to the awaiting universe. At least on talk pages, that further helps me, since I would notice the intrusion of an IP address where my wonderful signature should be. :) Franamax (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, always use Preview. When I fail to do so, that's when mistakes occur. You can tell the ones who don't when they have 20 consecutive edits that change about 3 words per edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break, arbitrary or not

I just got a third call. That's it. I'm out of here. I'll return when these connections to my IRL identity are hidden/scrubbed.ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me an e-mail when and if this is done. I cannot keep getting phone calls like this. Until I receive an e-mail I will not be returning to Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If and when you return you need to heed the advice you were given here... be exceedingly careful to use preview, to check your signature, to never ever edit while logged out (someone should invent a technique that uses a cookie on your browser to prevent one from doing it!)... because you are indeed under a restriction, and you absolutely should avoid the appearance of logging out to evade it. Further, if you (rarely, it is to be hoped) slip up, get the edit oversighted or at least deleted, then stand behind it. Slipping up is not an excuse. It is not the responsibility of the entire project to make sure YOU are logged in. ++Lar: t/c 22:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a simple solution, don't edit when you are logged off. If you can't log on due to whatever workplace restrictions, then don't edit. Especially if you are editing articles which can be considered problematic or that you have a strong logged on presence on those pages. If you choose to edit without logging in, then you will always run the risk of someone finding out your IP. Also, even if you don't mean it, if you edit without logging on and don't let at least a couple know it's you, then you will always run the risk of being accused of being a sockpuppet. Simply put, if you don't want people to know of your IP address, then don't edit without logging on first. Brothejr (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>Lar, since you're a checkuser, and there can't be any secrets with you, you'd be my go-to guy for oversight.  :) But seriously, does oversighting really work? What if I accidentally log out, edited one of my numerous controversial articles with an IP, someone guesses its me. Then the second you oversight it, someone's got me. I think we have a broken link in the chain of privacy in Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OM: I can't help you with oversight on en:wp. ArbCom has not seen fit to give it to me, despite multiple requests. Just about anywhere else, sure, but not here. Oversight is imperfect, and it is better suited to removing material IN the edit that needs to go, than it is to removing evidence of WHO edited something. I personally am not at all keen on its use for that latter purpose, which is controversial in some circles. There are two solutions to this problem. Edit under your real name, as I do, Or never edit unless you are SURE SURE SURE you are logged in. Or never edit controversial articles. Ok that was 3. ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you didn't have that power. I just assumed since you are a crat you had that power. Here's the major problem Lar, there are some bad people out there. There is the well-known editor here, who was involved in very controversial medical articles. Turns out he was a real doctor. Someone tracked him down, accused him of being a pedophile, and he spent lots of money defending himself. For that reason, I do not use my real name. Lar, you don't deal in controversial articles, so even though you put your real name on your user page, no one is going to go after you. There are a number of editors on here who would be in deep trouble. There's still a problem here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm not a crat either, at least not here (Commons and Meta, ya, but not here). I'm just a steward, that means I play an admin/'crat/CU/oversighter on small wikis that don't have any and can't tell the difference... sort of. And no, 'crats don't automatically have oversight, or CU either. What a naif :) But, ribbing aside, you're spot on here in this being a serious problem. If you want to edit controversial articles in this environment you have to be able to take the heat. I don't edit controversial articles (editing WP:space doesn't count), and you do. But look. WMF is just flat out not going to protect your anonymity. It tries, but it can't. I've opined elsewhere that we ought not to have anonymity at all... because thinking you have it and not is worse than knowing you don't and dealing. Would that cost us some contributions? ya. But maybe worth it. That's not here or there, though. It is what it is and we have to deal. So some of the things being suggested here really ought to be taken to heart by anyone who wishes to remain anonymous. It's not the community that will protect you. Only YOU can protect you. And with the likes of Brandt around, even that may not work. WMF is rare in even trying to keep IPs anonymous, most websites don't even have a privacy policy about IPs. Bravo us for trying. ++Lar: t/c 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Brothejr. Honestly, I assume I'm logged on at all times. There have been a couple of occasions where I failed to notice, and posted from my home IP (static) address. I do some 1000 edits per month, and I frankly just don't notice. However, I have taken to always running a "watchlist" before I edit, just to see if I'm logged on. It's saved me about a dozen times. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do exactly the same thing. Brothejr (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt how easy it is to slip up, and not realise that you were logged out. But the fact is SA, didn't notice, and he's on a restriction. So any appearance of trying to evade that restriction looks... bad. As soon as he knew about the logged out edits, he should have emailed an oversighter he trusted to get rid of them. But instead he played the harrassment card. Jehochman and Elonka aren't interested in harrassing SA. -- how do you turn this on 23:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you account for this where Elonka told another editor that she thought the IP was SA? I'm having trouble thinking of a good faith rationale for that. Not that I'm defending SA here; I don't know if he handled it in the best possible way, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, which it seems some others are not. Woonpton (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Whether someone is on restrictions or not, this was not done right. We should protect privacy first, then crush the individual second. SA was not being abusive with the IP, since it appears to have been a very small number of edits. If he were crossing 12 different articles, harassing a few editors, sure, that's a problem. Again, pointing out that an IP address is linked to a good faith editor is inappropriate and leads to all kinds of abuse. I'm assuming that Elonka didn't think it through, as much as I am assuming it was an accident that SA didn't log in. But identifying IP addresses to editors is just plain wrong. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds the system says they have to log in again quite often/at least once a day? Sticky Parkin 23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have found myself logged out not two minutes after submitting an edit while logged in, certainly far less than the supposed 30 minutes. Other times, I have found myself being logged in without having edited for an hour or more. As someone else mentioned, I now run a watchlist before I make most edits, especially on articles or areas where I've been active before. Risker (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you start on your watch list, you certainly know you're logged out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always do the watchlist thing first. However, I don't know what happened, but I went away from the computer, and when I came back, I placed an edit which was entered with an anonymous IP. There was another time when I was trying to do Twinkle revert, I noticed my buttons had disappeared--I had been logged off. But again, this isn't perfect, and it's kind of odd to make it a demand on an editor. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it log out at weird times for no apparent reason. But you always know that you're logged out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Please allow me to note (being the 'other editor' that Elonka told), that the intention of that notification was keep me from interacting with that IP's edits. Let's put things into perspective: that IP made edits (at that time controversial edits) to the page [61] reverting my previous edit. I then reverted, [62], and was quickly warned not to do so again by Elonka [63]. after that, Science Apologist 'cried foul' on my talk page [64] objecting to my reverting the IPs edits, but not bothering to tell me that they were his edits. Elonka's subsequent post was to inform me of that fact, providing some evidence that it was true. now you can interpret that any way that you like - I tend to think that SA was trying to trap me into a technicality, as he has admitted is sometimes his style here [65], and a good bit ago here [66] (see the last 3 or 4 paragraphs). Elonka's warning was timely and helpful; I don't think it's correct to look at her action out of context.--Ludwigs2 00:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take Ludwigs' discussion in the context that he has been battling SA for weeks on various science articles and policy. I doubt we have the whole story here. And the fact is a good editor was "outed" by IP address, whether intentionally or unintentionally, because no one gave him good faith. And yes, SA deserves good faith, even if Elonka and Ludwigs did not give him such. Ludwigs apparently believes that being "right" trumps privacy issues. Nice to know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin - I have made made several offers in the last week or so to sit down and mediate personal differences between you, ScienceApologist, and myself. ScienceApologist (to his credit) was willing to entertain the idea. Note that I did not make the post above to attack him, but rather to put Elonka's action in its proper context and perspective. If you like, I will even go so far as to say that his willingness to talk with me should be taken into consideration in the outcome of this process. I will make that offer to you, again, here: I am willing to sit down with you and try to resolve our personal issues, under whatever mediation you think is effective and appropriate. can we do that? --Ludwigs2 06:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for shame

It's a shame there isn't something like a firefox plugin that you can use (greasemonkey tool?) to prevent someone editing logged-out, if they wanted. rootology (C)(T) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, yes, what a great idea. Why didn't I mention it first? :) ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a summary of my view of the situation at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ScienceApologist. --Elonka 23:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, you're missing the point. This is a violation of privacy, and this might be the first time this loophole in policy has come to light. I hope I never forget to log in, because my privacy will be pretty much fucked up based on what I read here. I don't really care if SA is on a restriction. This should have been done in a manner to protect people's privacy, or Wikipedia needs to end this auto-logoff problem. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed "via an (off-wiki) CheckUser last night"? Say what? If there is anything in CheckUser policy which permits or supports that, whether "off-wiki" or on, I don't see it. Elonka is not a checkuser (neither as per this list nor as per this log). — Athaenara ✉ 00:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what are you asking? Requests come in via a variety of mechanisms. Answers are given or not given in a variety of formats. Admins do things with the answers based on the good judgement we hopefully spotted when we selected them to be admins. All within policy. Can you clarify what you have a concern about? ++Lar: t/c 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Athaenara is concerned (as am I) that the case is confirmed with nothing done on-wiki, ie User B claims a checkuser was done for them and User A told them of the result off wiki, when there is not evidence backing up that claim. Elonka could not have done the checkuser because they do not have the checkuser right. Let's have a checkuser post it for themselves on-wiki, for a change. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not following you. You want to know who asked who to do what? And then have whoever did it say what they found? It doesn't work that way, necessarily. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... maybe it shoulda oughta be? If not... well, I've just had a checkuser confirm that Lar is single-handedly behind every throwaway vandal account on Wikipedia. No really. I've got the checkuser note right here. Trust me. :] --CBD 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's summary of the situation post didn't say someone other than Elonka did the "off-wiki" checkuser. My concern here is not about SA's grievances and indiscretions (which are getting adequate attention from many angles, even compleat trout anglers ;) but about Elonka's habit of presuming privileges she does not have as noted in several discussions elsewhere, including a deletion review, a recall proposal, and RfC. And, before she asks me if I have an opinion only because I saw names I recognized or some such nonsense (cf. User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6#Query from Elonka), be it known that I was on the trail of some copyvio-uploading sockpuppets when I saw Orangemarlin's This is scary edit summary in the page history, and the post to which he was replying, one minute after I posted in the Community ban for PoliticianTexas? section above. — Athaenara ✉ 05:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? Presuming privileges I don't have? I obviously don't have CheckUser access, and I don't believe I ever said that did. I do, however, have the right/privilege to contact CheckUsers off-wiki and ask them to run a check. In fact, any editor can do so.[67] It's then the CheckUser's call as to whether there is sufficient justification or not to actually boot up the interface and do it. There may be a misconception that a CheckUser can only be performed if there is a formal public on-wiki request at WP:RFCU, but no, checks are run all the time without a formal request. And further, action can be taken based on that off-wiki information. Socks can be tagged, blocks can be issued, etc. Does that help clarify? Or is there something else that I'm missing? --Elonka 14:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my private wiki, if I am editing logged out, it shows my IP address where my username is in the upper right corner, with the usual links. I notice that we only have the ubiquitous "login" link when logged out. Maybe if we defaulted to showing a person's IP, people would be more likely to be aware they were editing logged out. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A default .css change could make that IP very very big. A user .css change could make the username very very big and blink or whatever so if you see no blinking user? panic. ++Lar: t/c 02:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some user .css changes (coloring the Save page button) are suggested in this VPR thread. Flatscan (talk) 03:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address of a logged out user isn't displayed in the upper right corner on WMF wikis because of caching issues. If it was, Wikipedia couldn't use the Squid servers, which save HTML copies of frequently used pages, and drastically improve performance. Graham87 07:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe tweak the default monobook style

Tweaking our default Monobook settings to make it painfully obvious you're editing logged out would probably be a very good idea, to prevent this sort of thing if someone's IP information is especially sensitive. rootology (C)(T) 06:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC) I meant to add, maybe have IP editors see a distinctive bar, similar to the "new messages" yellow bar, but a different bold color, as a reminder? rootology (C)(T) 07:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The VP thread referenced earlier has this:

/* Turn the "Save page" button green if I'm logged in */
INPUT#wpSave {
    background-color:#88ff88;
}

I tried it, and it works. Save is a bright green if you're logged in. No green? Don't press save... unless you want to edit as an IP. Highly recommended. Problem solved, maybe? (for me, of course, now I have to go change 170 other monobook.css files :) ) ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this too. Elegant in its simplicity. Someone mentioned it should be turned into a gadget, that may be a good idea. -- Avi (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would the code be for the opposite, turning the Save button red if I'm not logged in? --Elonka 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is a default monobook for everyone, and a personalised one which works when you're signed in. Someone would need to change the default monobook so that it works out if someone is logged in or not to achieve "red when not logged in", instead of using the fact that your custom monobook only works when you're signed in. WJBscribe (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I use an alternate skin to, among other things, make sure that I'm logged in. However I just discovered that (apparently) no one is maintaining the alternate skins to keep them up to date with changes in the software. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

We all know the current login system is buggy.

1. For experienced contributors who've done good work and are also under editing restrictions (and plausibly may have really been harassed and have weighty reasons for wanting to remain pseudonymous), how about contacting them via e-mail and requesting checkuser more quietly? This is one of the legitimate reasons for backchannel communication: we don't want to lose senior people over confusion and a bug.
2. For experienced contributors who want to remain pseudonymous, ideally you'd contact an oversighter when the problem first occurs. If an adminstrator responds in a way that deserves a cluebat then it undercuts your own claim that pseudonymity is paramount by swinging the cluebat loudly at ANI. Otherwise you're likely to pick up an Australian Boomerang Cluebat^TM that hits home in both directions.

Durova^Charge! 23:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Senior people": SRSLY? --Rodhullandemu 00:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think by senior people she meant Wikipedians around long enough to know about off-wiki harassment, effects of forgetting to login, etc. I doubt Durova was trying to create more caste distinctions than we already have.--chaser - t 23:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This response really belongs at the top but I feel no one will notice it there so I'm posting here. While I agree with OM that for those who wish to remain pseudonymous, accidentally editing while logged out is a concern and requesting oversight doesn't solve the problem if someone notices your IP before the checkuser request is fulfilled, I should also point out that it does prevent others repeating that IP either here or off-wiki without facing sanction. And people have no right to demand you take ownership of edits if you've asked for those edits to be deleted (or if they already have). Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greasemonkey script

I've been using this for a while now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Resolved

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

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)[reply]

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: [68] and [69] at Template talk:AMD processors and this one: [70] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I re-blocked User:IRDT, this time indefinitely. His 24-hour block expired, and the first edit he made was to go back to his old User Talk page and start in on the "death threat" stuff again. He then started agitating on Mangojuice's user talk page about the block on his old name [71] [72]. Clearly, this is not what was meant by coming back with a new user name and being a good editor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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:[73] by Mariusz Zielinski (talk · contribs) and diffs such as this:[74] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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.[75] [76] 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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