Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive483

Resolved

 – Punctuation is once more important. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

03:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

Revert them and block if necessary, same as always. Chances of sock/meatpuppetry are slim to none. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

03:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

It's probably something been announced on

how do you turn this on

03:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The only thing I can suggest is playing

how do you turn this on

03:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I looked at the list, and I don't see any "outing" nor do I see any harassment or calls for harassment. It is mostly an expression of opinion about the nature of the contributions by the editors listed. In order to stay on the safe side of

WP:CIVIL, I will refrain (for now, at least) from stating whether I agree with the characterization of most of the listed editors, or not. While I do not find such off-Wiki lists to be helpful to the project, I don't see a big deal here. 6SJ7 (talk

) 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's been discussed many times. Here are a few links:

2, 3, 4. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs

) 04:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are apparently reacting to this [4] provocation.

talk

) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Of course, this anon vandal who I (and you?) had taken to be some kid turned out to be a long standing editor and admin with a history of denying that Jews are a people.--

talk

) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually. Having been asked about this offline, I now can't find any evedence that this guy was an admin.--

talk

) 19:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Well Malik is voicing the suspicions of many of us that ED is big in the JIDF. If these suspicions are correct then it does merit pointing out and issues such as

talk

) 09:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Self-admitted sockpuppet account at it again

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

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

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

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

talk

) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

← Have we all not had enough of this. These accounts need to be reviewed for what contributions they have made to improving the main space and how much

...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: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: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 someone related to the person who runs the website because:

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

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

Please

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

) 15:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Putty has asked to vanish, see here. That may well help to reduce tension in this area.

IronDuke

15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We consider each case on its own merits and within its own context, otherwise it looks like a blocking version of

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Orderinchaos

23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Staying away from each other is a good idea. But more than that, when you've reached mainspace, actual articles, you have gravitated to contentious topics, and edited in what appears to be a fairly non-neutral way. In at least two cases you've touched off edit or move wars. You might want to consider 'improving an article' and 'countering bias' to be two distinct categories, and work at the former while avoiding the latter. Otherwise, if you persist in turning Wikipedia into a

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

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

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

Results

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

I think I will set these to one year instead of indefinite, and log them at

WP:ARBPIA. Jehochman ^Talk

10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

ED has now had the material on his page removed.--

talk

) 09:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Regrettable. But the threats left on the protected version of ED's page does rather confirm his connection to the JIDF. The use of the first person plural is particularly revealing.--

talk

) 20:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

talk

) 00:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

And I've turned him in at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also speculate that Tmoszman is either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, given the similar single-purpose nature of their activities along with the obvious similarity in their names. It's also interesting that Namzso's first edit was the day after Tmoszman's last edit. [10] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Now he's invented an SPA for this purpose. [11] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It's far from clear that there is any Talk page consensus on whether to include the newspaper reports of conspiracy rumors. (The Talk discussion has now died out). An

WP:RFC would be one way of handling it that avoids resuming the edit war. A recent complaint says that the conspiracy can only be cited to fringe sources, and I haven't seen any effort to rebut that claim. The James Fetzer book about the rumor seems to lack an ISBN and may be self-published. EdJohnston (talk

) 22:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The red-link also seems to have disappeared since being warned of his 6RR violation and the consequent page protection, although he was not actually blocked, and the talk page is not protected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – PoliticianTexas banned by the community for copyright violations and egregious sockpuppetry. [14:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)]

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

Since our last report here [12], LamyQ (talk · contribs) has continued to upload copyrighted images, the latest being File:ESPANOLA PLAZA.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-01 and File:EspanolaValleyVolleyball.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on 2008-10-03. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

(I think WP:CU are going to start hating me...)Is there an underlying ip or small range that can be hardblocked, or are they dynamic/wideranging? Perhaps a

WP:Request for checkuser may find that he could be stopped from creating new accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

What a community ban would do is enable block-on-sight of all socks and revert/delete-on-sight of all contributions. It would also allow for unlimited checkuser requests. And based on his history, he's going to be back--this will just make it easier for us to deal with him. I've become more inclined toward

96

12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Created another new account

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

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

It's entirely possible

Preview, I'll tend to guess that it's another PolTx sock. Not to mention that those two reversions would have put him over 3RR if he'd done them using the IP he started with that evening. Dori (Talk • Contribs

) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this thread there are four supporters of a ban (

Tanthalas39, Athaenara) and no opponents. Is it consensus yet?--Uncia (talk

) 12:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban now also supported in this thread by

Aleta and Steelerfan-94; total 6 in favor and 0 opposed. --Uncia (talk

) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

With the addition of

Blueboy96, I count it as 9-0. Dori (Talk • Contribs

) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

If you look up at the top of this section,

Erik the Red 2, it's at 10-0). No one, to the best of my knowledge, is talking about closing this yet. Dori (Talk • Contribs

) 06:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I would also support a ban, but let's see the result of the sockpuppet case first. If it turns out that they are sockpuppets, then the user could just be blocked indef for socking without discussion here. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

02:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Resolution of sockpuppetry case: DeLaCueva blocked indefinitely as sock puppet of PoliticianTexas. --Uncia (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Uninvolved non-admin support for a siteban. Enough, I say. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been almost a week, and no one's objected to banning this user. Moreover, DeLaCueva, per new evidence, is clearly a sock of PoliticianTexas. I'm going ahead and enacting the ban.

The users

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion this evening concerned, among other things, a gross violation of

WP:BLP on the Barack Obama page, which is under probation. I am the one who closed it down here. There was nothing premature about it. A BLP violation cannot be allowed to stand, especially such an obvious one. No amount of discussion makes a BLP violation OK for the article. And the warning DigitalNinja links to is from a POV-pushing editor who has been topic-banned. --GoodDamon

04:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some better examples of edits they've shut down:

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

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

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

Canvassing disruption

One of the problematic editors here,

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

I have tried to counsel this editor about what's wrong with that kind of attitude but I am obviously not getting through. Perhaps someone else could help. To give a few pointers about Wikipedia, everyone here has everyone's email address. I'm not sure where to find it but there is a system for sending private emails to anyone who has indicated an email address in their "preferences" tab. Next question. I am on this board for three or four reasons. As a long-term Wikipedian who has written close to 100 articles and cares about free content more generally on the Internet I try to keep an eye on the goings on here. It's like a citizen attending a city council meeting. Where I feel I can help with a comment or question I'll jump right in, mindful that there's business to be done here on AN/I and it's not just a gab-and-complain session. Third, I am one of those "troll patrol" people you sometimes hear about. When I see something getting out of hand I do what I can, and call it to the attention of the administrators if I think it's ripe for a look. With only 1,400 administrators here we non-admins are often the eyes and ears of the admin volunteers, and we have an important role to play because we are often out in the trenches, article-wise, and spot small problems before they become big ones. Finally, people often drag me here to complain about me. I think I've become some kind of mascot among disruptive editors who wish I weren't standing between them and whatever nonsense they're trying to pull here. You should know that from your egging on the recently blocked editor who is vowing to devote his Wikipedia career to revealing my badness and doing me in.[15] Hope this helps. And please, until someone who will listen to can get to you with this advice, please do not assume that other editors here who disagree with an edit you wish to make are all engaged in some nefarious conspiracy. You might pause to consider the possibility that they are not only sincere, but might have a good point as well. Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Grsz11

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

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

And that's exactly why I left an e-mail instead of a message, imagine that.

^X

06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

I mean really, if we were tag-teaming, I wouldn't have gotten blocked.

^X

06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(OD)Well-informed opinion formed, thanks. You're making personal attacks based on the faulty assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be conspiring against you, based on the fact that one editor warned another about breaking

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

The whole story is as I have said above, more than one person disagrees with you. If that happens, more than one person will change your edits, especially if it involves

canvassing this evening certainly seems that. Dayewalker (talk

) 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

GoodDamon, I think the admins are more amused than anything else, and playing with him at this point.<cabal-secret>Calling all agents. Uh-oh, he's on to us! Did he catch us implanting the electrodes? I hope he didn't read our white paper on the famous

aluminum defense. Lay low for a while, I think we can hoodwink all of the admin agents here.</cabal-secret> Wikidemon (talk

) 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait...What's this about you having two asses? HalfShadow 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wise trusted authority figure needed

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

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of
  WP:SYNTH)[16][17][18][19][20]
• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[21][22]
• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[23][24][25]
• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[26][27][28]

WP:AGF

problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]
• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[38][39][40][41][42][43]
• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[44]

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[45][46][47][48][49]
• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[50][51][52]
• "bullshit"[53], "whitewashed"[54] etc.[55]
• random disruption on talk page[56][57][58]

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

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

Louis Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah? Does Farrakhan qualify as a "reliable source" in wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

commented version

Odd content

• Obama has declared allegiance with socialism (with arguing to the point of incivility based on misunderstanding of
  WP:SYNTH)[59][60][61][62][63]

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

And many more did not, pointing out that this deduction was not covered by

WP:NOTOR. --GoodDamon

09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

• Obama bums cigarettes, and it's important.[64][65]

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

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

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

• Bill Ayers is a terrorist, and that is that.[66][67][68]

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

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

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

• Farrakhan says Obama is the Messiah (and edit wars to 3RR on probation-page over this)[69][70][71]

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

And this was the gross

WP:BLP violation I referred to earlier. If Farrakhan says something absurd about somebody, that absurdity doesn't belong in the subject's BLP, any more than if I say it. --GoodDamon

09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

WP:AGF

problems

• If you disagree with his proposals you must be Obama campaign staff, promoting your candidate, stalking, an Obama campaign worker, trolling, etc.[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]

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

• A "clique" and "cronies" own the Obama and Sarah Palin pages and are plotting to get anyone who disagrees.[81][82][83][84][85][86]

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

• You can reject AGF once the truth about an editor is revealed.[87]

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

Incivility

• Abusive posts on editors' talk pages.[88][89][90][91][92]

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

• Gets into an argument, then two revert wars, on my talk page.[93][94][95]

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

• "bullshit"[96], "whitewashed"[97] etc.[98]

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

• random disruption on talk page[99][100][101]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read

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

) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

And anyone, or when several anyones in many of the recent cases, disagree with the article

owners, they are involved in disruption. Classic. CENSEI (talk

) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I myself have never edited this, or any other, related article. From my point of view, the central problem with this situation is in major violations of

WP:UNDUE

with regard to the Obama article:

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

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

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