Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive697

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Worklists in mainspace article text[edit]

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

I wouldn't worry about it. If it is only temporary, and the editor finds this method helpful, then there is no issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks longish-term by the length of the list. In any case it's pretty ugly and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be on the Talk page instead. Not a big point, but aesthetically pretty crap.... DeCausa (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. This kind of work goes on in userspace most of the time for a reason. This is not how a proper encyclopaedia presents itself. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The tutorials presented to students in the Public Policy programs advise editors to work on lengthy revisions in userspace, as I recall. Granted, most editors aren't going through anything as structured as a college course in Wikipedia editing, but I'd still like to see more usage of userspace and less major revisions on the fly in article space. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring[edit]

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

User:Hari7478 racial slurs[edit]

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

I believe it comes under WP:NPA, specifically here. Certainly in the UK, "Paki" is a seriously offensive racist slur: see List of ethnic slurs#Paki. I think this is the right place to report it - probably should get at least a warning or probably more from an admin. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
This is indeed the right place. Are there more diffs than this one? I'll place an NPA-2 warning on their user page, but if that's all there is, then a warning at this moment is about as far as we can go, I think. Anyone, feel free to jump in and rv me. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
How about you both quit goading each other [2] and have an actual discussion... this thread had very little business here. This is a simple insult thread. Grow up. When this gets actually disruptive let the rest of the community know. Shadowjams (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No, that's quite wrong. Racist language is in an entirely different category to the diff you posted. DeCausa (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Eh, how is one supposed to read the comment in the diff cited by Shadowjams, "A paki? hmmm seems our little group of Indians are getting racial time for some advice from admins :-)" I really have no idea what "racial time for some advice from admins" means, but "little group of Indians" has no place here either. Ichigo, I'm giving you an NPA warning also, and I hope that both of you can knock it off and grow up. That I criticized Hari's comment doesn't mean you get a free pass. Now, if these two can cut it out, we can close this; thanks to Shadowjams for checking in. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, both editors have been warned now, and on top of that Ichigo is blocked for edit warring on Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden. What fun. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"Little group of Indians" etc may not have any place here, but "Paki" is a straightforward racist epithet. It's on a different level. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. When used as a racial epithet in Britain "paki" means "South Asian". It is indeed a racial term, not a national one. Used as an abbreviation of Pakistani (as opposed to 'Indian') it is arguably no longer a racial term. If 'Aussie' and 'Brit' are not insulting as abbreviations of 'Australian' and 'Briton', then it's problematic to always label an analagous abbreviation of 'Pakistani' as an insult. We surely have to take context of use into account (and ironically 'Paki-stan' means 'pure-country', so 'Paki' literally means 'pure'). Paul B (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Philippine TV Vandal[edit]

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

Ouch, please do not out even vandals real names/identities on-Wiki. That is a big no-no --Errant (chat!) 12:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI - Philippine TV Vandal == Gerald Gonzalez. I've redirected the page accordingly. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please assist User:WayKurat against both Philippine TV Vandal and Gerald Gonzalez and <redacted, again...> ErrantX --Kungfu2187 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Again. Do not "Out" people. --Errant (chat!) 10:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Two edit warriors - requesting a standard offer[edit]

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:

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

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

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

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

So what do you all think?

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

I'm nearly always supportive of former banned users who have seen the light come back, and this seems no different. Glad to see a reform. -- ۩ Mask 10:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Editor 1:
Editor 2:
Take a look at the block logs of both parties. The Mykungfu editor (Editor 1) has been socking very broadly since 2006 and I suggest he should remain blocked. In my opinion, CAtruthwatcher might be unblocked with the Standard Offer if he would agree to a ban from the topic of St. John's University (New York), broadly construed, and be limited to a single account and no IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

As uninvolved non-admin, I see no indication that Mykungfu has seen any light. If CAtruthwatcher was blocked because MyKungFu tricked admins into thinking he was evading the block, then unblocking him with a 1RR restriction seems reasonable. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
CAtruthwatcher was blocked for edit warring at first, then sockpuppetry (not because of Mykungfu), and finally edit warring again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


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

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

If you don't have access to the CATruthwatcher account, there's no reason to unblock it. You can create an account with the IP you are using now. I do think you will have to accept some sort of restriction relating to St. John's University (New York), at least to start with, as you've been blocked so many times for edit warring. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
1) Can you clean this up? WP:TL;DR. 2) I asked you not to mention 97 or go on the attack against him and call him a sock, but that's exactly what you just did. Frankly none of us cares who socked when; you're both guilty of it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That's getting better; thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from CashRules, UnclePaco, etc.[edit]

I would like the references to myself as a banned user to cease. There is a difference between banning and blocking. I was blocked not banned. If there is any proof that would show that I am a banned user and not blocked, I would like proof to show. This is giving a highly negative influence on this report. As is shown here Wikipedia:Banning policy (Banning should not be confused with blocking) I was never banned. So this block based on a ban isn't correct. I served the 3rr suspension. As is shown in Wikipedia:Standard offer I am willing to "It's simple: Wait six months without sockpuppeting. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban. Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." I would also like to point out that I am not an Single-purpose account. My contributions range many different arenas. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to show the pages that I have created that were of benefit to wikipedia including Ron Duncan,Carlos Valdes, CCNY Point Shaving Scandal, Dominican Republic National Beach Volleyball Tour,The Levin Institute ,Elijah McCall, Thomas Carroll (martial_artist), Rhadi Ferguson, Floyd Layne, Antihaitianismo, Dodge Venom, [[Darryl Hill (basketball)[3][4][5][6][7] Almost all my blocks were based off the first one when a checkuser was done. I've never really had an opportunity to have a short term stay to be a strong positive contributer.24.239.153.58 (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have been reading the ANI, and I would like to say that I didn't block 97 he was blocked because of his numerous actions and this was observed by both administrators and interactions by myself and another user DC (Whom he has claimed is me) I am willing to undergo a sockpuppet report to prove that I am not the User DC [8]
24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The other side of the sockpuppet story

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

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

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

In correction to editor EdJohnston
Editor 2:

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

Procedural keeps of AfDs by blp-banned user (me)[edit]

All the open AFDs were closed by Spartaz. They can be renominated. Our work here is done. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

  • 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? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    • 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)
  • 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.--Milowenttalkblp-r 15:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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 [32][33][34][35] in general before the reminder even if to enforce policies. This link[36] seems to be an admission that you just forgot about the ban, not its extent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    In regards to "hence the continuing edits to BLPs [37][38][39][40]", half the examples are not living people. --Damiens.rf 21:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
    I copied and pasted the wrong links since I had several tabs open to review your work.[41][42] 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)
  • 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 [43], [44], [45].)
    • 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)
      • 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)
      • (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)
        • 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)
          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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Block User was under a topic ban and has showed that, not only cannot he be trusted by the WP community to do what he's supposed to do, he will actively delete notices from his user talk page in violation of WP:REMOVE. While I commend him for coming forward now (and I do think that should carry some weight in his block), a block is in order to prevent future misbehavior. — BQZip01 — talk 23:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Ban[edit]

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
  • agree the topic band should be extended to explicitly include AFDs. Moreover, I think the ban should extend even further after the block is over. — BQZip01 — talk 06:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Would this be happening if the editor were someone other than Damiens.rf?[edit]

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)

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)
Yes, that was a mistaken overstatement which I have now corrected. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, it was a BLP discretionary sanction, not a consensus based community ban. Monty845 18:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfork the issue[edit]

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)

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)
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)
Number 4 intervenes and prevents procedural closes going further, while #6 leaves things to end without intervention. Monty845 21:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Why? (Not that I don't like to blindly fulfill your desires, but...) --Damiens.rf 17:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the big problem. If you believe any of them were improperly closed, why not just open a new AfDs (gradually) when your topic ban expires? Admins aren't supposed to be given special deference, (the deference they receive comes from the fact that most admins are respected members of the community, but the admin bit shouldn't really change that) if closing the AfD didn't require the admin tool-set, then the fact that non-admins closed a number is unremarkable. Technically, the non-admin closure guidance says all you need to do is find an admin willing to re-open, but I wouldn't support that here. Monty845 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course I plan to relist all problematic AfDs as soon as I can. That's exactly what I was trying to avoid here. But nevermind. Let's close this thread and wait for new drama in July.
In a related note, you may be interested in Wikipedia:NAC, that says "Administrators close most deletion discussions; regular editors may close some non-controversial discussions". --Damiens.rf 18:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
"Of course I plan to relist all problematic AfDs as soon as I can." Isn't that part of the problem? — BQZip01 — talk 06:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
How so? I do believe there were really bad closings among them. --Damiens.rf 14:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • I believe the best option would be for Damiens to say not a word further on this issue. The closers have been pretty fair in closing these, based on the individual discussions.--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
    • In some AfDs, I have to disagree. But I can't do that before July. --Damiens.rf 22:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Since many of these bios have been around for 6 years or more, and are causing no harm, I think we can handle that.--Milowenttalkblp-r 00:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        • No harm is not a good reason for keeping bios. My grandma bio's would surely cause no harm (note: she was not a playmate), but still it would be deleted.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ganas article and talk page[edit]

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

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

I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

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

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

I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming me. I think I have good reason to be offended by Marelstrom's reckless accusations. I have several times asked Marelstrom to investigate WP policies but they have ignored me. I am only trying to prevent users who refuse to familiarize themselves and/or comply with long-standing policies from vandalizing and edit-warring. No one else seems willing to do that, though ResidentAnthropologist clearly has more power here than I, his actions are only to oppose me. Eroberer (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I have attempted to address content concerns extensively with you. Your battle ground mentality and disrespect for the very policies unless they advance your agenda. Your over aggressive attitude with new editors is counter productive to collaborative editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editor calling me a liar[edit]

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

If that editor has a history of aggressive conduct, then being called a liar by that editor is not a big deal. The editor is then disqualifying him/herself from being taken serious here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That is quite contrary to how it actually works in my experience. Anyhow, calling somebody a liar isn't nice. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC) (uninvolved non-admin)
Given them a warning, I'll be keeping an eye on them too. [stwalkerster|talk] 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Update [50]. No further comment. Fut.Perf. 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Are we really saying that people with a history of aggressive conduct get to continue their aggressive conduct because it's expected of them? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Iqinn[edit]

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

Pardon me. I had a total of one revert on the article now way what's however that would be edit warring. I do not think that that is the right way for you to get you favorite version of the article. IQinn (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I see Iqinn added the category and reverted only once. He has since been editing the talk page instead. I frankly don't see why this is worth bringing here. Kansan (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Once again Iqinn has misquoted me. This is described as "Disruptive editing" and not edit warring. The disruptive part revolves around repeatedly and deliberately misquoting sources and other editors (namely me) during discussions. His edits to the article (two so far) can be described as vandalism given that he's aware of our policies regarding reliable sources and POV pushing - and given his tendentious edit history over the last couple of months. Rklawton (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I only just "met" him in the last few hours when he tried adding the category "Extrajudicial killings" to the bin Laden article - and more recently changing a subheader to "Assassination". Look at his block history. This isn't a personal problem, this is vandal fighting. Rklawton (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not describe edits of other users as vandalism or POV pushing just you disagree with them. Looking on your numerous reverts some might think that you were POV pushing. IQinn (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's POV pushing when your claims aren't supported by the facts or sources and your views are in the minority - yet you take it upon yourself to change the article anyway and then repeatedly misquote sources and me in the talk page - and here. Rklawton (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
2 editors on one side and 2 on the other side is not really the minority and you were regularly quoting out of context. IQinn (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That's not true at all. Many editors have been working for weeks on the "Death of" article to build sources and reach consensus. Your unilateral edits fly in the face of all this work. And the other editor who sides with you has a recent block record similar to yours. My reverts have been oriented around keeping the article in line with the working consensus, and that's the opposite of POV pushing. Rklawton (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Both of you should take this elsewhere. I'd recommend asking for some sort of dispute resolution on the article talk page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
@Rklawton -- Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you had a longstanding relationship with Iqinn. I still feel, however, that this issue seems more suited to RFC/U since there are no immediate problems requiring administrator intervention. If you feel that Iqinn is a problematic editor in general, RFC/U is the forum for that sort of thing. Also, please provide diffs, and be careful not to inappropriately label edits vandalism. While his edits might be problematic (I'm not making a judgement on this one way or the other), they don't seem to be in violation of WP:Vandalism, which is more for things like adding "fdafkdaskfjdkjfdjkf" or "Osama haz big penis" to an article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with Rklawton here. A review of prior talk page posts indicates extensive discussion previously of the very same issue, with clear consensus. Iquinn's editing is best described as tendentious, and we do block disruptive editing. I suggest that he simply knock it off.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

St. Giles[edit]

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

  • To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community. Text from external sources may attach additional attribution requirements to the work, which should be indicated on an article's face or on its talk page. For example, a page may have a banner or other notation indicating that some or all of its content was originally published somewhere else. Where such notations are visible in the page itself, they should generally be preserved by re-users.
  • If you make modifications or additions to the page you re-use, you must license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License 3.0 or later.
  • If you make modifications or additions, you must indicate in a reasonable fashion that the original work has been modified. If you are re-using the page in a wiki, for example, indicating this in the page
  • Each copy or modified version that you distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC-BY-SA and either a) a hyperlink or URL to the text of the license or b) a copy of the license. Anthem of joy (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
(nao)I don't have time to look at the exact quotes but our article almost quadrupled in size the day after the guardian article was published. It may be the other way round. Regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Gaaah, I swear I checked the history properly...my bad.--Anthem of joy (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

213.151.218.137's actions[edit]

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

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

India as a rising power - AGAIN[edit]

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

(I've corrected the article title for you -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC))
Actually, it looks like it was deleted by a prod. As such, his recreation of it is essentially contesting the prod. If it had been deleted by an AFD and recreated then it would be eligible for speedy deletion, but my advice would be to take it to afd as your next step. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any notification of any bans - what's the user banned from and where is it documented? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It appears that GR Allison is confused with terminology. Neilpine was previously blocked for 24h, but has not been banned. Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If this version is exactly like the deletion version then it should still be speedied, regardless of being a prod or not. If the editor at least made some small effort to address why it was prodded, then yea, an AfD would be the route to go. As for the banning, the user was blocked for 24h for edit warring is what I assume the filer is referring to. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Incorrect. "This criterion also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, or which was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply)." (from the G4 criterion). If it had been speedied as say G11 and was still G11-y, it could be redeleted as G11. If it had been afd'd and was recreated as the version that was deleted, then it could be G4'ed. As it was prodded, it is not eligible for speedy G4. Syrthiss (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a roundabout issue. They should've gone to WP:DRV and contested the prod, but the end result is pretty much the same. This needs to go to WP:AfD for now, if you want it deleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Syrthiss, note the world "should" in my post. What you go on to cite is precisely the type of process wankery that I hoped to avoid here. This is why the prod process is pretty much a joke, when it allows one-off IPs to remove tags without rationale or allows others to simply recreate the article verbatim. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No, not a joke but IMHO it's sometimes misapplied. IMHO PROD is for articles that nobody gives a damn about and this article was never a good candidate for PROD because it had an active editing history. Major edits were made during the PROD period by an editor who likely didn't know he himself could have removed it. This article should have been AFDd from jumpstreet. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I do seem to have confused the terminology, he was blocked not banned (I now know the difference). Following the advice here I have moved it over to AFD, thanks for your help in trying to resolve this people. Have a good day. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Problematic user who does not listen or respond[edit]

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

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

I think that repetitive 3RR-naive editing is a problem in most cases, and this is a particular example of that. This sort of thing happens a lot and it's rare someone knows where to bring the issue. Open communication is key and this is a good example of how that's simply not happening. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
So what the hell do we do about it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you have a consensus somewhere for redirecting Ranger Keys to the piece on Ranger Keys in the Gokaigers article? It means nothing to me (Oh Vienna) so I don't know whether there is a discussion somewhere that agreed there should not be an article. If such an article has previously been Afd'd, then we have a problem. If not, I'd just un-redirect his article and leave him to it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
The article got put up for speedy deletion and then someone realized that it would work better as a redirect. And the problem is that the content is entirely unencyclopedic and it would be destroyed at AFD anyway. The information does not require its own page and most certainly does not require its own coverage. The article, if it were be allowed to proliferate, would be a list of approximately all 200 fictional characters that have been part of a 37 year old franchise with the word "Key" appended to their name and a sentence that says "transforms X into Y" (or exactly what you see on User:ポケットモンスター エニシングゴーズ). I removed the list from the main article a while ago because it was becoming a vio of WP:IINFO and I cannot seem to explain it clearly enough to Pokemon Anything Goes that the content is not welcome because he returns every two weeks to put the list back onto Gokaigers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems like there should be a discussion on the talk page about how to resolve this as it appears to be a content issue... maybe time for an article RfC? - Burpelson AFB 14:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Why should there be an RFC when only one individual keeps putting back content that he has been asked not to replace on the page?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about Suggest a Bot[edit]

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, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused... what was the email about? The Bot shouldn't be sending email (having checked it's request for approval), but I haven't seen anyone else mention it. --Errant (chat!) 12:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Would you like me to send it to you? I thought the same thing. Something is weird about this since it says it's changing my page and some other things. I'll email it to you if you would like. --CrohnieGalTalk 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, mail it :) --Errant (chat!) 12:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok it's sent to you. I'm kind of freaked out about this so I appreciate your help. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Aha! I know what this is. It is not the bot sending you email. The Mediawiki system has an inbuilt ability to send you an email notification whenever your talk page is edited :) This has not previously been enabled on Wikipedia but it was enabled the other day. The setting defaulted to "on" for everyone. If you want you can turn it off by going to preferences and de-selecting the relevant option at the bottom of the page. The links at the bottom, including the one which unwatched the page for you are just helper links left over from the fact that it is using a "watchlist notification" template. --Errant (chat!) 13:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't remember checking this but I assume you mean this, E-mail me when my user talk page is changed . I unchecked it and appreciate your help a lot. I thought someone might be messing with me and I am so relieved that's not the case. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith but when I received this it was hard for me to do. I am sorry now that I didn't assume good faith about it. Thank you again for you help. I feel really stupid now for freaking out over it. Thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
If it's any consolation, I was puzzled when I got the same emails - "What's this stuff that I didn't ask for?" I eventually found the checkbox in the prefs and disabled it, and assumed I must have switched it on some time ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Chronie; no worries, it was enabled automatically for everyone (I'm not sure who decided that). But has not been widely announced - hence confusion. I have pinged the foundation-l list to find out if there are plans to make people aware of this change. --Errant (chat!) 13:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was also thrown for a loop when I received one of these yesterday. Thus, Chronie and I are not going to be the only ones who are wondering what is going on. Might it be a good idea to add one of those message boxes like we do when donation time or voting for arbcom comes around letting editors know what has occurred. It might also be worth considering not defaulting new features to "on" when they are added - another message box could inform users about new functions added and let us decide whether we want to use it or not. Of course, these are just a suggestions and my thanks to ErrantX for clearing things up. After seeing the edit conflict I see that you have also already started some of the process that I am suggesting EX but I thought I would post this anyway for others to see - thanks againMarnetteD | Talk 13:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody please wp:TROUT the person who made the decision to turn this on by default? Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details#Talk_emails --Errant (chat!) 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Just checking in... FYI, I had a look at SuggestBot's source code, and it has no ability whatsoever to email anybody, at the moment. I'm happy to see this got sorted out, understand the confusion. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That was uncharitable ...and unwise. Skomorokh 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I think turning it on was really not a good idea. How many emails? How many electrons needlessly displaced? What strain on our servers? Drmies (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
See my post above, under the topic "Possible bug in archives?". I think that the slow performance of the site might coincide with turning on this feature. In fact I'm almost certain of it. -- Atama 17:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Good call. It's really, really aggravating. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm in favour FWIW, beats the hacky method I was using before to get notifications to my Gmail. But anyways; I added a watchlist notice because that seems to be the simplest way to tell people --Errant (chat!) 17:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with having the feature. Engaging it and defaulting to "on" was a poor choice, oing so without notifying anyone about it was troutable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
But am I the only one whose pedia is not wikying as fast as it ought to? I get stuck just about every other edit and have to reload. Drmies (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I have to stop and reload long pages (such as this one) before they come in all the way. Annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's bad enough that I'm probably going to use Wikipedia very little, if at all, until they get around to fixing it. This is getting ridiculous. Technical problems, I can live with; long-term unacknowledged technical problems are really frustrating. -- Atama 00:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
That's why we are all happy that a long wanted feature like email notifications were enabled at last. Nemo 19:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

User:TVFAN24[edit]

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

I have notified all three user's named above. - NeutralhomerTalk • 08:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
TVFAN's probation was a year ago for socking, I haven't seen any socking issues arise in this time and I don't see what that has to do with the issue at hand. I mentored her on that issue, I'm not her father that you can come tattle on her. You accused TVFAN of tendentious editing, she filed a mediation request as a way to work out the dispute with you and others. You didn't feel it was in good faith and refused.
TVFAN obviously has an interest in this area, that applies to a lot of people on WP. She created the Goode article, you had a a speedy delete request on it in 14 minutes [51] and that request was processed two hours later. As I told you previously, the line on hounding is a precarious one, you are close to crossing it (14 minutes?). She has been compiling lists of some of these personnel, in some cases, like this one, she adds them to a list and they don't have an article so you object if she makes one. In others where they are added to the list without an article you revert it incorrectly calling it vandalism [52] and then revert her again without any reason or discussion on the talk page [53]. Which is it?
You are content to bring up her block of a year ago that has nothing to do with this issue yet you've been previously blocked and on probation for reverting content disputes and calling them vandalism as you have here. You're choosing to take the conflict to other venues and escalate it instead of discussing it working out any differences. You've mocked her for any attempt to try to talk to you about it [54] [55]. You and Deconstructthis have a position about these TV station articles (which you are entitled to have) that is not held by TVFAN and others (which they are entitled to have) - it is the age old WP:CRUFT argument. You refused mediating the matter and are now coming to AN/I for more would appear to be forum shopping.
Please take a closer look at WP:CON, in particular the section on using talk pages to work out disputes and issues. If you have an issue with notability of something that's posted then by all means put that on the talk page, give that person some time to address the issue (preferably more than 14 minutes) and if he/she doesn't then put it up for deletion as you have. If she created a massive amount of stubs on these issues I would consider that a problem. I don't see two, one of which she had all of two hours to improve on, as a problem. --WGFinley (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yawn. Anywho, this is what I mean by Wgfinley having no problem with TVFAN24's behavior. Obviously, another mentor needs to be in on this or admins taking over where Wgfinley is apprently unwilling and unable to deal with the matter. - NeutralhomerTalk • 14:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I see that once again, it appears to me that the onus of responsibility in contending with TVFAN24's continuing editing practices is apparently being construed as some form of personal animus between two or three editors and TVFAN24 and an alleged lack of "prior discussion" on issues. I'd like to suggest that a broad assessment of the situation based on the evidence we have on hand indicates otherwise. In fact, I contend that this editor is wilfully rejecting the outcome of ample prior discussion on adding unreferenced BLP list material, which has occurred here, as well as on their own talk page and the talk page of other editors, the TV station project noticeboard and via the advice of their mentor Wgfinley, who appears to have specifically advised them *not* to engage in editing practices involving the adding of *specifically* this type of unreferenced material to articles. I'd like to address some issues raised by Wgfinley in their above post. Approximately a year ago, after Wgfinley lifted an indefinite block for socking and voluntarily agreed to mentor TVFAN24 on this matter, a number of "sandbox" pages were established so that TVFAN24 would be provided the opportunity to be tutored specifically on the need for providing references when adding BLP material to articles. The pages were created, and the unreferenced material that was being disputed in the TV station articles was transferred to them; with the expectation that references would be created fort he entries, at which point, the entries could be legitimately re-added to the articles. At that time, Wgfinley actively coached TVFAN24 on the need for that kind of support, if BLP list list was material being added [56] and TVFAN24 appears to have freely accepted that condition [57],[58] as a prerequisite for continuing to edit and openly agreed to only add BLP list material in cases where such referencing was simultaneously provided by them. If you visit those same sandbox lists today, and examine the differences, it appears that, apart from a few minor differences, in my opinion little effort has been made at all to utilize them for their stated original purpose [59],[60],[61],[62],[63], in fact, for the most part they appear to have been mostly ignored by TVFAN24 for that purpose. In January of 2011, TVFAN24 began unilaterally bulk re-adding exactly the same unreferenced BLP material to Chicago area television station articles, without any prior discussion on the relevant article talk pages beforehand at all. Please take note this occurence appears to have transpired while both Wgfinley and myself were on short Wikibreaks at the beginning of the year.[64],[65],[66],[67]. These re-additions were subsequently removed as unreferenced. Recently; in fact just this past weekend, TVFAN24 deemed it appropriate to launch a formal request for mediation in these matters, in an apparent attempt to once again precipitate the opportunity to re-add exactly the same unreferenced materials to these articles. That request was subsequently rejected by the clerk. For those interested, my personal reaction to this filing can be viewed on my talk page. I have clearly made up my own mind on this issue and make no pretense whatsoever to objectivity in the matter; I'm quite content to accept the decision of the community in this regard, as well as accepting any "lumps" I might have coming to me. In closing, I'd like to request that Wgfinley attempt to refrain from "personalizing" this dispute, apart from where the evidence leads and also that "harassment" can take on different forms, *none* of which are acceptable from experienced editors. I'd be happy to answer any questions in regard to these matters from other editors. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the clumsily composed posting above, I'm really pressed for time today and simply wanted to attempt to contextualize and balance the situation while I had a chance. My opinion is that editing issues surrounding TVFAN24 are an ongoing matter and again in my opinion, that repeatedly having to deal with those issues is a serious waste of time and editing resources. It appears to me that "abetting" these problematic practices is a possible practical concern as well and should be dealt with. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it curious that both of you have an abundant number of things to say HERE but couldn't do mediation. She even apologized [68] for making these two articles without any prompting from me. Maybe she would learn from mistakes if either of you gave her a chance instead of waiting to pounce within 14 minutes of anything she does. --WGFinley (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm...to be straightforward with you, in my opinion this response looks to me like additional diversionary rhetoric and another instance of the creation of what appears to be some sort of "firewall" around the editing practices of the person who you're mentoring. You can choose to compartmentalize the problems surrounding this editor's past practices and attribute the base difficulties to a small number of "other editors", but to do so, I think, ignores the longer view available in the situation; which appears to be continuing to present. In my opinion, TVFAN24's editing history speaks for itself and further, I think in many instances tends toward deliberate obfuscation. A quick scan of the totality of their talk page [69] and the involvement (and rejection) of some of those practices by a number of other editors (including other administrators)[70] appears to indicate that the problems are 'wider' than what you're attempting to convey here today and involve far more than a "14 minute" response time to the posting of a purportedly non-notable sub-stub article or an "apology" that occurred last evening. Just to be clear about that, although you've subsequently lumped me in with Neutralhomer in that regard; a fairer practice might be to try and restrain your criticism to to the relevant party; Neutralhomer is quite capable of speaking for himself. You've made comments in the past regarding your claimed inability to 'rein in' this situation; citing your involvement as TVFAN24's mentor as a rationale for non-action. I can understand aspects of that argument and to be sure, you can't literally stand over their shoulder while they're actually editing; however it seems to me that in your capacity as an administrator, as well as a mentor, it is reasonable for you to completely step aside and allow other administrators to objectively perform their duties as they see fit, without attempting to influence the situation. In my personal estimation, you failed in that respect both last summer and to a lesser extent in late autumn, when you directly and unilaterally overturned the decisions of other administrators in regard to blocks applied against TVFAN24. I can't help but wonder about the "enabling" potentials of those occurrences. I believe, that a further instance of what I'm alleging to be "non-objective intervention" regarding this editor occurred last weekend when; although recusing yourself from the specifics of the mediation request filed by TVFAN24; felt it necessary to recommend on the comment page that the request constituted a 'good issue' for the mediation process itself. Frankly, in my opinion, considering that you yourself are a formal mediation committee member in Wikipedia, I think you overstepped and left yourself open to a perception of potential undue influence in the matter. The real question in my mind, is where do we go from here? thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So open an RfC/U, or go to mediation. Annoying Neutralhomer and creating some articles of questionable notability isn't grounds for a block. Fences&Windows 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Creating articles of questionable notability shouldn't be allowed in the first place. I wouldn't create an article about myself, I'm not notable enough to have an article, even if you can find references that say I exist and I do this or that. Unreferenced material, especially that of BLP nature, really bothers me. It degrades what Wikipedia should be about... notability and references. Those policies aren't there just for a few editors to follow, they are there for all editors to stick to. That makes Wikipedia more trustworthy and accurate. I'm not going to fully dive into this discussion from this point on but I stand with Neutralhomer and Deconstructthis 100 percent. Why should one editor get away with causing so much hubbub, when others are banned indefinitely for one issue? --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 00:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrators/Editors help needed to resolve the War Crime Article on Sri Lanka[edit]

Sorry to bring this issue here, but please help to resolve on the Talk Page of the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.Hillcountries (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What action do you want admins to take? The talk page is TL;DR. If there is a specific problem, please use diffs. Looks like a (heated) content dispute. If you want more eyes on the article, try a Request for comment. Looks like User:Exxolon is trying to offer a Suggestion, see how that pans out. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

99.174.160.188 and 99.174.178.143[edit]

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

Also, I would like to point out that my IP address changed and, obviously, their IP address changed as well. I have been editing Wikipedia for years under multiple different IP addresses.--76.106.255.89 (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a content dispute. The whole list is unsourced, so technically the removal is justified, although they should provide a reason of some sort. Note, warnings don't need to come from admins, anyone can and should warn, including IPs; but you might want to try to discuss this on their talk page first before warning. If it continues, the appropriate noticeboard for edit warring is WP:AN3. --64.85.221.213 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Long time disruptive IP editor[edit]

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

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

Apparently it is a deliberate long term strategy of disruption spread over several IPs, if one is to believe this message. Topic ban? --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for this editor, if possible; how wide a range of IPs might s/he have available to him/her? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    It looks to be a corporate /19 IP block. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I don't know if this one can be related to 64.136. It edited the same article 4 hours before the now blocked account did. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    Different ISP, different geographical area. Maybe a sandbox account on one end or the other, but I'd be more willing to guess a meatpuppet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    I see. Nothing to worry about then. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I have blocked the ip for 3 months - I know, I am getting to be a bit of a softy in these matters... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The International Jewish Conspiracy will be disappointed in you, LHVU. (/joke) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I am outraged, sir! (/fakeoutrage) Glad to see there is a leash on this sort of behaviour though. =) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Community ban on SuperblySpiffingPerson?[edit]

Community ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

I've notified the sockmaster, and his latest probable sock, TheOnlyRationalBeing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, that SPI page has been appearing on my watchlist with some regularity. --Errant (chat!) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Support ban enough said and done, a ban is fully