Noticeboard archives

## living person subjected to self proclaimed biographer posting slander

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

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

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

I have opened a case at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.newsmaking.com Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http:.2F.2Fwww.newsmakingnews.com. Newsmakingnews.com is a horrible site for using as a source for any WP:BLP related article, providing no editorial oversight and verification of it's contributors works. Looks to be filled with non-notable self-published works by non-notable writers. As far as the Michael Riconosciuto goes, it contains blatant violations of WP:BLP with allegations of incidents. I don't have time to go and clean it up myself, as it is 2:14 a.m. where I'm at, but if someone has the time, that article is a disgrace at the moment.-- 07:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
fixed the link above, sorry was so late/early this morning.-- 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

## Nathaniel Bar-Jonah

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

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

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

## Block template feature preventing blocked user from editing own talkpage

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

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

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

The checkbox is close to the block button. It can easily be unchecked by accident. PEBKAC errors are likely. Jehochman Talk 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please also be aware that there have been instances where this feature has worked incorrectly; one user could not edit his talk page, although the log did not show he was blocked from doing so, and another user was blocked from editing his talk page, although the admin had distinctly not selected that feature. Bugzilla 15812 has been filed, as noted up above. Risker (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
At an absolute minimum, shouldn't the feature be revised so that the default is that the blocked user can edit his or her talkpage, and the blocking administrator would have to check a box to stop the editor from editing that page, rather than the other way around? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It is the case at the moment that the box needs to be unchecked to disable talkpage editing - so the default is not to disable editing. I'm not aware yet of a case where someone unchecked the box by mistake, but there does seem to be a bug that has resulted in people not being able to edit their talkpage even though the blocking admin did not uncheck the box. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

### Proposal to remove the talk page lock feature when blocking

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

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

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

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

• Yes. Remove the featurecruft.Jehochman Talk 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There are already issues as it is with some shared IPs with their talk pages blocked. The last thing you want to do is make things even more inconvenient. ~ Troy (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well; it seems like something handy that might get used occasionally, but in general just sits there and does nothing. If it ain't broke... —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
After all, when this would be useful, can't you reach the same end by protecting the userpage when necessary? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

By "certain group of vandals", do you mean the Gr*wp fools? If not, then I for one am not familiar with the vandals you're referring to and, therefore, wouldn't know to use the feature anyway. That makes it all the more useless. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that too, and it seems like a much less intrusive solution for those who deal with that problem to get into the habit of protecting the relevant user talk pages rather than implementing a new feature that has the potential for substantial collateral damage. Hardly anyone ever accidentally full protects a user talk page while protection is a separate action from blocking. New admins may be confused by this tool, and it being buggy as well inclines me toward jettisoning it altogether. DurovaCharge! 03:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also would like to see this feature removed; it has very little benefit as the same function can be attained by protecting the page, and that one minor benefit - making the blocking of page move vandals require one less click of the mouse - is hugely outweight by its disbenefits, detailed above (buggyness, accidentally disabling, buttoncruft, potential of misuse (q.v. certain admins inappropriately removing the ability of blocked users to use Special:Emailuser despite no abuse occuring) either through ineptitude or malice). fish&karate 11:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, remove it. It causes a lot of trouble for almost no benefit. We're very good at deleting and salting G*awp talk pages immediately anyway: about the only time we would use this feature. Sledgehammer to crack a walnut. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 12:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also can't see any advantage of this feature over the already existing feature to protect a User's talk page. No significant benefits + significant costs and risks = an idea that should not be implemented. GRBerry 17:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Who is responsible for testing this software? Why is it not properly tested first? Why are half witted incompetent admns allowed to expirement with it? Giano (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Instead of taking cheap shots at the admins, who frankly don't deserve you, why don't you go make yourself useful somewhere? HalfShadow 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
We give it to those dullards so we can mock them when it goes wrong. It's like giving matches to a toddler, or feeding a troll. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove, absolutely. I've been active around requests for unblock for considerable time, and never had protecting talk pages manually when needed been too cumbersome to introduce such a potentially devastating feature. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 21:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Poke a dev? I think Brion oughta' be able to do it. In the meantime, let people know to leave that box checked. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want that checkbox, just add `#wpAllowUsertalk { display: none }` to the global CSS. That way, the checkbox is not shown and can't be inadvertedly unchecked. While keeping it for other projects. Hardcoding to remove it is IMHO excessive. Platonides (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal - I think the only reason this feature should be used would be in blocking certain vandals, mainly our Harry Potter friends. They create usernames and conduct page moves that clearly demonstrate who they are and thus locking their talk page while blocking them is very convenient to admins. I think this should be a last resort nuclear option, but it should be kept and simply used very sparingly as it is useful. KnightLago (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In reply to the idea that simply protecting the talk page would be better. In cases were this is used a lot of times the account is simply hardblocked and no messages are left on the talk page. Often admins forget to protect the talk pages of such accounts and they are created with vandalism after the block. Another admin is then forced to come along, delete the page, and then protect it. This usual happens in the midst of a large spree of vandalism with a dozen or more accounts being blocked. It can easily get very annoying and time consuming. This solves that problem. I think we just need to make it clear this is only for very blatant accounts. KnightLago (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal If we could learn Rollback and Huggle blocking, we can learn this tool, as soon as the bugs are worked out. MBisanz talk 00:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral but please, please, if it's kept, flip the language to "Prevent user from editing own talk page...", with a checkbox that is unchecked by default. The current message/action is horrendous from a CHI/human-factors point of view. ALL the other checkboxes (except "Watch..., which is neutral) are worded such that checking the box further restricts the user's activities. (Prevent account creation, Prevent user from sending email, Autoblock any IP addresses used) but then this one says "Allow...", in a case where it will very rarely be invoked. That's just asking for mistakes and unintended consequences. --MCB (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Completely agreed with MCB and NYB. If the feature does end up getting kept, the language really needs to be flipped in order to be consistent with the other blocking options. It's definitely not intuitive. GlassCobra 07:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove - User talk pages very rarely need to be protected, and it's not that hard to do when it's necessary. Very low-value feature, in my opinion. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove encourages too much page protection that is not inline with our standard blocking practices. -- Ned Scott 22:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• I also agree with NYB about e-mail blocking. -- Ned Scott 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

## A user has issued a death threat to an admin

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

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

Well, if User:Alison really is an Irish slut, I could go to her talk page and flirt with her. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Take that as a no (a rather sarcastic one, for shame!). Thanks for helping out though. Garden. 21:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
No it does not need further action. -- how do you turn this on 21:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Sure, I speak non-ironic as a second language, though not fluently. You did exactly as you should; nothing more is required unless the user comes back with a different sockpuppet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In which case we might consider requesting help from a CU to see if there are any other connected accounts. I wonder which CU to request...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I know a checkuser, but I've already obtained some kd lang music and a bottle of cheap wine, and I'm hoping she'll be busy for the next hour or so. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I think it takes more than a CD and a bottle of cheap booze to pull a checkuser.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It's all in caps, so you know they must really really mean it. Alison had better be careful; someone might type mean things at her. HalfShadow 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The blocked user is apparently unaware of a basic axiom: Never mess with the Irish. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• OR the SCOTTISH! Alison rules! (yeah yeah, I'm back...) ...Dave1185 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on their comments, it's probably TougHHead (talk · contribs). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

LOL, that's funny -- that's as good as some of the stuff I've gotten from the "George Reeves Person" -- I know it's warped, but I save the good ones in a "trolls and kooks" folder to send to my friends. :) Antandrus (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happened to that guy? Did he move back to Croatia? And I don't think "trolls and kooks" is civil. I call it "letters from fans". 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now, keep in mind, there's a rule that says e-mail contents are copyrighted, so be careful or he might come after you with a threatening attorney. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And what adds to this was his opposition to the Fuck article diff. Hmmm...wikipedia, changing one mind at a time. This is just too funny.-- 02:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
He was using a fake civility argument. The real deal is that he thinks he owns the copyright to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, man. I feel a little bit bad now, Alison, since I'm the one that brought TougHHead to you awhile back for some whack-a-socking! It's been awhile since I've gotten those rants (WP:BEANS). Metros (talk) 02:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Oooooh, your letters are so big! Annnnd on a serious note, has that tank arrived yet? Because I'm betting on Alison hijacking it, and using it to fight vandals. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 02:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Not if I get it first! Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
We're not just laughing at them; we're pointing, too! HalfShadow 02:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Evil forever blocks. Lulz. Orderinchaos 00:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To try to counter this highly uncivil discussion, I will finish this by addressing TougHHead in dots: .... .... ... ..... ....... ! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

From Duck Soup:

Groucho: Now go out in that battlefield and lead those men to victory.
Chico: I wouldn't go there unless I was in one of those iron things - what do you call those things?
Groucho: Tanks.
Chico: You're welcome.
Ya see, even in a classic film, they can't all be classics. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I am getting THIS CLOSE to issuing a warning against personal attacks to TougHHead! Edison (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead and warn TougHHead against personal attacks. No problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that the number of "love letters" you have is a strong indicator of how good an admin you are. So, far, this is my favorite: [1]. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some of the most interesting posts are the ones that mean absolutely nothing except (possibly) to the one who wrote it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

## User:Xinunus back at an IP address

Resolved

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

It's definitely him. This IP was blocked a few hours ago. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Should have checked the block log. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

## AFD log

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

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

Never mind. I just had to purge the cache. Schuym1 (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Actaully, the top of the page didn't work and it was fixed. Schuym1 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## Neel Kashkari - minor vandalism

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

## Gary Cooper

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

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

If it's true, you can try and file a suspected sockpuppet case but I doubt that it is helpful. A rangeblock of 92.x.x.x is quite hard to do, it would cause too much collateral damage. I semi-protected the article for now, hopefully forcing the IP to discuss their changes after those countless reverts. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Even a 92.8.0.0-9.15.255.255 (a smaller range, including all the IPs mentioned above - the smallest range which does) would cause too much collateral damage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be 92.8.0.0/13 (half a million IP addresses!). MediaWiki won't even allow such a block to be made (it'll only go up to /16). Semi-protection, I'm afraid, is the only viable solution, assuming engaging with the editor in question and resolving their issues amicably is a no-go. fish&karate 15:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The vast quantity of sockpuppetry from this banned editor would suggest that negotiation would only be possible in a Bruce Willis sense. --Rodhullandemu 16:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
When I saw Bruce Willis, I thought you meant negotiation in the Die Hard sense; that is, no negotiation at all, and the death of the villain before the the film ends. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Or confronting the puppetmaster at High Noon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

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

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

## request for block

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

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

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

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

You can issue a "self-block". That's done by turning off your computer permanently. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you die?? 130.207.180.77 (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Because I am immortal. It's both a blessing and a curse. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Mr 130.207.180.77 wasn't very nice, was he boys and girls? And now he's got half a day on the naughty step to think about what he did. ➨ ЯEDVERS will never be anybody's hero now 13:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a school IP. BLOCK 'EM FOR A YEAR!' HalfShadow 22:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Another song from Mr. Redvers's Neighborhood: "Block 'em all / Block 'em all / The long, and the short, and the tall." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Johnny "J"

Resolved: reliable source for Johnny 'J's death now found.

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

That's my point, even with the overbearing primary source evidence pointing towards Johnny J's death, you still refuse to acknowledge that he has died. A brief stub would have been sufficient enough, with information about his incarceration (see talk page). Yes, we all understand Wikipedia's policy of unreliable sources, but Johnny J is considered an underground artist, news about him will not show up on the front pages what you consider "reliable sources". News such as this only shows up on Hip-hop related sites, all of which are run as blogs or forums. That is as reliable as hip-hop news can get. I'm sure many of you are relatively new to the underground hip-hop scene or do not understand of how the it operates--by the word of mouth and blogs, NOT by news articles. Go on any underground artist's wikipedia article and you will find the sources are either from the artist's myspace or from such blogs as AllHipHop. Lhw1 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Then those articles don't meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:VERIFY and should be sent to AfD for deletion. If "the media doesn't give a damn about" a topic, then neither should a mainstream encyclopedia. — Satori Son 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I gave up on that. But TMZ.com and Contactmusic.com have run a story on it, and his Myspace page now has an "RIP" up on it, so it appears to be true - though the sourcing is still weak. As Lhw1 notes, it may not receive major media attention beyond what it's gotten so far. Some editors don't understand that we don't run with "he's dead!" notices that come off of questionable bulletin board type sites, but ah well. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Now reliably sourced - [6] - so this is resolved, I think. fish&karate 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## Discussion closed at Talk:Barack Obama

Wikidemon has been engaging in harassment, unilaterally closing discussion I started today [7] at the Talk:Barack Obama page, quickly putting a box around it ( first [8] edit summary: ["closed as disruption"], second [9] ["closing again"], third time [10] ["close discussion"], fourth time [11]) and claimiing incivility, weirdly, and making the bizarre claim that restarting a discussion with new information is itself somehow "disruptive". There's a better word for it: intolerance of opposing views and even intolerance of the idea that a discussion Wikidemon doesn't like to see has been started. He's had some support from a few editors, but a few editors shouldn't be able to close a discussion immediately, before other editors get a chance to see it (this is the weekend, when many don't edit), and there are plenty of other editors who normally look at that talk page. Shutting down after mere hours a discussion that isn't disruptive on its face is itself disruptive. There is nothing in WP:TALK#Others' comments that makes this an exception to As a rule, do not edit others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section. (in WP:TALK#Behavior that is unacceptable). It is clear from WP:CCC that significant new information is a reason to restart a previous discussion (Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable.)

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

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

Other uninvolved editors, that is. -- Noroton (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, looking at the thread, I'm inclined to say "it takes two to tango"; your own comments were rather aggressive. I can understand frustration- we've all been there- but you've gotta keep a level head in a powder keg like the Obama article. That said, I agree that Wikidemon's behavior was over the top; attempting to close discussion before it was due (first attempt was less than 60 min. after Noroton started the thread) and attempting to use scare/bully tactics ([12], [13]) do not leave a good impression. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
The bogus AN/I reports are getting tired. I am on routine article patrol. The editors at Talk:Barack Obama regularly close, move, and delete several disruptive discussions per day. Particularly unhelpful proposals get shut down quickly,[14][15][16][17][18] as does vandalism.[19][20]
Several claims made here are flat-out wrong. Noroton knows the objection is to the insults, not his proposal, because I advised him several times he is welcome to make it and I would not close it if made without insulting other editors (e.g. [21][22][23]). Under article probation editors may participate on Obama-related articles if they can do so civilly; if not they are unwelcome (see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation). The probation page chronicles a block every day or two for editors disrupting Obama-related pages. My closure was in no way unilateral. I did it after making proposals, and with consensus. Another editor closed it as well.[24] I did not close the discussion four times. I make a point to stay within 1RR, and go to 2RR only after obtaining consensus on matters of disruption. One of Noroton's diffs has nothing to do with this.
Shutting down a discussion while you've got an hours-old consensus, thereby blocking any other possible consensus from forming, is clearly gaming the system in favor of editors most avidly watching the talk page. Editors like you who game the system should not expect extra courtesies from the editors they're repeatedly bothering. You falsely claim here that I didn't "stick to the content proposal" when, in fact, discussing the content proposal was the one thing you were most avid about shutting down. -- Noroton (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon. There have been several attempts at discussing this same exact thing already, each met with the same consensus. Noroton is citing "significant new information" per WP:CCC, but this is hardly significant new information. Even Noroton says "There are no new revelations" at the start of the discussion that he attempted to post today. Further, Noroton's comments are needlessly hostile and divisive. I support Wikidemon's closings, and will continue to do so until Noroton shows the ability to be civil. GlassCobra 11:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra, what would be the deep, deep harm of letting a talk page discussion continue for a few days? If my comments were "needlessly hostile and divisive", look at Wikidemon's and the editors allied with him in that discussion. The main argument in the past was WP:WEIGHT (possibly because WP:WEIGHT is vague enough for editor POV to be concealed by it -- all other arguments citing policy have long since been discredited). Since WP:WEIGHT was the last argument standing, new, significant coverage erodes it and can overcome it. Or it should erode it if I'm dealing with minimally honest editors. I didn't know if that was going to be the case, or whether it still may be the case if the discussion is allowed to continue for at least a few days. I've dealt with nearly all the editors who were in the discussion before and expected nothing new from them, including no reconsideration of the subject by them, no matter what the new evidence. I did want to see if other editors, including editors who I hadn't seen previously contribute to the talk page, would consider the matter in a new light or reconsider the matter. That can't really happen if discussion is closed after a few hours. Discussion should only be closed when disruption is inevitable and obvious. My comments were focused on how the new information strengthened the case for including mention of the long-running Obama-Ayers controversy, so it wasn't simply rehashing. This is simply the case of a possibly temporary, hours-old "consensus" on a talk page preventing further discussion which might have overturned that consensus. That is clearly disruptive in itself and obviously gaming the system. -- Noroton (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
While I have no opinion on the content, I agree with Noroton that it would not have been harmful to wait longer before trying to force the discussion closed. The article is on enough watchlists that it would be a simple matter to quickly form a consensus as to whether there was anything new to discuss. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 13:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, the topic comes up almost daily, usually from the same editors. Sometimes twice a day. It has long since stopped being a productive discussion, and moved into the neighborhood of farce. --GoodDamon 14:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Even if any comments in the thread are not egregious enough as personal attacks to warrant summary deletion under article probation, maybe Noroton and Wikidemon could consider redacting their own posts through judicious deletions here and there (eg, Noroton, his criticism of his faction's opponents when presenting his proposal, etc.? Wikidemon, his subtle threats to maneuver toward Noroton's being banned, etc.?)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment w/ proposal: Close this incident. Noroton brings up his perennial favorite subject, Bill Ayers, on this particular talk page endlessly. One might even say mercilessly, as it becomes agonizing to explain, over and over, why his proposals (really, just one proposal rehashed repeatedly over literally the past six months) only ever result in consensus against them. Noroton wants particular content in the article, while the weight of consensus and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is generally against the content. Closing his repeat discussions when they pop up is not harassment. At this point, it is maintenance. Noroton has exactly one topic he is interested in on the Obama talk page, and it isn't improving the article. Calling Wikidemon's closure of disruptive threads harassment is, at bare minimum, incorrect. And as the editor creating the disruptive threads, Noroton is trying to game the system. This needs to, at long last, stop. It needs to stop long-term, and it needs to stop with teeth. I propose a temporary topic ban for Noroton, and that Noroton be enjoined from starting the discussion again (and again, and again, and again) when or if the topic ban expires. --GoodDamon 14:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If GoodDamon can't provide proof of them, these are smears:
1. Noroton brings up his perennial favorite subject, Bill Ayers, on this particular talk page endlessly. I haven't been watching that freakish page for weeks, much less participating there.
2. really, just one proposal rehashed repeatedly over literally the past six months I haven't been the one who brought it up most of the time.
3. Noroton wants particular content in the article, while the weight of consensus and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is generally against the content. You have never been able to do anything more than assert that a proposal is contrary to a particular policy or guideline. Ever. Other editors have quoted the damn policies to you and it makes no difference. No wonder various editors have brought it up -- they see you POV pushing and think they may get other editors involved because, frankly, you and several other editors preventing consensus have proven yourself hopeless in that regard. But, of course, this AN/I page is about behavior, not content POV pushing. Editors here should know, however, that dealing with your policy-free position is part of the frustration involved here.
4. Closing his repeat discussions when they pop up is not harassment. At this point, it is maintenance. Then you should easily be able to state that a particular argument has come up and point to where it was resolved by recent consensus. Even in this AN/I section, you have failed to answer my point that previous arguments basically revolved around WP:WEIGHT and when new sources are being published, WP:WEIGHT will change, calling for a re-evaluation. GoodDamon, how is your behavior different from being a partisan interested in promoting your candidate rather than in improving the encyclopedia based on an adequate reflection on the sources? If the goal is NPOV treatment based on reflecting those sources, how does your behavior and your statements reflect that? If you refuse to discuss the matter and can't even point to previous discussions of the matter that addressed the same points, why shouldn't any other editor wonder whether you're committed to an NPOV article or instead acting as a POV-pushing games player? This isn't a rhetorical question: If we refuse to state our reasons, we can't assure others of our good intentions.
5. Noroton has exactly one topic he is interested in on the Obama talk page So at one point GoodDamon goes back 6 months to say the topic has periodically come up snce then, a time when I commented on a number of topics related to the article; and at this point GoodDamon says I only bring up this topic. Cut the bullshit, GoodDamon.
6. And as the editor creating the disruptive threads, Noroton is trying to game the system. Beyond GoodDamon's assertion, where is the proof of disruption? Is there a Wikipedia policy requiring GoodDamon or others who don't want to discuss the topic to discuss the topic?
7. the topic comes up almost daily, usually from the same editors. Sometimes twice a day. [14:30, 5 October] If it comes up that often, it should be easy to provide diff. I wasn't aware of this, so obviously I'm not one of the "same editors". I haven't been watching the Obama talk page for several weeks, much less participating there. Just provide the diffs.
If the same exact discussion has come up previously (kind of hard to do when the argument depends largely on major new sourcing that was published that morning), Wikidemon and GoodDamon or anyone else should be able to provide a link to the previous discussion, then ask what is new, and if I can't provide that answer, wait a decent period for others to see the discussion, and then close it after it is proven that it's unproductive. Instead, they do what looks like bullying, contrary to Wikipedia policy and practice, only because there happen to be a good number of Obama supporters asserting their POV on that page. So, GoodDamon, provide the diffs to the old argument. Bullshitters allege; honest editors provide diffs or take back their statements. Which are you, GoodDamon? -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You really want to go there? All right. I've had enough. You know darn well that the leg work to provide those diffs is difficult, and most editors wouldn't do it. But I am not most editors. I am not smearing you when I say that you have brought up the same issue over and over again. Here are the diffs just from the very first edits you made to the Barack Obama talk page. What are they about? Well, see for yourself:
• May 27th - Your very first edit to the talk page. You express support for adding information about Bill Ayers to the article. The arguments against eventually outweigh the arguments for (I need not rehash here the weight and sourcing issues brought up in that discussion). The rest of your edits to the talk page that day are about Bill Ayers. Don't believe me? here are your contributions for that period.
• Also May 27th - You propose wording additions for describing Bill Ayers in more detail... in Barack Obama's biography. The argument continues through to the next day. Again, feel free to check your edits with the link above.
• May 29th - The arguing continues in a new section, after other editors discuss the ongoing attempts to insert language about Bill Ayers. You spend the rest of May arguing for inclusion of Ayers material, with a brief sojourn into the Wright controversy. But one thing stands out... here you say, and I quote, "Personally, I'd rather see a consensus against what I want than all this edit warring and endless debate, but I don't want to give up before trying to get more editors involved." So I'm left to wonder, exactly how long were you planning to try getting more editors involved before adhering to this statement? Based on your behavior since, I have no choice but to conclude you were not being honest when you said that.
So here, we've established that your first few days of editing at the Barack Obama talk page was to argue for inclusion of details about Bill Ayers. There was a massive (and consensus-reaching) thread that followed in the first week of June, and anyone who is interested in seeing that in the current context should start here where you began tallying votes, and then follow the thread through to its conclusion, where you accepted that consensus was against you. In June. Five months ago. Shall I continue? Or would anyone else care to take a look at Noroton's contributions to Talk:Barack Obama and see if they can find more than three edits that aren't about Bill Ayers and how important Ayers is to Obama's biography? Here's a fun game: Select one of the last six months, open your edits for that month, and click on a diff of that talk page at random. Odds are good, it's about Bill Ayers, or about why the previous consensus not to include Bill Ayers doesn't matter. Forgive my snark, everyone, but this is laughable. --GoodDamon 22:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Your diffs show I've participated in the many discussions about Ayers on that page. So have many others, and there's obviously nothing wrong with that. and see if they can find more than three edits that aren't about Bill Ayers Subjects I've discussed on that page: Wright, Tony Rezko, the book section. I've done a little cleanup of the political positions section. I've contributed quite a bit to the Early life and career of Barack Obama article. Not that participating in very active, ongoing discussions about Bill Ayers is anything I need to be embarassed about. In fact, I'm pretty proud of the fact that on other pages I've shown quite a bit of research into reliable sources on Ayers that overthrows the many canards put out by editors about him. Yet you're peddling a distortion suggesting that I'm simply a lone nut constantly bringing it up. Don't complain about having to look up diffs: you're the one who put out the smears; it's your responsibility to try to prove them. So I'm left to wonder, exactly how long were you planning to try getting more editors involved before adhering to this statement? Thanks for that smear, too: I said that back on May 31, so I must have been lying because in the months since then, I thought the consensus that eventually formed could be overturned. A consensus based on old information is ripe for change when new information comes up -- a pretty obvious standard on Wikipedia that, for instance, overturns AfD discussions. Your attacks are pretty obviously tawdry. -- Noroton (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This does seem to be an ongoing issue. I bit and had a look through the links, obtained via the "What Links Here" function, and got:
And of course the above. I omitted any discussions which did not have a significant contribution by Noroton. Orderinchaos 23:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• (after e.c.) I agree that this incident should be closed. We do not need approval here to close disruptive discussions on the article talk page, and to let it be known that discussions begun with expressions of antipathy towards other editors (e.g., from above, "Editors like you....should not expect extra courtesies." "You falsely claim ..." "minimally honest editors", "you and several other editors preventing consensus have proven yourself hopeless", "acting as a POV-pushing games player", "Cut the bullshit", "bullying") are considered disruptive. Perhaps AN/I is a safe haven for venting on other editors, but Talk:Barack Obama is not. Article probation and talk page decorum are community decisions that do not for the most part need administrative tools to enforce. As a community we have decided not to tolerate this toxic attitude there and take the least intrusive way to enforce that, closing disruptive discussions. Again, as I explained many times the immediate issue is verbal abuse of other editors, and I did not object to Noroton contributing on the talk page if he could do so without insult and accusations. I offer no opinion here whether serially repeated proposals themselves are inherently disruptive. Whether Noroton needs a topic ban for that is something we can consider separately, and is only an issue presently if he is willing to contribute civilly. From his comments there and here he does not, but the proof is in the pudding. Will he post to the Obama pages without hostility to other editors? If not, civility is the bigger issue.Wikidemon (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If civility were your real complaint, you'd address it directly and not shut down productive discussion. You conflate the two only because you are one of the most adamant POV pushers on this website, and you're found that, as a means of getting rid of or cowing editors you disagree with, you can fool some third-party editors into thinking you're following policy-related concerns like WP:CIV. You don't give a damn about WP:CIV. If you did, you'd be just as concerned about it when incivility comes up on your side. -- Noroton (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not worth responding here or in article/talk space to editors who sling that kind of abuse. Ignoring does not mean allowing. If that kind of comment or the other accusations made here made again on the Obama pages they will be deleted, closed, moved, or redacted. Hence, I think Noroton is topic banning himself.Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Close as blatant forumshopping. Everyme 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Wikidemon: Again, as I explained many times the immediate issue is verbal abuse of other editors, and I did not object to Noroton contributing on the talk page if he could do so without insult and accusations. All right, let's test Wikidemon's good faith. I removed the closure and restarted the discussion. Let's see if Wikidemon and his cohort can handle that without closing it again, or, when the uncivil comments from Wikidemon's cohort fly as they always do, whether Wikidemon will even notice it. Let's just see. -- Noroton (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• The above comment is unwarranted, an AGF/NPA/CIVIL violation, and toxic. Noroton just re-opened the discussion. That is not what I was proposing. My statement was that I would not revert if it were reopened and "...assured by Noroton that he will stick to the content proposal and avoid complaining about other editors". He gave no assurance, and in demonstrated with two new gripes about me and another about another editor on the talk page that he does not wish to discuss civilly. Another editor has already closed the discussion again as disruption. Wikidemon (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, LotLE reverted after discussion was restarted (edit summary: "close continuing disruption and violation of article probation". [25]) Here's what Wikidemon calls a "personal attack" in various edit summaries (one of them [26]). It needs to be seen to be believed:
"Now I wonder if Wikidemon would be concerned about you saying I so breathlessly rushed here, Loonymonkey."
If LotLE finds this so uncivil, one would think he'd be a very scrupulous editor himself. Compare what LotLE himself wrote in the same discussion, yesterday: [27]
"This rehashing of the exact same non-argument, by exactly the same editor, for the dozenth time or more, smells strongly of bad faith and WP:POINT. This nonsensical discussion should be closed immediately, and ideally Noroton should be sanctioned [...] If this non-connection was actually of biographical significance here, it would continue to be significant in a month, and could wait until then for any insertion. It is not of any remote notability for the main bio, of course, and the urgency Noroton feels to include it is nothing more and nothing less than attempts at diverting this article into anti-Obama election campaigning.
Now, I don't personally mind it, and I don't even think it violates the stricter article probation. But apparently LotLE thinks my own comment quoted above is somehow in violation while he makes even stronger comments. This is nothing more than high-handed, double-standard, bullying behavior.
Justifying another closure of a discussion because of it is what I mean by "childish". Can I get this resolved on this page or do I need to go to ArbCom to get permission to actually have a discussion on a talk page? Does anyone really think that shutting down a freaking discussion isn't going to poison the atmosphere even further? Does anyone have any assumption of any good faith on Wikidemon's part anymore? Am I supposed to edit war a discussion closure in order to have an ordinary discussion on an article talk page? -- Noroton (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
More insults? After everything else, "childish" is only an incremental addition. But you do not seem to get it. Edit the Obama articles only if you can do so without complaining about other editors. Otherwise, do not edit those articles. And please stop making up accusations against me. That is simple. Wikidemon (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Grsz11 - lol. thank you for that. --Ludwigs2 00:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I mean, it's not like this same editors have been through this countless times already... GrszX 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's like spectator sport, Wikipedia style. Two gladiators battling it out to the death in the ring. Orderinchaos 23:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
To Grsz11: Frankly, I don't think this can properly be described as a content dispute. The content in question has been rejected repeatedly, and brought up repeatedly by the same group of users. It has become disruptive because hardly anything else can even be discussed on the page anymore. It's just one constant stream of AyersAyersAyersAyers, with only the odd break for Rezko/Wright/BornInKenya/SecretMuslim/CampaignFringeStuffOfTheDay. Seriously, take a look at the edit history for the last 500 edits or so on the page. How many threads have resulted in constructive edits to the page? --GoodDamon 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## obvious sock needs blocking

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

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

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

I notified Alison, since she's familiar with that individual. -- lucasbfr talk 13:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
As Nisarkand is back causing problems again, and being his usual self, you can also reblock 119.30.64.0/20, softblocked for a long period. A rangecheck has showed up the following accounts. These are 100%  Confirmed as being NisarKand, so feel free to block them:
1. PitTorian
2. Artimand
3. Bizmarkie
- Alison 14:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Done J.delanoygabsadds 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Rangeblock  Done for 6 months (anon only). -- lucasbfr talk 14:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## Henotheism and User:VedicScience

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

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

I would ask that someone review my attempts to inform VedicScience of what to do. His responses should be enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
His comments to the sock puppetry case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VedicScience should also help clarify. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

The suspected sock is in the same city. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
just to add a note of irony, I'm going to take a modified version of the changes that he wanted to make and edit them in. they weren't bad, really, but all that extra baggage... --Ludwigs2 06:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Pollytheism is derived from the Catholic tradition, you know - all that cracker eating... --Ludwigs2 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ba-DUM-bum. You've been great folks, now let's all welcome the Atlanta Rhythm Section! Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Aaawk! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
So, are they Atlanta Crackers? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
We're scraping the bottom of the cracker barrel here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Still...beautiful plumage though, eh? 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The plumage don't enter into it! If you had not nailed it on its perch, it would be pushin' up the daisies! Oh, wait, that's not the Amazon parrot - that's the Norwegian Blue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
(laughing too hard to type anything coherent) --Elonka 17:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You're making an assumption that any of the previous 8 posts were even remotely coherent in their own right... 17:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## Proposed Range Block of 82.132.136.192/27

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

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

Done for two weeks. We can extend if that works, but I'm not sure it will, so I didn't block for longer. Well-written suggestion, Troy.--chaser - t 02:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I'll keep an eye on it. ~ Troy (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This should be okay to do, per checkuser, but one thing; don't hardblock it, whatever happens!! It's teeming with legit editors including about a half-dozen UK admins :) - Alison 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

## Block needed

Resolved

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

Thanks! SWik78 (talkcontribs) 16:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

## Olana North

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

The entries immediately preceding, on the user and talk pages respectively [42] [43] give a clue that the user (with whom you've had some interaction) is not happy about something. Not having read the user's contrib's in detail, I couldn't say what it's not happy about, although at least in part it's obviously not happy with you.