Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

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

While reviewing this user's articles (listed here), we have encountered and documented a dozen or more cases of copyright violations in the form of verbatim copy/paste of content.

Despite multiple notifications regarding this on his talk page, this user has not acknolwedged or addressed this issue. This user was previously blocked for this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the times the content was from Wikipedia only, and was taken from parent articles, and the bot marked it for copyright violations. In few cases it was re-written by me, in others the content was removed. I haven't knowingly fetched it from outside violating any copyright. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still i would like to take extra care regarding copyrights in future. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure, but I am also sure that you have said this before. Many of these violations have occurred after your last block. As with many of your actions recently, it is not enough to say that you will adjust your editing habits. You actually need to do it. This continued failure to put your words into action (except when it suits your own purpose) forms a large part of the problem that people have with you. Even today, you have been blithely rewriting history with regard to your interpretation of the above closed discussion. I must say that I am not the only person who has reached the end of his tether regarding these issues. You should count yourself lucky, I feel, that you have not been indefinitely blocked from editing here. Take advantage of that luck, please. - Sitush (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, my comment above about your interpretation today refers to this comment, which you subsequently removed after I asked you to confirm that you understood it to be incorrect. I am still awaiting the confirmation, Mahesh. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of that comment i was not fully aware of meaning of community ban, i found that the technically the software was not stopping me, Later read about the community bans and how they work, how should i move forward. Use of my comments against me, have been a reason that i was afraid to reply to the admins/users suggestions on my talk page and doing so i un-intensionally offended them. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personal attack on user:maheshkumaryadav: In last few days, user:maheshkumaryadav and his work is specifically being attacked by User:Sitush. Not all but some of the acts of User:Anna_Frodesiak are also not neural. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have been reviewing the contributions of Maheshkumaryadav and can confirm multiple copyvios from non-WP sources. Maheshkumaryadav is correct to say that he has performed some bad splits & lost the CC-BY-SA license info as a consequence, but the issue goes way beyond that. I am becoming tired of his recent spate of borderline personal attacks on me, also. I am one of several people trying to clean up a problem which he still seems not to recognise. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maheshkumaryadav's definition of a neutral person, btw, appears to be "someone who agrees with me". - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, A neutral person means who can see things in complete perspective. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral, non-admin observer who's been following this thread with interest, I believe that with the latest developments, it would be appropriate to indefinitely block Maheshkumaryadav for the copyright violations and a clear WP:COMPETENCE issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a WP:CCI. - Sitush (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request to kindly not engage me such things, I have always respected copyrights and while scrutinizing my work of last 5 years, one should not consider it a single incident. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I for one have reached the limit of my patience with this guy. He has created nearly 500 contentless substubs en masse, has been community-banned for doing so and now, according to a recent link on my talk page, is canvassing for sympathy under the premise of an anti-India bias. I am ready to block him and use the nuke option on all those blasted stubs he refuses to expand. He's taken up way too much of this community's time and patience. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PMDrive1061, What i understand is that i was banned not exactly for creating the village stubs. I was banned because the users (community) i was communicating was asking me to stop creating furthur stubs (for punjab), but at that time i felt that as the new stubs were having govt. reference so it won't be wrong to create them. I got banned by you (or community) for not stopping, and going forward to creating those well referenced Punjab stubs listed here. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. Even if his aim is to better Wikipedia, the end result is a lot of mess to dig through, and he's made it clear that he wants to create stubs and then never touch them again. - SudoGhost (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PM, deal with it, haha. You wanted to be an admin and get paid the big bucks--time to put your nose to the grindstone. I agree--this incommunicative and belligerent editing is not helpful. What type of consensus do you need to nuke them? I mean, is that what you're looking for here? Drmies (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this, User:Anna Frodesiak/Silver sandbox? Drmies (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar section above on this page where he was banned from creating new articles. There seem to be suggestions that a large number of the stubs created may have been copyright violations. I would suggest it's time to discuss a community ban from Wikipedia, not just from creating articles. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. BTW Drmies, I love that link. Of course, you realize that the mop, bucket and three bucks get me a venti cup of Pike Place coffee at Starbucks. :P Seriously though, yes. I'm looking for some sort of consensus since I've been deep in this issue since Monday, if memory serves. Cooler heads on the recent AfD suggested that I not drop the hammer due to my involvement. However, I really think we're being toyed with. This guy can cite the most arcane and little-used policies you can imagine, but he still acts like a new user when it comes to article creation and the posting of multiple copyright violations. He rubber-stamps nanostubs literally by the hundreda and states quite clearly that he will not expand them. Then, he starts crying "bias" when his "articles" are either under AfD or being deleted as having no content. Grrrr....! PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what I think about it all. I've said it often enough. Feel free to wield a nuclear mop. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boom. Got most if not all of them. I need to double-check the list but I think most are now history. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have only missed 469 of them. Whose side are you on here? <g> - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one likes a wise guy, you know. :P First time I've ever used that tool and I'm thinking there's more than one page of these things of his. BRB...PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found out what I was doing wrong, but I think I'm overloading the servers. There are simply too many of them. I'll simply have to delete them a few at a time tomorrow. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the village links have all gone a funny colour on the list. Red, I think it is. - Sitush (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:PMDrive1061 have mass deleted stubs related to state of Punjab, India. All of them had been provided references from the official government website. The list can be found at here. The reason given for deletion "unverifiable nanostubs" doesn't hold good as each one can be verified, by reference provided in it. Kindly look in the matter as the stubs deserve to be restored. An action against User:PMDrive1061 is requested. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above for related information. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The villages listed here can be verified by reference provided in them. The above discussion doesn't talk about verification of these villages, instead seems to cheering about success of deletion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That list is a copy of Anna's list. Why did you not just direct people to hers, since that has already been referred to? It contains all sorts of notes, which your stripped-down version omits. - Sitush (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it was not cheering from me. It was derision. Perhaps it did not come across as intended, in which case I apologise to you (PMDrive1061 seemed to understand). - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an attempt to lighten up a difficult situation and not a personal attack. I'm sorry of you took it that way. What I'm doing in deleting these stubs is in no way personal. As an administrator, it is up to me to try and aid users who are unclear on concepts. Sadly, none of us have been able to get through to you and the ability to laugh at the situation made it somewhat more bearable. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the Punjab village stubs pass the minimum standards required for a stub creation.

a) So see if the stubs may please be restored. This list may be checked here

b) User:Maheshkumaryadav was banned from creating new articles in article space, because of creation of Punjab stubs, against the wishes of some experienced users. Some of them were also not against those stubs, but the timing of creating them. I also feel that the timing of creating them was not good, i should have waited. As these stubs seem to pass the minimum standards for stubs the article creation ban may please be removed. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Removal of ban as proposer. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - nope. The consensus for the creation ban was already there (& you knew of it) prior to the Punjab stubs being created. You were urged by several contributors not' to create those stubs for that reason, among others. This, I am afraid, is another example of you distorting events. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Mahesh appears not to get it, and has even now had the cheek to ask that his not-even-two-day-old article creation ban be removed because he created "stubs (that) pass the minimum standards" while he was banned, and still has not adequately addressed the issue of copyright violation, it is time to consider a proper community ban. Not simply a ban from article creation but a ban from the English Wikipedia, perhaps with the WP:Standard offer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Punjab stubs were created before i was banned. I request, the contents of Punjab stubs must be checked here before proposing. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would request to have a look at User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Respect_to_the_community_views before arriving at an opinion.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban as proposer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support community ban He apparently has knowledge of overly specific policies that he brings up when he feels they will benefit him, while ignoring core things such as WP:N and WP:V. I also agree with Strange Passerby's comments, so there is no need to repeat them. - SudoGhost (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per my knowledge, Wikipedia considers a human settlement as notable WP:N, and a reference from govt. site would shall be sufficient to take care of WP:V part.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any type of ban: The Punjab stubs must be checked before proposing. They pass minimum standards required for a stub. Thanks.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ban proposal has nothing to do with the standards of the stubs, but your persistent refusal to listen to the community. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listening vs agreeing. Some members were against creation of those village stubs, i listened to them, and improved the quality of stubs i was creating. The last lot was Punjab stub with reference from official government websites. While i was creating them, i was banned to let community discuss those first. It's a good time to discuss. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can still create those stubs in your user space. Your refusal to do this while you argue to get the restrictions removed is just more evidence of you not listening. That attitude is likely to land you a community ban. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban on the following grounds:

• This editor still is only concerned with restoring the stubs and creating more.
• He does not care about the wishes of the community.
• He has no intention of expanding the microstubs and has said so.
• He is well-versed in policies that serve him, and writes beautifully to that end. Yet, hasn't a clue about even the most basic policies when editing, and leaves a trial of destruction behind for others to clean up. For example, yesterday he made only about 3 actual article edits. Here are two: A typical mess for others to clean up. ...and... He added content unsupported by the ref, and made empty sections and then walked away.
• He has wasted dozens of hours of community resources, and over 400,000 back page keystrokes.
• His statements in response to this all of this have made it clear that he intends to continue this way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can PMDrive or another admin confirm whether or not those stubs ([User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Silver_sandbox|listed here]]) he's claiming were sourced to the Indian gov't website had such a source when deleted? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I saw them. The creator refers to the refs here. The sources appeared to be a survey list and a parent page from the same site: [2] and [3].

Although they were deleted as "Mass deletion of pages added by Maheshkumaryadav; all are rubber-stampedand unverifiable nanostubs", the decision to delete them was supported by the deleting admin, myself, Sadads, Sitush, et al. This was in lieu of tagging each page, and was done, I believe, on the grounds that they contained no meaningful content. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just temporarily userfied one of his articles — I can vouch that they were all identical; if you wish to review it, it's here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the article Salvio userfied, and I'm not trying to criticize the highly competent editors involved here, but what exactly is wrong with that article? It seems to be a standard human settlement sub-stub, and it has the sources that we asked Mahesh to get. The sources appear to be directly from the Indian gov't, which would seemingly make them reliable. Am I missing something? The village articles I had complained about before had no sources of any type...but it there were sources....Note that I'm still not arguing against a band (or for) as there were other significant problems, but I want to make sure we have our ducks in a row, so to speak. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns. I think Dr. Blofeld explains it best here. (Search string: "I urge him to respect the community views") Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban. I can't tell whether it's sheer intransigence or WP:COMPETENCE that's the problem, but it's obviously not going to stop unless and until we put a stop to it. Bishonen | talk 10:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It can't be intransigence, as my comments User_talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Respect_to_the_community_views may show that, But i agree i need to learn a lot. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban after this user was courteously greeted, well advised and energetically supported. All this effort went into a black hole and there was no reciprocation from him. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban as one of the two users who have spent far too much of their time trying to deal with the detritus as well as the person. I really do not believe that we can help or advise any more, yet what has been said clearly has not actually refined Maheshkumaryadav's contributions or attitude in the slightest. He is as far away from the community norms now as he has ever been. I'm weary of seeing his name popping up in a negative context, his impatience, his arrogance and his apparent double-standards regarding policy knowledge. Not to forget that he keeps accusing me of attacking him for cleaning up the problems he has created. Perhaps now I have attacked him, so feel free to block me. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban. This editor is either ineducable or playing with us. He's cost too many good editors too many hours of work cleaning up after him. --NellieBly (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support community ban. I and others have tried for nearly a week to get through to this user. He's been editing for a long time, yet still doesn't know the basics regarding stub creation and copyrights. On top of that, he can and does quote and cite numerous arcane and nearly unused guidelines on this site. I for one have had it and his cry of action against me is utterly unjustified. Anything I have done and will continue to do with these rubber-stamped nanostubs I do after much thought and community feedback. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - MKY is currently requesting people (via his sandboxed page he refers to above) to take a look at List_of_villages_in_Mohali_district, which is an article not likely to survive for much longer per Anna's sandboxed page. After much persuasion, Mahesh did go back and remove duplicated entries from that list but perhaps do not be fooled by the blue links that remain: when I clicked a random few yesterday before the mass deletion they almost all went to disambig pages with totally irrelevant content. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban I did try, perhaps unwisely, to give this user some sensible advice, still visible on his talk-page. He clearly has paid no attention to it, nor to any other advice he has received as regards his editing. I do not see him as intentionally disruptive, but I do see him as ineducable, at least in wikipedia terms, and I believe that his presence here is, and will continue to be, a negative one. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Maheshkumaryadav: Respect to the community views: I would like to share that after retrospecting and reading views of some contributors that i respect. I would be more careful to the community views and consensus. Within Wikipedia with so may different persons with different motives, it had been difficult for me to understand when individual users become community. I shall be taking the suggestions more seriously. In future, i intend to improve the articles that i had started, and shall avoid mass stub creation. It would be better for me to work with some mentor. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After listening to the community views, I have no complaints for the deleted articles created by me.

I am trying to change the attitude, it had been a bigger problem then edits.

I intend to show the changes not only in my words, but also through my actions also. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• you have promised most of this before, then carried on with your "usual"
• you are not supposed to be creating any stubs, except in userspace, for the time being
• I'm not sure which contributors it is that you respect, but you haven't shown much sign of respecting any so far. In fact, I think you have either ignored or downplayed the comments from every contributor on your talk page except possibly one ... and that one is the person immediately above your comment here, who has just recently expressed the opinion that in fact you have ignored what he advised, so maybe I've misjudged that.
• judging by your talk page "mission statements", you seem to change your stated intent several times a day. This takes me back to the first point in this comment.

It is a shame, it really is, but some people just are not suited to Wikipedia. This does not make you a "bad" person and there are probably other projects more suited to your skill-set and interests, but we cannot keep trying to resolve issues only to find that you move the goalposts back again (as with your desire to overturn the creation band firstly within minutes of it being imposed and then, later, today). Sorry, because I know that this must seem cruel. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Support ban After tracking the situation in the last few days and being somewhat involved, I think there will be a net negative from the user in the future. I did hope to oppose the ban thinking the user would improve over time but the problem is more attitude than knowledge. Plenty of time has been wasted cleaning up articles and there is more left. The user has learned some policies well and disregarded those that ill-suit them. This just leaves a strong possibility of gaming the system in the future and an overall failure to respect to basic policies like consensus.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I mean no disrespect to anyone above, and I believe you're all acting in good faith, but I want to be sure that we are properly following our own principles--that we are protecting the encyclopedia, not punishing an individual who has caused us so much vexation. I have asked Mahesh a series of questions on his talk page, to see if he will accept formal mentoring. While the community is still welcome to attempt to achieve consensus on a ban (as it seems likely that they will), I'd like to ask for a day or so before this discussion is closed to see how Mahesh responds, and whether or not his responses indicate that there is any hope for getting a productive editor out of the process. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If everyone could kindly take a look at Mahesh's response at User talk:Maheshkumaryadav#Serious question, is there anyone who thinks that there may be a possibility for redemption here? Or has Mahesh already passed the point of no return? My feeling is, the only major loss is to my time (as mentor); the conditions of the mentoring (which I will write up formally here if there is interest) would be extremely strict, with violations leading to an immediate indefinite block. However, if others involved feel I'm simply being too trusting and that Mahesh has already demonstrated that xe will never be a net benefit to the project even with a period of close supervision, then I'll accept that, and the door can be closed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust you to be able to mentor Mahesh, although what the end result will be I can't say. Wouldn't mind mentoring over a community ban. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qwryxian, if you feel like undertaking the effort I'd agree with holding off on a ban until we see the results of some mentoring. This diff does not fill me with confidence for the outcome, but have a go by all means. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I feel proposal of community ban is an over reaction on part of the community and is brought up in undue haste. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. A lot of time and many pages of words have already been wasted on this editor. Quite the contrary, I think the community's patience has shown to have worn thin. Nothing hasty here — we already gave him an article creation ban which he tried to get removed within the first two days! Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 08:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to get removed inside the first hour, actually. Then again yesterday. And created some new redirect pages after the ban was in place, which were retroactively accepted by User:Fram as being borderline ok behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is requested to look at my edits, contributions, articles and portal started. All (99%) contributions are in good faith. The efforts have been to expand the Wikipedia, cover the topics required in society, mostly India related. The topic of articles started by me can prove that i try to work for the social cause. The reasons for me being present here is that i want to contribute to society. Mostly (more than 99%) of my edits have been within Wikipedia rules. I hope members will try to look things from my perspective. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Look at things from your perspective", where you're right, everyone else is biased against you, and you again make promises of good behaviour when threatened with sanctions? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want him banned out of revenge or anger. I just don't want to clean up any more debris. If you want to mentor him on a short leash, and he becomes productive, it's conceivable that he could, over time, mitigate the damages in terms of productive contribs. If you want to take responsibility, please do, although I'm not optimistic that what he could give would out weight what you would spend.

We are all exhausted from this, and still have work to do at silver, so forgive us if we are not so enthusiastic in being humanitarians. It's not so much that this editor has burned us. It's more that we're all tired...and that he's burned us. There 'is' that.

Somehow, I think his interest is not in making boring, useful contribs, and he will lose interest. You may end up eating your wiki-hat on this one, my friend. But if you pull this off, and there are contributions that negate this mess, I will send you the finest wiki-faberge egg this site has to offer. It would be nice to see this end on the plus side. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To all supporters of a ban: I am right on the line with this. I am not optimistic. It's a shot at recoupment. My faith is in Qwyrxian. My faith in Maheshkumaryadav remains the same. If you reject Qwyrxian's offer, I am 100% fine with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anna. Qwyrxian deserves the highest level of praise this site can offer whether or not he can turn this situation around. Mahesh, you're being handed a real opportunity. I hope that you take it and I hope that you stick to the terms of the agreement. Channel your enthusiasm in creating quality. Quality knows no time limits. PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it works out with MKY to begin, I agree as well. It is better than a ban I guess. I trust Qwyrxian.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at all confident this will work out but if Qwyrxian wants to have a go then fine by me. It will not be him who causes it to fail. - Sitush (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ban - the contributions made by him are unfortunately serious matters. On top of that, he has utterly disappointed us with his actions and his copyvios. So, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Qwyrxian, do you have an update on the mentorship proposal or should/can an admin enact the community's consensus here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I've only had time today to barely cover my watchlist. While I, like many others, am far from certain that mentorship will work, I do believe it is worth a shot. I will draft a specific set of rules and post them here just as soon as I can; should be within 24 hours. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait and see if mentorship is workable. I have a lot of respect for Qwyrxian's idea. Yes, a lot of the past contributions have been problematic and wasted a lot of other people's time; but we are talking about an editor who is pretty active in an area that is poorly covered by wikipedia. If we can bring that editor into the community and within the rules, so that they create lots of nice content, then it's a big win for both sides. Definitely worth trying. Mahesh should realise that they have been given several chances, and this is the last one. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe get someone to fork your watchlist. Hm, I'm struggling to think of someone who likes doing that sort of thing. - Sitush (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rules for mentorship of Maheshkumaryadav:

1. Maheshkumaryadav will enter into mentorship under Qwyrxian in lieu of being community banned. Mahesh understands that this does not in any way imply that the community's concerns were wrong, that xyr prior actions were proper, or that xe does not need to improve significantly to become a full, productive member of Wikipedia.
2. The topic ban on article creation which was currently agreed upon by the community remains active. Mahesh may not create any articles of any type in mainspace, including splits or redirects. Mahesh can appeal the ban following the normal procedures at WP:UNBAN after no less than six months time, and is strongly encouraged to seek approval from Qwyrxian prior to making such an appeal.
3. For no less than the first 2 weeks of mentorship, Mahesh will make no edits to mainspace without first getting approval from Qwyrxian. Mahesh's performance in the first few weeks will determine future progress. Even after Mahesh is cleared to make direct mainspace edits, xe is strongly encouraged throughout the mentorship to ask first whenever xe is uncertain about how to proceed.
4. Mahesh will endeavor to take all community input (past and future) under consideration when making edits. If Mahesh undertakes an action/series of actions that others object to, Mahesh will desist and discuss the issue until such time as consensus is clear to continue.
5. Mahesh will assist any editors who ask for help regarding in cleaning up his prior contributions (though xe still must abide by the other points on this list when doing so).
6. The exact mentorship process will be worked out between Qwyrxian and Mahesh. If for some reason Qwyrxian will be unavailable for an extended or indefinite period of time, Mahesh will need to seek input from WP:AN about how to proceed. Note that by extended I mean several weeks or more--I make no promises to be instantly and continuously available, nor will I abandon all other projects solely for mentoring.
7. If at any time Mahesh decides to "go it alone"--that is to violate the article creation topic ban, or make major changes to articles without prior approval, or add information to articles that seriously violates WP:NPOV or copyright rules, Mahesh understands that xe will immediately be indefinitely blocked. There will be no additional ANI discussion, no waiting for apologies--just an indefinite block, and xe'll have to pursue the standard offer.

I welcome input from other participants here for any additional stipulations or changes. Once we're the "rules" are clear, then we'll make sure Mahesh agrees, and see if we can't possibly make some progress. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All seems fine to me. Very well composed, in fact. I'll back off when the agreement is, er, agreed as I would hope at that point there would be little chance of Mahesh going renegade. The list of past articles that may require assistance from him has been available for a few days now and he knows where it is. - Sitush (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve as is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Approve - and kudos to Qwyrxian for the generous offer. I agree it would be good to harness this editor's energies and the best of luck in doing so! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve. I hope this works; Mahesh seems to have caused some substantial problems but they might have the potential to be a really valuable editor. Best of luck to both Qwyrxian and Mahesh. bobrayner (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very well, I hope Mahesh is rehabilitate-able. Good luck, Qwyrxian, and props for taking this on. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like a better solution, I would like to echo the kudos to Qwyrxian for taking this on, Sadads (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly approve I really hope this works, I like the looks of the proposal. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks good to me. Thanks Qwyrxian. Mahesh, I hope you accept this and that it works out. We do need articles on Indian villages but you need to figure out how to go about creating them properly. Good luck. --rgpk (comment) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly approve as well. The very best of luck to the two of you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly approve. (edit conflict) A ban seems very harsh to an editor who otherwise appears to want to contribute positively, despite not doing so in a way that the community would like. This feels like a very workable solution that hopefully will leave everyone somewhat satisfied. elektrikSHOOS 15:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve per WP:ROPE. We will watch what you do --Guerillero | My Talk 19:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the clear support here, I've asked for Mahesh to come here to officially state his acceptance of these conditions. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I officially accept these conditions. Special thanks to User:Qwyrxian for accepting to be my mentor. Thanks to others also. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before this goes too far, let me ask for attention to a biography (and a related semi-fringy-scientific term). User:Indépendance des Chercheurs, a new name for what seems to be an old user (with a host of IPs) is claiming some serious ownership, especially after I reinstated a bunch of templates that Coffee had placed there a year ago, templates which were summarily removed, without explanation, from an IP which looks a lot like all the other IPs in that history. Anyway, as I write this the editor has twice removed my templates, here and here (note: I did not reinstate all of them, only those I considered still valid), and has claimed ownership in edit summaries and on the talk page (note the use of the royal conspiracy plural), and has accused me, it seems, of complicity in some conspiracy which no doubt had as its goal to destroy a well-meaning scientist and their work--or something like that.

The BLP issue of the article itself is relevant as well, it strikes me, but perhaps at a later date. Relevant to this thread also are the editors edits at Superbradyon. No doubt there are some among you who are knowledgeable of this affair. Your attention is appreciated; I'm afraid we're headed for a conflict with all the accoutrements--fringe science, ownership, BLP vanispam, a "collective", the whole shebang. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I was notifying the editor, I noticed that they just reverted a third time. A final warning and a 3R warning would be appropriate, in my opinion, but I should back down from templating all over their talk page. I leave that for y'all to judge. Drmies (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like Indépendance might be an account shared by multiple people given their use of pronouns like we/our. Kevin (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This diff [4] refers to "our collective" - it is clearly a shared account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to it somewhere as a royal conspiracy plural--I think it is more a collective in spirit than in anything else. I have a nagging suspicion that the subject of the bio is the blog is the Independance is the IPs; that's often how those kinds of vanity bios work. All the contributions have the same tone, for instance. The "we" is the plural of a persecuted minority that has no recourse than to blog!blog!blog! about the injustice being perpetrated on Wikipedia. See their latest comments on the talk page of the bio. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hot off the press: editor made what appears to be a legal threat on the talk page, "We are not afraid of threats. If we are blocked, we will react consequently", and in an edit summary, "If we are blocked, we will act elsewhere", where they again removed the templates. Note: I have made a series of edits to the article indicating the problems with sourcing. Moreover, I have explained on the talk page what the COI is, so the editor's claim, "You still have not given a single serious argument", is clearly incorrect.

Perhaps it's also time for a harduserblock: the username is the name of the subject's "collective" (it's in the article, Luis_González-Mestres#Other_activities), and the blog they keep threatening us with is run by the subject as well (see talk page for details). Couple the name with the disruptive edits intended to promote the subject and I think there's enough ground for a block. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were removed a fifth time; I will report this at 3R, though I want to let this thread to remain as well for the ownership and COI issues. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bunch of sock- or meatpuppetry in the AfD for "superbradyon" - IPs with no other edits repeating material verbatim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, "we/our" does sometimes get used by individuals who want to give the impression that more people share their opinion, or that their beliefs are backed by an organisation, so group pronouns alone don't necessarily mean that an account is being shared. bobrayner (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but the sock- or meatpuppetry at the AfD is blatantly obvious. They keep coming out of the woodwork with brand-new never-before-edited IP numbers, saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. I've given up marking them, they've made it so terribly obvious that they're not truly independent actors. All of the "keep" !votes come from them and the one named account (the author of the article), all regular editors with a contribution history who have participated in the discussion have !voted "Delete." It's the clearest (and most amateurish) attempt to create a false consensus I've even seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the AfD is becoming a joke, given the total lack of understanding of policy from the !keep voters (voter?). It might be sensible to ask an uninvolved admin to consider putting it out of its misery early, to avoid any more time-wasting. This will no doubt result in howls of 'conspiracy' from the 'keep' camp, but they will do this regardless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per this post the blocked user appears to be claiming to be a shared account. If so, it rates an indefinite block. Oh, and if anyone is curious about what the Bogdanov Affair is that they're going on and on about, it looks like there really is a Bogdanov Affair.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes there is. As a matter of fact, apparently I'm involved with the timely coincidence which isn't a coincidence. Presumably I'm a secret French agent who wants to redirect the Superbradyon article for political reasons. I hope it's true--I'm sure girls love secret French agents. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh goody. Do I get to play 'exotic secret agent' too? The name's Grump. Andy the Grump. Licensed to grumble ;) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I love conspiracy theory, it makes everything so much easier. If there's evidence of a conspiracy, well... then, that's evience of a conspiracy, and if there's no evidence of a conspiracy, that just means they were sucessful in covering it up, so that's evidence of a conspiracy as well. Life would be so simple... and, meanwhile, the real conspiracies are ignored! Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been reading Foucault's Pendulum again? Drmies (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Grump, and BMK, it is obvious that you (and I!) are on the payroll of stringers: "Obviously, "standard string-model" people asking for money and positions would be happy if the article on superbradyons were suppressed". Note how the next IP modifies the phrasing slightly. Now, I can't wait for that check and the job offer at CERN--I'm sure it pays a lot better than shining shoes or editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• 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)[reply]

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

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

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

Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have temporarily semi-protected User:Jimbo Wales and User talk:Jimbo Wales due to ongoing persistent additions of "bad images". I did so reluctantly, but for images that most people would consider pornography to repeatedly appear on such high visibility pages is not good for Wikipedia. Please feel free to alter or revert those protections without consulting me if there is consensus to do so (I may not be around too much later today). -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(non admin comment) I may be wrong, but I thought Jimbo didn't want his page protected? Besides if it's photos that would be best placed in gentlemen's special interest literature rather than Wikipedia, why not just delete the images in question? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The repeated placement of any image on anybody's user page to shock or offend readers is inappropriate. That the image is indecent makes it even more inappropriate. I'd protect any other user's page if they were subject to a similar sequence of attacks. I don't think Jimbo's user page should be given any less consideration than other users' would get. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the images - a large glans closeup - is on Commons, so not quickly deletable (and not necessarily deletable anyway - it may be appropriate in other places, but certainly not there). Also, it looks like a concerted attack by a number of registrations, so I support the short term protection -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, you can use Mediawiki:Bad image list to blacklist the files in question. It won't stop the edits, but it will stop the image (regardless of whether it's Commons or local) from showing up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The vandal is just using images that are hosted on Commons. When one is added to the Bad Image List, he just switches to another and there is a nearly endless supply of images of genitalia on Commons. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just the phrase "nearly endless supply of images of genitalia on Commons" seems indicative of a problem. Maybe this is not run-of-the-mill vandalism but a misguided attempt to draw attention to the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would having perfectly encyclopedic images on Commons be an issue? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going engage in that discussion here, but how many images like File:Erect_human_penis,_age_30.JPG does Commons need? Is one hundred enough? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone tried to get a checkuser to investigate? If it's one IP, we could block account creation. — Edokter (talk) — 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the last time Jimbo went on a porn delete spree he was nearly banned. Rklawton (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The attacks have resumed, so I've protected both pages for 12 hours. Favonian (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short term protection of the pages may be appropriate, but what about using the banhammer on the perpetrators too? Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each user has been immediately blocked indef. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an edit filter to prevent newish editors from adding additional images (unless linked to with [[:Image:name]]) to certain user pages would be an idea - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps something more narrow such as a filter that will prevent the addition of any new image to Jimbo's pages. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like Kingpin13's idea (checking for both [[File:name]] and [[Image:name]]). No reason to limit it to Jimbo's pages, I doubt the rest of us want to be waking up to those photos on our talk pages either. There's seldom a good reason to add a 1000px image to someone else's user or talk page. 28bytes (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Block review: I blocked auto-confirmed user Maristsion (talk · contribs) indefinitely, meaning until they can come up with a really good explanation. I did this after I noticed their "contribution" to Jimbo's user page, but before I saw the one they made to mine. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Rklawton (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't for the life of me see why you need this block "reviewed". What are you trying to achieve Favonian? It's self evidently a good block. Sheesh. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got the impression that the pictures were related to a long-running ideological dispute. Indef'ing throw-away accounts is one thing, but doing it to an auto-confirmed one may be interpreted as heavy handed. Having seen their response, I guess the point is moot. Favonian (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note: The problem has returned today and I have temporarily semi-protected the pages again. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the incident Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive695#Vandalism_by_OpinionAreLikeAHoles_and_anon_IP, it seems to have been archived and yet the apparent use of multiple accounts doesn't appear to have been addressed. One is blocked pending a request for a name change (see User talk:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles) and the other Special:Contributions/Vassos55 has not been blocked. Could an admin please explain what is going to happen to this case so that it isn't just left hanging/archived ? Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one does need attention, please. Can we avoid pulling it back out of archives?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like User:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles was indefinitely blocked by User:Tnxman307 on May 11th. But User:Vassos55, his sock, has not yet been blocked. Tiamut^talk 08:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:OpinionsAreLikeAHoles had an unblock for username change accepted, but the admin who accepted forgot to unblock. However, the editor in question has not queried this. User:Vassos55 has not edited since the primary account was blocked. I suspect he is editing from yet another account - any idea what it might be. If he's not editing, no action is required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past few days, a sequence of IPs has been making identical or very similar disruptive edits on several articles, including Nakba Day, Arab citizens of Israel, Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas school bus attack. The IPs include User:86.154.178.152, User:86.141.5.59, User:86.149.12.18, User:46.116.170.52, User:86.149.12.108 and User:81.156.193.126. These are clearly all the work of the same person, who in some edit summaries has claimed to be the Runtshit vandal, although actual edits do not match Runtshit's characteristics. These articles have also been the target recently of similar attacks by subsequently blocked socks User:AmiAyalon1969 and User:Rym torch. There has been similar disruption on other articles, including Women's rights in Saudi Arabia and Palestinian Centre for the Study of Nonviolence, including by these and other IPs, and by other confirmed and suspected sockpuppets.

I have submitted this here, rather than at WP:SPI, because it is difficult to identify one puppeteer, and because this disruption probably requires additional steps, including temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin observation) I checked the geolocation of the IPs...three different towns under one ISP in the UK, one IP under one ISP in Israel. I'd venture a guess that it's at least two, possibly three meatpuppets, or maybe one user that has a playpen account on a server a fair distance from home. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This disruption continues today, with User:46.38.162.18 joining in. Could an admin please look at this?RolandR (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now joined by User:86.149.12.131 and User:86.152.109.173. RolandR (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these IPs have now been blocked as proxies. But others have joined in, including User:90.2.18.155, User:86.205.11.24, User:90.2.85.156, User:90.2.84.209 and User:90.2.80.142. RolandR (talk) 12:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I was looking for this discussion as I wanted to see how it was getting on [Note: that link wont actually work]. It was archived for inactivity so I tried to find it to see if anything had been added since I saw it last.

This is where it gets weird. It did not come up in a search and when I did track it down it seems the whole bottom half of the archive is not there. The section links still show up in the table of contents but they don't work and if you scroll down the sections aren't actually there.

I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if it is a known one if it is.

Can anyone tell me what is up? Colincbn (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind It is there now. I guess there was just some lag between getting erased from here and getting posted to the archive. Everything seems fine now. Sorry for taking your time. Colincbn (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when my internet is being slow part of a page will download and then it stops, so I get the table of contents and maybe the top half of the page but not the rest. If I get impatient and click on a TOC link before the rest of the page downloads, the link doesn't work, and of course, when I scroll down the sections aren't there. Archive pages tend to be long, so it sounds like this might be what happened to you. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is happening to me with regular frequency in the past few days. Not sure of the cause yet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reloaded the page a few times and waited for it to fully load. But I think it was still just lag as Steven suggests. It may be that the net around St.Pete FL (my hometown by the way!) is slow so it is causing more of this kind of thing for long wiki pages. Colincbn (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Wikipedia. Seriously. On my work and home PCs, completely different OSes, browsers, ISPs, and quite different geography, I've noticed that at times Wikipedia takes forever to load a page and sometimes will only partially load a page before stalling or won't load a page at all (it just shows white space). This happens in spurts, such that if I have 3 different pages trying to load in different tabs, they will all stall at the same time. I suspect either a technical problem, or possibly more people are using the site than before and the hardware hasn't been upgraded to compensate. -- Atama頭 16:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Slow_load_time. Doing diffs of large pages is sometimes downright painful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

SuperblySpiffingPerson is a fairly prolific sockmaster - see latest SPIs. I came across him at List of surviving veterans of World War I where he has repeatedly tried to delete or blank it - one of his socks (which was subsequently blocked) raised an AfD very recently which resulted in a Snow Keep. Since then, he's twice blanked it from an IP and once from a near-certain new sock account. Looking at the SPIs, he seems to be obsessively making non-consensus changes to other articles too and causing quite a lot of work for others - mostly relating to the fighting in Libya, it seems. I'd like to propose a community ban so that his socks can be blocked on sight - no editing on Wikipedia at all. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the sockmaster, and his latest probable sock, TheOnlyRationalBeing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as nominator -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, that SPI page has been appearing on my watchlist with some regularity. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban With 36 accounts/IPs, + more suspected, the amount of sockpuppetry has gone way beyond enough to justify a ban. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban enough said and done, a ban is fully warranted by now. noclador (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A ban is clearly the best course of action at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. He earned it! Favonian (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per errantX. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support every word written in this section. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support One sock is an ill-advised mistake. Two is troubling. Three or four might be somewhat overlookable if it was all one incident. By the time we get into double digits, it is time for a community ban. I have yet to see a single case where double digits could be justified as anything other than willful and flagrant disregard for bright line policy. It’s malicious and disruptive. Burn with fire. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Having dealt with him since he first came around, I say bring the mighty banhammer down upon him. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 03:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Whip out the banhammer, whack the %$*&^%($^&%# and deposit it directly into WP:LOBU! There is no way 36 socks is anything but willful defiance of Wikipedia's policies. Get this clown out of here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 04:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per Sven Manguard. It's time to press that button. Anonymous of Italy (talk • contribs) 11:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It turned out that I could not have started all those AfDs on non-notable playmates because my BLP ban forbids me. While I plead to have done that in ignorance of the extent of the ban (I though I should only avoid directly editing bios, and after some time I even forget about that), I am open to whatever is the proper penalization for my bad memory/process-knowledge.

That said, this thread is to bring to wider attention that it's been argued on many nominations (that have ben open of almost 20 days now) that they should be closed as procedural keep (example here and here). Some good number of them were indeed closed after such arguments by admin User:Cirt (examples here and here) and some others by non-admin User:Baseball Watcher (examples here and here). There are other playmate AfDs closings by the same non-admin that deserve some scrutinizing, as they seem based on vote counting, but this is another issue.

Unsurprisingly, some of those AfD that were closed after 20 days of discussion as a procedural keep are already being restarted with the proper bureaucracy, like with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Miller (model) (2nd_nomination).

Well, I was reluctant to bring this to this board since such threads are always such an opportunity to attack me. But I believe the matter should not pass under the radar. Let's face the consequences.

Are those procedural keeps good to the project? --Damiens.rf 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: unless the AfDs meet the criteria for a WP:SPEEDYKEEP, is there any "procedural" reason to treat them any differently from any other AfD? I.e. is there any policy basis for the "procedural keep" argument? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually if there are other participants supporting deletion, then the nominator's status (e.g., topic bans, sockpuppets, etc.) is not sufficient by itself to close the nomination. But this case is complicated by the mass nomination approach that has already been debated; if there are nominations sitting open for extended periods without drawing much discussion beyond "procedural keep" complaints, then that is probably the best close in those particular cases. For any with robust discussion, then the nominator's mistake should be disregarded. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Was your mass nomination of BLP articles, while banned from editing BLPs, good to the project? - No. You reaped what you sowed, Damiens, to the detriment of all.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have no opinion on whether they should be kept, but I would like to state my opposition to any blocks on this editor as a result of his violation of his topic ban, as I believe any blocks would be punitive because he made a good faith effort to bring the incident to everybody's attention upon realizing his violation. Kansan (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Non-admin comment: Damiens' honesty is refreshing, as is his willingness to accept responsibility for his actions. But I have to ask, given the time span between the AfD noms and this commentary, has the horse already left the barn? My own 2p is to WP:LETITGO based on the timeframe, and perhaps issue an official WP:MINNOW (since by the sound of it he already trouted himself). But that's just me. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "While I plead to have done that in ignorance of the extent of the ban (I though I should only avoid directly editing bios, and after some time I even forget about that),". Oh come on, it definitely seems like you forgot about the ban itself, hence the continuing edits to BLPs [5][6][7][8] in general before the reminder even if to enforce policies. This link[9] seems to be an admission that you just forgot about the ban, not its extent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  In regards to "hence the continuing edits to BLPs [10][11][12][13]", half the examples are not living people. --Damiens.rf 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I copied and pasted the wrong links since I had several tabs open to review your work.[14][15] were the other two I meant. That's four too many BLP subject edits after your AfD barrage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a block is in order. Damiens got a topic ban. He had a bot set up so that such notices automatically disappear from his talk page within days. He then evaded the topic ban until another user pointed it out (i.e. he only admitted it after he was caught). He then posts this notice here, which I think is against at least the spirit of the ban. Since he does not seem able to abide by topic bans, he should be given a ban he cannot ignore.
  • On 7 April Damiens was given a topic ban.
  • On 16 April a bot archives the topic ban notice from Damiens's talk page. This has the happy effect of allowing him to ignore the block, because most editors won't know that he ever had one.
  • On 28 April, he contravenes the topic ban by proposing huge numbers of pages for deletion.
  • In the deletion discussions he again contravenes the topic ban by posting rebuttal arguments. (See for example [16], [17], [18].)
  • On 12 May User:SlimVirgin pointed out on Damiens's talk page that he has broken the topic ban by editing the Jessica Valenti article. Further discussion makes it clear that Damiens broke the topic ban by initiating all those deletion discussions and participating in them.
  • Today he posts a notice here, asking for some of the deletion discussions he initiated that resulted in a keep to be 'scrutinised' (i.e. to have the 'keep decision' reversed). Notice that he only wants the ones that resulted in a keep 'scrutinised'; he does not want the ones did not go his way 'scrutinised'. Posting a notice here asking for this is at the very least against the spirit of the topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am baffled by the claim, in the last bulleted item, that for a user to inquire about the consequences of his admitted violation of a topic ban is in some way approaches being a violation of the topic ban. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)No, he's only asking about the AfDs that were closed as "procedural keep", regardless of the merits of the discussion. I don't see him challenging anything that got a full discussion and was closed on the merits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were any explicitly closed as procedural keep? Or would that extend to the ones that close keep after procedural keep rationales were presented in the discussions? Monty₈₄₅ 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        They continue to be (see here). Even when the closer do not explicitly mentions the procedural close, many afds that were repeated relisted were then close after one or two procedural keep votes.

        I believe we either do a procedural keep to them all or disregard the procedural keep votes altogether. The current situation is not consistent. --Damiens.rf 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin question: Is a topic-banned editor allowed to remove the ban notice from his or her talk page? If not, shouldn't bot-archiving of the talk page be forbidden for the duration of the ban? I don't ask this to throw sharp rocks at Damiens, but to ask whether this should be stipulated as part of future topic bans. --NellieBly (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REMOVE speaks to that...if I'm reading the policy correctly,notices regarding active sanctions may NOT be removed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section states that removing a ban notice is not allowed, but it says nothing about archiving a ban notice. In fact, the first paragraph of that section states that editors may remove comments but archiving is preferable. This implies that archiving and removal aren't considered the same thing. My concern is that ban notices aren't just there for admins but for us regular editors, who might not even look for an archive let alone check it. I know this sounds like epic wikilawyering, but I wish WP:REMOVE was a bit clearer on the matter. --NellieBly (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a change to WP:REMOVE at Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First, in response to the issue raised of a potential block for the violation, I think at this point doing so would be punitive rather aimed at preventing additional disruption. Further whether Damiens.rf misunderstood the scope of the ban or forgot about it is also immaterial, as both would result in good faith editing in violation of it. As to the substance of the deletion discussions, while the nominator is not given any special weight in the closing of a deletion discussion, in most cases the nominating statement will frame the debate, and will thus have a large influence on the subsequent discussion. The nominating statements in these cases where not blurb "no evidence of notability, so delete it" type statements, but instead were relatively strong arguments. Combined with the mass nomination format, I continue to think the articles were much more likely to be deleted as a result of the strategic decisions made in the nomination statement and process, and so that they were made in violation of the topic ban is specially relevant. While I haven't done so, as it would probably be as disruptive as the original nominating spree, I think any of the articles that were deleted could be rightly subject to deletion review in light of the topic ban revelation. In fairness if we are to review the discussions that resulted in keep, we should also review the ones that ended in delete before the ban was known. Monty₈₄₅ 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would agree that a block is in order here due to violation of the topic ban by mass-creating AFDs. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Block Blocks must prevent damage to the encyclopedia. If the ban on BLP contributions is circumvented again then a block would be in order. But as the user is not actively proposing additional BLPs for deletion and was nice enough to confess their mistake at ANI I'd say we're far better of here with a WP:TROUT and a directive to avoid BLPs in all sense of the word until such time as the topic ban is overturned. To block now would be a punitive punishment, not a prevention against damage. N419BH 18:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose block. While Damiens apparently violated the topic ban, none of the BLP edits he made since the ban was imposed involve either aspect of the conduct which led to the ban -- edit warring and adding inadequately sourced potentially derogatory content. If a further sanction is to be imposed (which I am not arguing is appropriate), it should be limited to resetting the ban to run for three months from May 12, when the problem was reported, rather than three months from its initial date. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed

That the topic ban be formally extended to include deletion discussions. This could be recorded in a subpage of the user's userpage, and protected, so as to avoid forgetfulness in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. What damage to the encyclopedia is a block going to prevent? The editor has already acknowledged the breach, and brought it here for discussion - and, incidentally, no one else noticed it in the three weeks since this latest spree of AFDs came forward. I'd support the idea that nominating a BLP for deletion is a violation of the topic ban - if it wasn't clear before, it is now. The next AFD the editor creates on a BLP, block'em. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody noticed his breaking the topic ban for three weeks because he had a bot archive the topic ban notice out the way. I don't think that is an ethical way to behave.

One benefit of a block is that it will help Damiens' memory. There is also the fairness issue; why should he be allowed to to go on crusades against things he does not like in contravention of a block? If he is allowed to do this, then why should anybody abide by inconvenient topic bans. People deserve to be treated fairly. Remember Wikipedia is sometimes very harsh in treating well-meaning but annoying people.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the comment about "an ethical way to behave" is rather inappropriate. As Nelliebly points out, archiving talk page comments is different from removing them; more important, the automatic archiving code was not added to the page in any way that facilitated removing the comment involved from display, but had been in place for quite some time before the topic ban was imposed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is only to be used to stop future disruptive behavior by the editor, it seems clear Damiens.rf understands the scope of the ban now, and so any block would not be consistent with policy. It is routine for someone not to get blocked due to staleness. Monty₈₄₅ 18:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see other people who have topic bans or interaction bans or other restrictions list them either, so I think it's accepted to archive them. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure his memory will be effectively refreshed well enough by keeping a reminder on his user talk page and by going through this process. I simply don't think a block here can be sufficiently justified as preventative, especially given that the relevant incident happened long enough ago. Kansan (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I wish to make it clear that I am not condoning Damiens.rf's actions or edits, it seems that some people here may have lost perspective. From what I can tell, Damiens.rf received a temporary ban on BLP editing because they were persistently adding "porn star" to Kira Reed. Although I think the term itself has negative connotations, it is an easy matter to establish that Kira Reed did perform in hardcore porn and was quite open about that fact (see this interview for example). Then Damiens.rf is roundly chastised for a multiple deletion request of Playboy Playmates, despite the fact that there has been ample time since the change to WP:PORNBIO to bolster the articles of any former Playmates who are independently notable. Most recently, editors were voting to keep articles which clearly failed WP:GNG simply because they did not like the nomination or the nominator. While Damiens.rf may be pursuing some kind of agenda with these actions, it appears that others are the ones who are violating the intent of our guidelines and policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as getting particularly personal insofar as that he is being singled out (the ANI community does, after all, normally hold community bans in high regard), so, yes, I think it would be happening if this were another editor. As I've stated above, I don't think a block is necessary, but I see no examples here of others violating our guidelines and policies as you state. Kansan (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistaken overstatement which I have now corrected. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, it was a BLP discretionary sanction, not a consensus based community ban. Monty₈₄₅ 18:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While my behavior and any punitive/preventive action may me discussed in the above thread-forks, I suggest we concentrate here on what do we do about the procedural keeps themselves. Options seems to be:

1. To procedurally keep all playmate AfDs I started.

   This includes undeleting any article deleted due to these AfDs.

2. To procedurally keep only the playmates AfDs that are not yet closed.
3. To undo all procedural keeps and let the AfDs to run.
4. Do not undo the procedural keeps but also prevent any further procedural keeps on this batch of AfDs.
5. Some other option that I can't think of.

I believe 2 and 4, although the easiest to implement, are inconsistent. I too involved to have a say on my preferred solution without being bashed beyond what I can take. --Damiens.rf 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify some AfDs that were explicitly closed as procedural keep? The two you provided as examples when you opened this discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Miller (model) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Glasson were both closed as keep without additional comment. I personally support option #6: let existing closes stand, and let the remaining ones be closed without intervention from AN/I. Monty₈₄₅ 21:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is you #6 not the same as #4? I'll dig some of the AfDs and post them here. --Damiens.rf 21:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4 intervenes and prevents procedural closes going further, while #6 leaves things to end without intervention. Monty₈₄₅ 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So #6 is "Do nothing about previous procedural closes and do nothing about future closes (procedural or not)". Right? Simply ignore this as a non-issue? We had more than 10 contentious AfDs closed by a non-admin and we just leave it as is? --Damiens.rf 16:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pushing for the "more than 10 contentious AfDs closed by a non-admin" to be reviewed.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? (Not that I don't like to blindly fulfill your desires, but...) --Damiens.rf 17:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be for an uninvolved admin close all of these as tainted and start new AfDs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

This might be the wrong area to do this; however, my issue is the complete opposite of a block requestI cannot understand why this editor is blocked (I have no relations) and I think an admin should take a look at this. 174.25.212.90 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block that trolling IP? T. Canens (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia Review people trolling, right? Still, not sure about your edit filter and block of anyone typing "Abd", seems like overkill. Whatever happened to the "ignore" part of RBI? Fences&Windows 19:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more refined than that. Real false positives are addressed; those deliberately triggering it or attempting to test its parameters are blocked. There's a reason some filters are hidden. T. Canens (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion at WP:AN

I have monited the above users aggressive editing style and stumbled by chance over his/her edits on another users talk page [19] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How about you both quit goading each other [20] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Don't know if this is the right place to post this, please move it if not. Can an administrator please have a look at Westbankfainting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his contributions to Poison affair of Palestinian schoolgirls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I believe that there a a 1RR in place on that page due to the Israel-Arab subject of the page. Mtking (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the result of WP:AN3#User:99.120.1.227 reported by User:ברוקולי (Result: Protected). I was not aware of the post here at ANI when I closed the 3RR. The IP editor, who is now registered as Westbankfainting, has been warned for reverting. The article itself is protected for two weeks, to allow consensus to be found about the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 is a private citizen) 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)[reply]

Kinky topic, maybe, but there's little excitement here beyond an uncommunicative editor (their talk page is full of warnings and notifications--nothing major, but no responses are given, ever) who has three times now reverted my removal of unverified OR-ish material. I'm not sure if administrative action is required at this point, but perhaps someone who is uninvolved can do a better job of explaining some of our policies--such as WP:V, at the "duh" level. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has promised sources, so lets just wait. Besides, most of the edits don't look particularly controversial. Search Google images for bondage hoods and you'll see a lot of illustrations for the variations the editor describes - with the point being that these edits shouldn't really be considered any more controversial than "the sky is blue on a clear day." Rklawton (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're referring to an edit summary of theirs, "You clearly know nothing about this subject, you are merely being disruptive. External references are forthcoming. A lot of this stuff is fairly self-evident anyway. I'd upload more pictures to illustrate, but the admins won't let me." I wish I had as much faith as you have! But what is wrong with them waiting to add the material until they collected the sources? In the meantime we had an article of some 10,000 bytes with one source, a "Challenging, erotic, pseudo-autobiograpy detailing the changing perspectives of a disabled, middle-aged female psychotherapist" published on Lulu, and a lot of detail that without verification is little more than trivia. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANDROBETA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

ANDROBETA recently was blocked for 3RR at Evolutionism. It was actually around an 8RR. We have made several requests, starting with snark-free, ending up being kind of cranky, when you ask the same thing over and over again. You can see the thread here. So, immediately after the block, ANDROBETA is back at again here, here, and here. We're beyond edit-warring, more like all out obsession. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Arfican is causing considerable disruption at an ongoing Rfc: I suspect it is a sock, as the account was created just to take part in the discussion. [21] Recently, it has doctored an image I uploaded. [22] He has doctored File:Palestine add.jpg to File:Israel add.jpg. Chesdovi (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi is causing problems with many other editors on Rfc. He is combative, insulting, and threatening. Virtually no one is in agreement with him. He uploaded a picture that may or may no be altered. My picture I believe is more accurate. Please slow him down from his disruptions. Thank You. --Arfican (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Chesdovi is a conflicting editor, who seems to have a point. His record of blocks and warnings in the area of Israel and Palestinian subjects speaks for itself, one of them very recently in connection with this same issue. He does not seem to accept the fact that consensus is against his novel proposals. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of which changes the fact that Arfican is a single purpose account that isn't constructively contributing and likely is a sock. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dbrsr likes to sling the dirt. I will have you know that I contested all my blocks as out of hand, as did other editors supporting me. I will also mention that editors like Dbrsr encourage blocks and bans by making mass disruptive reverts (something I was once blocked for) instead of engaging first in constructive discussion. Please sort African out. (We anyway need a "new" person at the discussion...) Chesdovi (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in your mess (an I'm not an admin anyway) and noting that Arfican is likely a sock is not a support of you in any way. I just add my voice to support doing a checkuser on Arfican. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arfican is a returning vandal/troll and I have blocked several of his accounts. See User:Chess dove for the sockmaster's name. TNXMan 13:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin (like User:Tnxman307 or User:Zzuuzz and so on) familiar with the neverending sockpuppetry via proxies problem in the Israel-Palestine topic area take a look at the edits by IPs starting 90.2. in the Nakba Day article history and perhaps try a range block/semi-protect the article or whatever is appropriate. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This report is related to my earlier report above. The situation is getting out of control, with massive disruption on this and several more articles. Action is needed urgently! RolandR (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article has now been semi'd. There's been a few different users recently, from what I can tell - and not surprising considering the Nakba Day itself was only the other day. One proxy-using sock, one wannabe banned user from BT in the UK (perhaps the same user), and a user from France on the 90.2 network. The French one is probably too large for a rangeblock, and I've not seen it editing elsewhere. The BT range is probably also too large to block. You'll need a checkuser to sniff out the other sock accounts, but as for the proxies, they don't last long after I've seen them. And I've seen a few of both recently. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any named accounts, I can investigate (see #User:Arfican for more blocked accounts). Just let me know here or on my talk page. TNXMan 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<- Thanks very much. If only he could be persuaded to donate so much time to something more productive... Sean.hoyland - talk 14:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have been reporting this to WP:AIV before, but it solves only a short-term problem. Mare96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka 95.180.18.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been altering sourced data about Serbian cities, JAT Airways and Belgrade Arena for a few months already. Since the IP was soft-blocked by HJ Mitchell, he created an account, Mare96. Judging on the behavior, '96 is his or her real year of birth. He appears to have a WP:COMPETENCE problem, because he was told several times (both at User talk:Mare96, User talk:95.180.18.56, and Talk:Belgrade) how things work here. The last response to a warning was [23], meaning "Fuck you, fuck Wikipedia, I'll write what I like", to spare you use of GT.

Gentle cluebat appreciated. Thanks. No such user (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks less like a WP:COMPETENCE problem and more like intentional disruption to me. Might be some nationalistic or ethnic POV-pushing involved based on the selection of articles. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually "my X is bigger than yours, I know better than you" syndrome, don't know how DSM-IV classifies it. Anyway, he continued by removing references from Serbia and changing picture sizes as he sees fit, [24] and edit warring on Belgrade. I've had enough of the brat, really. No such user (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that no one notified him of this discussion, and have taken the liberty of doing so. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [25][26][27][28]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IP vandal posting nasty comments about (other) high school students, who are presumably both private persons and minors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin comment: That sort of thing really shouldn't be posted to a public noticeboard like this. Kansan (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]