Has pasting worklists into mainspace and striking out text as you deal with it ever been an acceptable method of merging articles? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. If it is only temporary, and the editor finds this method helpful, then there is no issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks longish-term by the length of the list. In any case it's pretty ugly and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be on the Talk page instead. Not a big point, but aesthetically pretty crap.... DeCausa (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. This kind of work goes on in userspace most of the time for a reason. This is not how a proper encyclopaedia presents itself. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The tutorials presented to students in the Public Policy programs advise editors to work on lengthy revisions in userspace, as I recall. Granted, most editors aren't going through anything as structured as a college course in Wikipedia editing, but I'd still like to see more usage of userspace and less major revisions on the fly in article space. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Good use of {{uc}}, if you ask me. It is good to show work in progress every now and then, to remind readers that this is not a finished work, but an encyclopedia you can edit. —Кузьма^討論 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin (or admins) clear the backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have monited the above users aggressive editing style and stumbled by chance over his/her edits on another users talk page [1] he repeatidly calls me a "paki" a racial slur and he is being supported by other editors of the same agenda (POV against Pakistan) I would be grateful if someone could tell them about the race policy of wikipedia (if it has one) Im not sure if this is the place to report racial abuse if it is not please provide a clear link to the place regards Ichi Ichigo0987765 (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it comes under WP:NPA, specifically here. Certainly in the UK, "Paki" is a seriously offensive racist slur: see List of ethnic slurs#Paki. I think this is the right place to report it - probably should get at least a warning or probably more from an admin. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed the right place. Are there more diffs than this one? I'll place an NPA-2 warning on their user page, but if that's all there is, then a warning at this moment is about as far as we can go, I think. Anyone, feel free to jump in and rv me. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

How about you both quit goading each other [2] and have an actual discussion... this thread had very little business here. This is a simple insult thread. Grow up. When this gets actually disruptive let the rest of the community know. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that's quite wrong. Racist language is in an entirely different category to the diff you posted. DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Eh, how is one supposed to read the comment in the diff cited by Shadowjams, "A paki? hmmm seems our little group of Indians are getting racial time for some advice from admins :-)" I really have no idea what "racial time for some advice from admins" means, but "little group of Indians" has no place here either. Ichigo, I'm giving you an NPA warning also, and I hope that both of you can knock it off and grow up. That I criticized Hari's comment doesn't mean you get a free pass. Now, if these two can cut it out, we can close this; thanks to Shadowjams for checking in. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, both editors have been warned now, and on top of that Ichigo is blocked for edit warring on Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. What fun. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Little group of Indians" etc may not have any place here, but "Paki" is a straightforward racist epithet. It's on a different level. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. When used as a racial epithet in Britain "paki" means "South Asian". It is indeed a racial term, not a national one. Used as an abbreviation of Pakistani (as opposed to 'Indian') it is arguably no longer a racial term. If 'Aussie' and 'Brit' are not insulting as abbreviations of 'Australian' and 'Briton', then it's problematic to always label an analagous abbreviation of 'Pakistani' as an insult. We surely have to take context of use into account (and ironically 'Paki-stan' means 'pure-country', so 'Paki' literally means 'pure'). Paul B (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome everyone, I created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Philippine TV Vandal for consensus. I just want to report that a cross-wiki vandal readacted - ErrantX that was blocked from enwiki, transferred other wikis after I seek assistance in rangeblocking his/her IP addresses there. The vandal is posting hoax information regarding Philippine television and has an editing pattern that is easy to trace. The said vandal currently uses the IP ranges 121.54.0.0/16 and 180.194.0.0/16 in this wiki (sample hoax contributions are the Us Girls (Philippine TV program) and the Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation articles).
I would like to seek the same assistance from the admins here to finally stop his destructive edits, since bots are keep on posting wikilinks in en.wiki pointing here with an article that was created by that vandal. Please see User:WayKurat/Philippine TV vandal regarding this vandal and its editing patterns. Hoping for your swift action regarding this issue. Thanks. --Kungfu2187 (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, please do not out even vandals real names/identities on-Wiki. That is a big no-no --Errant ^(chat!) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Philippine TV Vandal == Gerald Gonzalez. I've redirected the page accordingly. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please assist User:WayKurat against both Philippine TV Vandal and Gerald Gonzalez and <redacted, again...> ErrantX --Kungfu2187 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Again. Do not "Out" people. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Eagles247 (talk · contribs) and I (Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs)) have been watching St. John's University (New York), where two particularly nasty edit warriors showed an inability to cooperate, and were routinely getting themselves blocked and unblocked. After months of blocks and block evasion, it has come out that both are editors which have been blocked/banned at one point:

• 24.239.153.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a.k.a. Mykungfu (talk · contribs) a.k.a. CashRules (talk · contribs)
• 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a.k.a. CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs)

note that both users have used their IPs consistently in order to edit, so i don't see any privacy issues with listing them here).

CAtruthwatcher was blocked for continual block evasion (on my part), although some of it later turned out to be likely fraudulent (quite possibly attempts by Mykungfu to make CAtruthwatcher look bad; however; it is very difficult to tell given the history; Eagles and I only know that both users have badly misbehaved). However, after CATruthwatcher took an approximate 5 month break, s/he came back behaving a bit better, so Eagles decided to look the other way and allow the editing to continue anonymously. Since this time, I've had to reblock the IP for 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule.

Mykungfu is formally requesting a standard offer, and I think that if he behaves himself well, could be worth a try. Eagles247 agrees with me. So what I'm proposing is this:

• Both CAtruthwatcher/Mykungfu have their ban/blocks lifted.
• Both accounts are limited to a 1RR/week restriction. Any violations which don't fall under the exceptions clause of WP:3RR, even accidental or partial reverts, will be met with a block. Exceptions can be made only if there is a clear and obvious consensus from all parties involved on the talk page of the said article.
• Both editors are highly encouraged to use the talk page of the St. John's University article. Both editors are reminded that if the other breaks 1RR, that's not an excuse to break it themselves.

So what do you all think?

PS. The unblock request for Mykungfu is at the bottom of User talk:24.239.153.58. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm nearly always supportive of former banned users who have seen the light come back, and this seems no different. Glad to see a reform. -- ۩ Mask 10:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor 1:

• 24.239.153.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• Mykungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• CashRules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• UnclePaco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armyguy11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnclePaco/Archive

Editor 2:

• 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Take a look at the block logs of both parties. The Mykungfu editor (Editor 1) has been socking very broadly since 2006 and I suggest he should remain blocked. In my opinion, CAtruthwatcher might be unblocked with the Standard Offer if he would agree to a ban from the topic of St. John's University (New York), broadly construed, and be limited to a single account and no IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm bumping this to keep it alive; I think I'd likek more than two non-involved opinions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As uninvolved non-admin, I see no indication that Mykungfu has seen any light. If CAtruthwatcher was blocked because MyKungFu tricked admins into thinking he was evading the block, then unblocking him with a 1RR restriction seems reasonable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

CAtruthwatcher was blocked for edit warring at first, then sockpuppetry (not because of Mykungfu), and finally edit warring again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog and Eagles, you guys need to read up on the policy in question. The correct procedure is not to sock - and most certainly not to ignore a blocked editor who is now socking as an IP, whether they are editing productively or not. CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs) needs to go back to their original account and make the unblock request there - or confirm that they no longer have access to that account. I'm not going to block the IP, I'm going to AGF and ask this editor to not edit the project while this is under discussion, except for edits relating to an unblock request on the talkpage of the CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs) account (or here if they no longer have access to that account).

The other editor just appears to be a sockfarmer, and I can't see any reason to unblock them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the CATruthwatcher account, there's no reason to unblock it. You can create an account with the IP you are using now. I do think you will have to accept some sort of restriction relating to St. John's University (New York), at least to start with, as you've been blocked so many times for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Can you clean this up? WP:TL;DR. 2) I asked you not to mention 97 or go on the attack against him and call him a sock, but that's exactly what you just did. Frankly none of us cares who socked when; you're both guilty of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's getting better; thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from 97.77.103.82 a.k.a. CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs)[edit]

User 24/Mykungfu has not "seen the light." In the past five years, he has used over 100 sockpuppets in order to deface and vandalize a plethora of Wikipedia pages while harassing countless users. He has took elaborate steps to get others blocked so he could continue his vandalism and harassment. He has used sockpuppets to convince administrators to ban good editors and has impersonated users in an effort to get them blocked. Thumbing through his edits under his many aliases, one observes that he has rarely made any positive edit that was not reversed at least once. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Magog, I take great offense to you grouping me with the menace that is 24, most especially after learning of his vicious vandalism of Wikipedia over the last many years since he was connected to Mykungfu. This banned user, who has used over 100 sockpuppets to harass many users and deface many Wikipedia pages, started early on a crusade to get me and anyone else who disagreed with him blocked. I pleaded with administrators to help; not one listened.

Perusing the St. John's Talk Page archives from before I arrived, I see that others had similar experiences. Mykungfu was able to go on with his vandalism and those trying to stop him were frequently reprimanded by administrators because of Mykungfu's deceitful ways. The blocks imposed wrongly on me cannot be equated with the blocks and bans rightly imposed on Mykungfu. And because he was a banned user, I had every right to reverse his vandalism.

Mykungfu, using his sockpuppets, was the individual who got me blocked in the first place; I should be apologized to, not grouped with this individual. I also did not evade any block, for I am free to use my IP address when I have the urge to do so, especially since it was known that there was a connection. How can that be seen as similar to the banned Mykungfu using over 100 aliases? I also requested an unblock on the registered account some time ago, but no action was taken. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that I do not have access to the CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs) account. I would also like to request an unblock on that account so I may create a new registered account.

I unfortunately took the bait of vandal and banned user 24.239.153.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/Mykungfu, who has now been connected to over 100 blocked sockpuppets. Some free time last week gave me the opportunity to thumb through the many archives and discussions relating to this individual, and it seems as though he has unfortunately vandalized a plethora of Wikipedia pages and has harassed numerous editors and administrators for the last five or more years. I also discovered that he has used similar tactics in the past in order to get other good editors blocked by administrators. He is an expert at this, and both Magog and Eagles, finally catching on to what had been truly occurring for all those months, caught him impersonating me and using numerous IP addresses to slander me.

Those who pushed for a block of CATruthwatcher many months ago have now been exposed to be one person -- Mykungfu. Since I have come back, and since 24* has been linked to the banned vandal Mykungfu, administrators have realized that I am a decent editor who is willing to discuss and truly contribute to Wikipedia. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Is there a way, though, to unblock the account in order to avoid sockpuppet accusations in the future? I think that if an administrator could unblock the account, it would save a whole lot of headache later. I foresee instances in the future of having to try and explain this whole story to those who do not know the history.

And I would have no problem with some type of temporary restriction relating to St. John's University (New York). With the banned sockmaster 24.239.153.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)/Mykungfu gone, I can't see any problems arising. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to understand everything being said by the banned sockmaster Mykungfu (24*), for as usual, the writing is atrocious. We all makes mistakes -- I make many and there might be some in this post -- but his writing is almost always illogical. I am not being uncivil; I am stating to others only that it is a possibility that I could misinterpret some of his words because of the deplorable and illogical writing. From what I was able to comprehend, he is using so-called proof compiled by one of his 100 sockpuppets to slander others. He cannot connect anyone to any sock he mentioned; he knows this, but he drives on. He is on his last leg and fighting for anything he can get.

And for those watching, he has shown how he does not abide by rules and will not abide by rules if he is let back on Wikipedia. The banned sockmaster's block had temporarily been lifted on his 24* IP sock by Magog just so he could post here. Magog told him explicitly not to mention socks and not to attack me or others users, but he did just that. The destructive vandal cannot be trusted.

This vandal's ban must stay, for his over 100 sockpuppets have done great destruction to Wikipedia. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

CAtruthwatcher was reverting the vandalism of a banned user who was using several sockpuppets simultaneously to make POV and destructive edits. CAtruth notified several administrators, including Eagles, and plead with them to assist in some fashion. No administrator took action because with the use of Mykungfu's several socks, it looked as though the community was against CAtruth. Wikipedia editors have a right to revert the edits of a banned user if he is vandalizing a page with numerous sockpuppets simultaneously. The block on CAtruth cannot be justified in light of the revelation that all against him were sockpuppets of a banned user. 97.77.103.82 (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from CashRules, UnclePaco, etc.[edit]

I would like the references to myself as a banned user to cease. There is a difference between banning and blocking. I was blocked not banned. If there is any proof that would show that I am a banned user and not blocked, I would like proof to show. This is giving a highly negative influence on this report. As is shown here Wikipedia:Banning policy (Banning should not be confused with blocking) I was never banned. So this block based on a ban isn't correct. I served the 3rr suspension. As is shown in Wikipedia:Standard offer I am willing to "It's simple: Wait six months without sockpuppeting. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." I would also like to point out that I am not an Single-purpose account. My contributions range many different arenas. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to show the pages that I have created that were of benefit to wikipedia including Ron Duncan,Carlos Valdes, CCNY Point Shaving Scandal, Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour,The Levin Institute ,Elijah McCall, Thomas Carroll (martial_artist), Rhadi Ferguson, Floyd Layne, Antihaitianismo, Dodge Venom, [[Darryl Hill (basketball)[3][4][5][6][7] Almost all my blocks were based off the first one when a checkuser was done. I've never really had an opportunity to have a short term stay to be a strong positive contributer.24.239.153.58 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading the ANI, and I would like to say that I didn't block 97 he was blocked because of his numerous actions and this was observed by both administrators and interactions by myself and another user DC (Whom he has claimed is me) I am willing to undergo a sockpuppet report to prove that I am not the User DC [8]
24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The other side of the sockpuppet story

All you have to do is look at the names that I had listed. Contributions easily show this, even if he denies it was him. Past that [9] you will see an edit to Armed Forces Popular Culture

[10] you will also see an edit to Armed Forces Popular Culture [11]. Later CATruth appeared and was blocked same thing with Achieve student blocked [12]. Later Wluckey[13]. His other ip account [14] and his Main IP Account [15] and Recognition by Admin that 67 is CATruth [16]. His edits from 67 - upstate NY [17] Journalism degree was a big deal to 67 [18] as it was to CAtruth [19] as does sock of CATrut [20]
This back and forth between myself and 97 goes back years (2008) not months. (2010)

There is always a removal of the same items and that is how I am aware that it is 97 with over 40 different alias. From 2008 72.229.244.82[21], to 2009 66.108.204.165 [22] to march 2010 66.108.204.65[23] to Nov 2010 with CAtruthwatcher [24] to Nov 2010 Achievestudent[25] and removes it again under 97 [26]. Under 67, he was a big journalism at st john's fan. [27] as is 97 [28]. Previous incarnations included user TiconderogaCCB (sp) (viewable on the sockpuppet report) with an admission of being a worker for the marketing department of St. John's University [29]. Sadly the majority of the edits of said user have been in relation to one subject matter and as a result is a Single-purpose account Sockpuppet report was opened but was closed when CAtruthwatcher was blocked (several months ago). There you will see a list of his indef blocked sockpuppet. I was in the middle of making a new report when I was blocked. I was using the above as evidence [30] There you will see a list of the socks used before. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In correction to editor EdJohnston
Editor 2:

• 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• 67.81.112.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• 66.108.204.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• 66.108.204.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• 72.229.244.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• Achievestudent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log);
• CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CAtruthwatcher/Archive
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Newyorkborn/Archive
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TiconderogaCCB[31]24.239.153.58 (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was trying to give an understanding that it isn't simply one side. All of his edits attacked me and gave to people the idea that I was the only one doing it and was doing it for years, when it was the both of us. 2 opinions already came out against me and for him based on a biased pov given out. I'm cleaning it up now! 24.239.153.58 (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ganas article and Ganas talk page. Marelstrom (talk) continues to substitute properly referenced material with unverified and trivial statements, and attempts to out Eroberer (talk). Please consider protecting the 429492686 revision of the article. Eroberer (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ganas is communitarian group in Staten Island, New York that has an interesting history to say the least. My concern is that over the past 6-7 months we have been having a string of SPA accounts most vocal being (Eroberer (talk · contribs)) who has strong dislike of Ganas. Eroberer's dislike of Ganas has resulted in alot of POV-Pushing, behavior is relatively civil with established editors but down right aggressive with any one they disagree with. The most recent incident was an outing that was just oversighted this morning (Well my time at least) where a new editor said made an accusation about Eroberer which amplifies my concerns. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

• User talk:Marelstrom is a liar, as they above claim to be "not a Ganas resident." Excuuuuuuse Me!
• you are clearly a Ganas resident and intrinsically biased.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to look for references to any of my contributions as needed. --Marelstrom (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I know enforcing non-free image policy won't make me popular in some quarters, but I am not inclined to tolerate being repeatedly called a "liar" and "stupid" by an editor just because I have been removing his bad images [46][47][48][49]. This editor, Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs), has a history of aggressive conduct of this sort. I ask fellow administrators for intervention. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If that editor has a history of aggressive conduct, then being called a liar by that editor is not a big deal. The editor is then disqualifying him/herself from being taken serious here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That is quite contrary to how it actually works in my experience. Anyhow, calling somebody a liar isn't nice. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC) (uninvolved non-admin)

Given them a warning, I'll be keeping an eye on them too. [stwalkerster|talk] 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Update [50]. No further comment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Are we really saying that people with a history of aggressive conduct get to continue their aggressive conduct because it's expected of them? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. Iquinn has single-handedly decided that bin Laden was "assassinated" and that his death was an "Extrajudicial killing". He's clearly pushing his own POV in spite of consensus otherwise. While I applaud him for participating vociferously on the Osama bin Laden talk page, his participation has been plagued by partial quotes that distort sources and outright misquotes. Iquinn has been blocked repeatedly in the last few months for his edit warring, and I suspect we're up against that again now. as a result, I'd like to propose an extended block if not an out-right community ban. Since I'm the only admin involved at this point, I thought it best to bring this repeat problem editor to the group's attention. Rklawton (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. I had a total of one revert on the article now way what's however that would be edit warring. I do not think that that is the right way for you to get you favorite version of the article. IQinn (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see Iqinn added the category and reverted only once. He has since been editing the talk page instead. I frankly don't see why this is worth bringing here. Kansan (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again Iqinn has misquoted me. This is described as "Disruptive editing" and not edit warring. The disruptive part revolves around repeatedly and deliberately misquoting sources and other editors (namely me) during discussions. His edits to the article (two so far) can be described as vandalism given that he's aware of our policies regarding reliable sources and POV pushing - and given his tendentious edit history over the last couple of months. Rklawton (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like Rklawton has a personal problem with the user, and that this is something better suited to RFC/U, rather than ANI. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I only just "met" him in the last few hours when he tried adding the category "Extrajudicial killings" to the bin Laden article - and more recently changing a subheader to "Assassination". Look at his block history. This isn't a personal problem, this is vandal fighting. Rklawton (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not describe edits of other users as vandalism or POV pushing just you disagree with them. Looking on your numerous reverts some might think that you were POV pushing. IQinn (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's POV pushing when your claims aren't supported by the facts or sources and your views are in the minority - yet you take it upon yourself to change the article anyway and then repeatedly misquote sources and me in the talk page - and here. Rklawton (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

2 editors on one side and 2 on the other side is not really the minority and you were regularly quoting out of context. IQinn (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Many editors have been working for weeks on the "Death of" article to build sources and reach consensus. Your unilateral edits fly in the face of all this work. And the other editor who sides with you has a recent block record similar to yours. My reverts have been oriented around keeping the article in line with the working consensus, and that's the opposite of POV pushing. Rklawton (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of you should take this elsewhere. I'd recommend asking for some sort of dispute resolution on the article talk page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

@Rklawton -- Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had a longstanding relationship with Iqinn. I still feel, however, that this issue seems more suited to RFC/U since there are no immediate problems requiring administrator intervention. If you feel that Iqinn is a problematic editor in general, RFC/U is the forum for that sort of thing. Also, please provide diffs, and be careful not to inappropriately label edits vandalism. While his edits might be problematic (I'm not making a judgement on this one way or the other), they don't seem to be in violation of WP:Vandalism, which is more for things like adding "fdafkdaskfjdkjfdjkf" or "Osama haz big penis" to an article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Rklawton here. A review of prior talk page posts indicates extensive discussion previously of the very same issue, with clear consensus. Iquinn's editing is best described as tendentious, and we do block disruptive editing. I suggest that he simply knock it off.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the right place, but there seems to be violation of Wikipedia's copyright on the Guardian article London parish's descent from glamour to grime charted in exhibition, by Maev Kennedy. Here's an example of where the author seems to have closely paraphrased Wikipedia's article St Giles, London: Wikipedia “from 17th century Georgian affluence, the area declined rapidly, as houses were divided up, many families sharing a single room. Irish Catholic immigrants seeking to escape desperate poverty took up residence and the slum was dubbed "Little Ireland" or "The Holy Land".” Guardian: “the startling decline from 17th-century affluence to Georgian squalor, as the old houses were subdivided and let out as common lodgings – with so many Irish Catholic residents, it was dubbed "Little Dublin" or "the Holy Land.” The article, although it follows a different structure to the Wikipedia article on St. Giles, is based on it, and there's no attribution of the content to Wikipedia. I quote WP:REUSE on our policy on this issue:

• To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which should be indicated on an article's face or on its talk page. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users.
• If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
• If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified. If you are re-using the page in a wiki, for example, indicating this in the page
• Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC-BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license or b) a copy of the license. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(nao)I don't have time to look at the exact quotes but our article almost quadrupled in size the day after the guardian article was published. It may be the other way round. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Gaaah, I swear I checked the history properly...my bad.--Anthem of joy (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss over here. The IP user with IP 213.151.218.137 has begun reverting all of User:Hobartimus' edits on various pages (Béla IV of Hungary, Máté Csák, Francis II Rákóczi, Adam František Kollár and Matthias Bel). Now since this is quite reminiscent of User:Bizovne's actions, in normal circumstances I'd ask for an SPI and that'd be it. GeoIP however indicates that the IP belongs to the Banská Bystrica region (the city proper and possibly most of the villages around it as well). This and the fact that Hobartimus has previously changed User:Wladthemlat's edits on the articles above leads me to believe that it might be Wladthemlat's "bad hand" sock. It's also possible that it's a "new" user from BB with malicious intentions. The problem however with this IP (besides that BB is a city with a population of over 100k) is the fact that it's from an IP range that's dynamically assigned by Orange to their "fibernet" subscribers (I get assigned IPs beginning with 213 when using such connection as well). The IP's edit history also shows that it's been used by various other users with (fairly) diverse interests in the past. This time it's been assigned to a malicious user however, but blocking the IP won't prevent the user from proceeding (he'd just reset his ONT to get a brand new IP assigned to him). Therefore maybe a warning might be in place for it. -- CoolKoon (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Just to make it clear: it isn't the fact that this IP user has reverted Hobartimus what I consider to be the problem. It's the nature of these reverts, such as making ill-faithed reverts look like "vandalism" reverts and the typical Slovak nationalist summary at some of the edits in the likes of "you're not in Hungary, and hence you can't do this and that (or possibly anything at all)". Extending this "way of thinking" to EN WP was Bizovne's specialty up until now (this was the main reason I suspected him in the first place), but the evidence detailed above goes contrary to this. -- CoolKoon (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: You might want to take a look at the related SPI regarding this user as well. CoolKoon (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article India as a rising superpower was recently successfully deleted for consisting almost entirely of SYN, OR and NEO. This is not my issue, my issue is that recently banned user Neilpine (he was banned for various reasons regarding topics that involve articles such as this) has restored this page word for word (he was the original author/creator of the article) without contacting the deleting admin or even explaining his actions. I believe (as do other users and the deleting admin) that the page should be deleted, this occurred without any objections raised. What should be done on this issue? Thanks for your time. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(I've corrected the article title for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

Actually, it looks like it was deleted by a prod. As such, his recreation of it is essentially contesting the prod. If it had been deleted by an AFD and recreated then it would be eligible for speedy deletion, but my advice would be to take it to afd as your next step. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any notification of any bans - what's the user banned from and where is it documented? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that GR Allison is confused with terminology. Neilpine was previously blocked for 24h, but has not been banned. Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If this version is exactly like the deletion version then it should still be speedied, regardless of being a prod or not. If the editor at least made some small effort to address why it was prodded, then yea, an AfD would be the route to go. As for the banning, the user was blocked for 24h for edit warring is what I assume the filer is referring to. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. "This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." (from the G4 criterion). If it had been speedied as say G11 and was still G11-y, it could be redeleted as G11. If it had been afd'd and was recreated as the version that was deleted, then it could be G4'ed. As it was prodded, it is not eligible for speedy G4. Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a roundabout issue. They should've gone to WP:DRV and contested the prod, but the end result is pretty much the same. This needs to go to WP:AfD for now, if you want it deleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Syrthiss, note the world "should" in my post. What you go on to cite is precisely the type of process wankery that I hoped to avoid here. This is why the prod process is pretty much a joke, when it allows one-off IPs to remove tags without rationale or allows others to simply recreate the article verbatim. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not a joke but IMHO it's sometimes misapplied. IMHO PROD is for articles that nobody gives a damn about and this article was never a good candidate for PROD because it had an active editing history. Major edits were made during the PROD period by an editor who likely didn't know he himself could have removed it. This article should have been AFDd from jumpstreet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I do seem to have confused the terminology, he was blocked not banned (I now know the difference). Following the advice here I have moved it over to AFD, thanks for your help in trying to resolve this people. Have a good day. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There's some backstory here that it appears editors don't know about. India as a rising superpower looks like a recreation of an article that was deleted/redirected in 2007 (India as an emerging superpower) after extensive discussion, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/China_as_an_emerging_superpower_(fourth_nomination). So the creation of India as a rising superpower circumvented deletion review, it looks like.

My memories of Wiki-doings in 2007 are rather hazy, but I believe that there was some sockpuppetry involved in the deletion debate then, so it might be worthwhile to check if there's any going on in relation to the current article. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been dealing with the edits of ポケットモンスター エニシングゴーズ (talk · contribs) for a month now. He has persisted in modifying content on Gokaigers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) despite several requests to not add the content (as he is the only individual who does so). Lately, he has been focusing on adding a list to the article that was removed in early April, and does so every two weeks. He initially created a separate article for the content (see Ranger Keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), but he has instead insisted on adding this content to the article. I have told him total of three times to not add the content to the page (including after his most recent edit to the page).

On top of this, he has operated other accounts, but they were not used inappropriately. Just obstructively. The individual can clearly write in English, but he does not respond to any queries. And I am getting tired of having to remove the section I have asked him not to replace every two weeks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that repetitive 3RR-naive editing is a problem in most cases, and this is a particular example of that. This sort of thing happens a lot and it's rare someone knows where to bring the issue. Open communication is key and this is a good example of how that's simply not happening. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So what the hell do we do about it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you have a consensus somewhere for redirecting Ranger Keys to the piece on Ranger Keys in the Gokaigers article? It means nothing to me (Oh Vienna) so I don't know whether there is a discussion somewhere that agreed there should not be an article. If such an article has previously been Afd'd, then we have a problem. If not, I'd just un-redirect his article and leave him to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The article got put up for speedy deletion and then someone realized that it would work better as a redirect. And the problem is that the content is entirely unencyclopedic and it would be destroyed at AFD anyway. The information does not require its own page and most certainly does not require its own coverage. The article, if it were be allowed to proliferate, would be a list of approximately all 200 fictional characters that have been part of a 37 year old franchise with the word "Key" appended to their name and a sentence that says "transforms X into Y" (or exactly what you see on User:ポケットモンスター エニシングゴーズ). I removed the list from the main article a while ago because it was becoming a vio of WP:IINFO and I cannot seem to explain it clearly enough to Pokemon Anything Goes that the content is not welcome because he returns every two weeks to put the list back onto Gokaigers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like there should be a discussion on the talk page about how to resolve this as it appears to be a content issue... maybe time for an article RfC? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should there be an RFC when only one individual keeps putting back content that he has been asked not to replace on the page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just received an email from this bot that makes no sense to me. Clicking on difs that are in the email is removing items from my watchlist. Are anyone else receiving this email? I have asked the person Nettrom about this email plus I informed them of this AN/i report here. Something just doesn't seem right about the email. Why didn't s/he just talk to me on my user page about the changes being requested? I will send the email to any administrator who request it. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused... what was the email about? The Bot shouldn't be sending email (having checked it's request for approval), but I haven't seen anyone else mention it. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to send it to you? I thought the same thing. Something is weird about this since it says it's changing my page and some other things. I'll email it to you if you would like. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, mail it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok it's sent to you. I'm kind of freaked out about this so I appreciate your help. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Aha! I know what this is. It is not the bot sending you email. The Mediawiki system has an inbuilt ability to send you an email notification whenever your talk page is edited :) This has not previously been enabled on Wikipedia but it was enabled the other day. The setting defaulted to "on" for everyone. If you want you can turn it off by going to preferences and de-selecting the relevant option at the bottom of the page. The links at the bottom, including the one which unwatched the page for you are just helper links left over from the fact that it is using a "watchlist notification" template. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember checking this but I assume you mean this, E-mail me when my user talk page is changed . I unchecked it and appreciate your help a lot. I thought someone might be messing with me and I am so relieved that's not the case. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith but when I received this it was hard for me to do. I am sorry now that I didn't assume good faith about it. Thank you again for you help. I feel really stupid now for freaking out over it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I was puzzled when I got the same emails - "What's this stuff that I didn't ask for?" I eventually found the checkbox in the prefs and disabled it, and assumed I must have switched it on some time ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Chronie; no worries, it was enabled automatically for everyone (I'm not sure who decided that). But has not been widely announced - hence confusion. I have pinged the foundation-l list to find out if there are plans to make people aware of this change. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I was also thrown for a loop when I received one of these yesterday. Thus, Chronie and I are not going to be the only ones who are wondering what is going on. Might it be a good idea to add one of those message boxes like we do when donation time or voting for arbcom comes around letting editors know what has occurred. It might also be worth considering not defaulting new features to "on" when they are added - another message box could inform users about new functions added and let us decide whether we want to use it or not. Of course, these are just a suggestions and my thanks to ErrantX for clearing things up. After seeing the edit conflict I see that you have also already started some of the process that I am suggesting EX but I thought I would post this anyway for others to see - thanks againMarnetteD | Talk 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please wp:TROUT the person who made the decision to turn this on by default? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Talk_emails --Errant ^(chat!) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just checking in... FYI, I had a look at SuggestBot's source code, and it has no ability whatsoever to email anybody, at the moment. I'm happy to see this got sorted out, understand the confusion. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Responsible person has been trouted. Yoenit (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That was uncharitable ...and unwise. Skomorokh 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I think turning it on was really not a good idea. How many emails? How many electrons needlessly displaced? What strain on our servers? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

See my post above, under the topic "Possible bug in archives?". I think that the slow performance of the site might coincide with turning on this feature. In fact I'm almost certain of it. -- Atama頭 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It's really, really aggravating. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm in favour FWIW, beats the hacky method I was using before to get notifications to my Gmail. But anyways; I added a watchlist notice because that seems to be the simplest way to tell people --Errant ^(chat!) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with having the feature. Engaging it and defaulting to "on" was a poor choice, oing so without notifying anyone about it was troutable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But am I the only one whose pedia is not wikying as fast as it ought to? I get stuck just about every other edit and have to reload. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I have to stop and reload long pages (such as this one) before they come in all the way. Annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It's bad enough that I'm probably going to use Wikipedia very little, if at all, until they get around to fixing it. This is getting ridiculous. Technical problems, I can live with; long-term unacknowledged technical problems are really frustrating. -- Atama頭 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's why we are all happy that a long wanted feature like email notifications were enabled at last. Nemo 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

<--I don't need email notifications, personally. BTW, a couple of weeks ago there were recurring technical problems, and I PayPalled $20 to the foundation--I thought that would have taken care of it. Anyway, I would like to know if these issues are related. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you !work for Wikipedia, and you pay them?? Where can I get in on this racket? As Yakov would say, "What a country!!". --64.85.221.213 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• TVFAN24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TVFAN24 has been on ANI's radar a couple times, previously for violation of SOCK, among other things, one of which being POINTed editing and going against consensus. TVFAN24 was put on probation and mentorship by User:Wgfinley, who was serving as her mentor. The behavior that got her blocked in the first place began again, tendentious editing on television station, soap opera and other articles. User:Deconstructhis tried to curb this behavior on the television side, but TVFAN24 filed a MedCom request, with pure lies saying Deconstructhis was the only editor with a problem. Actually it is consensus, but TVFAN24 was asking to go around that. The MedCom request was declined per that. Her mentor though considered it a content dispute and supported TVFAN24's editing. Tonight was the final straw though. TVFAN24 asked on my talk page, if it was "ok and not against policy if I start making articles for every person to those few pages for ones that do not have one and then if they can be added back to the list." Of course, this was completely POINTed editing and creation of non-notable articles to circumvent consensus. TVFAN24 created two articles, both of which are sub-stubs, both of which don't meet the GNG and both of which are meant to circumvent consensus. I CSD'd both as A7. Since her mentor, Wgfinley, is unwilling or unable to help and reign his mentee in, I am requesting that TVFAN24's behavior be dealt with here at ANI. I would like the indef block (or even a 24 hour one) put back in place while the ANI thread is ongoing. This behavior needs to stop and stop now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have notified all three user's named above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

TVFAN's probation was a year ago for socking, I haven't seen any socking issues arise in this time and I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand. I mentored her on that issue, I'm not her father that you can come tattle on her. You accused TVFAN of tendentious editing, she filed a mediation request as a way to work out the dispute with you and others. You didn't feel it was in good faith and refused.

TVFAN obviously has an interest in this area, that applies to a lot of people on WP. She created the Goode article, you had a a speedy delete request on it in 14 minutes [51] and that request was processed two hours later. As I told you previously, the line on hounding is a precarious one, you are close to crossing it (14 minutes?). She has been compiling lists of some of these personnel, in some cases, like this one, she adds them to a list and they don't have an article so you object if she makes one. In others where they are added to the list without an article you revert it incorrectly calling it vandalism [52] and then revert her again without any reason or discussion on the talk page [53]. Which is it?

You are content to bring up her block of a year ago that has nothing to do with this issue yet you've been previously blocked and on probation for reverting content disputes and calling them vandalism as you have here. You're choosing to take the conflict to other venues and escalate it instead of discussing it working out any differences. You've mocked her for any attempt to try to talk to you about it [54] [55]. You and Deconstructthis have a position about these TV station articles (which you are entitled to have) that is not held by TVFAN and others (which they are entitled to have) - it is the age old WP:CRUFT argument. You refused mediating the matter and are now coming to AN/I for more would appear to be forum shopping.

Please take a closer look at WP:CON, in particular the section on using talk pages to work out disputes and issues. If you have an issue with notability of something that's posted then by all means put that on the talk page, give that person some time to address the issue (preferably more than 14 minutes) and if he/she doesn't then put it up for deletion as you have. If she created a massive amount of stubs on these issues I would consider that a problem. I don't see two, one of which she had all of two hours to improve on, as a problem. --WGFinley (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Anywho, this is what I mean by Wgfinley having no problem with TVFAN24's behavior. Obviously, another mentor needs to be in on this or admins taking over where Wgfinley is apprently unwilling and unable to deal with the matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that once again, it appears to me that the onus of responsibility in contending with TVFAN24's continuing editing practices is apparently being construed as some form of personal animus between two or three editors and TVFAN24 and an alleged lack of "prior discussion" on issues. I'd like to suggest that a broad assessment of the situation based on the evidence we have on hand indicates otherwise. In fact, I contend that this editor is wilfully rejecting the outcome of ample prior discussion on adding unreferenced BLP list material, which has occurred here, as well as on their own talk page and the talk page of other editors, the TV station project noticeboard and via the advice of their mentor Wgfinley, who appears to have specifically advised them *not* to engage in editing practices involving the adding of *specifically* this type of unreferenced material to articles. I'd like to address some issues raised by Wgfinley in their above post. Approximately a year ago, after Wgfinley lifted an indefinite block for socking and voluntarily agreed to mentor TVFAN24 on this matter, a number of "sandbox" pages were established so that TVFAN24 would be provided the opportunity to be tutored specifically on the need for providing references when adding BLP material to articles. The pages were created, and the unreferenced material that was being disputed in the TV station articles was transferred to them; with the expectation that references would be created fort he entries, at which point, the entries could be legitimately re-added to the articles. At that time, Wgfinley actively coached TVFAN24 on the need for that kind of support, if BLP list list was material being added [56] and TVFAN24 appears to have freely accepted that condition [57],[58] as a prerequisite for continuing to edit and openly agreed to only add BLP list material in cases where such referencing was simultaneously provided by them. If you visit those same sandbox lists today, and examine the differences, it appears that, apart from a few minor differences, in my opinion little effort has been made at all to utilize them for their stated original purpose [59],[60],[61],[62],[63], in fact, for the most part they appear to have been mostly ignored by TVFAN24 for that purpose. In January of 2011, TVFAN24 began unilaterally bulk re-adding exactly the same unreferenced BLP material to Chicago area television station articles, without any prior discussion on the relevant article talk pages beforehand at all. Please take note this occurence appears to have transpired while both Wgfinley and myself were on short Wikibreaks at the beginning of the year.[64],[65],[66],[67]. These re-additions were subsequently removed as unreferenced. Recently; in fact just this past weekend, TVFAN24 deemed it appropriate to launch a formal request for mediation in these matters, in an apparent attempt to once again precipitate the opportunity to re-add exactly the same unreferenced materials to these articles. That request was subsequently rejected by the clerk. For those interested, my personal reaction to this filing can be viewed on my talk page. I have clearly made up my own mind on this issue and make no pretense whatsoever to objectivity in the matter; I'm quite content to accept the decision of the community in this regard, as well as accepting any "lumps" I might have coming to me. In closing, I'd like to request that Wgfinley attempt to refrain from "personalizing" this dispute, apart from where the evidence leads and also that "harassment" can take on different forms, *none* of which are acceptable from experienced editors. I'd be happy to answer any questions in regard to these matters from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the clumsily composed posting above, I'm really pressed for time today and simply wanted to attempt to contextualize and balance the situation while I had a chance. My opinion is that editing issues surrounding TVFAN24 are an ongoing matter and again in my opinion, that repeatedly having to deal with those issues is a serious waste of time and editing resources. It appears to me that "abetting" these problematic practices is a possible practical concern as well and should be dealt with. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it curious that both of you have an abundant number of things to say HERE but couldn't do mediation. She even apologized [68] for making these two articles without any prompting from me. Maybe she would learn from mistakes if either of you gave her a chance instead of waiting to pounce within 14 minutes of anything she does. --WGFinley (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm...to be straightforward with you, in my opinion this response looks to me like additional diversionary rhetoric and another instance of the creation of what appears to be some sort of "firewall" around the editing practices of the person who you're mentoring. You can choose to compartmentalize the problems surrounding this editor's past practices and attribute the base difficulties to a small number of "other editors", but to do so, I think, ignores the longer view available in the situation; which appears to be continuing to present. In my opinion, TVFAN24's editing history speaks for itself and further, I think in many instances tends toward deliberate obfuscation. A quick scan of the totality of their talk page [69] and the involvement (and rejection) of some of those practices by a number of other editors (including other administrators)[70] appears to indicate that the problems are 'wider' than what you're attempting to convey here today and involve far more than a "14 minute" response time to the posting of a purportedly non-notable sub-stub article or an "apology" that occurred last evening. Just to be clear about that, although you've subsequently lumped me in with Neutralhomer in that regard; a fairer practice might be to try and restrain your criticism to to the relevant party; Neutralhomer is quite capable of speaking for himself. You've made comments in the past regarding your claimed inability to 'rein in' this situation; citing your involvement as TVFAN24's mentor as a rationale for non-action. I can understand aspects of that argument and to be sure, you can't literally stand over their shoulder while they're actually editing; however it seems to me that in your capacity as an administrator, as well as a mentor, it is reasonable for you to completely step aside and allow other administrators to objectively perform their duties as they see fit, without attempting to influence the situation. In my personal estimation, you failed in that respect both last summer and to a lesser extent in late autumn, when you directly and unilaterally overturned the decisions of other administrators in regard to blocks applied against TVFAN24. I can't help but wonder about the "enabling" potentials of those occurrences. I believe, that a further instance of what I'm alleging to be "non-objective intervention" regarding this editor occurred last weekend when; although recusing yourself from the specifics of the mediation request filed by TVFAN24; felt it necessary to recommend on the comment page that the request constituted a 'good issue' for the mediation process itself. Frankly, in my opinion, considering that you yourself are a formal mediation committee member in Wikipedia, I think you overstepped and left yourself open to a perception of potential undue influence in the matter. The real question in my mind, is where do we go from here? thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So open an RfC/U, or go to mediation. Annoying Neutralhomer and creating some articles of questionable notability isn't grounds for a block. Fences&Windows 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Creating articles of questionable notability shouldn't be allowed in the first place. I wouldn't create an article about myself, I'm not notable enough to have an article, even if you can find references that say I exist and I do this or that. Unreferenced material, especially that of BLP nature, really bothers me. It degrades what Wikipedia should be about... notability and references. Those policies aren't there just for a few editors to follow, they are there for all editors to stick to. That makes Wikipedia more trustworthy and accurate. I'm not going to fully dive into this discussion from this point on but I stand with Neutralhomer and Deconstructthis 100 percent. Why should one editor get away with causing so much hubbub, when others are banned indefinitely for one issue? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this issue here, but please help to resolve on the Talk Page of the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.Hillcountries (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What action do you want admins to take? The talk page is TL;DR. If there is a specific problem, please use diffs. Looks like a (heated) content dispute. If you want more eyes on the article, try a Request for comment. Looks like User:Exxolon is trying to offer a Suggestion, see how that pans out. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This user has violated 3RR on the Revisionist Western page and refuses to explain why he is reverting the constructive edits of myself and another user. I feel a warning is necessary.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would like to point out that my IP address changed and, obviously, their IP address changed as well. I have been editing Wikipedia for years under multiple different IP addresses.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute. The whole list is unsourced, so technically the removal is justified, although they should provide a reason of some sort. Note, warnings don't need to come from admins, anyone can and should warn, including IPs; but you might want to try to discuss this on their talk page first before warning. If it continues, the appropriate noticeboard for edit warring is WP:AN3. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

64.136.197.17 (talk · contribs) - This obviously static IP-editor has been blocked two times already for changing the nationality to "Jewish", and inserting "Jewish" in ethnicity in various BLPs were it is clearly not relevant.

Now its at it again: 1, 2. The reason stated for these edits are because, and I quote: "We need to know how many jews on the Supreme Court, US Congress, etc. The head of the IMF being a Jew is directly relevant. He is a Jew international banker.". This is clearly a tendentious editor, with a leaning towards anti-semitism, who on account of the previous blocks, should know how to edit in a neutral fashion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it is a deliberate long term strategy of disruption spread over several IPs, if one is to believe this message. Topic ban? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for this editor, if possible; how wide a range of IPs might s/he have available to him/her? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  It looks to be a corporate /19 IP block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't know if this one can be related to 64.136. It edited the same article 4 hours before the now blocked account did. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  Different ISP, different geographical area. Maybe a sandbox account on one end or the other, but I'd be more willing to guess a meatpuppet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  I see. Nothing to worry about then. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I have blocked the ip for 3 months - I know, I am getting to be a bit of a softy in these matters... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The International Jewish Conspiracy will be disappointed in you, LHVU. (/joke) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am outraged, sir! (/fakeoutrage) Glad to see there is a leash on this sort of behaviour though. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I need help with a rangeblock for an IP hopping edit warrior (and suspected IPsock). 75.47.151.87 (talk · contribs) and 75.47.157.136 (talk · contribs) and 75.47.146.105 (talk · contribs). Unfortunately the netmask calculator I usually use is down. Could someone provide the netmask or take care of this please? Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I did the rangeblock. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is covering a number of general topics at the moment, so it's getting posted here rather than a specific sub-board.

The current issue deals with recent edits to Flash (Barry Allen). The edits in question are: #428656737 - 428668034 (4 total), 428668034, 429318135, 429330125, 429330275.

Ancillary to this are: User talk:CmdrClow#Edit summaries, User talk:J Greb#Re: Edit Summaries which are immediatly related to the edits; Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Final Crisis image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Flash: Rebirth #2 as image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 (which is a long one) which are a history of the talk page discussion of this issue; and WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, the relavent project level guide line.

At this point the issues that have been raised amount to:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:CIV
• WP:NPA
• WP:AGF
• Misusing and edit summary
• Editing to provoke or bait

CmdrClow indicated he wanted administrative advice/review so I figure it might as well get kicked over here and take what may come. I've indicated to the other editor that I've done this in my response to them on my talk page. I'll also see the notice template on their talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Reposting here since this rolled off of AN without comment... - J Greb (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ganas article and Ganas talk page. Marelstrom (talk) continues to substitute properly referenced material with unverified and trivial statements, and attempts to out Eroberer (talk). Please consider protecting the 429492686 revision of the article. Eroberer (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ganas is communitarian group in Staten Island, New York that has an interesting history to say the least. My concern is that over the past 6-7 months we have been having a string of SPA accounts most vocal being (Eroberer (talk · contribs)) who has strong dislike of Ganas. Eroberer's dislike of Ganas has resulted in alot of POV-Pushing, behavior is relatively civil with established editors but down right aggressive with any one they disagree with. The most recent incident was an outing that was just oversighted this morning (Well my time at least) where a new editor said made an accusation about Eroberer which amplifies my concerns. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

• User talk:Marelstrom is a liar, as they above claim to be "not a Ganas resident." Excuuuuuuse Me!
• you are clearly a Ganas resident and intrinsically biased.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to look for references to any of my contributions as needed. --Marelstrom (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dbiela8293 (talk · contribs) keeps adding an unsourced "real name" to the article for Crissy Moran which I keep removing on WP:BLP grounds. I was going to finally put something on their talk page when I checked their contributions. They've created an identical article under the name Christina McMillan which is the same name that they've been adding to the Moran article. Could some admin please delete the McMillan article ASAP per WP:BLP? I was going to put it up for CSD but I can't really find a CSD reasoning that fits this particular case. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate article Christina McMillan Speedy Deleted as CSD:A10 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And I've added a request to stop the unsourced additions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Dismas|^(talk) 10:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dbiela8293's talk page is littered with warnings related to Crissy Moran. One may assume they are an overzealous fan, but their motivation for adding Moran's alleged real name is irrelevant if it is not sourced. Given the recent publicity around "Porn Wikileaks", we should expect to see more of this kind of activity on BLPs of porn performers. Given that the user has not responded to any of the warnings left for them, I suggest that a block may get their attention and prevent further BLP violations. In a related observation, that particular BLP should not exist in the first place (and is here only due to some diligent vote-stacking at AfD and DRV). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but for the fact that they have not edited since this thread was started this morning. I want to see their response before deciding if/how long to block. One more such incident, though, and I'd be inclined to indef. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They've just added the unsourced claim about her birth name again, so I have blocked for 24 hours (I only remembered about this report here after I'd done it) - anyone is free to adjust the block as they see fit -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Would an administrator please unprotect the talk page of Charles Whitman? I have an IP who informed me that they couldn't edit the talk page so instead of being able to discuss they are only able to revert which of course isn't good. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate it. I was surprised to learn that the talk page was protected when I read it at my talk page. Again thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary of issue[edit]

This incident is related to the controversial Jihad article regarding the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have reviewer rights, i feel he is abusing his reviewer rights. as he keeps removing my edits, and leaves warnings on my page, even though content i add is sourced (if thats what reviewer rights are???). The user has been on Wikipedia for about 1 month.

I believe the user is censoring Wikipedia Islam related articles, every time i addressed his concerns with my edits, he adds a new reason why my edit should not be on wikipedia.

What i want[edit]

I want an admin to mediate or decide whether Adamrce was right to remove the content i added (the content was well sourced), and is about the opinion of the 4 school of Islamic thought on the rules of Jihad, to challenge the already existing rules of Jihad provided by the user Adamrce from bbc news. You can see the content i added here: Content i added in yellow

Issue and evidence[edit]

• User made a new section called “best Jihad”,Proof 1
• There are many different interpretation on what the”best jihad” is. I notified the user that I will add alternative POV(points of view) to reflect the alternatie views, and asked whether he objects to this. He said “You're taking texture out of context”, so I doubt he would allow me to add it.Proof 2, the user called wiqi also said that if there are alternate views then i should add it here:Proof other users support altenrate view, where he said "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"
• Then he (Adamrce) also added BBC’s opinion on the rules of Jihad here:Proof 3
• BBC is not an Islamic source, so I added views of 2 of the 4 Islamic schools of thought Hanafi and Shaffi, user removed these views which were properly sourced, his reason was

  “I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. “

  Proof 3
• But then I added the opinion of all 4 major schools of Islamic thought (the 4 schools make up 80%+ of the worlds Muslim population) to satisfy the user (who as shown above did not like only giving views of 2 schools), another reason i added the 4 views, was to reflect Wikipedias major world view policy, user removed it on the grounds that

“All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded”

“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source! “

Proof 4

“Please stop your removal till the dispute clears. FollowWP:BRD, as you were warned yesterday!!!”

, which he wrote while reverting my edit here: Proof 5

• But 3/4 sources I used where secondary sources, which also contain excerpts of a primary source with analysis on it, like this

Rudolph Peter, Translation of Averores rules of Jihad

• After this, I removed BBC POV on the rules of Jihad, since there was a dispute going on over it, but user reverted my removal of the disputed content. So basically, I am frustrated because he removes my edits on the grounds that there is a dispute, but keeps his edit claiming they can only be removed after dispute is settled.
• He also added a message on my wikipedia page, claiming I am censoring Wikipedia and could get banned here, and sent me warnigns that i will get banned for adding back to content : Proof 5
• I added it back with compromise. Again I added the opinion of the 4 schools with more secondary sources and reasons for war (which he wanted), an against whom war can be made. User still removed them! Proof 6
• I would like Wikipedia admins to decide whether the content I added is acceptable, and whether Adamrce is right to remove alternate POV.
• I dont want to get involved in edit warring with this user, and based on the warnings he has left on my wiki page, it seems he has powers to ban me? He only created an account 1 month or so ago

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources used[edit]

User claimed he removed content because i need to use secondary sources, but the sources i used were secondary, the following sources were used:

Secondary Source 1[edit]

Book contains a primary source which is analysed by the author

Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 165-72

Excerpted from Edmond Fagnan, trans., Kitab al-Kharaj (Le livre de l'impot foncier) (Paris, 1921). English translation in Bat Ye'or, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985), pp. 166

Primary source 1[edit]

Reliance of the traveller: the classic manual of Islamic sacred law ʻUmdat al-salik

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

Secondary source 2[edit]

Used as primary source, as contains excerpts from a primary source Ǧihād aṣ-ṣaġīr:Legitimation und Kampfdoktrinen ,By Thomas Tartsch, Pg98

Secondary source 3[edit]

Excerpted from Bidayat al-Mudjtahid, in Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Medieval and Modern Islam: The Chapters on Jihad from Averroes' Legal Handbook "Bidayat al-mudjtahid," trans. and annotated by Rudolph Peters (Leiden: Brill, 1977), pp. 9-25

Secondary source 4[edit]

Contains primary sources also, is an analysis by a US government backed institution, regarding rules of war in Islam Non Combatants in Muslims Legal thought,Page 15

Comments[edit]

As a note, I have informed the user that this discussion has been opened. - SudoGhost (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Since it's fairly evident that both the reporter and the other user are engaged in an edit war, I've blocked both for 24 hours. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin observation Are blocked edtiors not supposed to remove block notices from their page except when expired/unblocked? Croben ^Problem? 16:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he reverted to having the warnings and notice. Well... My question still stands, if someone could answer it. Croben ^Problem? 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:REMOVE, "Sanctions that are currently still in effect, including declined unblock requests, ban, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices ... may not be removed by the user" - SudoGhost (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I'll leave a note on his talkpage to make sure he knows. Croben ^Problem? 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? As long as they don't request an unblock, removing a block notice is the same as acknowledging it and waiting it out. It's only the denied unblock request that can't be removed, and that template even states as such (pretty sure it does). Leave 'em alone. 64.85.214.12 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the IP is correct, actually. The removal of block notices isn't prohibited by WP:REMOVE, the text that SudoGhost quoted above omits that and nothing else in the guideline says otherwise. Any admin or other editor who wants to see if a person has an active block just has to look at their edit history, it will say so right at the top. -- Atama頭 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You're correct, it seems I misread 'ban' for 'block', my apologies. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there are good groundings for this complain. It seems that the user Adamrce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is too uncompromising, with the objections is not entirely consistent, for there to be a development of the article where alternative well-sourced POV may contribute to the article and the debate. So in my opinion this has not been handled reasonably. And talking about doubtful sources, Proof 1 relies on references from www.khilafah.com, which seems to be from a sort of Hizb ut-Tahrir inclined webside, so maybe some double standard is also involved here? Davidelah (talk) 22:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I also find it highly dubious to create a section called "Best Jihad" based entirely on a quote on what the best jihad is. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof that user constantly changes reasons for removing properly sourced content

• 1)First he claimed he removed content because i only added 2 major opinions and that its not fair that i did not add the views of the other schools of islam here (note that there are only 4 major schools of Sunni Islam, see Madh'hab article)
• 2) After adding opinion of the 2 other schools, user removed data, now claiming "“You want to compete with BBC? Bring a secondary source!", and also said "All of the primary sources you provided have a section that explains the reason of war, which you excluded" here
• 3) All the sources were secondary sources, but to satisfy the user, i added more secondary sources and reasons for war, then user claimed "You're taking texture out of context"original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes" here

I came to conclusion that this user will never allow alternate views , he keeps changing reasons for removing content, now his reasons is that there is a dispute and cant add content until dispute settled, dispute is only between me and him, and no one else, and i think davidelah has disputed with him on the same topic also (before me)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Now i have added a properly referenced alternate opinion to the "best jihad" section, that user created recently. But user reverted my edit claiming "fixed misleading paraphrasing, according to the source; the whole section is about war, but I'm not sure if I got the sequence right" he said this, here, another user called "wiqi" stated , "You may wish to add any other interpretations of this concept in the same section"here, but Adamrce has problems adding alternate views, not only that. The info that he added(thats currently on that section) references www.khilafa.com, which is a website of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is accused of supprting terrorism, He keeps complaining about using proper sources *sigh*. Yet source i added was a secondary source of a book by a famous muslim scholar called Ibn Nuhaas, who analyses a primary source called the hadiths,this is the book . --Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's no secret that there's four major schools of Islamic thought, and it would be very useful to include summaries of their views on Jihad. It appears to me we have one editor who would like to do this and another editor who prefers the "western pop" version. Given the plaintiff's willingness to improve subject coverage, sources, and content and the defendant's obstinacy, I think we should warn Adamrce sternly to be more reasonable or be gone and award Misconceptions2 a Barnstar each for patience, scholarship, and perseverance. Rklawton (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you got an understanding about the debate, sir. You, for yourself, said summaries.

(1) The same discussion has been opened before. My main concern was not on the content nor the source. The two users were trying to prove that Jihad is to attack. The BBC source said that warfare Jihad is only allowed when under attack, which the four schools agree with that too; however, the editor was ignoring the content that explains the conditions in his source (i.e. in Shaffi: either attacked or surrounded by an enemy oppressing toward a war) and only inserted the parts that relate to a war. I insisted to discuss the topic before inserting, as it might be mislead to the readers. The user ignored most of my continues comments, and re-added the content after changing my least concerns. My main objective was to lead to a mutual agreed content on the talkpage, not the article. I wouldn't object on the schools if they were fairly inserted as a NPOV. I suggested to open a sandbox to fix the content together or get a third opinion, but I just don't think, in my opinion, that the editing should be done on the main article (especially as the inserted selection of content was picked based on a pov).

(2) The editor inserted a source that said "highest Jihad" solely talking about war and phrased it to "best Jihad", so I changed the edited phrasing from "best Jihad" to make it identical to the source, "highest Jihad'. Is that pushing my POV?

(3) The only dispute I got about my "Best Jihad" insertion is: "reverted Adamrce, there are many different quotes from muhammad about what the best jihad is". Another user put it back. I just put that source as a news article, but I would of inserted an alternative source if they ever objected (it already has another source referenced, btw).

Hopefully someone can take a look at what was going on, instead of deciding based on the selected number of claims AdvertAdam ^talk 08:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• If you removed the alternate view i added to the "best jihad" section on the grounds that it uses the word "highest", not "best".Then i could just as easily change the title of that section to "Highest and Best Jihad", so then you would have no reason to remove it? Or would you then have another reason to remove it. In my opinion, your arguments for removing content is putting you in a bad light here.

• update: for your information, the user wiqi, has added a more relevant hadith to that section from the same book now.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• I added the rules of warfare, but you did not like it, because you wanted the reasons for war. Which i added also. You clearly have in your head the idea that Jihad is only in defence, and that the 4 schools of Islam agree with you. Even the Islam article mentions [here] that , there are scholars who believe that Jihad is also offensive and to conquer. This is indicated in the following hadith of Muhammad, which i can also add to wikipedia with a secondary source, but you would remove:

On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. clans) the Prophet said, (After this battle) we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us." Sahih Bukhari, 5,59,435

• the secondary source to back this up would be:

The Holy war as it is known in Islam is basically an offensive war, and it is the duty of all Muslims of every age, when the needed military power is available, because our prophet Muhammad said that he is ordered by Allah to fight all people until they say ‘No God but Allah,’ and he is his messenger (pg 134)...It is meaningless to talk about the holy war as only defensive, otherwise, what did the prophet mean when he said, "from now on even if they don’t invade you, you must invade them. (Pg242)
[Dr. M. Sa’id Ramadan Al-Buti - "Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography", Pg. 73, English edition, published by Azhar University of Egypt (1988)]

• As for your claim that the 4 schools agree with your view that Jihad is only defensive, read the yellow part. Does it really seem that the 4 schools agree with you. I think you removed it because they dont agree with you. Here is a pic just so you know that i did add reasons for war and have highlighted the necessary part to show you they dont agree with you.
• You gave a quote from the reliance of the traveller, to prove that the 4 schools agree with you. The reliance of the traveller is only 1 school, not 4. But the book does not agree with you either " section 9.8 "objectives of jihad", it says:

  The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29) Reliance of the Traveller section 9.8

• In section 9.9 it says:

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) Reliance of the Traveller section 9.9

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On the 4 schools issue, I think there is a misunderstanding of what an Islamic school of jurisprudence is supposed to be. Roughly speaking, schools of jurisprudence are concerned with more general issues, like methods of interpreting texts or defining technical terms, such as Sunnah and Qiyas, etc. Anything beyond that, e.g., rules of jihad, is considered merely an opinion of one scholar which may or may not be common or acceptable to other scholars and followers of the same school. So instead of quoting individual scholars, I suggest that Misconceptions2 should find secondary sources that a) survey the opinions of multiple scholars of one school, and b) determine which points that most scholars agree upon. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are suggesting is impossible, where can i get such surveys from, the scholars of the past are not alive (do you know any organisation that takes such surveys, i believe you just dont want these rules on wikipedia). Also, you are trying to be technical, by claiming "interpreting texts or defining technical terms, such as Sunnah and Qiyas, etc. Anything beyond that, e.g., rules of jihad, is considered merely an opinion". Of course it is, so are the rules on Sunnah and Qiyas, those are opinions of scholars and schools, just like the rules of Jihad. I want to add these "opinions" of the scholars on the grounds ofNotability, as they do represent their schools.

If you would like, i can also add the opinions of the founders of those schools on the rules of Jihad, but those opinions are FAR FAR more extreme. You can find some here. Non Combatants in Islam- By the Hudson think tank , if i added some of their opinions on jihad (like allowing the killing of non combatants indiscriminately), would you remove it?-Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is simple really. "Reliance of the Traveler" is just one book of Shafi'i jurisprudence out of many, all of which are still actively being studied (some even considered more important than the Reliance). So what does the other Shafi'i books say about the rules of jihad? If you can't answer this simple question, then you should only cite secondary sources and not selectively quoting one primary source and ignoring all others (which violates WP:NOR). In any case, I suggest taking this discussion back to Talk:Jihad, as we are off topic here. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In Talk:Jihad, there was an endless discussion (even Adamrce acknowledged this). This can only be sorted by admin intervention. Furthermroe, i DID cite mainly secondary sources which were analysing those primary sources, see above. Ok you tell me in your opinion what are the most important books of those 4 schools of Islam, and i will cite them with secondary sources, i also hope you dont remove them. I am going to great lengths to satisfy you and Adamrce (i doubt i will ever satisfy Adamrce).I think it is best that i just cite the views of the founders of the 4 schools

All i want is a resolution from admins about the actions of Adamrce. Since he does not allow alternate views--Misconceptions2 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion on the procedures:[edit]

I'm User:Adamrce, so I hope you don't get confused with my signature. The only pov I'm pushing, which I think is legitimate, is to keep the discussion on the talk-page or soap box, not the main article as it could mislead readers during editing; where anyone can invite admins, mediators, third opinions...etc, because this topic is tagged with controversial. I hope any admin can comment on this point, as I've invited the disputer to build a soapbox together many times with no hope. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to reply to these claims here, but I'll answer some so no-one thinks I'm avoiding this discussion. Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I've stopped editing everything.

• Misconceptions2, you have no right, at all, to change the wording to your own intentions. I did not remove your contribution as you claim, but corrected the wording to match the source. It said "Highest Jihad" not "Best Jihad". However, you reverted it back to the wrong interpretation and User:Wiqi55 corrected it, again. I hope you're satisfied.
• Yes, your source says that the Muslims fight the non-Muslims until they pay tax or become Muslims in-order to live in peace, BECAUSE a section before it said that it is when their enemies surround them calling for war!!! We can't fix this wording on the article, which I suggested many times to open a soapbox to work on it together. Again, you can't just pick the statements you like and ignore the rest.

I'm not sure if we're allowed to finish this discussion here, so I can answer all disputes. AdvertAdam ^talk 21:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please (i have been as compromising as i can, and have done everything to satify you), i really dont have the stomach to argue with you any further. Clearly any scholarly opinions that goes against your idea that "Jihad is defensive and is done only to bring peace", will be removed by you, with whatever excuse you think of (even if it meets all the rules of wiki, yes this is an accusation which i have provided proof for right at top). I would like an admin to read what has already been said and help us end this arguement. All i want is an admin to decide wether Adamrce was right to remove alternate views (and only keep bbc opinions of the rules of warefare in islam), i dont have anything else to say--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Also AdamRce, i will consider this issue resolved if you just tell me what is wrong with my edits. Is it that i dont add any secondary sources, is it that all my sources are unreliable... from your point of view? What is it that makes u remove the edits, and what do i have to do, such that, you wont remove the edits of the alternate views on the rules of warfare?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to satisfy ourselves, but should all work together to satisfy the readers. You and another editor had a couple claims on me, and a third user called my sources "western pop" (even though I had Arabic sources and lived in the Middle-East for a long time, too). I've stopped editing for three days waiting for this claim to close. I already explained my points here, so we should wait for an admin's decision. Keeping the discussion going will just slow things down, I guess. I have 300 pages on my watch-list, so each day is a disaster for me to follow-up. All points are clear here and I hope an admin jumps in soon :). I know that I'm already unblocked, but I just don't want to keep editing if I was doing anything wrong. I already learned my lesson about the edit war and double-checked how to avoid it. Peace everyone and good luck AdvertAdam ^talk 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

request for page freeze , with sourced content i added[edit]

I talked to an admin on live chat and they suggested that i should request a page freeze, including the content i added on the alternate view. on the rules of warefare [see here]

Will any admins consider? I would close this AN/I, if Adamrce would just tell me what i have to do such that he wont remove the content i added. i already asked the question above, but user avoided question--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Either, I'm not speaking English, or you're not reading English.

I avoided your last question for one simple reason; I've answered it already: two times here, two times on your talkpage (where you deleted them), two times on the article's talkpage, and I think another time on another article's discussion page. You gave your side of the story and I gave mine, so I was asking for an admin to comment and thought that keeping the same repeated discussion going will slow things down.

I'll repeat for the last time. I suggested that we can open a soapbox to work on that edit and link the soapbox to the discussion page, because it's a large content and any error is misleading to the readers. Those edits might take some time to get ordered. It really is as simple as that. You never commented nor listened to my suggestions. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 17:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I have already discussed with you enough, no need for soap box. you will keep argueing with me. just tell everyone (or if you already have, please repeat), what i must do, such that you wont revert my edits. Just tell me what you find wrong with my edits ! (also i have been told that the AN/I will take 14 days at least to settle, so stick around for next 10 days please)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A soapbox is a place where we can both make edits without misleading readers, and it can be under your control (on your account) while inviting editors to join with us. If you don't like it, fine. I have a lot of contribution to do, which I will continue. This topic can be discussed here till it's done, if that's what you want; even though we won't be able to insert any content here.

These are primary sources, based on what many editors told you before (not just me). Therefore, we need to summarize it fairly, not just pick what you like. What I had in mind, is to work on each source at a time. You can add the picky sentences you love, then I need to add a summary regarding the reasons for the war (as explanation in my first edit in the "Requesting an opinion on the procedures" section above. I also have to mention that each book doesn't represent the whole sector of Islam, like Hanaffi, as each book only represents a single scholars' opinion. So, there's many books for each sect, as told to you by another user, too. I'm just trying to make you aware of the things that you misunderstand, because you're not a Muslim nor have any experiences in Muslim sources (in my opinion). I know you're gonna say that you supplied secondary source, but your inserted quotations are from a primary source; so we need to be double careful! Take care ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Who said they are all primary sources , can you tell me. Also, why wont you tell me whats wrong with my edits, you just said i pick out sentences i like. the section was about rules of warfare. so i took the rules of warfare from the books (was i supposed to take out other non related quotes???). all sources except 1, where secondary (if you had checked above). anyway, i will be re adding the rules of warfare, you can add reasons. which you said you want to do. and i will see if you remove it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what to do in the case of three editors commenting at a discussion of the block of Sarah777, when the discussion had already been archived. My feeling is that all three edits should be reverted and the discussion restored to its archived state, since per watchlists the late additions may not have been seen by a majority of participants. That would mean that the "conclusion" and "winding down" of the thread has a coda that was not part of the discussion, but simply post-archival edits and opinions which skew the final stable version of the thread. Here are the diffs: [71], [72], and [73]. AGF for the editors; however, my view is that these edits should be removed from the archive. Please act to do so and comment here if that view is correct. I have not contacted the editors, this is somewhat minor but if that is thought necessary please let me know. Thank you. Sswonk (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I know it doesn't follow a literal reading of the rules, but I think the second diff, in which HighKing graciously acknowledges an error on his part and makes no other comment, should be re-instated. Kanguole 12:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, not that HighKing was gracious but that a post-archival edit should be made and allowed to stand; it is a classic slippery slope. If we make allowances, there may occur debates on whether a time limit for redactions, edits and comments exists, if a gracious revision is allowed to stand but a grumpy one is not, etc. It is best to simply leave the page as it was originally archived and not invite discussions over such issues. Sswonk (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

An IP made this edit to Nancy Cartwright, with an edit summary suggesting that Cartwright did not want information about the death of a former boyfriend included. That edit summary has now been hidden, although it does not appear to meet any of the criteria for revision deletion. It is unclear to me why the edit summary was hidden but I have checked the logs and no entry appears for this revision deletion. So, my questions are:

1. Why was this edit summary hidden?
2. Who hid the edit summary?
3. Why does this not appear in the deletion log?

Can some helpful admin look into this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in the log because it has been Oversighted, not RevDel'd (not even admins can see it). There was probably an OTRS request (just a guess, but I see no other context). If you think it needs to be reviewed you need to contact the audit sub-comittee --Errant ^(chat!) 00:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically, we call it suppression rather than oversight, because a true oversight (using the original tool) wouldn't show up in the page history. Only the edit summary was suppressed for that edit; it contained non-public personal information. The actual edit itself was not suppressed. Risker (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it may have been revision hidden before it was suppressed, but perhaps I am wrong. At any rate, the edit summary prior to oversighting was "Nancy Cartwright has requested SEVERAL times that this portion (that I have edited) be taken down IMMEDIATELY. Please call with any questions" and a phone number which I have redacted in case that is the reason for oversight. Googling that number reveals it to be the phone number for Cartwright's management. The issue seems to a passage inserted into the article by User:Cirt about the death of a former boyfriend. Given that the section on Cartwright's personal life is a total of five paragraphs (counting the disputed section), it seems that the IP may have a point about including this material. Whats more, the section uses a Scientology publication as a reference, which seems unusual given that there appears to be a long-standing general consensus that Scientology publications are not reliable sources. To remove the edit summary in this case makes it appear that the IP was simply vandalizing the article rather than attempting to explain their actions (in fact, Cirt gave them a warning for blanking). I can see no reason for suppressing this edit summary - can someone clarify the rationale and who requested the oversight? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Phone numbers are routinely removed and suppressed because they are not verifiably associated with the editor inserting the information. When the only thing that needs to be suppressed is the edit summary, that is all that is suppressed; the edit itself did not qualify. I have already supplied the rationale above. We do not supply the names of individuals who request oversight or suppression, and I am rather disturbed that you would ask. As to the paragraph in question, I have removed it from the article as an editorial decision: if there's no information verifying that they even married, the person's religious beliefs and death are completely irrelevant to this article. Risker (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I am unsure why you would be disturbed by my question about who requested the suppression. I have asked for material to be oversighted in the past. If I had asked for something as seemingly banal as this suppression was, I would not be the least bit bothered that anyone knew I had done so. If it is policy not to divulge such information, that is fine, but the question itself seems harmless. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You might feel differently if it was a personal attack or attempted outing/disclosure of personal information directed at you, or if there was reason to indicate that the editor whose edit were suppressed may direct unwanted attention toward you as the requestor. Since these are both commonplace issues when it comes to suppression, as are requests from the targeted individual, it does concern me that the question would arise in a widely read public forum. The majority of requests for suppression arrive by email, and these are treated confidentially. Risker (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I might feel differently if the situation were different, yes, but it I am speaking of this specific case. I understand that you are not going to answer my question and I understand why you are not going to answer it. I do not understand why you are concerned that I would ask the question or why my choice of venue is relevant. Recall that my original question was about the mysterious disappearance of an edit summary and no entry in the deletion log so I could not simply ask the admin why that explanatory edit summary was deleted. It seemed reasonable to ask here, given that it would also bring more eyes to that article. As you know, there are some special issues with BLPs of high-profile Scientologists such as Cartwright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally our approach to suppression is encouraged to be low-key (i.e. don't raise specific questions quite so publicly). This, of course, has transparency issues - which is the reason for the Audit committee. Ideally if you have questions about a supression they are the people to approach to clarify your concerns. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but sometimes a public discussion like this one can be helpful in fostering greater understanding of a process and the reasons for the process. And for raising questions about the process. For example, Risker alludes to the confidentially of emails, but does not explicitly state that requests made for oversight can not or will not be disclosed. Clearly this is not the place for that discussion, but it does highlight that there are some unknown or undocumented parts of a process that is necessarily prone to concerns of transparency. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The article above has been nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation for several hours now. In that time, the author of the article has asked for help on some social networking site to "contest" the deletion. The talk page of the article is now flooded with anonymous IPs requesting the article be kept, because "she wrote it, so it's legal."

Apart from WP:COI and WP:MEAT concerns, I'd like an admin to delete the article and attempt to explain to the editor about how copyright works on Wikipedia, which is frankly an area I'm not of much expertise in. It's a bit frustrating to see a new editor resort to these sort of tactics, especially when it's being tagged for legal reasons. elektrikSHOOS 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Article deleted by Slakr (talk), copyright issues explained to article author at WP:REFUND and on her talk page. JohnCD (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. This is starting to look a bit like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Sigh. Ah well. Mark as resolved? elektrikSHOOS 15:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is resolved, Leonard Kaye (Leonard Kevin Collins) is a new article with a slightly different name. - SudoGhost™ 17:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This was also tagged as a potential copyvio by CSB, but the editor removed the tag. I'm replacing it and will be evaluating the tag shortly. elektrikSHOOS 17:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation, at least not anymore. elektrikSHOOS 17:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Three users (User:Fikri Miftahul Rahmat, User:Ferry Deniswara, User:Diantika Rahmat Galih Permana) turned their userpages into something similar to athlete articles. All their contributions are limited to their userspace with exception of Fikri who created an article of himself (Fikri Miftahul Rahmat). It was speedily deleted. The three users link to each other as "family members" at their user talk. The same person may be behind the three. Moray An Par (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I left the uw-userpage template on their talk pages, as well as a link to WP:FAKEARTICLE. I just noticed that they were not notified of this discussion, so I'll leave them a note about this too. :) - SudoGhost™ 11:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Just as a side note, is it a good idea to have kids under 18 posting personal photos of themselves on Wikipedia, even if it's in the Userspace? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a good idea at all, although I'm not aware of any policy against it. However, there is a policy against non-free images in the userspace, and that image doesn't state if it is non-free or not. From Wikipedia:User pages#Images: Non-free images found on a user page (including user talk pages) will be removed (preferably by replacing it with a link to the image) without warning and, if not used in a Wikipedia article will be deleted entirely. - SudoGhost™ 12:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image as per Wikipedia:User pages#Images, because it is lacking a free content license. - SudoGhost™ 12:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Have concerns over usernames here. I'm pretty sure they may impersonate or promote non-notable materiel to Wikipedia. hmssolent\Let's convene 02:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I ran into Fikri Miftahul Rahmat and it was a mess trying to clean up after him as evidenced by his move log and all of the different locations where his user talk page ended up going. However, with these editors being young, I think they just don't know or understand what Wikipedia is all about. It seems fairly common for young editors to think Wikipedia is Facebook. Their user pages should probably be deleted through an MfD for being fake articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to wait until after I was sure they were able to read the talk pages, but User:Fikri Miftahul Rahmat is reinserting the image and continuing to make his user page look like an article, so I went ahead and tagged them for MfD. - SudoGhost™ 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

They just got blocked for being sockpuppets. Looking back at the edit history of the primary account, he's been at it for awhile. Looks like a serial vanity article creator. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Would an entirely uninvolved admin—preferably one familiar with the user RfC process—please look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer, and make a decision as to whether it has been properly certified? The focus of the RfC is alleged disruptive editing to articles, policies/guidelines, and talk pages. The certification section is here. The subject has disputed the certification here, and there is a discussion about it on talk here. A decision from an uninvolved admin to settle it one way or another would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done (not by me). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Simon Wessely is under attack again, and the blocking of Catherine Sanderson (talk · contribs) has led to the invasion of sock- and meatpuppets. I would be grateful if folks could keep an eye on the article (and on my talkpage), although the relevant blocks are in place. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I dropped the banhammer on a new troll as well, for the charming contribution left here. AN/I may need semi-protection as well. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WarriorsRock (talk · contribs) and BigChrisPaulFan (talk · contribs) registered within 12 minutes of each other and are randomly undoing legitimate edits with bogus reasons, especially on Terrence Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is in line with DiehardNFFLbarnone (talk · contribs)'s modus operandi. Previous ANI reports: 1, 2. —LOL ^T/_C 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor is vandalizing pages (inserting incorrect information, as noted here[80], which contradicts the official NBA page here[81], and hiding it behind inappropriate edit summaries that in no way indicate what the editor is really doing. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:DUCK set of socks to me, probably of DiehardNFFLbarnone based on edit history. So indeffed. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This article has been the target of multiple edits by User:Stellas4lunch, User:Bobadillaman, and IPs, adding largely nonsensical text and hoax information. It is done in a non-obvious way, by mixing information that may be true with edits that are patently untrue, and supposedly "sourced" from obscure offline sources. The most obvious sign of the hoax is the repetition of the names "Brown" and "Giles" in the text, the replacement of "naturalist" by "naturist", etc. etc. At this stage I've not been able to fully look into this, but am alerting admins to the problem at this early stage. It is likely that other articles may be involved, such as R v Brownhouse. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am reposting a comment I made in response to this allegation on the talk page:

"As one of the editors whose good faith you are impugning, I take strong offence at the notion that any edit I have made is in any way part of a hoax and I would ask you to withdraw that remark. It is highly unlikely that many history sources, particularly those covering material pre-twentieth century history, will be on-line and the notion that they should be is consequently of little relevance. I suppose the frequency of the names Brown and Giles might be considered unusual, but it is, as I'm sure the briefest research would tell you, a highly unusual building. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)" I contest these allegations in their entirety and believe that there may be an issue of sock puppetry between Ghmyrtle (talk) and User:Snowded. Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Stellas4lunch and Bobadillaman look suspiciously like the same person to me. Look at the same concentration of articles, then in particular look at the activity of both accounts in late April and early May. Both accounts disappeared in mid-late April, then both reappeared on 4 May, one account returning 3 minutes after the other finished editing. There are similar suspicious patterns throughout their editing histories. O Fenian (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it quite odd that Stellas4lunch, an editor with less than three hundred total edits and active for less than three months, would attempt to name two five-plus-year Wikipedia veterans as sockpuppets. Methinks I hear the unmistakable sound of a WP:BOOMERANG in flight... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding R v Brownhouse, the article names a "Giles Brownhouse" as a party in the case. The article is the only Google result for that name, no hits on Scholar, Books or News either. Please someone block the accounts immediately for this blatant hoax. O Fenian (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely a hoax. No such case as R v Brownhouse (I'm a lawyer I checked) which this editor created. All the Brown and Giles stuff in St John's Jerusalem is nonsense. eg Greek Philosopher Brontinus has been piped as Browntinus. DeCausa (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the problem arises either from arguments at English Defence League, or it's User:Irvine22 having fun at Snowded's expense again. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

How about checking Westlaw with the given citation? Stellas4lunch (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Whats the citation then? I'll have a look for kicks. I checked the Slapper reference (the latest version is on my desk) and it was completely bogus. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The nonsense started at the St Johns article a month ago when both editors started up within a few days of each other. It spread to EDL today so I don't think its Irvine22. We could do with a check user on both accounts although they may just be fellow EDL supports seeing what they can get away with the SAS link was a little obvious. Maybe just block the pair of them as disruptive. --Snowded ^TALK 21:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Both already indef blocked. DeCausa (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Both indef blocked, I speedy deleted the fictitious case. Can someone finish the job and revert their restoration of the material in this article? Fences&Windows 22:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. DeCausa (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Look here too. And the Hastings Star-Gazette is a paper in Minnisota.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed as Stellas4lunch:

• 1664s4lunch (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hydrolysed (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Leta1000flowersbloom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Loughswilly10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears that a series of accounts associated with artnet.com have been systematically spamming articles with links over the last few years and also deleting links to competing sites. I found three related accounts so far (User:69.167.111.2; User:216.119.245.2; and User:Astyaj) and deleted the inserted links, but I suspect there are more. The edits are too many to list individually, but you can find typical samples at [82], [83], [84], [85], and [86]; they also gave themselves a heck of a plug in art museum [87]. For more, click on any edit to an art-related article by one of these three accounts.

Are there any tools you'd suggest to find further overlapping accounts here, or any further action I should take? Or is it just not worth bothering? Or am I perhaps acting wrongly by deleting these links? Artnet.com doesn't seem to be a terrible site for a reference, but the deletions of competitors bug me, as well as the evident commercial interest in upping their web traffic. Khazar (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see any particular harm in mentioning being listed at artnet.com, other than the potential WP:LINKSPAM problem. I do, however, see huge problems arising from deleting competing sites' links. To me, that brings Wikipedia into a marketing WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's something to be avoided. Depending on how many IPs are involved and how pervasive the additions are, adding artnet.com to the blacklist might be an option, albeit a "nuclear" option. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the blacklist is a good idea, the magazine is a source used for articles. Fences&Windows 23:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I also think there are probably legitimate uses for their site; I started searching just for ArtNet and many references to the site were added by users who appeared at first glance legitimate (many edits, barnstars, DYK & GAs, etc.). What I've done for now is to remove all ArtNet references added by the suspected COI accounts on hopes that neutral editors will add them back in if they make a genuine contribution to the article. Khazar (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Kazhar,

I completely support your effort to make Wikipedia a better source of information. I fully understand Wikipedia rules; and I would like to assure you that artnet absolutely does not tolerate nor support the replacement of links to our competitors with links to artnet. Such replacements were apparently done in 2007, when another team was in place. All current artnet employees know they are not allowed to act against competitors’ interest. Even on our website, we often link to competitors in artnet Magazine (e.g., [88]) or on our link page ([89]).

The external links you deleted were however directing to artists’ pages on artnet Monographs [90], which is a free scholarly source of information on established artists and their catalogues. Sometimes it is even the official website of the artist (e.g., Lisa Bradley: [91]). The pages are firsthand information as they are written in collaboration with the artists, their estate, and/or galleries. The content is all based on scholarly publications; see example for Kara Walker: [92].

If you check the history of edits for the links that you removed, you will note that I did not add the links to artnet but mostly edited the product name from "Artists Works Catalogues" to "Monographs." The name recently changed on the artnet website, therefore we did not want Wikipedia users to be confused.

I strongly think these links, added by various neutral editors, were legitimate as the content of the links is a scholarly source of information in line with Wikipedia standards for external links.

I would like to kindly ask you to take my message into account to reconsider the interest of the links to artnet Monographs for Wikipedia users rather than solely focusing on the source of the edits. I thank you for your time and review. Astyaj (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I and another editor have asked Nautilyus (talk · contribs) not to add raw urls to Google books but to use the citation method used in the article he is editing. My last post to his talk page repeated my request, pointed out that he needed to be willing to communicate with other editors which he has so far failed to do except on one article talk page [93] and that if he continued not to communicate and to add raw urls I'd start a discussion here. He's had a block for sock puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nautilyus/Archive but seems to still be editing through 85.166.142.229 (talk · contribs). Notifying. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw this discussion because I had this editor's talk page watchlisted after previously crossing swords, but, in his or her defence, would like to point out that not formatting references shouldn't be considered a hanging offence - the whole idea of a wiki is that it's a collaborative environment where people do what they can or want to do, so those who want references to be formatted better should simply format them themselves. It's much better to provide a raw URL than no reference at all. Refusal to communicate is the only real problem here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the main problem is the editor's refusal to communicate, but the two issues are intertwined. And just giving raw urls makes it much harder to check which are reliable and which not, especially when as in this case the editor doesn't seem to understand our criteria - and they aren't adding urls to someone else's text, but to their own. If no one else has a better idea I'll struggle on for a while and if I get no response give the editor an indefinite block - relatively harmless as all they will have to do to get unblocked is start communicating. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So, this thread went into the archives without any action. The user continues to post irrelevant lists at WT:NORWAY, and restores them each time I've tried to delete them. Would an administrator please take an appropriate action here? Many thanks in advance, Eisfbnore ^talk 20:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think they are a sock (as stated in the archived thread), open an WP:SPI. If they continue to repost the lists after you and others have removed them, report them to WP:AN3 (BUT you might want to start putting {{uw-3rr}} warnings on their talk page before reporting). This user seems to have a misunderstand of the connection between the en- and no-wikis. One more observation, their talk page does not seem to be utilized too much; since your 1st thread was archived w/o input, that might be a hint to try to talk directly to the user first (which I know can be a waste of time, but will then at least justify further action by an admin). Best. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

And here we go again. Do I really have to start a discussion over at AN3 for this? --Eisfbnore ^talk 14:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I reverted User:Corner benchmark. Since no admins seem to think this warrants any attention (???????), add it to WP:SPI or WP:AN3, or go directly to an admin's talk page. (I'm the same person as before, dynamic IP.) --64.85.221.7 (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could uninvolved admins please take a look at Kingdom of Germany? For more than two months there has been reverts over the inclusion of dispute tags, accompanied with bad faith assumptions and incivility. The content of this article has been continuously challenged since its creation in January 2007, more than four years ago! Several editors have defended this article since then. Aren't people allowed to dispute the articles content when they challenge it on the talk page? What else are dispute tags for? Sometimes these editors remove the tags when they aren't even responding on the talk page. One of the editors has admin status with whom I had disputes before which showed the exact same pattern so I hope admins not close to him can take a look. I'm not requesting for anyone to get blocked, just admins to decide if it's legitimate to remove tags like that. Grey Fox (talk) 23:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of ideologically motivated users with no interest in adding content to the article, nor much knowledge of the period they are discussing, dumping tags onto the articles, then demanding free history lessons in order to stop, and playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT afterwards. I guess everyone else will be expected to go on until those two users get bored, but frankly I'm inclined to leave them to do what they like. One page like this doesn't justify the wasted energy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you feel too good to even discuss the issues which have existed for more than four years why don't you withdraw from the article? Grey Fox (talk) 00:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk page debates do not make real controversies. The challenging users have not provided any evidence of misused sources. Nor have they quoted any sources in opposition to the article. Srnec (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Disputing the available sources does. Grey Fox (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Would the two sides in this dispute be willing to sit down to formal mediation? Because I've reviewed the talk page and article history, and it is now a total charlie foxtrot situation. It is basically two entrenched sides screaming at each other and no one is backing down. I, as an admin, have no interest in picking a "winner" here, and indeed no admin should under what admins do, which is decidedly NOT deciding who "wins" in debates like this. Instead, my recommendation is that admins here do nothing, and instead the two sides agree to formal mediation in an attempt to reach a civil conclusion. Talking around in circles over the same exact points, with no changes, for two months isn't getting you anywhere. --Jayron32 05:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do that but I get the feeling the "other side" completely disregards us as editors. For example when I approached Deacon at his talk page he immediately reverted my message[98]. This was a related to a similar dispute on another article, but I don't think much of this attitude has changed. Grey Fox (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

An edit war appears to have broken out at Template:White nationalism between 72.148.105.57 (talk · contribs), who is deleting the majority of the entries on the grounds that "Much of the people and organizations placed on this was grossly innacurate and intended to slander this viewpoint." and a new editor Gay Guy in a Yal (talk · contribs), who insists that the British Nationalist Party is not truly White Nationalist, and that 72.148.105.57 is practicing "censorship" because he is a "zionist neocon pseudo-White Nationalist". As both sides appear to be behaving quite poorly, and are equally objectionable, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say block the both of them and/or fully protect the template. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 05:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted and fully protected. Maybe IAR a bit but also WP:COMMONSENSE. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure if this board should be used for garden variety problem editors but here goes.

Easternshorebuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA who's only interest appears to be removing any trace of political controversy from the Richard F. Colburn article. They've been at this for at least three years (maybe more as an IP) now despite multiple warnings and a reworking of the section they take offence to to make it more neutral. The section is typically deleted as 'not neccessary' [99] or 'irrelevant' [100] and the user has made no effort to discuss their problems with the section or understand why it's been re-added. They've made at least one attempt to protect the page [101], have made use of at least one sock/meatpuppet FactsOnlyCount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in this diff [102] and have reverted at least one re-addition of content as 'vandalism' [103]. They don't violate 3RR at any point and tend to appear for a few days then disappear for a while, so whilst it's not really a problem reverting them all day long, this obviously isn't productive and it would be nice to find a more permanant solution y'know.

Example diffs:[104],[105],[106],[107],[108],[109],[110],[111],[112],[113].

N.B. The controversies section isn't perfect and a legitimate argument could be made regarding finding better sourcing and avoiding WP:UNDUE however WP:BRD is the way to deal with this not section blanking. Bob House 884 (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If the user is working only to "whitewash" or "sanitize" a politician's article, they're not attempting to improve the project as a whole. I'd say this is the correct venue, although WP:COIN might be a good alternative based on their editing history. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You have a point but whilst I can't strictly prove COI (although it's extremely likely), I can prove long-term disruption, whitewashing/censorship, tendentious editing, edit warring, SPA etc. and the relevant warnings on talk. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I just took a look at the page, and removed one of the "controversies", because it was sourced to a press release from the subject of the insult. I'm not sure about the other one either, because there doesn't seem to have been much commentary on it beyond the Baltimore Sun article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that this posting has prompted a flurry of edits which have greatly improved the article, which is obviously a good thing, however the issue I'm raising hasn't really been addressed. Easternshorebuff's pattern of editing seems to suggest that he is not happy with any mention of controversies at all not for reasons of sourcing etc. but simply because doing so portrays Mr Colburn in a negative light. Could someone who can actually follow up on a warning perhaps explain this to him? Bob House 884 (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll see how he reacts to the cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not hopeful though. The last one lasted two weeks so keep it watchlisted I suppose. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted again with no discussion, so I blocked indefinitely. If they actually want to discuss their changes, they can request unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, long term vandal blocked and major article improvements to boot - looks like one for the good guys. Thanks, Bob House 884 (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh could you block his obvious sock for good measure? Bob House 884 (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That account has been inactive for over two years. Usual practice is to let those kinds of sleeping dogs lie. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, can someone grab their mop and mosey on over to AIV? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Backlog appears to be cleared as of 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC). In the future, backlog notices for WP:AIV, WP:UAA and the like have traditionally been noted at WP:AN. Cheers. elektrikSHOOS 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Kaufman1111 (talk · contribs)
• Sockpuppet archive

This editor has continued to create sockpuppet accounts and edit disruptively at Oxyhydrogen and previously at Ruggero Santilli, and the associated talk pages. The opinion at Talk:Oxyhydrogen#Reussi appears to be that the talk page would be better off if edits from these sock puppets were removed on sight. I am bringing the proposal for a ban of User:Kaufman1111 here for discussion. Given that all known socks are blocked I am not sure how notification is expected to work; I notified the main account here. VQuakr (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

[redacted speculation about user identity]

I would ask that an admin remove the above outing violation. --Blackmane (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! My profound apologies - I was unaware of that policy - much less that it applied to WP:COI discussions. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this." -- Atama頭 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a suspicion that a user is a particular person it is generally wise not to raise it on ANI which has very heavy traffic. There's a noticeboard for reporting editors who you suspect as having a conflict of interest in their editing, but you still can't speculate on their possible real life identity there either. --Blackmane (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This person has been vandalising many articles and violating multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines at once in the last couple of months, knowingly, repeatedly, incorrigibly, despite being warned countless times by Wikipedia administrators and editors. This person completely refuses to communicate in any way, despite being asked numerous times by Wikipedia administrators and editors to provide any explanation anywhere (e.g. "please provide an edit summary" on Backhand#1 or "please provide an edit summary" on Backhand #2), to communicate and cooperate (e.g. "discuss it on the talk page instead of reverting it", Backhand again, or "Talk it to the talk page", Backhand, once again). This person has already been blocked several times ([114], [115]), the whole IP address range abused by him was blocked ([116]), the Backhand article he has been vandalising the most was locked twice just because of him ("IP hopper edit warring against apparent consensus", "IP hopper has returned"), the person has received countless "last warnings" already (e.g. [117], [118], [119] etc.), and yet, the person still keeps doing it again every time the block or page protection expires. In other words, there is no hope their behaviour would ever change.

Please read all three parts of the archived case in the SPI to read about one of the issues, their chronic vandalism and sock puppetry in the Backhand article ([120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135]). Some of the administrators involved in the investigation suggested that the issue could be reported here at ANI instead of SPI. I won't copy the SPI report here, but I urge you to read it to understand the problem (in short: it is not a content dispute). However, the IP hopper's vandalism is not isoloated to the Backhand article. It is just the most prominent issue.

Wikipedia policies violated by the IP hopper:

1. Vandalism. I will separate the two types, as it may or may not be the same person (but I would say it is, addresses from the whole range often edit the same article or the same type of articles, in exactly the same fashion):
   1. Outside the Backhand article—although there appear to legitimate edits, too (but many of them seem to be questionable), the IP range is very often abused for vandalism (e.g. [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154] etc. etc.—these are just some of the recent examples of vandalism from the addresses used for vandalising the Backhand article, too, which strongly suggests it is the same person), the number of warnings received by this IP range is quite huge, too (see all their talk pages), and the user has already been blocked for vandalism before.
   2. In the Backhand article. Again, please read the SPI page to understand why it is vandalism and not some honest, good-faith mistake (in short: the user knows very well that what he is constantly re-adding is nonsense, and intentional addition of nonsense qualifies as vandalism as described in the Vandalism policy). The chronic nature of this vandalism, combined with the fact that the user has been blocked before, and asked countless times to stop, by itself would be sufficient for an indefinite block.
2. Sock puppetry. There is no doubt that all IP addressess used for re-adding the "single-handed backhand is currently used by Sampras to Federer" nonsense (e.g. [155]) into the Backhand article are used by the same person—it has been confirmed by three Wikipedia administrators already (HelloAnnyong, Elockid, Ged UK). It could be argued that the IP addresses are assigned dynamically, and therefore, even though it is undoubtledly the same person, the IP hopping is not intentional, but I don't think that's the case here. First, when you look into the edit history used by these addresses, you can find some "test edits" (a single vandalising edit immediately followed by a revert or another vandalising edit just a couple of seconds later from a new address from the same range—like for example [156] & [157], [158] & [159], [160] & [161], [162] & [163], or the [164], [165], and [166] series) which seem to be used by the IP hopper just to see whether the IP address is different from the last one or just to make the vandalism more difficult to revert and warn/block the user. Second, when you look in the Backhand article history, you can see that the reverts are sometimes made in such a short succession (e.g. [167] & [168]), that unintentional IP address change is unlikely. The IP hopper is intentionally changing their addresses for working around the Wikipedia rules such as 3RR, but mostly, and that's the most difficult issue here, just for making it very problematic to warn them, block them from editing etc. You could also argue that the vandalism outside the Backhand article is made by a different person or different people, but the edits follow the same pattern as the vandalism in the Backhand article—no edit summary (except for the default "Undid revision..." text in reverts, which is basically no edit summary, too), no reactions to requests for discussion and warnings. The chronic nature of this IP hopping, combined with the fact that the person (or their IP address range) has already been blocked for IP hopping in the Backhand article before and received innumerable "last warnings", "last warnings after last warnings" and "last warnings after last warnings after last warnings" for their sock puppetry, is by itself much more than enough for an indefinite block, which is explained in the Sock puppetry policy.
3. Consensus. The user has been adding nonsense into the Backhand article in the last two months despite the clear consensus established by all involved Wikipedia editors and administrators. Again, see the SPI case for more details, or the article history. I would just like to point out that this is not a content dispute or a two-sided edit warring. The consensus has been clearly established ([169], [170], [171], [172]), confirmed by administrators, too, and the IP hopper is acting against the Wikipedia rules.
4. Edit warring. It has already been indentified as edit warring by a Wikipedia administrator ("IP hopper edit warring against apparent consensus"). The IP hopper even broke the three-revert rule a couple of days ago ([173], [174], [175], [176]). He is also acting against the will of everyone else involved. This also explains why other people who revert their edit are not involved in edit warring—firstly, the reverts by the IP hopper, after so many weeks, clearly qualify as vandalism, which is something none of the involved Wikipedia admins has denied, and undoing obvious vandalism (and vandalism repeatedly confirmed by Wikipedia admins is obvious) does not count as a revert when it comes to the 3RR or edit warring (it is explicitly mentioned as a legitimate exception in the policies), secondly, again, the consensus to keep the original version is clear.
5. Verifiability. This is a core Wikipedia policy. The IP hopper was asked to provide a source for their nonsense in a revert explanation by MarnetteD (a legitimate request, since claiming that Pete Sampras, retired in 2002, is a current active player, really needs a source—as the policy says, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources"). Instead of providing the source, the IP hopper, as always, ignored the request, and, as always, simply reverted the edit without any explanation.

Possible solutions:

1. Block the IP range. This would be the most appropriate solution. The above mentioned Wikipedia policies say that such a chronic long-term behaviour with incorrigible recidivism deserves an indefinite block. However, as the SPI administrators said, blocking the whole range could also block legitimate users from this range. An indefinite block may not be sensible for such a dynamic IP range. Still, I would suggest a long block (shorter ones did not work, see above), like one year. Another question is which range should be blocked. The original range blocked by HelloAnnyong was 220.255.1.0/26. Then the IP hopper started using the 220.255.2.x addresses, and the combined range suggested by Elockid was 220.255.1.0/22. But you could be more conservative and block only the recent 220.255.2.x addresses.
2. Protect the Backhand article. This would be the easiest option. It would not prevent the massive vandalism in other articles, but it could at least protect the most critical one. But the duration should be much longer this time. The article has already been protected twice in the last couple of weeks, for one week and then for two weeks. And the vandalism by the IP hopper always resumes after that. I would therefore suggest six or twelve months.
3. Other measures mentioned by the SPI administrator. I don't know about filters and other tools mentioned by Elockid, so I am unable to comment on that. Could the range be blocked from editing specific articles (like Backhand) perhaps?—J. M. (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• The vandalism isn't all that frequent to merit semi-protection, but I think that a narrow range block of 220.255.2.x would be the best solution. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a significant number of edits coming from 220.255.1.x and 220.255.2.x, most of which appear to be good faith [177], [178]. I think a range block over these 512 addresses, though relatively small, would still do more harm than good. VQuakr (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to comment on two things. The sockpuppetry claim doesn't strike me as particularly true. SingNet is so notoriously dynamic it even has its own template: Template:SingNet. Users don't get much choice when they're using the SingNet proxies (and these seem to be caching proxies). This is a popular ISP with a lot of constructive editors in a small country, hence the variety of edits, and a range block should generally be avoided if possible.

I also see talk of edit-warring against 'clear consensus'. I can only see one comment about this at Talk:Backhand. From reading that comment, and reading that article, perhaps it would be appropriate to adjust the context of that list? It can often be said that when someone repeatedly changes an article, even if the changes are not the right ones, it indicates a need for the article to be changed. In terms of admin tools, semi-protection would be the one to use here. For consistency I'd recommend having a word with one of the admins who did it before. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For the sock puppetry: there is absolutely no doubt that all of the listed "Pete Sampras" additions in the Backhand article come from a single person. None of the admins in the sock puppet investigation has denied it, on the contrary, the admins confirmed it, blocked the user (their IP range) for the sock puppetry etc., plus all of the reverts are identical: always the same edit (adding Pete Sampras), always the same style (undid revision by..., no explanation in the edit summary), no reactions to any requests for discussion and warnings. This clearly passes the duck test. Furthermore, like I said, the IP address changing is intentional. Sure, there are innocent people using the IP range, too. I am definitely not trying to suggest that the IP hopper is the only person using this range. But this particular vandal I am talking about is changing the addresses intentionally, knowingly. Please see the provided examples. Is it extremely unlikely that the series of vandalising edits during several seconds from the same IP range in exactly the same fashion (no edit summary, editing the same sententce in the same article) would come from different people. And these are just examples, not a complete list. So yes, I agree that blocking the whole IP range would also block legitimate users. That's why I also suggested other options, and there may also be other tools (filters?) that I'm not familiar with. But something must be done.

For the consensus: again, the consensus is clear. The comment on the Backhand talk page you mentioned is way too old and now irrelevant (it was two months ago, just to explain my revert when it all started, because that's the way Wikipedia works—bold, revert, discuss, that is, when someone's addition gets reverted, it should be discussed, not reverted back). It is just one of many requests for discussion that the IP hopper ignored. Like I already explained in my report, the consensus has been established by four different people (see the provided diffs). Secondly, like I explained on the SPI page (and I asked anyone interested in commenting on this issue to read the SPI report), the IP hopper is the only one preferring his version. Noone else wants that version. His version has been repeatedly reverted by several different people, and noone except the IP hopper has ever restored it. Furthermore, everyone else is trying to discuss the matter, all people involved in the Backhand article always explain their actions, while the IP hopper completely refuses to say a single word anywhere, despite being asked countless times to do so. And finally, like I explained, too, the IP hopper's version does not make sense. It is broken factually (it is verifiably wrong, the fact that Pete Sampras, retired in 2002, is not an active player, simply cannot be disputed, it is a fact), it is broken grammatically (the sentence "is used by Sampras to Federer" does not make sense), and most importantly, the IP hopper knows it, as he (or she) has ben reminded of it at least a dozen times. Which means the IP hopper is aware of the fact that it is wrong. He does not keep re-adding it because he thinks it is correct. This also does not indicate that the article needs a change, all it indicates is that the vandal likes Pete Sampras and is having fun wasting our time dealing with his behaviour. The IP hopper does not keep readding the nonsense because he thinks it would be a good addition, but, after so many weeks, after being blocked for re-adding it, after the article was protected twice because of him constantly re-adding it, after being asked by an administrator to stop re-adding it, simply because of the fun of it and because he knows that as he is changing the IP addresses, he will never get caught and blocked from editing. He knows he can keep doing it forever, because the flaws in the way Wikipedia operates currently guarantee that nothing happens.—J. M. (talk) 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

And one more thing. What's perhaps even more important is that this serves as a general guideline, a manual for anyone interested in vandalising Wikipedia: just keep changing your addresses (the dynamically assigned addresses from your range will do, this is easy to do with many ISPs), and you can keep vandalising, spamming and disrupting forever, despite the fact that the Wikipedia policies say that anyone doing it must be blocked from editing. That's even more serious than this particular IP hopper. Unless there are filters or other tools that could be used in cases like this (again, please does anybody know about the filter mentioned by Elockid and whether it could be expanded and how?), it is currently a fundamental crack in the way Wikipedia works and a simple and reliable way for anyone to circumvent all official Wikipedia rules without any consequences. Which could serve as a basis for a discussion about possible new tools for preventing this in the future, and generally about changes in the way Wikipedia should work in the future. As a person who spent the last five years fighting spam and vandalism on Wikipedia, seeing all the tricks used by the huge number of spammers, IP hoppers and other people disrupting Wikipedia, I would definitely welcome a discussion like that (not here, of course, I know).—J. M. (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I received legal threats (User_talk:Ihcoyc#Speedy_Deletion_Appeal) from User:Lassiew concerning the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Global Townhall. He apparently claims that the original nominator's mention that the page was a "possible hoax" is libellous. Someone uninvolved probably ought to decide whether a block is called for (he has one more warning for disruptive editing) or whether that article should be refunded. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Lassiew appears to be trying some very heavy-handed tactics to get their pet article restored from a well-called speedy deletion. One thing that jumps out at me is that they don't know the difference between slander and libel, which calls their motivation into question up front. Then there are several arguments attempting to equate notable people with making a company notable. If a local weekly newspaper manages to get an interview with a state Governor and a Fortune 500 CEO, does that make the newspaper notable? I'd argue not; they're still a local weekly newspaper no matter who they land an interview with. If it were me, I'd warn Lassiew regarding WP:NLT and let the speedy delete stand. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given the editor some friendly advice regarding reliable, independent sources on their talk page. I've also recommended that they withdraw all legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at their Contribution history...apparently this "Global Townhall" has been getting interviews with fairly A-list people since at least 2009. Funny how no one seems to know anything about that publication. I blame their Marketing department. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have explained enough to the User:Intoronto1125, "Community" is different from "Ethnicity", but he or she is constantly adding Tamil Canadian as the subject's Ethnicity, but that is merely a Community with 30 years of history in Canada. We need Admins involvement on this issue.Rajk2011 (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Jesucristo, exactly how many times have you two reverted in the last 24 hours? --Golbez (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So now that you've brought yourself here to be hanged, the question is, do I block you both for 48 hours, or do I block you both for 48 hours and protect the article on the wrong version for a week? Decisions! So exciting. --Golbez (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was a false choice, since I just protected it. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR violation, but a person's Ethnicity matters a lot. Great Civilization wiped out not by War, but by racial and ethnic disintegration.Rajk2011 (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please check the 3RR board. I have reviewed the point with people on the administrator chat and they said it was fine to go put it back. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked both parties for 24h for egregious edit warring and xRR violations. At this volume, and without blatant vandalism, there was no justification for either party to continue. That said, now that things have quieted down, perhaps my protection was premature? --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Golbez, their antagonism dates back to 3 May 2011. Both users engaged in edit warring on 19 May and again today. FPP doesn't seem premature. Meph^talk 19:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gang, while under your current situation, I'd perhaps suggest coming up with rational arguments to present to others for each of your feelings on this matter. Then, file an RFC asking other editors to come in and help out. Work out a consensus between them. Currently, this seems to be a content dispute over the appropriate choice of words. The easiest way to resolve this is to introduce other parties to the discussion, otherwise, it will still remain party 1 against party 2. And of course, if the article or articles in question have a number of editors, the article's talk page is also a great way to start. Please keep one thing in mind though; once a consensus is reached (and give it time for such to happen), one of you will be "wrong" and one of you will be "right" - at that point, please remember that this is a community effort. The articles, rules, guidelines and policies are supposed to reflect the views of the community. I am hoping whoever's opinion on this matter becomes consensus can graciously abide by that consensus. Keep in mind, you haven't really "lost" or "won" - the community simply picked the choice they felt best suited to it's desires. Who knows? Maybe some sort of compromise that adequately uses each phrase in an acceptable explanatory way can be reached with the help of others? Best of luck to you both on getting this resolved. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Would someone take a look at Avenugopalarao2011 (talk · contribs)'s most recent edits (the last 3 articles) - I'm going out and can't decide if there is a competence problem there or something else (or if I'm just misunderstanding the editor). Thanks. Notifying Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think there's a competence issue--someone of good faith writing in poor English, and making odd comments on pages. I've repeated your action on Rigveda; they made a similarly incompetent edit again. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This was archived but I'm bring it up again. Virtually every one of this editor's edits are in English so badly fractured (and typed) that it is almost impossible to be sure what they are trying to say. None of them are sourced. Here [179] for instance " but had a positive valuation: it was a place or position of religious or psychological interest with a special value of function of its own. " becomes " but had a positive valuationd also evaluation. an: it was a place or position of religious or psychological interest with a special value of function of its own." which is bad enough but even worse as it's a quotation. Others are worse. I raised this with User:OlEnglish as he had reverted an edit and his comment (on his talk page) was "Yes I agree. Definitely a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I went back and reviewed all of his contributions and almost everyone they ALL had to be undone. Here's a fine example: [180] " (I'll tell him I posted this here). Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I checked their last edits and they were all problematic - mostly unintelligible or seemingly nonsensical changes to articles. Blocked indefinitely for lack of competence.  Sandstein  21:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ganas article and Ganas talk page. Marelstrom (talk) continues to substitute properly referenced material with unverified and trivial statements, and attempts to out Eroberer (talk). Please consider protecting the 429492686 revision of the article. Eroberer (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ganas is communitarian group in Staten Island, New York that has an interesting history to say the least. My concern is that over the past 6-7 months we have been having a string of SPA accounts most vocal being (Eroberer (talk · contribs)) who has strong dislike of Ganas. Eroberer's dislike of Ganas has resulted in alot of POV-Pushing, behavior is relatively civil with established editors but down right aggressive with any one they disagree with. The most recent incident was an outing that was just oversighted this morning (Well my time at least) where a new editor said made an accusation about Eroberer which amplifies my concerns. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

• User talk:Marelstrom is a liar, as they above claim to be "not a Ganas resident." Excuuuuuuse Me!
• you are clearly a Ganas resident and intrinsically biased.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to look for references to any of my contributions as needed. --Marelstrom (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like for there to be additional contributors. The summary as I have it now (though could be reverted at any instant) is mostly my point of view, and I don't mind it being adapted to hold other views, but I think Eroberer's POV is too heavily weighted in this article. What the article needs is Eroberer off, and a dozen other editors on. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Once I had a report here (this one) in which I was confonted with a situation I wasn´t sure how to explain back then. Now I see it is named "supression of edits from the edit history". Could I ask please if someone could help me check if that was what happend in the incident of the report I made back then? Basically, I complained about an edit of another editor that an hour later was modified in content but without edit history record, only explained by the mentioned supression. I beleave the edit was "fixed" by supression and my report sabotaged that way. As I am no admin, I don´t have the tools to check it, so by now all I can do is ask for help here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any revision deletion that's occurred, and you'll probably have to ask and oversighter if any suppression was involved, but I don't think there was. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can't see that an item looks like it has been suppressed, i.e. it looks like a RevDel but admin status means you still can't see the diff (and you get a message that it is restricted to those with Oversight access) then it is either oversighted - removed completely from the records - or there is a question of whether the correct diff is being looked for. From my review I cannot see an oversighted diff either. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I thank you both very much for your feedback and suggestions for this. FkpCascais (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Page: Atomic Coffee Machine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

• 121.45.132.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Flipper98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 118.210.82.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 118.210.71.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 118.210.67.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rasmustannebek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A pitched battle is being fought over this article. The edit history is all these users reverting each other over an over. Both versions being fought over have poor content. Better, though not great content, predates both sides versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atomic_Coffee_Machine&oldid=415554716 --108.54.17.250 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggest this get posted (soon!) at WP:ANEW. All the IPs are from the same ISP and geolocate to the same city, so that may be one IP-hopping user. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the history again and Rasmustannebek may not be actually part of the war.--108.54.17.250 (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So it's going back and forth between Flipper98 and what looks like a single IP-hopping user, does that look accurate? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

None of these users were notified. I've notified them now, but would ask the nominator to remember in future to put {{subst:ANI-notice}} --~~~~ at the talk page of every user reported to AN/I. --NellieBly (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There's been some edit warring at Temple Mount over era styles for a few days which has heated way up today. This article has been stable for years with the BC/BCE era style until a few days ago when an IP 71.245.92.36 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) changed it to BC/AD and began edit-warring his changes into the article. That edit war was subsequently picked up by 71firebird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I dropped a notice on his talk page about this and he was blocked by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). After this he created what are to me two rather obvious sockpuppets, Cwinsal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Buzzyleaonard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I also opened a talk page discussion to which this editor has not responded. He just continues to revert. At this point I think the best course of action would be to semiprotect the article and indef the main account and the socks.

Note:If the reviewing admin looks at the edit history of the article, he will see a number of reverts by Hertz1888 (talk · contribs). These may have violated the letter of 3RR, but since he was battling a determined tendentious sockpuppet and edit-warrior I believe this should be overlooked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:EWN? ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because there's more than one policy involved and more than one action I'm requesting. Also, I now see that all the offending accounts are blocked, so that part is already done. I still think the page should be semi'ed for a bit to prevent further disruption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should apologize for even bringing this here, Malik has already blocked the socks. Looks like he might have done it while I was typing up my original notice. Anyway, I just completed notifying all the editors I mentioned, but as far as I'm concerned this thread can be closed, although I still think the article should get a semi for a while. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I think, as you wrote, we were both doing our things at the same time. I'll semi-protect the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to report a suspected case of trolling by User:Tarannon103.

This user first came to my attention as the author of Greaves' Rules, a long-backlogged new page I opted to patrol. How I handled that article is relevant to this report, so I include here a description of my actions in tackling that article.

I should point out that that article's talk page reveals a pre-existing history on the part of Tarannon103 of attacking other editors, for which he was warned here and, apparently, here. I should mention, too, that the user's own talk page is even more revealing about the his attitude to the Wikipedia project and community, as shown here, here, here, here, here, here, and here (in which he attacks a third editor).

Keeping all this in mind, I made an effort to be especially polite towards this user, as evidenced here. Nonetheless, although I made a mistake in how I handled Greaves' Rules, I took responsibility for it when it was pointed out (evidenced here) and even stepped away from the article to avoid any further developments (as evidenced here).

In no way, therefore, do I believe I deserve to be treated like this!

I won't waste too much space refuting that diatribe. Any editor can check and see why I removed so many of the references from Greaves' Rules; that the primary burden for providing references lies with the author (WP:BURDEN); that at no point have I insulted him; that I simply re-added an existing notice incorrectly removed; that an article creator is often the least qualified to judge whether an article is up to Wikipedia's standards; that consistently improving my knowledge of WP's policies and procedures does not make such knowledge "alf [sic] baked"; that someone who's been "doing" Wikipedia "for years" should have a far better knowledge of WP guidelines and should at least know that references are supposed to support the sentences to which they're appended; that my user history and talk page still reveals a clear link between my username and my real name; that the only way in which I have shown off is in my userspace which is both my prerogative and my sole reward as a volunteer; and that, moreover, a non-existent storybook character cannot, logically, be more amusing than an existent being such as myself.

But, back to the main topic, I was relucatant to report this without first finding sufficient supporting evidence. Accordingly, in conjuction with the above evidence, if the community takes note of the user's real name and email address, we can not only see that this user operates his own blog, which he has attempted to use as a source, but also that he has already been banned from at least one forum (check his status here).

Considered all together, I suspect User:Tarannon103 is, at best, someone whose attitude to Wikipedia and the community needs a drastic rethink. People may think my comments have been rather strong but the fact of the matter is that I tolerated enough harassment when I was younger and I refuse to do so again.

LordVetinari (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at the editors talkpage regarding the necessity of their changing their manner of interaction - certainly in regard to you. I would wait to see what response they make, if any. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help. Sorry I haven't responded back sooner but I've been out all day. As for Tarannon103, I'll try to avoid crossing paths with him again. Thanks again. LordVetinari (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Observation For what it is worth, I have noticed User:Tarannon103 over-reacting to situations, in particular, the talk page for Greaves' Rules. Some of the comments aren't tilde'ed, but it is pretty obvious. The individual seems very defensive about articles he "owns". I don't have an opinion about what actions should be taken, but I have noticed it is appears to be an ongoing issue, not just a "bad day". Dennis Brown (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, noes! They know the truth about Lockerbie, etc. and have met my type before... An editor not long for this project, I suspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A user who appears to be upset that his product is not mentioned in the Vaporizer (cannabis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article appears to be restoring a version of the page that's over a year old, in order to restore advert mentions of their product. In the process, wiping out a large number of edits (over 200 edits) by multiple other editors that had provided incremental improvements to the article. The user's sole edits in Wikipedia appear to have been to insert advertisement mentions. See GammaFlow (talk · contribs) and 99.7.173.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

For reference see prior versions of article:

• 03:32, 21 May 2011 99.7.173.68
• 14:06, 15 April 2010 Syrthiss
  • comparison of the two versions

See also: Talk:Vaporizer (cannabis)#Merger proposal, where their primary argument for rolling back to the old version to restore the advertisements of their product is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

While I view their edits as vandalistic, I'm involved at this point and would prefer to have any needed reviews/actions be done by someone other than myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think their edits are more naive than vandalistic, as they are insisting on their preferred version of the article to ensure their product is mentioned. This is the only topic on which they have edited. I will help watch the page as I can think of no other action that needs doing at this time. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite their recent brush with ANI, User:Pfistermeister continues with the personal attacks in their edit summaries. Ample evidence here. Thanks for the help. Doniago (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just weighing in here to agree that this user needs a civility ban based on his persistent petty nastiness. Eusebeus (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask why no warnings have been given for what seem like blatant civility and NPA violations? I suspect that's the first step that should have happened. On that note though, this is not the first time. There's also 2 months ago[181], Feb 2008[182], and two instances of edit warring that have also been brought here - so, perhaps the warnings are a moot point anyway, as things have been made clear in the past about such behavior. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Given awkward sentences like "This was very much seen as blatant censorship by Griffith in the light of there being nothing factually inaccurate in the film", it might be better to focus on improving your writing skills rather than harping on perceived insults. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, regardless of anyone's awkward sentences, personal attacks and civility issues should be dealt with. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, content is what actually matters. If I wrote a sentence like that and was called "stupid", I would be hard pressed to argue against that characterization, and instead of whining about it I would work on improving my writing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Not totally sure what this has to do with the topic? (confused) Doniago (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Content is what matters more than behind-the-scenes bickering. Meanwhile, I'm trying to figure out where he took a verbal shot at either of you specifically. Diff's, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think widespread incivility to editors is at least as serious a problem as content. I don't care how accurate an editor's contributions are if they're consistently incivil when communicating with their fellow editors. Also, I didn't realize that an editor needed to specifically attack me in order for me to report them for personal attacks. Doniago (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

They don't necessarily. I just wondered what stake you had in this relatively minor set of verbal shots (regardless of the subsequent block)? If you get it right, then you won't get insulted, and the readers won't get mis-led by false information nor repelled by amateurish writing. That seems simple enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

When someone calls me an idiot, the first question I ask myself is not, "How dare they call me an idiot?" It's "Was I being an idiot?" If the answer is "Yes", then I work on fixing the problem. If the answer is "No", then I've got a counter-argument. Ya folla? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No personal stakes aside from I don't believe it's appropriate to leave edit summaries that are insulting, and we have a policy about that sort of thing. I think the only reason I got involved in this at all was because they reverted an edit to a page I was watching with a needlessly insulting summary way back when, and I've kept some tabs on them since. AFAIK aside from me leaving warnings on their Talk page we've not directly interacted...but then, they don't seem interested in having a dialog with anyone either.

I don't see how insulting your fellow editors should be considered minor. It's obviously a direct violation of WP:NPA and while it may encourage editors to avoid being "stupid" in the future, it's just as likely to drive away editors who might be interested in constructive contributions, especially if we present the appearance of being perfectly willing to condone such behavior. There's such a thing as constructive criticism and helping editors to improve in their contributions rather than blasting them because they screwed up. WP:AGF and such. And if the editors Pfistermeister insulted are determined vandals, then insulting them is pointless in any case, aside from possibly encouraging them to continue being vandals because Trolling is more fun when you get a reaction.

I understand your reasoning, I just feel that where it would lead would cause far more harm than good to the project. IMO, there are better ways. Doniago (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that Pfistermeister's abusive edit summaries are way out of proportion with the actual material he's complaining about - people get excoriated for what looks to me like errors which take a real expert to identify (and Pfistermeister certainly seems like a music expert), or relatively minor errors - anyone who doesn't know as much as he does and dares to make a mistake is open to his abuse. The recent "idiot" comment is relatively mild and wouldn't deserve a block on its own, but when you look back and see he has a tendency to lapse into much worse abuse - "clueless gobshite", "nut-jobs", "clueless amateur", "illiterate, illogical arse", "cretin", (and if you include Talk page comments, "ridiculous runt" and "arse-wipe"), I really think this latest block is completely justified - he must be prevented from reverting to form. (It's a real shame, because he is very knowledgeable, but we need to balance that against the harm his abuse is likely to do in driving away other editors) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• This editor has been warned before and blocked twice for his abusive edit summaries - see bottom of this version of his Talk page for his delightful responses to the March 2011 warning and block notice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Blocked for two weeks, I was going to leave a final warning but they were blocked for a week in March and have continued to be extremely uncivil. Fences&Windows 18:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully they'll take the hint this time. Doniago (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The stuff that Damiens is calling other editors (as noted a section or two above) is far worse than anything pointed to in this section. Yet he remains unblocked. Explanation, please? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit unsporting to take issue with a discussion that hasn't actually been resolved yet... Doniago (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Calling an editor "stupid" is a tad rude but is a potentially verifiable fact. Calling them "a mentally-ill, out-of-wedlock child" is nothing but a personal attack, no wiggle room there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs I'm frankly puzzled by your aggressive defence of this editors edit summaries. They are obviously bloody rude and probably bitey. Anyway, "mentally ill out of wedlock child" is just as potentially verifiable as "stupid", if not more so.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aggressively defending the editor. I just want to know why he was blocked so fast over content-related comments, whereas Damiens' far-worse comments are still being "discussed". A big, fat double-standard of some kind, right before our eyes. It does not speak well of the admin corps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bugs...such commentary does NOT belong in an edit summary. For that matter, such commentary doesn't belong on Wikipedia as a project. My take is that such behavior doesn't just cross the WP:NPA line; it jumps right into the middle of WP:NPA and flings it around like mud pies. (Smelly ones.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Er, which bit are you agreeing with there? Damien or this chap? Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Indef block review[edit]

As his response to the block was "Idiots", I've extended it to an indef block. He may be able to persuade an admin to reduce the block, or consensus may view this is too severe. Fences&Windows 23:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the block is right but could we give him one more chance to communicate on his talk page for a possible unblock request? If he abuses it, then immediately re-block per ROPE.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps maintain an indef block on WP as a whole with a 48-hour (or whatever others think is appropriate) block on their Talk page, making it clear what the situation is? I honestly wouldn't have expected otherwise from PM given their pattern of responses thus far, but maybe (just maybe) they'll get the message if we make it clear that until they actually communicate with their fellow editors they're not going anywhere... Doniago (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Expect sock puppets. –MuZemike 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Really? An indef block for calling someone an "idiot". That's comical at worst.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I'd have gone for an indef just yet, probably just suspension of Talk page access for the duration of the block - "Idiots" is positively endearing compared to the "ridiculous runt" and "arse-wipe" that he offered last time he was blocked ;-) Seriously, though, he has toned it down a lot since last time, and I'd hope that once his initial anger has subsided he might tone it down a bit further - I think it's worth one more chance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think indef is appropriate. The pattern of very aggressive editing and vicious engagement with other editors is longstanding and unchanging; no amount of engagement has yet been able to persuade the editor to desist. As a result, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the editor should find something else to do with his time as his net presence to the project is clearly detrimental. Eusebeus (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think an indef is appropriate until PM shows some willingness to engage with their fellow editors in a civil manner. Thus far I've seen little evidence of that. As I said above though, I'm amenable to them being able to edit their Talk page as a channel for communication, though I don't have high hopes. Doniago (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the indefinite block, not because of the "idiots", but in view of merely the last few edit summaries in his contributions log.  Sandstein  20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he seems to have hung himself with his talkpage comments. Thank you for at least giving him the chance that he blew.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

An indefinite block is excessive. I suggest downgrading it to two years, but keeping talk page access disabled for that time period to avoid escalation of the situation. Chester Markel (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chester Markel, you misunderstand the definition. Currently, the editor can apply for an unblock tomorrow, and it may be granted based on his responses, actions and understanding of the mistakes he got. Setting it to a two year block means (a) the definite block needs to be justified (not saying it cant be - or that it can), and (b) it'll be two years before it expires unless he can convince everyone that he deserves "early parole". Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. I've seen some indef's be unblocked in anything from a few hours to a few days. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 17:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody remember Link Starbureiy / Egglepple?
The problem may have returned, in a slightly different guise; today I noticed that some accounts have been adding this person's hoaxes to other articles:

• 72.174.34.195 (talk · contribs)
• Egglepple (talk · contribs)
• Rajpaj (talk · contribs)

At the moment, four items are at AfD: United Under Economy, Ronald Ellis (American businessman), File:Clopen symbol.png, and Joey Koala. There were quite a few other tweaks to existing articles, for instance [183] [184]. Unfortunately, all contribs of the older accounts Onstardriver (talk · contribs) and Wikidowd (talk · contribs) have been deleted so I can't see them. The latter is blocked. Would it be possible for somebody to have a look, and confirm whether they are related to current activity/accounts, or whether other articles need to be checked? (If one dubious edit gets deleted, another account might have come back a few months later to reinsert the hoax). bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Has any other account contributed to any of the previous incarnations of the Link Starbureiy / Egglepple articles? I noticed that Rajpaj (talk · contribs) had some talkpage warnings about the article (which were swiftly removed) but the article isn't visible in their contribution history, of course. Would it be appropriate to block Egglepple (the user, not the eponymous article) or Rajpaj as active hoaxers and/or socks of the indef-blocked Wikidowd, or is that too harsh? bobrayner (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. Onstardirve and Wikidowd did nothing but edit the deleted articles Egglepple and Link Starbureiy. There is also a repeatedly recreated article at The Egglepple Company; the main contributor was Rajpaj. The only article of the collection that is create-protected at present is Link Starbureiy. These three articles have no other contributors other than IPs and various people who added maintenance tags and the like. The Rajpaj account dates back to 2006 so it's not a sock of Wikidowd, which first edited Sept 2010. This is a difficult problem as there is nothing stopping them from creating still further accounts or editing from IPs and the material they are adding looks plausible enough that recent changes patrollers will likely let at least some of it pass. And of course there's nothing stopping the IP range from adding stuff since this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and we don't indef-block IPs. I am going to post a message on Rajpaj's talk page and I will help you watch. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Agreed that some of the changes (both the new articles, and the tweaks to existing articles) often look superficially plausible so they get past our "first line of defense". I've watchlisted The Egglepple Company and some other (unsalted) terms that are common in this hoax-system. However, I'd disagree with you on the sock thing, as WP:SOCK doesn't really distinguish between account creation dates - using an older account to evade restrictions/scrutiny of a newer account is still covered by WP:ILLEGIT...

Anyway; if nobody finds any other accounts or problematic articles, then there's not much else I can do. bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not hugely relevant to the above, but Link Starbureiy must have been added to List of astronomers, probably here either on English-language Wiki, sometime before September 2007, as User:Space Project pasted a copy of that article to her userpage then which included the name. (Note: Of course, User;Space Project is clearly unconnected to the Starbueiy articles and I hope her class project went well:)) I removed a redlink to Starbueiy last night from the Albanian Wikipedia version of the article last night. :) I must admit to being strangely impressed by his dedication; he's being doing this on and off-wiki for a decade now.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

First added to List of astronomers in March 2005. In wikipedia terms, that's almost archaeology. Removed by others and reinserted by various patient IPs over the years; looking at their contribs they all tweaked other articles but no addition has survived to this day. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

When the list of astronomers page was created on various language Wikis around that time, they used the English wiki article as a template. Apart from the Albanian wiki, he was still on the Spanish wiki list until tonight. (Anyhoo, I have run into so many hoaxes in the last few days, I'm on the verge of Stockholm Syndrome, so I shall let Link Starbueiy rest for a while) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(PS) Actually it was the list of mathematicians on Albanian wiki, not astronomers. (Had a quick recheck when I thought it wasn't interwikied here.) He made an appearance in March 2005, on List of mathematicians here on the 20th March 2005 diff. OK, ENOUGH with the page history searching :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just found File:Egglepple crayon.png, which looks like it belongs to this situation. FYI I've nominated it for deletion. --NellieBly (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and thanks for the reminder; there are three new ones at FfD now, in addition to File:Egglepple crayon.png and File:Clopen symbol.png:

• File:Gorgeous Joey Koala.png
• File:UUe.png
• File:Encourage a world of wisdom tm logo.png. bobrayner (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Deleted files, blocked main editor indefinitely. Job done. --John (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Very efficient; thanks. bobrayner (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bambifan101 (talk · contribs) has possibly returned again, this time editing under the account Soulessnake (talk · contribs). Soulessnake has made some constructive edits, but some of his contributions are possibly the same modus as Bambifan101, such as Teletubbies and The Aristocats. Given the nature of these edits, I have decided to post here in accordance with WP:LTA/BF101. See also this discussion. Can someone please look into this mess? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He's now making a series of page moves of Disney movies. Certainly seems suspicious. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

With those page moves being made on Disney films, that was certainly the last straw for me and so I had also reported the user to WP:SPI. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He's blocked again as a VOA. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Could an admin move-protect all of them? Thank you Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone revoke his talk page access, please? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 04:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As a follow up you may want to take a look at the edits by this IP 69.248.53.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This IP went through several Disney films changing things like "X film is the eighth feature film" to the "8th". Then Soulessnake went through reversing these minor edits and that is how he got enough edits to be autoconfirmed and start the series of nonsensical page moves. I'm not sure that there is anything to do to the IP at this time but someone will want to watch the IPs edits over the next few days. MarnetteD | Talk 04:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I added the IP to the SPI for this particular attack, as I was thinking the same thing. However, when I looked up WP:AUTOCONFIRM, it says that autoconfirmation goes to accounts that have been active for four days. I looked at Soulessnake's account, and it was created May 15 ... that's the four days, and undoing all the IP edits would boost the edit count enough to pass autoconfirmation. Looks like we need to find some new defenses. Have a feeling it's gonna be a long summer. --McDoobAU93 05:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While I was an edit filter manager, I suggested someone code a filter specifically to catch users attempting to autocon-bust. It got no hits, for some odd reason, and was deleted. Maybe if it were reinstated? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 15:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's him. That page move idiocy is proof. The only way you're going to get rid of this menace is to rangeblock him, reinstate the filter and protect the articles as they come up. If the IP is that of the Mobile County School District in Alabama, contact their IT department immediately. I guarantee you that they will take immediate action. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the IP that I mentioned geolocates to New Jersey. Now that could mean that BambiFan knows how to go farther afield to cause his disruption or that he may have recruited a meatpuppet or it could be unrelated. In any event the suggestion to work on a filter to detect autocon-busting would be a good idea IMO. Thanks to everyone for their input and for their vigilance in the dealing with this editor. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it in southern New Jersey? :P Could be a proxy. I pray it's little more than an ED or 4chan copycat. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your BF101 sense is tingling correctly as the city listed is Pennsauken which is in the southern third of that state :-) MarnetteD | Talk 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request a block for Damiens.rf (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing, violation of consensus, violation of WP:3RR, and WP:CIVIL: Calling one user an "arrogant bastard" in the edit summary Calling another user a "psychologically afflicted individual" and suffering from dementia in the edit summary followed by "Guy, you're sick as hell. Find someone to help you." False accusations of vandalism Edit warring + violation of 3RR despite two lengthy discussions to keep the image IAW WP:NFCC: [185][186][187][188] Frivolous image deletion nominations (unanimous decisions to keep; just recent ones): [189][190][191] Snide/rude remarks: [192][193][194][195][196][197] Cutting off any/all discussion and WP policies don't apply due to his greatness: "[Grow] up and stop posting...on my talk [page]. I'm essential to the project's image deletion process." [198] Given that his last block for incivility was 1 week, I suggest increasing the block to longer (2-3 weeks? 1 month?). — BQZip01 — talk 05:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Its a dubious claim indeed that the arrogant bastard edit summary was directed at a specific person as an insult. OAKED Arrogant Bastard Ale - is the name of a delicious beer from the brewing company that article is about. Also Damian and Dreadstar have some kind of issue with each other and the dispute appears as a two way street. I also notice that User:BQZip01's image uploads have been given a good going over by Damian - perhaps they should all just keep out of each others talkpages/way and take each other off their watchlists. No one will make any friends here by nominating users favorite non free/not used uploads for deletion, but I don't see need for a block at least not just yet - more than a week? - next step is a month. If I was him I would get a new less contentious project to work on instead of file deletion nominations or my crystal ball sees more editng restrictions in the near future for Damian. If Damian is being disruptive in the file deletion nominations and nominating multiple files without basis then perhaps a editing restriction to stop him nominating files for deletion is in order? Off2riorob (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC) It's not really as much of a 'two-way street' as it appears. I've never been uncivil to Damiens. Where we've had conflicts is on articles like Simón Díaz, Yoani Sánchez, Footvolley, Slocum (westerns), Duck universe and many others - check out the editing history on those, Damiens deletes huge swaths of content, then edit wars to keep it out while it's being sourced and copy edited - very frustrating. This was my first encounter with Damiens, completely inappropriate; and to top it off, he edit warred with me 'during the exact moments I was in process of improving the article', he couldn't seem to stand that I was adding content and sources. He does this same thing all the time. I took Damien's talk page off my watchlist over a month ago and completely disengaged with him, but he couldn't leave it alone and kept poking the hornets’ nest, harassing me, sticking his nose into discussions that didn't concern him [199], edit warring on my talk page to put his comment back - even editing one of my clearly marked no-edit archives (which I've since deleted), then nominated for a fourth time an image he knew I was involved with, then nominated two more of my image uploads. Even though he has said on occasion that between the two of us, we can clean up Wikipedia (him tagging and deleting, me following, re-adding and sourcing) I'm sure I've annoyed him by going around cleaning up after him. And frankly, it's not something I've wanted to continue doing, I had hoped he'd learn something and maybe start finding sources instead of tagging and deleting - to no avail. This added to his persistent assumptions of bad faith, uncivil remarks, and personal attacks counters any good work he may do in the image area, at least imho. Dreadstar ☥ 23:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Question, what good reason is there, exactly, to put "arrogant bastard" in that edit summary? He's made comments before about 'self-aggrandizing' content added by others when he removes it - generally when it's about awards or prizes with selfpub sources. I'll have to try and find those diffs. IMHO he was either calling the editor who added the content that or possibly even referring to the subject of the article, since it was self-sourced. I think it was a clever way of making an inflammatory edit summary and getting away with it. Either way, it's poor behavior...and to encourage it with his history is a mistake. Dreadstar ☥ 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Not going to really even look at the civility thing, although I do find that he has an assumption of bad faith issue (he places preemptive harshly worded rebukes on FfDs). What I wanted to jump in and say though is that while Damiens isn't the most pleasant person to work with at FfD, his batting average is very, very high. The three "Frivolous image deletion nominations" were not frivolous, and even if they were, represented three in dozens and dozens of FfDs. Few people are willing to sort though the massive quantity of images we have and weed out the crap. If he really made the quote about being essential then someone needs to trout him a bit, but at the same time, he has a point; he does a lot more good than harm at FfD. The proposer here is going for pile on, and in this issue, he's missed the mark completely. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC) One more thing. Damiens' last block for civility was in 2009. Again, this is pile one, and it's not very convincing. I recommend that the admins take this thread with a heavy pinch of salt. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Addressing each point brought up: Arrogant bastard is the name of the ale It sure is, but it isn't even remotely necessary in the edit summary and, given his snide remarks in other edit summaries, appears to be directed at an editor My images have been given a once over Yep. Sure have. If you'll note though, I supported all but one of these deletions An FFD editing restriction is in order I'll happily roll with community consensus on this one if another alternative is brought up. Not going to look at the whole civility thing...he has an assumption of bad faith. He isn't the most pleasant to work with ??? That's the problem I'm trying to address. It really confuses me when you say you aren't even going to look at the diffs. If you aren't even going to look at the "evidence", then why bother responding? 3 out of dozens of FFDs The problem is that he doesn't bother to make distinctions and just nominates everything that he believes doesn't meet policy; in reality, the images met policy from the beginning and he is trying to impose his beliefs as if they are policy. Please note that I just picked 3 out of the last few week of closures where no one thought deletion was in order. I can certainly find more. Last block was in 2009 It was the last day of 2009 and there have been blocks since then for other offenses that a veteran editor should know to avoid. He is also currently under a topic ban...which he violated... In any case, thanks for the inputs. We'll see if others respond. — BQZip01 — talk 12:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Comment: I have only recently crossed paths with Damiens. He's clearly quite intelligent and knows exactly how to ruffle feathers for entertainment when he wants, so I'd like to hear what he has to say. Saying that an editor suffers from dementia is never called for.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC) My limited experience of Damiens.rf has been uniformly negative. I'm frankly glad it was me, rather than a new editor, who was on the target of this profanity-laced, xenophobic edit summary; we likely would have lost a new editor of such a display of pique. In the discussion that accompanied it, he actually tried to tell me that NOR requires him to remove any and all material that is not already supported by an inline citation—even if he personally knows that a reliable source is available to support the material, despite that policy directly and repeatedly saying that it requires only the existence of a reliable source, not the naming of a reliable source. This is such an obviously counter-factual reading of the content policies that his ability to present it persistently as The Truth™, in the face of very frequent opposition and many efforts to clarify and explain the policies, still astounds me. He appears to be utterly incapable of hearing that the actual policies do not say what he believes they say. To be candid, I have actually wondered whether Wikipedia would be improved by completely removing this editor, as it appears that most of what he does is unhelpful or directly harmful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I've come across Damiens a couple of times over the last couple of years, and I have to agree with the view that his personality is... "prickly". The "I'm essential to the project's image deletion process." attitude is also problematic. That being said, I don't see what a block would achieve here. Is a block going to change his personality, or something? Is what's really being sought here a ban? Why isn't an RFC/U being pursued? — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I've given what I consider a final warning for incivility. Ohms law's suggestion of an RfC/U is a good one. Fences&Windows 23:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC) Do other admins agree with this "final warning" the above admin gave me? Have you independently verified the accusations BQzip made above, Fences? Or just take them as truth in the spirit of good faith? For instance, do you understand it's not truth that I have done "false accusations of vandalism?" Do you understand I have called anyone a "bastard", as implied by the accusation? Did you read the thread in which I called Dreadstar an afflicted individual to understand the situation? Do you understand it's not truth that I did "frivolous image deletion nominations?" Did you checked the timestamps of all these diffs? Do you also think I'm a DICK? I know I'm not popular at a ANI but I'm sick of being treated as I second class editor. I would have been blocked if I did what BQZIp did. I would have been blocked if I did what Dreadstar did. But much easier than investigating the situation is to check the size of everyone's block log and declare guilty the one with most blocks. --Damiens.rf 00:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)\ You know what dude? You aren't popular at ANI. The reason is that you nominate everything without considering [[WP:DEL]. There are plenty of options other than deletion and you consistently choose the one that provides the least work for you, not the option that's best. The overwhelming support of "Damiens isn't doing a lot of good for WP" is amazing. You consistently piss people off because you only care about following your own interpretation of policy (which is WRONG). You don't like what I've done? I don't care. Nominate me for a sanction of your own choosing. The fact is: it won't fly. And even if it did, it doesn't matter, because your behavior is over the line. I do things as I see that they fall into policy. Policy may change and I'll adapt accordingly, but I don't ask anyone to follow the rules that don 't apply to me (somehow). If I violate a rule, call me to the mat. The fact is, your actions are more of a problem than a benefit to WP. — BQZip01 — talk 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Uninvolved editor here. I'm not familiar with either of you. Clearly Damiens needs to work on his civility and to be more careful regarding his topic ban. But I can't say you're looking squeaky-clean yourself. Editing the glossary and then quoting your change against Damiens, and deleting an ANI comment by an IP defending Damiens on an ungrounded sockpuppet accusation, is not a good look. Transparently attempting to stack the deck against your adversary is not the way to get things done. Reyk YO! 10:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, but I don't claim to be squeaky clean. Yes, I made a change to it, but it was only to correct an oversight with information (in retrospect, probably not the best move, but it's still accurate). I have since shown him four additional links (and I could do more too). As for the IP, I have been dealing with a stalking user for over 2 years now. He always brings up ThreeE and CumulusClouds. This person has made libelous accusations of me (to include an accusation of murder...literally) and has been rightly banned from WP. WP:BEBOLD applies in this case. If you feel I have done anything wrong, you are welcome to discuss it on my talk page, your talk page, file an ANI complaint, or any other appropriate action you feel is necessary. Thanks for your opinions and I look forward to discussing any other matters with you in the future. — BQZip01 — talk 15:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) With BQZip01, the whole thing is just a bit of silliness caused by trying to apply the letter of something that's not even binding. Firstly, I don't think you could really dispute that a file is indeed a page; the person who created that glossary entry made an oversight. But this is not important. Whenever you nominate something for deletion or basically do anything that someone else is likely to object to, it is good courtesy to explore alternatives to the proposed action and try to find a mutual solution. You don't have to do that before nominating any page for deletion, whether article or file, but it's just a good idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Not IAW WP:DEL. — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Just what was that? --Damiens.rf 08:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC) That is what is done with comments from banned users per WP:BAN. — BQZip01 — talk 14:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC) This is simply wrong. I'm damm sure I would be blocked for doing anything similar. --Damiens.rf 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Perhaps it might, but I'd support your actions for doing so. I'm not waiting 6 weeks for someone to get around to an inconclusive checkuser ("sorry, it's stale") when the behavior is so blatantly obvious and they are disrupting discussion now. Meanwhile, the person gets to steer discussion into whereever they want and bring up old/settled issues in order to poison the well. This person is a blatant sockpuppet of someone (even you have to agree on that point). Sockpuppets are not permitted, period and I'm removing their contributions. If you wish to take me up to WP:ANI, I can accept that...but this thread is about your actions, not mine. — BQZip01 — talk 15:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC) So you assume you removed edits by an ip based on an non-confirmed accusation of sockpupetry by a banned user? I don't buy your talk of defending Wiki from socks/banned users. You removed the edit because it was pointing out wrongdoings by you. If you're so righteous, why didn't care to remove the other edit on the ip contribution log? --Damiens.rf 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC) No, I know he is a sockpuppet (if someone brings up something from 4 years ago as his first edit, he's clearly not a noob IP and IS a veteran). I am not trying to defend "Wiki from socks/banned users", I am trying to keep discussion between people who are allowed to be on WP. If you feel that the points made were warranted, you are certainly welcome to add them as your own, but banned users are not entitled to an opinion on WP. And even if I am wrong about him being said banned user, you cannot post under an IP address to hide your true identity (this is ALSO sockpuppetry). I missed that edit in the contribution log, and responded to it. — BQZip01 — talk 15:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC) As a non-admin comment from someone who has crossed paths with Damiens several times, I agree with the comments above by WhatamIdoing, Ohm's Law, and Fences&Windows, and I agree with the warning on Damiens' talk, as well as with the suggestion of an RfC/U. The repeatedly raised concerns remind me of the discussion that comes up, from time to time, about incivility and so-called "vested contributors": the supposed cost-benefit analysis of putting up with obnoxiousness in order to continue to benefit from a user's positive contributions. Here, however, we do not have someone who is noted for content creation so much as for, in effect, content deletion. I'm not convinced that a good batting average at deletion decisions is that much of a net benefit to the project. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC) The user called Pfistermeister was indef'd for comments that were nowhere near as offensive as the comments cited for Damien here. Yet Damien remains unblocked... a blatant, nakedly obvious double standard of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC) And now this, directly after the warning from F&W. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC) "fucking" used as an intensifier isn't necessarily uncivil. "I'm fucking sure" is fine, "you're fucking incompetent" isn't. I don't think there's necessarily a problem with the diff above (which I just refactored, hope that's ok).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC) In that particular case, Damien's comment was vulgar but not directed at anyone. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I dunno, Sarek and Bugs. I'm incredibly tempted to reply that you are both bleeping wrong! If this were just an intensifier anywhere, I wouldn't have brought it up. But look where it is. Directly under the final warning. Not a little ways below, but directly below. It's effectively saying: I got a final warning, I complained about it at AN/I, and now I'm going to make a POINT about it. That's the thing here: someone who is, to all appearances, deliberately trying to push others' buttons, but getting away with it on the theory that it's "technically" OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC) That's a good point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I've only been around a few weeks, but this is the second long ANI thread I've seen on Damiens already. The issues obviously go back a long time. So my question is, Why are we still putting up with such behavior??? His basic response to all seems to be "everyone else is the problem, not me". I'd hope we're here to produce good articles, not put up users who can't work in a group environment for years on end. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC) I totally agree. What is more, why do we put up with editors who appear out of nowhere with a full knowledge of wikimarkup and find their way to the drama boards within days to rekindle old beefs? I'm speaking in general terms, of course, not about any specific editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Oi![edit] Would you two, Damiens.rf and BQZip01, please stop squabbling. This board is here for admins to resolve incidents, not for you to sling mud at each other. If you keep it up I'll propose an interaction ban. And yes, Damiens.rf, if you insult or attack other editors again you will be blocked (mere profanity as an intensifier isn't the same as a direct insult or attack, even if it was transparent admin baiting). Fences&Windows 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Because it was I who brought the diff about the intensifier, I just want to note here that I think this distinction about admin baiting is very sensible and fair. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Please, give an interaction ban for me and Dreadstar, since he's following me for months now. BZQip just freaked out after having some of his images nominated for deletion, but overall we get along. --Damiens.rf 01:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, fuck!. Is the expression "freaked out" inherently offensive? I swear I din't mean any offense or even a bad characterization of BQZip's behavior. I just wanted to say that I have not recognized him lately, mostly on deletion discussions about images he uploaded and other contemporary threads. But other than those, he's usually a amiable guy on the deletion discussions he takes part (where we're likely to interac) and I see him coming back to his normal self. --Damiens.rf 02:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Stop trolling. You're obviously enjoying baiting BQZip01, you are extremely close to being blocked. Fences&Windows 21:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC) You're supposed to assume good faith. You have no basis to accuse me of trolling. If you don't have the patience to examine the issue carefully, just don't try to resolve it by force. You're taking the easiest path: blindly believing any accusations against me and refusing to assume I can act in good faith. It's not surprising you're threatening me with a block. --Damiens.rf 22:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

See [200] [201] [202]

See also e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slammiversary IX and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best in the World

And older, closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011).

So, specifically: The user Supermhj8616 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created articles about future events, which are not yet notable, as can be seen on eir talk. After approx 70 warnings for such, I would think some action appropriate.  Chzz  ►  05:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those users who has never made a talk page edit or an article talk page edit, and keeps on adding their material with no apparent regard for the material that has been posted on their talk page. I will put a more personalised note and a Welcome template on their talk, and then watch and see. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's possible they don't care about the AFDs as by then they have taken advantage of Wikipedia for free promotion of their event. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

OK; fair enough; if you can keep an eye out - thanks. "Future" wrestling events is a long-standing, and ongoing, problem. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  01:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yah, I will watch. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing much? Also, OTL and Slammiversary are both less than 3 weeks away (OTL is TOMORROW FREAKING NIGHT) and ZWP has never had a problem with this before, so stop bringing those 2 up. Crisis.EXE 17:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The date does not directly affect notability. I don't care if an event is today, tomorrow, yesterday, or in 2491; if it doesn't have strong independent sources then it doesn't pass the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since April 2010, users Tbhotch, Kww, Andrzejbanas & Chasewc91 have accounted for massive editing violations of song articles regarding artists such as Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Madonna, etc. As I no longer have a main user account, I have campaigned endlessly to have these users banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. The violations range from changing the genres of a particular song to refusing to come to a general consensus that all songwriters MUST be attributed to the album bookelt credits, not bogus websites such as BMI/ASCAP. I would therefore be grateful if you could ban them immediately please. 16:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.100.4 (talk • contribs)

So, let me get this straight. You didn't get your personal way in a content dispute, and because of that, you know want the people who disagreed with you banned, on the grounds that they disagree with you. Am I reading that correct? I'm gonna go with "No" as an appropriate response to your request. --Jayron32 15:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether the IP likes it or not, BMI and ASCAP are considered definitive sources for production credits. I know there's a very heated backlash against both BMI and ASCAP because of licensing fees on such things as satellite radio and Internet music providers, and in some countries those fees extend to such things as blank CDRs. But that backlash doesn't automagically eliminate their credibility, whether or not anyone wants to think otherwise. Meanwhile, there's the statement As I no longer have a main user account that the IP made above, which indicates to me they may be attempting to evade a block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

When you call BMI and ASCAP "bogus', you weaken your case considerably. Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments like this don't help much either. Nobody's notified the above editors of this discussion; I'll do so. They may be able to share some background. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

While the IP's complaint is poorly worded, at least one of those editors is guilty of long-term edit-warring. I edit in a lot of different topic spaces and the current popular songs topic-space is one of the strangest I've encountered. It's this weird sub-culture where edit-warring, canvassing, false accusations of vandalism, threatening newbies, tag-teaming, gaming the system, etc. are common place. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that your description is fairly accurate for pretty much all of the pop-culture topic areas (television, movies, and video games, for the most part). I think that it's a side effect of the fact that those topics tend to draw in a ton of new editors, for what should be obvious reasons. The problem is that they largely are dealing with newer editors... I can imagine that it leads to a bit of a siege mentality. Not that I'm making excuses, but it's an explanation at least. I'd guess that the vast majority of problems that we have with new editor retention are caused by the regulars who participate in these areas. Everyone pings on the New Page Patrollers and the Recent Changes Patrollers, but the issues are deeper than that in my experience. I, for one, gave up on participating in pop-culture topic areas a long time ago, with the exception of occasional participation with current events articles.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is just CharlieJS13, an indefinitely blocked editor. "As I no longer have a main user account" is certainly not something that happened to him by choice.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Kww is right. Also  Confirmed as him (whom I blocked earlier today):

• JGMspt20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 18:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

See also User:86.142.217.3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), currently blocked LeadSongDog come howl! 20:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Related discussion[edit]

I've been asked by Tbhotch to help do something about this editor because of the repeated attacks on his talk page. I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do. The IP range is too wide and active to block, so the only option I can see is to begin my usual semiprotection cycle of protecting target articles, but I'm uncomfortable because the range of targets is so wide. RBI seems to be asking Tbhotch to put up with a lot.—Kww(talk) 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of throttling filter, perhaps? With the IP range involved, as well as the variety of articles, Whac-a-Mole™ will be tedious at best... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the filter would be enough for now. Time ago I requested Prodego to create a new filter to avoid new users and IPs from blaking others's userpages due that he, always after I detected him, left death threats and xenophobic messages. He expanded the filter 34 and, as now, it is working with me, so if someone could create a filter which blocks IPs from IP Pools that change genres in infoboxes without sources, and that attempts to make attacks on userpages/talkpages would be enough (for now). Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I note there's no SSP page for CharlieJS13. Is this normal for IP hoppers? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you refer? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive seems to be there.—Kww(talk) 03:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding {{ssp|CharlieJS13}} to an IP talkpage generates an error message: "There is no WP:SSP page on "CharlieJS13" "LeadSongDog come howl! 03:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

{{ssp}} is an old macro that works with the old "Suspected Sockpuppets" notice board. {{sockpuppet}} works with the modern system.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

He received a final warning on 14 May and still continues to add unsourced content. This time unreferenced city of birth in Archieford Gutu. In the past he added a huge number of fictious citis of birth and other content to the articles about footballers. Some background there--Oleola (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Redirected from WP:AIV

Hi. It would be easier for me or others to help you if you could provide more useful information, context, links and/or diffs about your request. Please see the guide to requesting assistance for advice how you could improve your request to increase the likelihood that it is answered to your satisfaction.  Sandstein  20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite of warnings he recently added some unreferenced doubious info:

• transfer sum in Dimitar Makriev
• stats in Archieford Gutu
• city of birth in Archieford Gutu
• wrong years in Nenad Lukić
• fictious sentence about being scouted he is using in many biographies without any referenace
• stats and career in Dimo Atanasov
• city of birth in DimitarTsenovski
• city of birth in Simeon Raykov
• club career, stats and wrong national team years in Zhivko Gospodinov
• youth years in Iliyan Iliev
• as well as other info in Iliyan Iliev
• city of birth and "scouting forumla" in Rumen Rumenov--Oleola (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Warning after warning, why is any editing allowed from this ip?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:194.81.239.5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 03:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, look at all the recent edits from this IP. There are vandalism edits that never even got a warning. Not that any of the warning did any good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That IP address has been blocked 4 times in the past, but has only edited twice in the past 3 weeks. Nothing is to be gained from blocking it right now. --Jayron32 03:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• It's a school IP. Frankly, the likelihood of any edit of value coming from what is laughingly called "a learning institution" is roughly equivalent to the likelihood of anyone of value coming from one. HalfShadow 04:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, will keep an eye on it. Dreadstar ☥ 04:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are meant to prevent vandalism. The three month block prevented vandalism for three months but shortly after the block we get consistent although sporadic vandalism, yesterday being the latest. It doesn't seem likely we are going to suddenly see constructive editing and virtually certain there will be more vandalism, so I've blocked the IP. Anyone from that IP who wants to edit can just create an account. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 20:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

IP 71.170.177.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has been making a series of mostly plausible but on checking unexplained and incorrect changes to mostly videogames articles, sometimes breaking templates as they go. Previously blocked for 'block evasion' but no indication of the user/block concerned, though the pattern of edits looks very characteristic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Look at the WHOIS for that IP. I think that might sum it up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Found the IP I was thinking of that last did this: 173.74.196.27 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). Despite the different IPs they geolocate to the same place.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Same ISP, too. QED. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Now blocked by Prolog.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

81.33.56.178 (contribs) is using Wikipedia as a platform for WP:PROMOTION, by adding to articles when the next "expected protest" would be (date, time, location) that they intend on taking place in China (diff1, diff2), in violation of WP:NOT, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOBLECAUSE, et cetera. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not the place to "start a revolution". The user has made edits that encourage readers, where possible, to either participate in the protests, and to "copy this along as much as you can" (diff). I'd like to suggest that additional and careful watching should be done on China-related articles in the next few days, as I'd expect that more of this might occur. In fact, more of this might well be already possibly occurring, and there may be more than one user engaging in WP:PROMOTION duty as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehra-Lessien Page.

" Expression error: Unrecognised word "porno"Expression error: Unrecognised word "porno"Expression error: Unrecognised word "porno" (Expression error: Unexpected < operatorExpression error: Unrecognised word "porno"sq mi) Elevation 63 m (207 ft) Population 1,649 (31 December 2009)[1] - Density Expression error: Unrecognised word "porno" /km2 (Expression error: Unrecognised word "porno" /sq mi)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.217.45 (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it. Just some silly vandalism. Kevin (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Gah... Darn ninjas... – AJL^talk 01:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin. Did a right fine job of quickly reverting the vandalizm Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.217.45 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Please see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork#21_May_2011

Apparently the user who calls himself "Supreme Deliciousness" is trying to spy on me. He says he has private information about me, and I have reasons to believe that he hacked this information from my private email accounts or in some other illegal way. I don't really understand his motives or why he complaints about information that I added. Anyway, his actions seem to be in violation of your privacy policy and possibly of the law. Thank you. 79.179.96.241 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

SD is not trying to spy on you. I suspect (from years in the business, including working for UUNet) that the information SD has will either confirm or deny that you are User:Drork. I suspect I even know what information it is, which I will not get into. I can assure you though, that CheckUsers take their jobs very seriously, and are some of the most trusted Wikipedians there are. Either the information will confirm you are Drork, in which case, for evading a block, actions will probably be taken against your IPs - or it will prove you are not Drork in which case such won't happen. And since any information SD has would have to have been sent to SD by Drork, then Drork decided to make that information available to SD in sending such.

Regardless, the checkusers or clerk will deal with the issue over at SPI - including action against SD if SD is violating anyone's privacy (which is unlikely). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a block-evading sockpuppet. IPs from this range have been blocked before for similar conduct; see the extensive activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork/Archive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my conclusion as well, based off the different IP that the anon/Drork used to start the ANI thread and respond at SPI, but twas not my job to point that out or act. To you all with the mops, my commendations. And keep them away from me. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see Ganas article and Ganas talk page. Marelstrom (talk) continues to substitute properly referenced material with unverified and trivial statements, and attempts to out Eroberer (talk). Please consider protecting the 429492686 revision of the article. Eroberer (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ganas is communitarian group in Staten Island, New York that has an interesting history to say the least. My concern is that over the past 6-7 months we have been having a string of SPA accounts most vocal being (Eroberer (talk · contribs)) who has strong dislike of Ganas. Eroberer's dislike of Ganas has resulted in alot of POV-Pushing, behavior is relatively civil with established editors but down right aggressive with any one they disagree with. The most recent incident was an outing that was just oversighted this morning (Well my time at least) where a new editor said made an accusation about Eroberer which amplifies my concerns. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

• User talk:Marelstrom is a liar, as they above claim to be "not a Ganas resident." Excuuuuuuse Me!
• you are clearly a Ganas resident and intrinsically biased.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to look for references to any of my contributions as needed. --Marelstrom (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would very much like for there to be additional contributors. The summary as I have it now (though could be reverted at any instant) is mostly my point of view, and I don't mind it being adapted to hold other views, but I think Eroberer's POV is too heavily weighted in this article. What the article needs is Eroberer off, and a dozen other editors on. --Marelstrom (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How does this ever get resolved? --Marelstrom (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a user I have previously blocked has been attempting to crack my Wikipedia account. I received emails saying that someone from 67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs) has attempted to reset my password twice. This 3NNR report links that IP address with Porgers (talk · contribs). Normally we don't block random IPs for these attempts, but since this is a known user that has been blocked by me, I thought I should bring it here for discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You have the right to protect yourself. I don't see why anyone would object to using your authorities to put the brakes on this problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked for 72 hours, time to deal with the main account. Shall I block it also?Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am providing further evidence that Porgers (talk · contribs) is the same person as 67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs). At User:Porgers reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius you will see Porgers drawing our attention to two User-reported Alerts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see old revision of this page at 18:50, 18 May 2011). Porgers tried to use these alerts as evidence in his favor. By doing this, he admitted that his earlier identity was (and still is) the anonymous 67.193.59.152 . Porgers clearly thought these alerts were relevant to the 3RR case being made against him.

Both these alerts were ill-prepared (just a smoke screen by a disruptive troll = 75.47.157.136) and for that reason some admins just rejected them, which was to be expected. These alerts happened around the time that other suspicious activity by 75.47.157.136 was going on at my Talk Page and at pages where I had differed with Porgers/ 67.193.59.152 . The IP address 75.47.157.136, that made the vandalism complaints against IP 67.193.59.152, has since been found to be an imposter, trying to make it look like I was using a sock puppet. --Skol fir (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ticklish. My 2p is that before dropping the heavy end of the hammer on anyone, a checkuser should be brought in to verify the connections as a matter of prudence. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan, your assumption that Porgers (talk · contribs), as 67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs), was making "constructive" edits—"Looks more like constructive editing to me, based on the articles' Talk pages." (old revision of this page at 18:50, 18 May 2011 -- Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism)—is based on misleading edit summaries that he made, pretending to be following the Talk Pages at those relevant articles, when all the time he was not at all. I know because I read all the Talk related to those issues, and this disruptive editor was just trying to stir up the pot. He had no intention of following any consensus, or of making a positive contribution to Wikipedia.

You should also be more careful in your own edit summaries. Replying to a legitimate concern by Toddst1 that a blocked editor was trying to compromise his account, you used the words “Danger, Will Robinson!” That seems a bit thoughtless to me. I hope it was meant purely in jest, because it appeared to be in poor taste, considering how this investigation has unfolded since then. --Skol fir (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed misread the edits. However, I looked at the actual edits, and in context (and not knowing the source material well), they appeared constructive to me. Please note my use of the word appeared. I cannot interpret intentions, only respond to actions, and those responses must be dictated by what I see and what I've learned in the past. Am I always right? Great Ghu, no. Goethe said it best: "Man errs, so long as he is striving." The best I can offer is to learn from my mistakes. As far as my own edit summary goes, yes, it was intended as humor, and it apparently missed the mark. On the positive side, though, it did cause at least one other person to look more closely at what I'd actually written in my comment, which is a lesson a great many users of Wikipedia besides myself could stand to learn. With all this said, it appears the issue is now resolved, so there's nothing else for anyone to do except apply what's been learned. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my comment, Alan. I realize that someone who does not have all the information can misjudge a situation. This issue with Porgers was very clear to me as soon as I saw his pattern. He made edits that he knew would get a reaction, like blanking whole sections already under discussion, ignoring the decision reached by other editors at those discussions. He also made blatantly false edits, pretending he had consulted the Talk Page. In one example I read the entire Talk Page and no mention was made of the issue he had raised with his edit. He had more tricks up his sleeve than most of these pests. As you know, I was immediately aware of the link between Porgers (talk · contribs) and 67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs) because he had been "stalking" me since earlier that day, and I tried to reason with him by reverting edits that were against Wiki policy. That was why I was surprised when you questioned all my evidence pointing to Porgers being a sock puppet of 67.193.59.152. Anyway, I have also learned from this experience. As for your edit summary about "Will Robinson," I did see some humour in that remark, but at that particular moment I was not in a laughing mood. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no doubt that as soon as 67.193.59.152 decided he was getting nowhere with me using the anonymous IP, he suddenly created a new account as Porgers (7 minutes after his last edit as 67.193.59.152). Less than an hour after that, I corrected a mistake he made at David Miller. In an early edit summary (only the 6th one) by Porgers, he even referred back to having made edits to the David Miller article -- "See the error he made rv my edits on David Miller, and the IMF." You will see from the contributions of Porgers, that up to that timepoint he had never edited either of those articles under the name "Porgers." This is more proof that he is a continuation of 67.193.59.152 . I am the editor who has had to put up with his disruptive tactics, and it has been most annoying. --Skol fir (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm Porgers is the IP. Toddst1, you'll be happy to know that he also sent an email to OTRS claiming to be you and saying your account had been compromised and asking to be blocked. I've blocked User:Porgers indef for disruption. --Versageek 18:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Geekster! It's clear that this "newbie" is a veteran that knows his/her way around WP if s/he got to OTRS. I wonder what the other socks were. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It is an infrequent event to find someone so adept at throwing a boomerang, while also being able to take careful aim at their toes with a firearm - it seems that this individual managed it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side, make sure your password isn't overly short or easy to guess. Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The miscreant is still at it - now trying to crack my account at Metawiki. Is there any way to put a global autoblock so that he/she can't log in from the IP address? Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

He took a poke at mine as well from Wikiversity. The IP has now been globally blocked. --Versageek 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I found another sockpuppet of Porgers. It is IP # 69.70.75.106 . I got an email saying someone "from the IP address 69.70.75.106 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia." What should I do about it? --Skol fir (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Lots of heat and zero light. T. Canens (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Snottywong made a personal attack, insulting Keepscases on account of religion on Keepscases's talk page. I would hope that unpopular views are protected by the community, especially now: May the immediate blocking for a religious insult be implemented?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC) oh man.... yeah... like I said, block Keepscases as well Facepalm Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Under WP's own policies...this is definitely blockable (Keepscases' is another case altogether) until SW agrees to retract the comment....--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Um. I think some context will be good. Which is the original diff? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (EC)::There's no reason to block me. I label WikiProject Atheism a hate group based on the nasty, confrontational userboxes proudly displayed on its page. I don't much care whether SnottyWong is blocked, but it's certainly worth noting he's accusing me of something I have not once done. Keepscases (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) WhiteShadows, it's either both or none. You want to tell me that calling one religious persuasion a fairy is a major insult, while putting the Wikiproject Atheism on par with the KKK is not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Not even a reason to link to it, insult repeated right here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) My concern is that this insult was issued in an atmosphere of widespread scorn and derision of the views of Keepscapes, at an RfA, which makes this insult needing some kind of immediate action. I don't see a pattern of such uncivility by Snottywong, but I don't like the idea of waiting a day for a retraction/apology. I hope that he would be unblocked quickly upon apologizing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Very well. Same for Keepscases who, even when it is pointed out to him, refuses to retract his attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I am not "attacking" or "insulting" anyone, and I certainly won't retract anything. A project with multiple hateful userboxes is a hate group. Keepscases (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Keep talking. It's the third attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Without endorsing Keepscases, I did try to explain what is upsetting him/her at his/her talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Upsetting, yes. There are many people who upset me, almost daily; that doesn't mean I can go around comparing them to the Nazis. I see no difference between the two attacks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)I find nothing attacking or insulting about any of the wikiproject atheism userboxes. If any god is real, they will not suddenly do harm to him/her/it/them. Nor do they promote, offer, incite, or suggest violence against any who believe in any god. They (the "worst" ones) claim that all religion is myth. Most have been deemed as such. No true evidence has been presented to the contrary about any; past or present. To claim a userbox calling any religion a myth is an attack would mean one must call any userbox promoting religion an attack against those who are either atheists or believe in a different religion. Keepscases, your comment, OTOH, is of an entirely different nature than the content of the userboxes. Don't try to control other people's beliefs - whether you realize it or not, that is what you are trying, and doing so by improperly "labeling" the wikiproj atheism stuff as attacks. Sorry, atheism exists. It's not an attack. The userboxes sum up atheist beliefs quite nicely. That too is not an attack. Believe what you want. Let them believe what they want as well. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Anyone is welcome to believe whatever they like. "Please keep your imaginary friends to yourself" et al is another thing entirely. Isn't there some rule about not being a dick? Because that userbox is about the most dickish thing I've seen on Wikipedia. Keepscases (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Could we focus on the insult left on the page. "No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in, and nothing could be further from relevant when voting for adminship. No one likes people who constantly refer to their religion, push their religion on others, or publicly announce that the decisions they make are based on their religion. If anything, it makes you look more like an idiot." Is that acceptable or not?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, I have no axe to grind. KS was not violating any religious views as one could argue that "atheism" is not a religion. Furthermore, he was not attacking an Atheist, rather WP ATHEISM. SW on the other hand, blatantly attacked KS and his religion.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (ec) No. We focus on both; thus far, no-one here has disagreed that Snotty's comment was wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This is not about KS' comments. If you have beef with that, create your own ANI thread. Furthermore, SW has had a history with rude, unwarranted and insulting comments on RFAs and relating to them. This is just the latest in a string of personal attacks.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Then some administrator should take some action, like leaving a stern notice on SnottyWong's user talkpage or blocking him immediately, especially given this further history of insulting behavior (of which I was unaware).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (ec) No. We focus on both; thus far, no-one here has disagreed that Snotty's comment was wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) White Shadows: It's about both to me... it's one combined incident. Also, Keepscases labeled them a hate group. I am sure you probably know, but WProj Atheism are a group of people - which is to whom Keepscases was referring to. If I say "the Navy is a bunch of asshats", one cannot in any honesty claim I am not talking about the people in the Navy. Same applies here. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) (lost in an edit conflict - to keepscases) I strongly disagree. Even numerous sects of Christianity agrees much of the Bible is myth, parable or example not based in reality. And various sects even dispute Jesus is the son of god (or real, even). If various sects of Christianity believe such and have the same opinion, why can't atheists? Nor is it directed specifically at Christianity anyway. It's directed at ALL religions. You, OTOH, simply wish to censor other people's beliefs and thoughts based on your religious beliefs - your comments were worse than any of the userboxes, but you claim you've no reason to apologize. That's attempting censorship of any view that is not your own so you are free to attack while they are not free to present their views. Again, atheists (rightly or wrongly) believe your god is a fairy tale. That's reality. Live with it. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (ec)@Kiefer, here's one from an RFA last summer. This is where freedom of speech has a very fine line here. We all know that SW's comment was blockable and should be retracted or under WP policy, he is to be indef'ed. KS' comments though, are indeed insulting but that is not a good reason to say "don't block one without the other". KS should, if he knows what is best, remove the comment and apologize. Hopefully he does...--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oh really now, Robert? Where have I indicated I want to censor anything? What exactly are my religious beliefs? You are making up what I believe, and then arguing against it. Nice. Keepscases (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Robert, would you stop giving us mini-essays on liberal Protestantism, etc., please?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) That's not even correct! I can't think of ONE sect of Christianity that says Jesus is not the Son of God...nor any of that stuff you posted. It's totally irrelevant anyway...--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) (to keepscases)Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you claimed nothing wrong with your attack on human beings who 'are WikiProject Atheism and have no intentions of retracting your statements - BUT, on the other hand can bash others lack or (or different) religious beliefs over their heads as grounds for... whatever? Does that sum it up correctly? It has to work both ways. There's nothing wrong with a single userbox or SW's comments if, your worse comments, also have nothing wrong with them. In you choosing only one side ("they are wrong, I'm not and dont need to apologize" (paraphrased)), you are trying to censor, whether intentional or not, what they can say. You are both wrong, or this isn't an issue. Those are the only two choices I see. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Keifer: So, you do agree I am correct then? Guess that solves that issue. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC) WS: I can name three... look em up. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I suppose they are Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism? No-one can accurately claim they are a sect of Christianity and disagree with those things stated in the Bible...but this is still irrelevant...--White Shadows Stuck in square one 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC) KS isn't trying to censor anything either. He's stated an opinion, not a personal attack. I can say "The holocaust was a myth" and not be blocked...no matter how offensive (or wrong) is it...--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Wrong analogy. Correct analogy: "those who claim the holocaust took place are delusional". And that's an attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Bingo WS (the ones you listed), as well as various sects of Mormons, and others who do claim they are Christians. But... (and the "Bingo!" part) now we all see... the userboxes AND the beliefs in question are not relevant. Both sets of posts can be construed as attacks. Both editors should be dealt with accordingly. Now, hopefully we've closed the userbox, my religion is right, no, atheists are right section of this and can deal with the actual subject at hand. Thank you for helping me with that. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (ec) I'm going to be frank here. I call "BS" on that whole comment. None of those religions claim to be Christian....they are totally separate (though partly related in some ways). I was never arguing Atheists over Religion...at all anyway...and once again..this is still irrelevant.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (OD) Folks, I think we've gotten way off track here into a theological debate. Calling an editor an "idiot" is unacceptable, and so is referring to a Wikiproject as a "hate group." Warn both editors sternly, and close this thread. If you want to talk religion, do it on a user's talk page. We're at the point where nothing's going to be settled here. Dayewalker (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Last bit: I think that stating someone is wrong for having religious beliefs is rude and wrong (A, you can't prove or disprove the existence of God or gods as any objective person will tell you; B, just like any other religious belief, Atheism should not be forced on others), and calling them an idiot in that context is even worse. It was an NPA, but both have walked deep into the muck now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)This ANI report is misplaced, or at least citing the wrong user as its subject. Insinuating that Lady of Shalotte is a member of a hate group is a blatant personal attack, even if carefully contrived to appear to be indirect. Using RfA to voice such an opinion is totally inadmissible and bordering on trolling. In Snottywong's comment I see a legitimate but off=topic comment that religions may not be based on historical fact, and one more of dozens, if not hundreds, of similar complaints about Keepscases. Where is the alledged personal attack, and who was it directed at? Have I missed something? I suggest we leave Snottywong alone to continue with the work he does for Wikipedia and drop the tone that suggests punitive blocks, in any case: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia; they should not be intended as a punishment. By contrast, Keepscases' participation at Wikipedia appears to exist solely for the purpose of making a mockery of the RfA process, it has been subject to several discussions already, and it's time for the community to focus on the real issue: either topic banning or blocking Keepscases for constant attempts to disrupt Wikipedia processes and gaming the system with his rebuttals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Briefly I will state that I feel a personal attack was indeed made against me. Also, refraining from comment upon a ridiculous claim is not equal to being unoffended by said claim. LadyofShalott 02:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Against bans here[edit] I would invite all of you voting for these bans to review Lèse majesté. Are we so opposed to a free and full dialog that we ban people for silly insults? I myself am a Christian and I see some insult in the Atheism project banners, but you might take a look at what the page says -- "Related userboxes - Not officially adopted by this project." Now if we want to get technical, we should go after each person who contributed a supposedly insulting banner, ban them and dunk them in water until they recant, and then permit them back in. If I recall, this is the behavior of a corrupted age gone by in the Catholic Church, among others. Now we see history repeating itself here, where people can't simply disagree, they have to be forced to recant and make up before we permit them in our midst. This is apalling. Why are we taking steps back, in the name of righting wrongs, when those who are most involved aren't even offended? Take a look at Lèse majesté... maybe we need to implement this kind of thing for any perceived insult, I'm sure it can only make Wikipedia tons better. (yes that last line is sarcasm) -- Avanu (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Motion 1[edit] Proposal Indefinite block on User:Snottywong, which can be removed once Snottywong apologizes and commits to improved behavior on his user page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support. --White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose blocking only one endorses the statement "Wikiproject atheism is a hate-group". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) You confuse this motion with a motion to "endorse that statement", which all but one have explicitly condemned or disavowed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose per Seb and my statement below. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose. Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. SnottyWong has not been involved in any ongoing disruptive behaviour and so there is no call for a block. He made a snarky comment in response to a bit of silly overreaction from Keepscases, and you want to make him grovel over it. Not going to happen. Also, I don't think SW has been online while this thread has been open. It would be more fair to give SW a chance to respond to concerns before jumping the gun and going straight for an indef. Seriously, this would have to be the stupidest indef block request I've ever seen. Reyk YO! 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Please review the NPA policy, which explicitly endorses indefinite blocks for religious insults.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I have read it. My position is unchanged. The NPA policy says that extreme' personal attacks are often grounds for a block. Note the words in italics. Low-level snark does not in any way resemble an extreme personal attack. A block is unnecessary, and is motivated entirely by vindictiveness and not through any desire to preserve the encyclopedia from disruption. Reyk YO! 01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC) On the contrary, I have requested similar action against political attacks on Lihaas and David Eppstein: The ethnic/anti-semitic/political attack on Eppstein was immediately blocked.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Also, re-read the NPA policy, paying attention to the word "or". I'm not sure what your point is. Surely "often grounds" means that a block is optional and not mandatory. And I do not think it is anywhere near necessary. Reyk YO! 01:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC) You accused me of being motivated by vindictiveness. On the contrary, I have a record of asking for NPA to be enforced when there are personal attacks based on politics or religion, etc. My argument for an immediate ban was based on the derision at RfA, and the community's need to protect a religious minority who is alreay standing alone from being insulted because of his religion.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) You still haven't explained why, when the NPA policy sets out a range of remedies including merely asking the editor to retract, you insist on going for disproportionate retribution as the first resort. You still haven't explained why any action at all is necessary when neither editor in question seems particularly bothered by it. It's bad enough when editors appoint themselves civility cops over the rest of us without them then immediately agitating for harsh and extreme punishments for the most minor infractions. Perhaps "vindictive" isn't quite the fitting word, but I cannot think very much of an editor who carries on this way. Reyk YO! 02:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC) If that is not an "extreme" attack than saying "I hate all jews and the holocaust never happened" isn't either. This is one of the worst personal attacks I've ever seen on Wikipedia...--White Shadows Stuck in square one 02:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Really? You don't see any difference between "I hate all jews and the holocaust never happened" and "I'm not interested in hearing about your imaginary friend"? Huh. FWIW this post did not warrant an instablock, so it's hard to argue what SW said deserves any kind of harsh punishment. Reyk YO! 02:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support - As per Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks (Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted.). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Motion 2[edit] Block no-one, say both were wrong, moving on... Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support - other than blocking them both until that happens, this is the best answer. And really, on this subject, things will always get inflamed above and beyond reason... this seems the best solution. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose Leaving standing a religious insult abrogates the community responsibility to enforce NPA.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support some sense of proportion is needed here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support- sanity prevails. Reyk YO! 01:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose WP policy needs to be followed...KS may very well need to retract his comment as well...at least he deserves a warning. But letting SW go (once again) is wrong under WP policy.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Motion 3[edit] Proposal Indefinite block on User:Keepscases, which can be removed once Keepscases apologizes for attacks against WikiProjects Atheism, and specifically Lady of Shallote, and commits to improved behavior on his user page and RfA. Strong Oppose WikiProjects are not people. He attacked no one, just criticized a WP in a rather insulting manner. enough religious "politics"....--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you should re-read the exchange. He criticized her because of her affiliation with said project, then it's project members for their beliefs (and displaying such). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Amendment: "Indefinite block on User:Keepscases, which can be removed once Keepscases apologizes for attacks against WikiProjects Atheism, and specifically Lady of Shallote, and commits (on his unblocked user page) to improved behavior."  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Strong support. (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Kepscases has been a disruptive element to the Wikipedia for long time. His sole purpose, under any pretext, is the disruption of RfA as a process, and it's time he learned his first lesson. Blocks are intended to prevent disruption. Disreuption also includes doing anything that precipitates ANI reports like this, which is what Keepscqses has done yet again. (Snottywong's comments were simply a reaction to it). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Motion 4[edit] Is this really worth the time? Neither the editor who was supposedly attacked, nor the one who supposedly attacked is hurt by this or particularly offended. Rather than go through a lot of spilled digital ink trying to enforce a politically correct dogma of 'all views are equal', let's allow some degree of freedom here and maturity, and just say "bad dog!", spank with a newspaper, and move on. Legalistic battles like this are fundamentally censorship and grown ups can disagree, even sometimes impolitely, without other editors needing to pull stuff like this. This business about banning and blocking people because they didn't follow some policy *might* matter if those who said and received it were offended, but they aren't. Sadly those two are displaying more honesty and maturity in this debate than the editor who filed this complaint. Let it drop, and simply ask people to censor themselves out of common courtesy, not because you are able to wield a ban hammer against them. -- Avanu (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support Keepscases (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support- very well said, Avanu. Reyk YO! 01:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Yep - SW said something that was patently offensive (describing religious belief as belief in a fairy tale) but I'm not sure what purpose a block would serve here.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Will not support unless we can use a trout or similar instead of a wet newspaper. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Motion 5[edit] Proposal Indefinite block on User:Keepscases, which can be removed once Keepscases apologizes for attacks against WikiProjects Atheism, and specifically Lady of Shallote, and commits to improved behavior on his user page and RfA. AND Indefinite block on User:Snottywong, which can be removed once Snottywong apologizes and commits to improved behavior on his user page. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support minus the WP Atheism part.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 01:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Oppose- overreaction to a minor issue. Reyk YO! 01:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) VERY Weak Support if both cannot simply agree this should end with apologies. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Strong oppose - Snottywong does not have a case to answer to (no personal attack made), and even if he did, an indef block would be totally out of proportion and irresponsible. Punitive blocks are out of the question and cannot be used as a threat to force an apology. If SN feels he ever needs to apologise to any individual for anything, I am fully confident that he would do it off his own bat. Keepscases on the other hand has a history of being obtuse and uncooperative and should either be indefinitely blocked this time, with a minimum of one year, for continuous disruption, personal attacks, and POV pushing, or at least topic banned from RfA. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Motion 7[edit] Proposal CLOSE this until either editor (or both) who was supposedly attacked decides that they feel the attack warrants some sort of action through this venue. (not just that they feel it is an attack - BUT that they feel it warrants action) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) STRONGLY support. I think this makes the most sense. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support- I agree. People getting upset on behalf of other people and demanding teh banhammerz is unproductive. There is nothing to be done here. Reyk YO! 02:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Support - I can attest that this thread isn't personally helping me build an encyclopedia, can't speak for anyone else though. —SW— yak 02:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)