Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Eroberer (talk | contribs) at 11:42, 18 May 2011 (→Ganas article and talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    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

    User Maheshkumaryadav creating a slew of poor articles

    Maheshkumaryadav agrees to mentorship as proposed by Qwyrxian (for terms see below} in lieu of a community ban. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Topic ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    User:Maheshkumaryadav was recently the subject of a discussion here regarding a slew of articles he created about corruption in Pakistan - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#User:Maheshkumaryadav. User:Rob commented in that discussion at 11:55 6 May that part of the "problem" was the sheer number of articles being created.

    Today, Maheshkumaryadav has created another slew of poorly sourced, incorrect and mostly cloned articles regarding certain villages and police forces - Special:Contributions/Maheshkumaryadav. Some people, including myself, raised concerns about this on his talk page. In my case, the concerns got no response and some further articles were created after I had raised the issue.

    As an example of the problem, Manipur Police contains a statement that the force has nine departments ... and then lists them as being three. This is elementary stuff and can probably be fixed if someone can find their way around the relevant police force's website. However, the sheer number - as Rob noted a couple of days ago - makes for more work than it should be. That statement about departments appears to have been applied to all of the police force articles, as have the inclusion of sections on officer ranks and insignia which may or may not be applicable to each force.

    I have nothing against stub creation but the scale of these is a little intimidating. Is it acceptable practice? I sought the opinion of an admin, who referred me back to here because of the previous instance. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not stub creation, it's creating loads of pages with the same content, all of which is irrelevant. We should not list the insignia of Indian or Pakistani police of the page for every police station, that's self-evident. Maheshkumaryadav doesn't seem to listen to the advice he is repeatedly given. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that villages - however obscure - are deemed to be notable. Are police forces? - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest a timed article creation ban. The editor has been warned before but doesn't appear to get it. --rgpk (comment) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is the case, please no more then a week, Sadads (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    -

    (edit conflict)I strongly advise against blocking Mahesh. Though his contributions are sometimes a little rash, he has been slowly learning the values of the community and, I think today after weeks of hints, we have gotten partially through to him, and unlike his previous offenses, is not pushing pov rampantly anymore. I suggest instead that we continue to monitor his edits heavily and try to keep an eye on what he is doing. I am currently checking in on his contributions almost every day, and there are several more people watching his talk page, and increasingly his contributions are becoming more useful. Even thought the police department articles are not ideal, the lack of coverage of Wikipedia on these subjects is again pushing forward the issues of the WP:Systematic bias and undoubtedly, as the Indian internet population becomes more and more active (as we have already observed) these articles will get many more careful eyes looking over them. He is being rash, but at this point I don't think administrator action is necessary, and he is not being too disruptive, Sadads (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A block is not necessary. An article creation ban will take care of this problem. He/she can always create articles in user space and asked for them to be moved to article space when they are ready. --rgpk (comment) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The village articles are also a problem. While human settlements are considered inherently notable, the stubs contain literally no information other than the village name along with the state and district its in. No coordinates, no census data, no details. Most importantly, they contain no references. Without at least geo-coordinates, we have neither verification nor any easy way to gain verification that these settlements exist. We don't know where Mahesh was getting these names from, if they're current, nor were we given any way to verify that event the name is correct. Technically speaking, they're all immediately deletable as being unverified. Still, I'm not sure there's anything an admin can actually do here; I guess what we need to decide is whether Mahesh must stop creating unverified sub-stubs, and, if so, whether someone should write xem a very clear warning to this effect. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am grateful for Qwyrxian's contribution here as I am aware from the history that xe has been involved with this editor previously. While I do understand the intent of Sadads' comments, I feel that there is a limit of tolerance. My gut feeling is that the suggestion proposed by RegentsPark should in theory achieve something but am aware that Maheshkumaradav has previously put forward the argument that WP stifles new article creators. So, it is possible that by stifling Mahesh we could actually alienate him completely. Would that be a loss in the circumstances? Well, I'd like to hope that it doesn't actually push him over the edge but if it does then, frankly, that is just tough. The situation at present seems not to be working too well and if the "hints" are having any effect then the rate of improvement engendered by them appears to be dismally slow. Something (somebody) has got to give way. I am not experienced enough to make a judgement as to where, when or how but the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality. If that is acceptable then so be it. - Sitush (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an element of disruption in creating lots of new stub articles at one time and Maheshkumaryadav needs to see that. A timed article creation ban will give him/her the chance to work on creating articles in their user space, so their new article creation tendencies won't be stifled, only channeled more appropriately. We don't want to stifle new article creators but neither do we want to have to put up with the work of cleaning up when an editor creates too many meaningless ones. (I don't question the good faith of the editor but, just because he/she is acting in good faith doesn't mean that the end result is not disruptive.) --rgpk (comment) 23:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me. If we make it clear that continued creation in userspace, with appropriate review prior to moving into mainspace, is still ok then hopefully we are all beneficiaries from the situation. If someone throws a hissy fit about this proposal then I would be astonished. - Sitush (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable, several of us are monitoring his talk page now, so I think we could handle inquiries/thoughts he is having right now. Again, I would like to reiterate a moderate time of banning though placed on him. He is extremely high energy in editing, and I fear anything longer then a week or two might be a little oppressive, Sadads (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think a weeks article creation block is a good idea. We shouldn't have to hint and explain for weeks and months to get somebody to listen. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see nothing to seriously take issue with concerning his recent contributions in the last few days. The police articles are not about local police forces such as the US small town police forces articles we keep properly deleting, but regional police forces, such as are considered notable for the various US states & are therefore notable in India also. The content in them is basic , but I see nothing wrong in starting with basic content. The articles on towns are highly appropriate though they need at least the demographics and location, not just the jurisdictional material, and he should be encouraged to add the content, not discouraged from making the articles. There is more to be said in each case, but we are better having the articles than not having them. I'm aware of earlier problems with NPOV, but this is another matter. I see no reason not to make them directly in mainspace--stubs are permitted. They are not meaningless, just not as meaningful as they should be. It is just as good an option to start many articles to be finished later as to write a smaller number of more finished ones. This is an area of the world where we badly beed content. Sirtush says "the situation at present seems to me to favour quantity over quality." -- actually, the situation at present favors both ways of making articles. Let those who want to do them in a particular way do so, and not try to inhibit the ones who prefer the others. It would be very highly inappropriate to ban anyone from creating valid articles in whatever manner they care to do so. In some previous cases involving other editors, it was alleged that a large proportion of the articles were incorrect--which, if proven, is indeed a problem (it never was proven, just a few selected errors given which might or might not have been pervasive) . I don't see this is being even claimed here. Qwyrxian, as there is documentation that the places can be shown to exist, why not help trying to find the geolocations instead of objecting that someone else has not done so? (Above unsigned comment by User:DGG) Sorry, transmission error. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment about the "situation" was with regard to Mahesh's work, not the project's policies and guidelines. I also do not think we are better having unreferenced articles which, by WP definition, are actually invalid, despite your apparent belief to the contrary. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the above comment is Sadads'. I have a problem with the final statement--as far as I can see, there is no documentation that the places can be shown to exist. Since no sources were provided, how can I, as someone not from those provinces, have any faith that they exist? I suppose there's some element of WP:AGF, but I know from having worked on other articles by this editor that they have made basic errors or intentional misinterpretations of sources. But Mahesh has given us literally nothing to work from, besides the name. I am not joking when I say that I have no way of knowing where these names of villages came from, and, for all I know, could be entirely fictitious. Again, if he had provided even a single source, like a vaguely recent almanac to verify location or somewhat current census data to verify government recognition, then I would accept the existence of these articles, and actually think them great--I have no problem with the creation of sub-stubs on human settlements, so long as there is at least a little bit of current, accurate, verification.
    To me, these articles are essentially a type of reflection of the problem of the other article's Mahesh created that were impossibly NPOV flawed. It's fine to create articles that are incomplete. It is not fine to create articles that are fundamentally in conflict with one of the core pillars. These settlement articles do not yet meet WP:V, and I don't see why they should exist until they do. The Indian Corruption articles didn't meet NPOV, and in many cases couldn't because they were fundamentally mis-structures, mis-named, or undue. At this point, I'm coming to believe that an article creation ban is necessary until Mahesh can show that xe will create articles that meet the key tests of being neutral and have at least a minimum of verification. At the same time, xe either needs to go back and fix the ones already created, or accept that they may be deleted for lack of verification/neutrality. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I only checked one or two, and they did have refs in newspaper articles. If there's not even that, yes, the thing do is to to remind the user to get a ref first before writing, as is universally agreed to be good practice, and to make a priority of finding something for the ones without. (with, I continue,to suggest some help. I think some of the people here have more experience with sourcing geographical data than I, which is my only excuse for not helping directly. If someone who knows how tries and cannot find, then AfD is the way to get gemore general specific attention to material that appears impossible to verify.) And yes, I had realized how this evolved out of the earlier editing--when over general unrepresentative material was appropriately challenged, an attempt was made to provide some hopefully solid and non-controversial background. I think that was probably a good choice. Qwyrxian, I apologize for anything unintended or misattributed--i think you and I have the same goal--our only difference is that I would continue to try to keep everything positive, and a matter of continued encouragement to do it right. Forbidding someone to contribute articles would only be appropriate if they were shown to be not just unverified, but unverifiable. Encouraging them to be more careful can be done without the threat. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't completely agree with you on this. I do agree that Indian villages are probably poorly served on wikipedia and we do need articles, even mere stubs, on them. However, we do have a responsibility to at least minimally fact check the existence of these villages before we create these articles. Mass creation of village stubs makes this sort of fact checking difficult, if not impossible. Maheshkumaryadav is not a new editor and he has a history of creating article stubs on all sorts of non-notable topics as attested by his talk page history and I believe that a user-space only restriction would help him create better articles and will stave of a lot of unnecessary leg work on the part of other editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles in question about the Indian police contains no references, just duplicated content. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I need help to geo tag the villages. Each village is having approx. population more than 1000 people. Help in expanding the village topics can be taken from google. eg. for village Parwala google returns a good info that can be used for that particular article. [1] . I am not having enough time to add content to each village article. The persons belonging to those villages are not internet savy and cannot create the quality of stub i have created for those villages (aprox 250 something), but they can improve the stubs i have provided. If the stubs are removed, it might take 5 years form most of articles to come again of wikipeida, but if they are left and improved with geotags and other data, within 12 months they can start growing. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding police articles, these are nearly 10 -12 articles, each state police article is for police force that serves nearly 5 crore citizens (50 million people), there are only 20 something states in India an each have there police state police, these articles are for those state polices. There are approx. 10,000 to 50,000 employees in each state police force. A Google result for individual article will say a lot for the articles like http://www.google.co.in/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Chandigarh+Police Most of the police articles have link to official organization website and with Google search others are welcome to improve the articles.Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding discussing of my blocking, that won't serve any purpose, at this point of learning curve and with style of creating articles, i am doing my best. Regarding my being active for last few days, i had time thats why i gave it to wikipedia, but maybe i won't be able to give that much time in future. Like each individual i have may own unique way of working. Because of low internet penetration in India and less computer literacy in rural areas, most of the stubs for the region are being removed compared to developed nations. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you perhaps agree to not making any more articles without references? That would solve the WP:V half of people's concern, at least. Alternatively/additionally, would you be willing to be mentored, as has been suggested before? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Mahesh added 21 police force articles yesterday, all of them containing huge chunks of (to me) cloned unnecessary detail. I accept the issues raised regarding literacy, internet access etc but feel that the project should not be moving its standards to suit a geographical area. Inclusion is A Good Thing, but surely not at the expense of standards? Mahesh has been asked before to do some minor expansions of his content rather than "hell for leather" creation and I thought he had accepted that this would go a long way to placating the situation, but it seemed not to happen and there was no response to my messages. FWIW, I have spent a lot of time fettling subcontinent articles, so you can count me among the inclusionists on that score. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't want to endorse an article creation ban. And, I dont' want to chase away such an enthusiastic newcomer. But this is all falling on deaf ears. He is saying that he doesn't have time to fix up the village articles, yet he has time to keep creating these products. He is leaving a lot of work for others, producing articles that should have consensus first, is moving content out of articles unnecessarily, is asking for our help, while not accepting any guidance. If he has the energy to produce these articles, he should have the energy to stop and fix them up. Some sort of solution is quite urgently required. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the editor in question is not a newcomer and also has a history of apparently improper article creation (see the editor's talk page history). Discouraging editors from creating articles is not something we want to do but neither do we want to be in the position of forcing other editors to do the busy work of cleaning up after over enthusiastic editors. --rgpk (comment) 13:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I'm, sorry but this is now getting silly. Mahesh is steamrollering splits of school lists without discussion on the main article, without much regard for the content and without much care. Several people have weighed in on his talk page this morning but I sense that AGF may be wearing thin. He has time to do this but not enough time to fettle the existing articles he has created? - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That article you quote is an essay. The policies and guidelines say that content must be notable and verifiable by reference to reliable sources. Furthermore, you should seek [[WP:|Consensus]], use edit summaries, maintain the licensing when splitting articles ... and umpteen other things that you have either not done or (which is great) sometimes have started doing after being prompted. You are not a new contributor here and you are not dealing with new contributors in this discussion. I think that I can safely say we are all familiar with how stubs can grow. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry to say that I agree that we have a problem. I've just swung by his talk page to see how he was doing after my encounter. He is simply continuing to create these malformed stubs en masse under the assumption that others are going to rush right in to fix them. WP:COMPETENCY may be an issue here as well. I loathe the thought of dropping a whammy on a well-meaning user, but something has to be done. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Article creation ban proposal

    In the interests of figuring this out, either way, I propose the following ban on Maheshkumaryadav: Maheshkumaryadav is banned from creating new articles in article space. He may continue to create articles in user space and may request any admin or other editor in good standing to move the article into article space. He can request a review of the ban after a reasonable period of time and after he has demonstrated the ability to create minimally sourced articles on notable topics. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this ban below. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The !votes below are pretty much a snow. Can we please instigate this immediately? The contributor is once again creating numerous articles against the advice of experienced editors and is basically riding roughshod over multiple WP policies and guidelines. AGF has pretty much gone here. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    Oppose

    2011_Saudi_Arabian_protests, 2011_Omani_protests, 2011_Sudanese_protests,2011_Moroccan_protests, Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden are some of the articles started by me, those were not great stubs when i started them, (can be checked on history of those pages) a ban might result that such needed articles might not see 'light of the day'. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying that you can still create articles in user space if the community approves this ban. You'll need to ask an editor in good standing (I see many on your talk page willing to help out) to move these articles to article space for you. --rgpk (comment) 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Comment - whilst supporting the proposal as stated, I would ideally like it phrased to say "... to create at least minimally sourced articles ... ". Encouraging Mahesh to develop existing articles (including his own recent stubs) is a worthwhile thing, and adding "at least" sort of emphasises the point. However, I am probably being pedantic here. - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block

    I have now indef blocked this editor for blatantly ignoring community consensus (he was well aware of this discussion, and continuing despite it is not really collaborative). As I explained on his talk page, this "indef" is just to be in place until he agrees to no longer create any pages in the mainspace, or until this discussion concludes that the block on article creation is not enacted after all. If I had the technical means to only block him from article creation, I would have done so, but I am not aware of such a possibility... Fram (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I have now unblocked this editor, who has indicated that he or she will not create any articles until this discussion is finished. Fram (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I feel the need to contribute to main space with creation of new articles and redirects, But as i have promised that i will not create them till this discussion is finished. I request to conclude and close the discussion. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have learned the way of working here in last few days, and would incorporate that in my working. I assure i will not create unreferenced village articles, like that of Panchkula. I will keep trying to improve the quality of my edits. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing to stop you creating the articles in your userspace. Your impatience is bordering on bad faith, coming so soon after being unblocked. - Sitush (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "In the last few days?!?" You have been editing this site for several years! Lots of us have tried to help you and you just go on your merry way. I am within a millisecond of reinstating that indefinite block and deleting these doggoned substubs in one swoop. I had hoped that you would have learned from your mistakes, but you just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But don't, please don't. I wish that someone would consider something stronger but you shouldn't because you were involved. A nuisance sometimes, I guess ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's why I haven't done so yet. My first encounter was over the 472 orphaned village rubber-stamped nanostubs and I've been getting a headache over these shenanigans ever since. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Maheshkumaryadav - multiple copyright violations

    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]
    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]

    User:Maheshkumaryadav

    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]

    User PMDrive1061

    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]

    Removal of article creation ban

    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]
    • 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]

    Time for a proper community ban

    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]
    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]
    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]
    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 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. 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]
    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]
    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]
    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]

    Mentorship proposal

    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]
    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]

    I think that officially wraps things up here. Is that right? Are we done? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of issue

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

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

    What i want

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

    Issue and evidence

    • 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]

    Sources used

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

    Secondary Source 1

    Book contains a primary source which is analysed by the author

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

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

    Primary source 1

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

    Reliance of the Traveller, Northern Kentucky University

    Secondary source 2

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

    Secondary source 3

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

    Secondary source 4

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

    Comments

    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.
    • 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]

    Requesting an opinion on the procedures:

    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]

    request for page freeze , with sourced content i added

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

    A soapbox is a place where we can both make edits without misleading readers, and it can be under your control (on your account) while inviting editors to join with us. If you don't like it, fine. I have a lot of contribution to do, which I will continue. This topic can be discussed here till it's done, if that's what you want; even though we won't be able to insert any content here.
    These are primary sources, based on what many editors told you before (not just me). Therefore, we need to summarize it fairly, not just pick what you like. What I had in mind, is to work on each source at a time. You can add the picky sentences you love, then I need to add a summary regarding the reasons for the war (as explanation in my first edit in the "Requesting an opinion on the procedures" section above. I also have to mention that each book doesn't represent the whole sector of Islam, like Hanaffi, as each book only represents a single scholars' opinion. So, there's many books for each sect, as told to you by another user, too. I'm just trying to make you aware of the things that you misunderstand, because you're not a Muslim nor have any experiences in Muslim sources (in my opinion). I know you're gonna say that you supplied secondary source, but your inserted quotations are from a primary source; so we need to be double careful! Take care ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Issue archived apparently before being resolved

    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. Tiamuttalk 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]

    IP disruptive editing on Israel/Palestine articles

    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]

    Problematic user who does not listen or respond

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

    Two edit warriors - requesting a standard offer

    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)[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]


    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)[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]
    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)[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]

    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)[reply]


    Comments from 97.77.103.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) a.k.a. CAtruthwatcher (talk · contribs)

    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]

    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]

    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)[reply]

    Comments from YoSoyGuapo, UnclePaco, etc.

    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)[reply]
    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)

    [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] 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)[reply]

    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 [9]
    24.239.153.58 (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [10] you will see an edit to Armed Forces Popular Culture

    [11] you will also see an edit to Armed Forces Popular Culture [12]. Later CATruth appeared and was blocked same thing with Achieve student blocked [13]. Later Wluckey[14]. His other ip account [15] and his Main IP Account [16] and Recognition by Admin that 67 is CATruth [17]. His edits from 67 - upstate NY [18] Journalism degree was a big deal to 67 [19] as it was to CAtruth [20] as does sock of CATrut [21]
    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. From 2008 72.229.244.82[22], to 2009 66.108.204.165 [23] to march 2010 66.108.204.65[24] to Nov 2010 with CAtruthwatcher [25] to Nov 2010 Achievestudent[26] and removes it again under 97 [27]. Under 67, he was a big journalism at st john's fan. [28] as is 97 [29]. 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 [30]. 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 [31] There you will see a list of the socks used before. 24.239.153.58 (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    In correction to editor EdJohnston
    Editor 2:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    Community ban on SuperblySpiffingPerson?

    Community ban enacted. Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)[reply]

    I've notified the sockmaster, and his latest probable sock, TheOnlyRationalBeing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Avanu, I don't know where you have been for the past month. He has done nothing but make socks and vandalize pages. He isn't even trying to be constructive anymore. We are WAY beyond being nice at this point sorry. TL565 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Question about Suggest a Bot

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

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

    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? HrafnTalkStalk(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 [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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[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 [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)[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]
    • 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)[reply]

    Proposed Topic Ban

    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]

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

    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]

    Unfork the issue

    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]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[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]

    User:Hari7478 racial slurs

    I have monited the above users aggressive editing style and stumbled by chance over his/her edits on another users talk page [46] 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 [47] 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]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]

    Ganas article and talk page

    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]

    I encourage action on Eroberer aggressive behavior torward new editors

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

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

    I would like ResidentAnthropologist to stop harassing and defaming 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)[reply]

    Bondage hood

    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]

    Philippine TV Vandal

    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]
    FYI - Philippine TV Vandal == Gerald Gonzalez. I've redirected the page accordingly. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please assist User:WayKurat against both Philippine TV Vandal and Gerald Gonzalez and <redacted, again...> ErrantX --Kungfu2187 (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again. Do not "Out" people. --Errant (chat!) 10:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arfican

    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. [48] Recently, it has doctored an image I uploaded. [49] 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]

    chesidov, see WP:BOOMERANG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.253 (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by rapidly changing IP

    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]

    Worklists in mainspace article text

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

    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)[reply]

    User:Mare96

    Resolved
     – User blocked by Cirt. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:44, 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 [50], 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, [51] 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]

    Editor calling me a liar

    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 [52][53][54][55]. 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]
    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)[reply]
    Given them a warning, I'll be keeping an eye on them too. [stwalkerster|talk] 20:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    213.151.218.137's actions

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

    User:Iqinn

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    User:TVFAN24

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

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

    Vandalism by User:Δ

    User:Δ has a troubled history for his habit of content policing (see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ). He has been trying to get images deleted from Indonesian rupiah and Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah on the basis of putative 'non-free content overuse', although in fact it appears that all images may in fact be free, and in any case the older ones most certainly are free.

    I tagged images such as this one: [56] as public domain since it was published in 1952 in Indonesia, and according to Indonesian copyright law, the maximum copyright term is 50 years from publication. He has just reverted this with the intent that the files be deleted tomorrow: [57].

    I notified him on his talk page that he is vandalising the encylopedia by tagging clear public domain images for deletion, see contributions: [58], and he responded by immediately deleting/archiving my notice and taking no action. He has been reported several times in recent days for breaching 3RR over his content policing actions, and I have no intention in getting into a revert war with him over this, so I am reporting here. Indocopy (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    When you refuse to listen, remove image sourcing and are disruptive you will be reverted. You replaced all of the information on the image description pages with a generic template. I could have gone through and tagged them all as no-source. I have not breached 3RR as you have been told multiple times before. Enforcing NFC is exempt from that. Calling me a vandal is a personal attack which Im brushing off. ΔT The only constant 09:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I came very close to handing out some blocks here - Edit Warring is a bright line Δ, you should know that! However - both pages are protected (one from a few days ago), please resolve the dispute on talk pages as to whether any of these images are out of copyright yet, or come up with a compromise non-free usage. --Errant (chat!) 09:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ive tried, but been ignored. ΔT The only constant 09:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please show where you have tried and have been ignored, I do not believe this is the case. Indocopy (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErrantX, if non-free images are used without a proper rationale, then such a rationale should be provided before the images are (re-)included. Reverting edits without providing that proper rationale first is a form of disruption, and as such exempt from 3RR. The WP:BURDEN is on the editor wanting to include the images. I am sure that Δ is aware of the bright line, as is Indocopy about the regulations of NFC. You are right, the dispute has to be resolved on talkpages, or a proper selection has to be made - not by changing licensing information or reverting images back in without having proper rationales. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I refuse to listen??? I'm not the one who just deleted comments from his talk page without action/discussion.
    The template is not generic, it is one I personally created for these images. The content is more than 50 years old and is therefore public domain, and were correctly tagged as such 6 days ago, now you are reverting them in what appears to be an attempt to get free content deleted based on an 'unused non-free image' tag. This is vandalism, nothing more.
    Your behaviour is highly disruptive, if you had a problem with my image tagging you could have notified me and explained any issues you had, but nope you just revert (after six days!) and don't say anything, and edit war over and over and over again.Indocopy (talk) 09:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There has recently been some discussion over Commons about this subject.[59][60] I feel it would be best to take it there. —BETTIA— talk 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I rather disagree. I have a simple complaint here. I tagged numerous images as public domain, which they are unquestionably are, being older than the 50-year term, and this was reverted by Delta who refused to discuss the matter. It is not a copyright matter, it is a complaint about Delta's obstructive behaviour in (a) edit warring and (b) not discussing. Indocopy (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MYSPACEy users

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

    User:Dbiela8293

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

    Duplicate article Christina McMillan Speedy Deleted as CSD:A10 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've added a request to stop the unsourced additions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Dismas|(talk) 10:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=429709935"