On July 17, I removed a large number of laundry lists of "facts" about the author, including irrelevancies like he was flatulent, had back cysts and the chicken pox, and included a stark listing of places Burgess lived in his life, the names of some pets and his favorite foods, here. to this article, based on the article being largely unsourced and full of laundry lists of "facts" about the author. After doing so, I left this note, explaining why I did so. When I approached the article, it was in excess of 89KB and contained exactly three inline citations for all of this. A query was posted on the talk page, to which I responded, further clarifying my issues with the article, here. I did a bit more work on July 20, and added citations needed tags, here. The next day, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted part of it here, calling it vandalism. The rest was reverted immediately after here, stating vital to an understanding of Burgess to know the many different countries and places where he lived and worked, despite that the article already contains most of the residence information in the main body. I left a note on the talk page for this IP here, explaining the issues with the material, and included an admonition about calling good faith editng "vandalism." I reverted here, stating removal of this was NOT vandalism; it is unsourced trivia with no context or relevance. I was quite clear in all of these talk page notes as to what in specific is at issue and why it is.

The next day, User:Pleather reverted again, stating Sorry, those cuts were far too extensive. Much of this IS sourced, from his novels and memoirs. Could be improved, but certainly doesn't deserve deletion. He then added three fact tags to the article. I again addressed this on the article talk page, here. User:Pleather responded on the talk page, asking for time to work on the article, but also implying that I was not in the position to make a call regarding the material because I wasn't familiar enough with Burgess' work, and declaring that the material is vital to understanding it. How that was vital wasn't explained. I replied here, agreeing to allow time and further discussed the specific problems in the article as it pertains to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. My comment is that the everyday person who reads that article will no better understand why farts, chicken pox, back cysts and the pets are vital to his work than I do. It isn't a requirement to have preknowledge of the subject of the article, it is incumbent upon the authors to make it understandable and readable. Otherwise, it is just so much fancruft. Two days later, User:Pleather made this edit. It changed the "Habits" section heading and added a three sentence introduction to the section, stating changing section heading, adding intro. Starting to make this real bio material, not just gossip and trivia.

No other changes were made to the article, thus on August 13, I made this entry on the article talk page, noting that nothing else had been done on the page in nearly three weeks. In the interim, User:Pleather was active on Wikipedia, making over 50 edits between those times. Meanwhile, only one non-bot content edit was in total on the article. When a new account made a few minor (and grammatically incorrect) changes, IP 77.99.78.38 corrected them. I waited another week with no movement of any kind on the article. On August 24, I went back in and began removing some of the trivial facts, leaving edit summaries for each systematic change. Edit summaries included notes unreferenced; relevance and context not established, bare listing unencyclopedic, not a fan page, and also questioning again things like favorite foods, chicken pox, back cysts, and questioning the context for this material. I also made efforts to preserve some of the more descriptive content and changed it from lists to prose. This is the diff spanning those changes. In the interim, someone else added a few inline citations for fact tags that were placed. On August 26, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted this work, stating These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work. This material IS sourced, as a glance at the indexes of the two biographies will confirm. I'm not sure how referring one to the indexes of a published book constitutes proper sourcing according to WP:CITE, nor does the IP make that clear. Nothing was addressed on the talk page of the article. I made a rather detailed entry on the talk page delineating my issues with the IP's reversion, also commenting on the patronizing tone in the edit summaries. Then I reverted this change here stating not to revert it and referred anyone reading it to the talk page for discussion. At that time, I requested an outside opinion by an editor whose work I trust. That editor's comment was entered here.

This morning, another IP, 145.246.240.14, reverted the article, stating This axeing of large sections of the Anthony Burgess page is inappropriate, misconceived and borders on vandalism. See comments by Pleather and others. Concurrently, persondata placed on the page in the meanwhile was removed. Again, the work was referred to as vandalism in the edit summary with no forthcoming discussion entered on the talk page. I made this entry on the talk page, this time more strenuously detailing some of the article issues and reverted the change here, clearly telling whoever to take it to the talk page. I then noted on the talk page that I had put in a request at WP:WikiProject Biography and WP:WikiProject Columbia University, both interested projects, for comments on the issue I am trying to clear up, and stating "Please stop edit warring anonymously regarding this article and allow input from other editors." Soon after, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted again, calling it vandalism. This is the third time this work has been called vandalism. No talk page discussion has been forthcoming by any of the opposing parties since the end of July. No productive work has been done on the article by these parties since the changes by User:Pleather at the end of July. The actions by these IPs are becoming tenditious. They refuse to leave the article with improvements or give the requests for input from the projects time to be made. Some help with this would really be appreciated at this point. This article, as it was, is an issue that needs to be addressed. It can't when any changes made to it are reverted and called vandalism. I apologize for the length of this, but it covers the problem thoroughly. This must stop and the contentiousness of the actions by the IPs need to be addressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an WP:RFC is the way to go. Corvus cornix_talk 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, but I suggest IP blocking of IP 71.252.102.174. This user edited various sexual and anatomical entries with subtle non-professional and nonsensical terminology, obviously for personal amusement. As this appeared to be repeated occurrence, with seemingly no other useful or constructive edits made, I request that this user be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.157.229 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a better place to report this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Archived; please contribute to the already existing thread above.  Sandstein  09:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Naadapriya is a single-purpose civil POV pusher in his attempts to glorify Karnataka as the the be-all and end-all of the article, Carnatic music. He keeps insisting on placing WP:UNDUE weight on certain parts of content in the Carnatic music article, and resorts to synthesis and unreliable sources to support his position whenever he is in a dispute in this article. Several users have expressed concern over various proposals he's made, but notably between April and June (See Talk:Carnatic_music#NPOV onwards). I've reverted his edits but I think he has no intention of contributing constructively - rather, he'll continually revert war, as his contribution history shows.

If he does continue, I ask that either he be blocked or the article protected again under the version where there are no concerns over undue weight - [1]. There needs to be discussion, and at present, that's not what he's offering - all he's doing is repeating [2] [3] the tendentious argument of 'stalling' and there being 'no valid concerns', 'all languages are great', 'there was consent by many editors' (despite that section of concerns). This is unhelpful for the matter at hand of NPOV and unreliable sources. Note also that shortly before that second diff, the article was protected for several months. The fact that this same argument is being used after the article has been unprotected does not inspire confidence. I expect to be away for a couple of days or so and I don't want this pattern of protect and unprotect to continue.

In other words, I request a few admins keep the article on their watchlist over the next few weeks. I'd be more than willing to respond to questions or concerns on the matter if it continues to escalate. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also note I haven't informed him of this complaint, so I'd be grateful to whomever does inform him. Thank you again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't know why you didn't notify him yourself. Maybe I'll find out myself soon enough. ;-) I've done it for you now. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ohconfucius: The section Ugabhoga that Ncmvocalist has repeatedly deleted (without discussions) through reverts was well discussed a while ago by many editors and it was added with valid RS. It is NPOV. I have answered all concerns of Ncmvocalist in discussion page. I do not understand why he has brought the issue here. Hope he is not expecting wikipedia tool to 'babysit' his POV's while he is gone away. Please reject unwarranted complaint that will waste the valuable time of AdmnsNaadapriya (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And he continues again with the revert warring without discussion. That section is removed due to NPOV concerns, and persistently readding it is unhelpful. Other forms such as Thillana and Githam only have a mention for the same reason - they're not elaborated as a significant form sung in all Carnatic performances, or as something that is taught as a matter of utmost importance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

An IP-hopping anon has gotten out of hand over a dispute as to which images to use in some articles, and has been violating NPA. I tried to block the IP for a cooling off period (48 hours), but the user is hopping around (66.176.139.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 67.191.12.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.196.103.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 98.211.229.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 98.211.229.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) so far, all Cox Cable, so a range block is out of the question). I also suspect there is a connection between the anon user and this sockpuppet case, as Comayagua99 was the anon's first target. At this point I need other heads to review the blocks I've made and to step in, if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Prior to your posting here, I had submitted request for page protection on four articles that seem to be the focus of the same anon: South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida. No comments or action have been taken on those requests ... but I'm wondering if temporary full protection would be better than the semi-protection I had requested so that all involved can sit back and discuss. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: The four related articles have now been semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The anon is currently posting under 66.176.46.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). See:

• WP:AN3#User:Comayagua99 reported by User:Miami area editor (Result: ), where the anon has posted a request for a 3RR action against a user who was content-warring against their multiple IP socks.
• Image:Brickell1.JPG, where anon is repeatedly requesting an image uploaded by Comayagua99 be deleted.
• Image:Brickell3.JPG, where anon is repeatedly requesting an image uploaded by Comayagua99 be deleted.
• User_talk:Comayagua99, where anon repeatedly re-applies 3RR warning (the user receiving the warning has removed it themself 3 times, demonstrating it has been seen - yet the anon insists on re-applying it)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am confident that this is the indefinitely blocked User:Miamiboyzinhere. He is a Cox Cable customer and he is hopping IPs, probably every time he logs into Cox. Semi-protection of his target articles may be the only way to prevent disruption from him. -- Donald Albury 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your evaluation is correct. Perhaps semi-protecting all the relevant pages for 2 weeks, and block if the user turns up anywhere else. All your blocks on this so far are sound. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep watch on these articles, and will temp block IPs and semi-protect articles when necessary. Maybe he will get tired of his games. -- Donald Albury 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT? I thought "cool-down blocks" were specifically against policy . — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

here and here

by User:Kékrōps

--193.198.2.199 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Next time, please use WP:AIV for obvious cases of this sort.  Sandstein  11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I may have been too hasty; the infractions were from August 25 and therefore somewhat stale. I have no problem with another administrator undoing that block in response to a reasonable unblock request.  Sandstein  11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the unblock request was not exactly what I like to see, but since this report was a little stale I can't object too much to Stifle's reducing the block to three hours. I'll also leave a note with some friendly advice for the future. — Satori Son 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the remaining IP autoblock and left a note. — Satori Son 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Located here from User_talk:214.13.162.2. This is nothing short of slander. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: sections rolled together after duplicate report. Sigh. I was hoping for a constructive argument with this editor, who disagrees with the film project's inclusion of links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Unfortunately, I just noticed this edit in his/her recent contributions to an editor with the opposing viewpoint ("DIE IN A FIRE!") Steve ^{T • C} 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A month, to let him cool off. And if he does it again... fire him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Gah, you almost deserve a block for that pun-ishment, Bugs. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No, there's a rule against pun-itive blocks. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The William Rodriguez page has been a mess for months now, with edit warring and sockpuppetry. Because this also involves BLP and other serious issues, I am posting this here instead of the suspected sockpuppets page in hopes this gets attention.

• Wtcsurvivor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked in late May for disruption and Wikipedia policy violations. I do believe that this is either the subject of the article or someone close to him, given how dedicated the user has been in editing this article (and pretty much just that article). Also, the tone and content of the edits make this clear. The problems are long drawn out over months before the block.

• Contrivance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appeared soon after Wtcsurvivor was blocked. Strongly suspect this is a sockpuppet account, circumventing the block.
• Sharphdmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - possibly a strawman account, possibly a sock. A checkuser might help clarify this.
• 69.116.203.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edits logged out
• Celeronel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this is a new account, started on August 25, which also uses the four "~" in the edit summaries.

Also, the way they all use edit summaries is telling, some adding the four "~" in the edit summary, and other characteristics. In the most recent edit summary by 69.116.203.231, he mentions another user's real first name, [4] With this edit summary, I can't ignore the page any longer. The user's name is known from elsewhere on the Internet, with the dispute carrying over to the Wikipedia page. This is not the first time for mentioning other users' real first names, with this previously done by Wtcsurvivor. [5]

I am not an uninvolved admin, so can do nothing but recommend other admins please take a look. I'm quite tired of this ongoing drama. --Aude (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's ongoing edit warring there, so I indefinitely protected the article. Ping me when it gets sorted, okay? lifebaka++ 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing to centralize discussions - we should talk it over with Sceptre on his talk, or else on the RfC for Sceptre. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention please, It seems to me obvious that Bracha Ettinger is being removed from everywhere for political reasons. Ettinger is an activist for human rights and fighting for rights of Palestinians in israel. Some people therefore consider that she should disappear from visuality. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere. Anybody who has doubts can look at Google Books and Google Scholars. I am going to proceed to put her bak where she was removed from, since this seems completely unjustified. I tend to believe that this kind of censorship should not be permitted on Wikipedia. Artethical (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger across the project. These edits are removing her name from articles such as feminism, Aesthetics, Gender studies and many more. Ettinger is a feminist psychoanalystist, academic and artist - she is not a hoax (see Google scholar[7] to verify). This IP user has put her bio page up for PROD as well.

Also with this edit they seem to claim to be a sock puppet of MArina T.[8]

The IPs are switching fast so it seems extremely likely that this is either someone using open proxies.

I could do with some help here, since my time is limited. I expect there will be further edits done while I'm offline so could sysop keep a set of eyes on this.

I'm going to semi-protected the effected articles. And I'm blocking the IPs for 3 days. But I'd appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on things. The IPs are:

• 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs)
• 89.138.226.204 (talk · contribs)
• 93.172.16.153 (talk · contribs)
• 85.250.87.108 (talk · contribs)
• 89.0.14.111 (talk · contribs)

The articles in question are:

• Gender studies
• Women artists
• Bracha L. Ettinger
• Human female sexuality
• Culture of Israel
• Psychoanalysis
• Jacques Lacan
• Feminism in France
• Feminist philosophy
• List of feminists
• List of French artists
• Women artists
• Film theory
• List_of_feminists
• Twentieth-century French philosophy

--Cailil ^talk 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

At least in the case of Lacan, this was a lone edit - I don't see why a week of protection is called for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions Phil - but this removal is happening across many more pages than I originally thought and this is the 2nd time today that this has occurred on a number of the pages. On top of that this user a) knows what they're doing and b) is uisng open proxies. If anyone have any ideas on how to handle this better I'm all ears--Cailil ^talk 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Marina T, Marina T is a sock of Nimrod Kamer, a known Israeli troll who was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia.

Marina T used to promote this non-notable woman ([9] [10]) and link her from unrelated articles. I'm here to clear Marina T (=Nimrod Kamer and his sock puppets) carp.

Bracha L. Ettinger was created by Marina T [11] (who was banned from Wikipedia). 89.0.6.132 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the trolling case of Marina T/Nimrod Kamer but at a glance I'd say Ms Ettinger is probably notable. A dissertation included her and her body of academic and art work seems significant and somewhat influential. If there are undue weight references to Ettinger's work in many different articles, then these need to be evaluated/addressed individually and modified or removed. Wholesale wiki-wide reversion of even a troll's work should be considered carefully on its merits. (Although at least some of them are so jargon-filled as to be impenetrable to an outsider to Lacanian theory.) I'm going to try to look over the articles in question and perhaps report back here if I come to any firmer conclusions. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• See also Drawing Center, where I was dealing with an IP's changes before I saw this thread. TravellingCari 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This definitely seems like drive-by and indiscriminate removal of all references to Ettinger. 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs) marks all the removals as "spam" when this is not so obvious to me. Some are removal of references that include Ettinger's publications on academic/university presses. This seems more a content dispute over Ettinger's importance but when an IP-shifting editor quickly does this serially to all mentions of her, I'd have to call it vandalism. I think protecting the articles was a little overreactive for just a couple of reverts on some of them but it's also hard to talk to a shifting IP. Cailil did try[12] without success. The IP above merely cites two Google searches (4,560 and 5,840 hits) as evidence of Ettinger's non-notability but I think the Google Scholar search [13] is somewhat more telling with 23 hits. All in all, I think Cailil is handling it about right considering the IP(s) don't seem to be overly communicative on talk pages. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pigman. I have no problem unprotecting everything if people feel that semi-protection was an over-reaction. But I could see no other solution - the IPs jump too far and too fast. Any help looking fater this would be much appreciated--Cailil ^talk 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some of the removals were on target. Ettinger, for instance, was probably unduly represented in Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. Similarly, in Film theory it amounted to adding a mention of an essay by Ettinger. Fine, but there are so many essays of film theory that we can't go adding every one, and Ettinger would make few people's top 20 lists. Ettinger is notable enough for an article, but it looks like her name was spread around a bit more than is wholly appropriate, and it would not surprise me if it were done to spam. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Phil. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to evaluate which references to her in Wiki-articles are good and which are overstating her influence. It's just not in my areas of knowledge. However, blanket removal of all refs and PRODding her bio article seemed a tad over the top. It's clear to me from her article that she's notable by WP standards; her actual influence, importance and pertinence to these other articles is another matter. I can't judge that. When the IP editor insisted she was non-notable despite her fairly impressive list of art showings and publications on academic presses, it lowers the IP's credibility in my eyes.

Cailil, I think the semi-protection is fine for the moment. It would certainly help if the IP would come forward with a consistent account, even if only the same IP account, to discuss the matter. In lieu of that, I'm just hoping people with a better grasp of Ettinger's influence (or non-influence) will look more closely at these mentions listed at the top of this thread. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually Phil some of the removals seemed in-line with undue. Nevertheless the problem is when somebody using open-proxies begins prod-ing a bio article (that demonstrates notability properly) and launches a crusade to remove all references to that person from wikipedia. Yes the level of Ettinger's representation is problematic but this IP's behaviour is just as bad. If this person were doing this in good faith they wouldn't be using open proxies and they wouldn't be prod-ing perfectly notable articles.
The fact is that Ettinger is notable - I'm personally not a fan of her's and I do think she was being listed too often. She is most notable in gender studies and psychoanalysis but I agree she may be over-represented on WP. However, one does not address undue weight by giving an edit-summary of "SPAM". And also the IP began removing more than just references to Ettinger - see here & here - that's just blanking. The lines removed in the 1st diff might be unsourced but it is perfectly sourcable. Then there were the removals of Ettinger's name from the lists of artists and lists of feminists - which are just as bizarre as the prod-ing of the bio.

And just to be clear the semi-protection is only for a week in all cases but that can be reviewed--Cailil ^talk 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at this: [14] [15] (1600 hits on Wikipedia) [16] (hundreds of hits on flickr). This is a proof it is a spam and she is non-notable academic (evey prof has publication).

She is so famous she has only article in the French Wikipedia (create by the same troll Nimrod Kamer). This troll liked to her from major articles like psychoanalysis, women in art, art history, feminism, aesthetics and so on. This article should be deleted.

I have good faith. I'm not using open proxies, I just changing my IP after each edit for security reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.238 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you get an account, as account users can only have their IP's checked by Checkusers. Plus, it makes it easier to talk to you, if you keep resetting the modem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

She's faculty at the European Graduate School: [17]. They do not tend to add non-notable people. Similarly, she has a book out with Minnesota - one of the best academic presses in her field. Again, a sign of notability. I believe you that she's been spammed across Wikipedia, but it is transparently clear, as a grad student in her field, that she is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Ettinger is plenty notable - but she may be given too much weight in a few too many articles. However, that's possibly a systemic bias, or (more likley) an undue weight issue, rather than a "spam" problem. Her work is pertinent to aesthetics, feminism, psychoanalysis & gender studies - since that's exactly what it's about. This multiple IP user has claimed that a) Ettinger is a hoax (in the prod of the bio article); b) that Ettinger is non-notable (here); c) claimed that every reference to her is "spam" and d) that she was being added in a "self-promotional" effort and e) that it is all the work of an Israeli sock-puppeteer & "troll". The last point might be partially true, but the others are verifiably incorrect and as such are major red-flags--Cailil ^talk 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PS I apologize for accusing you of using Open proxies - I was incorrect. But using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny is a problem - getting an account would indeed be a good idea--Cailil ^talk 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well now, User:Ori Redler has just started doing exactly the same thing as the IPs (see their recent contribs). MOdernist has just asked for an explanation--Cailil ^talk 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Ettinger is notable, but she's not a household name. She was initially overly placed in certain articles and her importance as a figure in the art world was exaggerated. She appears in several articles about cutting edge contemporary art and philosophy. That said - she does belong in several of the articles and I've restored her to most of the articles and lists from which she had been deleted. She appears to be both a published scholar and an exhibiting artist...and it looks like a concerted effort to delete her from this encyclopedia is under way. Modernist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I got an account.
2. Ori Radler is a good and respected wikipedian, mainly active on Hebrew Wikipedia
3. Please help him cleaning Nimrod Kamer's crap.
4. She is non-notable
5. Even if she is notable this article should be deleted because it was written by a known troll (Nimrod Kamer) who was banned from ALL Wikimedia projects.
6. At least delete ALL his spam links and unlock the articles - you all agree she's been spammed.
7. @Phil Sandifer: In any field you know her? --NZQRC (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - As we proceed we will be careful and circumspect about Ettinger's appearances where she does not belong. She's been removed from Women Artists and Postmodern art, certain places she belongs others not. Modernist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger. She's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too. Someone should notice them. --NZQRC (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that Ettinger is mildly notable as an artist and writer. She can stay on lists of contemporary artists for example. However she can be removed from inclusions that indicate an exaggerated position of importance and expertise. Any removals should be careful and indicate on the Talk Page of the article why the removal is taking place, in case of a dispute - discuss on the talk page....Modernist (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC, thanks for registering an account. It makes communication much easier. Re Ettinger: I think it's a mistake to dismiss her just because of who added the info to WP. At this point more people are examining the wiki-links/wiki-refs to her for validity and that should help to balance out the "spamming". Looking at the supporting online sources and documentation, I think you're fighting a losing battle to claim she is non-notable. The sources are too varied and substantive to be dismissed out of hand as you seem to be asking us to do. Cheers, Pigman☿ 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy now removing her link at the drawing center citing this thread in edit summary here. I've semi'ed the article (only one on my watch list) until this gets figured out because I'm sick or reverting and the truth is, no other new editors or anyone else have shown an interest lately. We're not hampering progress. I think her exhibit at the Drawing Center was an notable exhibit for the Drawing Center. Thoughts on that? I'm not opposed to its removal if its proved to be n-n but this was getting ridiculous. TravellingCari 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC - or whoever you and all the other IPs are STOP THE BLANKING you are in complete violation of this noticeboard discussion and any agreements you just keep blanking, frankly you are all out of control! Modernist (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Bracha L. Ettinger is a topic for Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger, not for the noticeboard. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not about this non-notable woman. This is about trolling, spamming, self promoting and abusing Wikipedia. --NZQRC (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this thread is about inappropriate deletions and inappropriate blanking of articles - not the notability of Ettinger, although that has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The story of Nimrod Kamer and his friends floats every few months in the Hebrew Wikipedia and Israel-related talk pages in other language 'pedias. Poking fun at Kamer's pathetic stabs at self-promotion and stardom is entertaining, but some of the articles about his gang are actually reasonable.

I thoroughly cleaned up excessive Marina T./Nimrod Kamer/Shmila cruft half a year ago, and since then there was only some action around the Ettinger article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now this is getting to be thoroughly annoying. Looking through this WP specific Google search, I'm finding that IPs are systematically removing all mentions of Ettinger. At a glance, the few links/references I've looked at seem contextually appropriate to their articles. I'm sure some aren't but this strikes me as more of a purge than corrections or adjustments. Of course Ettinger is just the one that we're aware of. It wouldn't surprise me to find that similar removals are going on with other "Nimrod Kamer" additions. With the shifting IPs there's no easy way to track such a varied and concerted effort. As I said, this really is a content question but the method puts it more under the heading of vandalism. Deliberately masking these efforts to evade normal editorial discussion is not being bold but violating WP processes. (As an informal and completely unencyclopedic point of reference, two of my housemates seem to have heard of Ettinger. Neither are in Ettinger's field(s). Proves nothing but still worth noting.) Some of these removals are being done very poorly as well. [18] shows the removal of Ettinger from the Eurydice article but leaves info about Ettinger's exhibit venues and dates, now without any context. Sloppy work that will need to be cleaned up. Hmph! Pigman☿ 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC's method, besides the bad faith of using multiple IPs and ignoring this thread, breaks WP:EP's core - "remove bias but retain content". All of us here can see that there may be an undue weight problem but NZQRC's behaviour is too disruptive to the project and is moving from a minor irritation to a blitz attack on articles. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm bordering on blocking NZQRC for continuing to use multiple IPs to indulge in this same behaviour--Cailil ^talk 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be good if we could agree on a process for dealing with this problem. For instance should we revert and semi-protect every article these IPs edit then block the IP? This is my preferred option. This gives us time and breathing space to a)figure out what needs o be review (per WP:UNDUE) and b) it prevents recurrence of attacks where the info is due. Any thoughts--Cailil ^talk 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. Ty 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I am convinced that the Bracha Ettinger story is exposed as hoax, fakery and sockpuppetry. I've removed Ettinger from Women artists and Postmodern art because frankly she never belonged in those articles in the first place. She was placed on a list that read: "it was painting of the artists Valerio Adami, Daniel Buren, Marcel Duchamp, Bracha Ettinger and Barnett Newman that, after the avant-garde's time and the painting of Paul Cézanne and Wassili Kandinsky, was the vehicle for new ideas of the sublime in contemporary art." - its way beyond where she belongs to be, and she's listed but it's clearly a contrived addition...We have to be careful to realize that she is basically notable, and she has authored published essays and books and she has exhibited her paintings in galleries and museums - but like many other notable figures in the art world she is largely obscure and simply isn't that well known....yet. Modernist (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• It a mess - Ettinger belongs in certain articles with certain mentions and she should be removed from places that she does not belong..like lists of enormously important and famous contributors to art and science. Although she belongs on more general lists of artists and scientists. She belongs where she is referenced specifically and should be removed where the mention is simply ambiguous. Modernist (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Eyes please on List of painters by name. Ty 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are edit warring, as soon as one stops, another starts, I think there is a deeper agenda at work then what has already come up on WP:ANI. They seem voracious about deleting Ettinger everywhere, irregardless of logic or fairness. I'm at a loss how to proceed...except to keep rolling em back. I sense a ruse, a fake, a nest of snakes.....Modernist (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• more IPS

85.250.86.53 (Talk);

89.139.9.85 (Talk);

89.0.12.202;

89.138.185.137;

93.172.35.29;

89.138.174.146;

89.0.9.203;

89.139.239.124;

89.138.161.140;

89.139.191.198

Ugh. The G-hits from my linked search at the top of this section revealed the following 50 articles which had mentions of Ettinger. At a guess, from the text I saw in the various hits, probably 50%-75% of them may be gratuitous insertions. I'd bet histories will reveal recent activity by our rouge IPs on these articles. I'm going to sleep.

Women artists The Matrix Robert Doisneau Psychoanalytic theory Psychoanalysis Postmodern feminism Postmodern art Other Luce Irigaray List of psychology topics List of psychoanalytical theorists List of postmodern critics List of painters by name List of French artists List of feminists List of female philosophers List of contemporary artists Linda Nochlin Julia Kristeva Jacques Lacan Jacques Derrida Influences and interpretations of The Matrix History of feminism Hans Prinzhorn Hélène Cixous Griselda Pollock Gender Gender studies Gaze French structuralist feminism Film theory Feminist theory Feminist philosophy Feminist film theory Feminism Feminism in France Feminism and the Oedipus complex Félix Guattari Eva Hesse Eurydice European Graduate School Emmanuel Levinas Drawing Center Cultural studies Christine Buci-Glucksmann Bracha L. Ettinger Art history Antigone Aesthetics Écriture féminine

Pigman☿ 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Ettinger was one of the only women artists on whom Lyotard was constantly writing and lecturing. This is for example now a subject of a chapter in a book Gender after Lyotard. I think that we must realize that there is an effort to ruin Ettinger's name and reputation, and we don't know why and by whom.Artethical (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The attacks against Bracha L. Ettinger are continuing. An anonymous acting from different Israeli IP's is removing all mentions of this artist from different articles with the untrue explanation that there is a consensus to remove her from major topics.

There is no such consensus. My guess is that this user is deleting mentions of Ettinger just because the information about her was added by User:Marina T., who is suspected to be related to the notorious Israeli troll User:Nnimrodd. This suspicion was never properly confirmed, and in any case, the info about Ettinger appears to be sourced and not blatantly self-promotional.

I agree with the position of Phil Sandifer in the discussion above ("Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock") - it is possible that Ettinger is not be the most notable feminist, psychoanalyst or artist and in that case she shouldn't be mentioned in every article on these topics, but such drive-by removal of her name from every place without proper consensus is definitely wrong.

Also, this frequent IP changing is worrying and the user already admitted that he is "changing my IP after each edit for security reasons". If he would be acting in good faith, he wouldn't have to change his IP all the time. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and i forgot to mention that this anonymous editor wrote personal attacks in Hebrew on my talk page twice. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just how close are the IPs being used? Any chance of a rangeblock? Alternatively, you can watch and perhaps semiprotect the relevant articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the earlier thread User:NZQRC seems to admit being the one who was editing from all those IPs. Looks like he made a few posts, then went back to his old tactics. It's a shame because his arguments for many of these edits actually were getting some traction, but it looks like he'd rather be disruptive by hopping IPs every two minutes so that no one can engage him in discussion. If there's any way he can be encouraged to stick to his registered and stand up like a man (woman?) and make a case for what he's doing, he and the project would be much better served. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Stephen, the IPs mostly resolve to Haifa - and NZQRC is going through a huge volume of them. I don't know if a range block is possible - it will take a significant amount of time and effort just to identify the removals and the IPs involved. As it stands NZQRC is not blocked - I'm bordering on blocking them per WP:DUCK for using multiple accounts (IPs) to avoid scrutiny. This behaviour is beyond the WP:SPIDER level of disruption--Cailil ^talk 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack. The ducks are now blocked at midnight. Given the persistence we may see more, though. A good article for people to watchlist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are also having a go at any articles with Ettinger mentioned. See Modernist's contributions for where he has reverted. Ty 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• The IPS are growing, I think admins have to start blocking them wholesale. It's beyond reason, something is rotten. Modernist (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• What about France, Israel, Women, Female, Europe (France is in Europe), Asia, Earth, Human, Art, Culture, History, History of France, History of Israel, Glasses (She wears sun glasses), Elderly (She is not young), Painting, and Photography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.142.105 (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that it's fun, but please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Last chance: The German Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia after the English one. Now check those links: [19], [20] [21] (most of the results came from this photo [22]). You can do the same in every Wikipedia you want except the French Wikipedia (she's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.161 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

←Thanks Modernist and to everyone else for their diligence in tracking this problem. I'm implementing an emergency semi-protection on all the articles where Modernist reverted NZQRC's IPs (this will exclude the articles where she may be unduely represented). This will be a week long semi-protection. Also I had been blocking these IPs for 3 days. I'm now going to reblock, the one's I've already caught, for a month and then block the next lot for a month too. If any one thinks any of this is overly harsh just drop me a line--Cailil ^talk 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious matter of the elimination and defamation of Bracha Ettinger is clarified through the Facebook of Ori Redler. Ori Redler is an extrem right wing Israeli who is working via right wing Jewish lists to eliminate Bracha L. Ettinger because her name is associated to a list of Israeli jews from the left who are activists for Human Rights. They consider Ettinger wrongly to be anti-Israeli and anti-jewish, eventhough she is israeli and a daughter of Holocaust survivers. Since Redler is working through lists, many people together are working to eliminate her and reduce her importance. This is a political purge: message was passed though lists to eliminate her name. This explains why the eliminations of Bracha L. Ettinger come from many ip adresses at the same time. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere it was taken out, and calling upon the Administrators to follow each vandalization of Ettinger and restore to the previous state. I am asking the administrators to help my restoring efforts. 87.69.90.201 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a response by the Israeli troll Nimrod Kamer (AKA User:Marina T.) who created this article. Ignore him and don't believe him - He is a lair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.30.218 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any proof to this claim. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NZQRC - all the IPs listed have been blocked until the 26th of September 2006. Can anyone who finds any further NZQRC socks please tag the IP's talk pages with {{sockpuppet|NZQRC}}--Cailil ^talk 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3 more - tagged but unblocked:User talk:89.139.239.124; - User talk:89.0.9.203; - User talk:89.138.56.247; Modernist (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They're blocked now--Cailil ^talk 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually they are tagged but I don't see a block Modernist (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You can check it in their block logs[23][24] - the templates saying "you've been blocked" are manually added and I forgot to add them here. But i've fixed that now--Cailil ^talk 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to reduce the number of protected pages we have, I am going through articles Ettinger is currently inappropriately linked in and removing her, then unprotecting as that article is, presumably, no longer a target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. At least a few of us will have the pages watch-listed in case of any further funny business--Cailil ^talk 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil - that's the best way to handle this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but do we know about any other purging of Nimrod Kamer additions (some of which will be spam, others not)? This is a link to the dashboard for User:Nnimrodd, and this is the one for User;Marina T.
From a quick glance at these I would watch Joshua Simon, Michal Heiman, Herzliya Biennial, Michail Grobman, Efrat Abramov and what links to their articles. Also take a look here for even more--Cailil ^talk 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am watching them.

No doubt, Nimrod Kamer and Marina T. wrote a lot of cruft in Wikipedia and i purged everything that didn't fit established notability policies, but what remains looks reasonable to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bracha Ettinger is being now systematically persecuted and her name deleted from everywhere probably because she is an activist for human rights in Israel. Her name is being now purged, massacred and deleted by person(s) who write defamatory and untrue information on her. For example she was deleted from the Women Artists page since it was claimed by User:Ori Redler that she was not a participating artist in the show Inside the Visible. Ettinger was in fact both a participant artist in the show AND a contributer to the book. Apparently there is a vicious attack going on all over the place on a major artist, theorist and feminist, who is also a courageous fighter for human rights and a model for many young artists and feminists. I invite the editors to consult Google Books and Google Scholars, and to help to restore her name and dignity. User who deletes her name so bluntly from all over the place and give misinformation should in my view be blocked. Artethical (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are, without question, places where she should be mentioned on Wikipedia. However, and I say this as someone well acquainted with the field, putting her on the same level as Freud, Lacan, and Kristeva in Gender Studies, or saying that, along with Rorty and Barthes, she is one of the major descendants of Lyotard is ludicrous. She's a fine scholar, but she's not on that level at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

She should be deleted because she is non-notable and because she's been spammed all over Wikipedia. Her political activity is not relevant.

FinancialAnalyst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - check the deleted revision of the user page, and the early contributions. This is obviously a returning user, and the likely candidate seems to me to be Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but that is a guess based on Dimension31's comments in the history of the article now at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks. The ASCII on the user's page is innocuous, not sure about the (Chinese? Kanji?) script though. Is this a problem, or am I just seeing reds under the bed again? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Japanese says "Japanese / English", according to Google Translate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
• That user certainly has shown copious amounts of bad faith in the past. And Dimention31 jumped right in the fray with the SocialPicks mess (check the deleted contribs) after a long absence. Fishy. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: are you sure Dimention31 is active again? I must be missing something. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean active now, active in March after 6-odd months of inactivity (this is when the SocialPicks article was deleted). — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I really don't think this is a returning user, based on his poor username choice (a returning user would know better) that led to a block, and his complete surprise and annoyance at the deletion of the article. In any case, Dimension31 is not blocked and has been inactive for 6 months; if they are the same user, the alternate account seems legit. Mangojuice^talk 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FinancialAnalyst has accused me of just about everything but kidnapping the Lindbergh baby; but I don't think there's any evidence to back up this theory. More than one person can be a fan of the same non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK< reds under the bed it is then. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

complaint lodged by Ohconfucius (talk)

There has been considerable discussion and general agreement on the direction to be taken on Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics by the community editors. All except for one User:Badagnani, who has been harping, sniping about clean-up of the article through judicious pruning, persistently calling it "blanking". Discussions come and go, and he rarely participates, and when he does, it is usually to complain that I have "blanked" this and that. He has repeatedly "requested" that I not "blank" and his count is running at 19 as at the lodging of this complaint.

Other editors have discussed the validity of his complaints, and have unanimously backed my actions as being in line with consensus, and at least one has condemned his actions as harassment:

• 22 August 2008 User:Tsuchan questions meaning of consensus.
• 26 August 2008 User:Tsuchan
• 26 August 2008 User:CMBJ removes personal attack
• 27 August 2008 User:Scorpion0422
• 27 August 2008 User:DanteAgusta
• 27 August 2008 User:Axlq
• 28 August 2008 User:DanteAgusta

An administrator, User:Stifle, asked to protect the article, ruled that most of my edits were "constructive":

• 27 August User:Stifle rules most of the edits "constructive"

A near-exhaustive history of our exchanges and his harassment are as follows: Our direct exchanges (Usertalk pages) in sequential order:

• 21 August 2008 Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics - explanation about Coatrack sections.
• his reply, "I've had long experience with editors who blank massively without first seeking and obtaining consensus, as is our procedure at WP. From today's edits, you appear to be one of those. If and when you pledge to me you will abide by this thoughtful, considered manner of editing, you may post to my discussion page further"
• 22 August 2008 I refuse to make the pledges he wants, saying "I [am not] obliged to pledge anything to you. I would remind you that consensus is not the only driving principle here on WP, WP:NPOV is a pillar, which the article appears to be violating through undue weight."

all those below, posted to his talk page, have been removed:

• 25 August 2008 Your protest is noted - Explanation of content move to more relevant locations.
• 26 August 2008 Yet more massive blankings - on someone else's 'blanking'
• 26 August 2008 Attention that I consider his actions 'harassment', draw attention to behavioural policies and guidelines
• 26 August 2008 telling him his juvenile behaviour is verging on the harassment.
• 27 August 2008 telling him to stop what I consider to be his personal attacks, urging him to seek anger management.
• 28 August 2008 pre-emptive warning not to engage in edit-warring, removed seconds later.

Article talk page exchanges: 21 August 2008

• objection to "this massive blanking"
• objection to "this massive blanking"
• to making it personal
• my defense
• another side-swipe by him
• 21 August 2008 asking me to reinstate 'blanked text'
• my retort - it is he who is not with the consensus.
• still attempting to be civil at this point
• makes a veiled threat that his semblance of civility would be revoked if I did not restore what he called 'massive blankings against consensus'
• accused another user of being a sockpuppet

22 August 2008

• I asked for grounds for suspecting User:Tsuchan to be a sockpuppet, on his Usertalk page. He deletes without replying
• I refuse his request to reinstate coatrack sections.
• gives me his "third warning not to "blank"
• Reposted query asking for grounds for suspecting User:Tsuchan to be a sockpuppet, after deletion without response from his Usertalk page
• 22 August 2008 my retort for him to get real. I am with the consensus, he is not.

24 August 2008

• made an unsubstantiated accusation against me
• fourth warning not to "blank"
• I tell him where 'blanked content' have been moved to
• accuses me of unilateral action
• accuses me of disruptive behaviour

26 August 2008

• objecting to this edit, and asking for page protection
• LOL
• "fifth warning" not to "blank" names of websites not unblocked
• objecting to this edit, naming me again
• objecting to this edit, naming me again. Says it's his 15th request.
• I justified my removal of some of the website names from the article
• I asked him not to shout
• objecting to this edit, naming me again.
• I pointed out had swapped sections with another article
• still complaining about "20 paragraphs removed"
• I explain about the life cycle of an article.
• I draw attention to the 15 requests relate to 15 quite separate pieces of text

27 August 2008

• objecting to this edit (16th request), naming me again.
• objecting to this edit (17th request), asking for article protection
• I informed article talk page that protection has been filed for on behalf of Badagnani.
• objecting to this "unilateral blanking without consensus"

28 August 2008

• removal of my edit to simplify sentence
• My ultimatum
• objecting to this edit, saying it's his 19th request.
• he then reverts
• I reply that there is consensus to remove non-notable names
• He starts harassing a fellow editor who has repeatedly supported me, complaining about this agreed-upon edit
• the editor concerned responds that there was discussion and consensus.

I would also mention that this user's record speaks for itself. He has been blocked several times for disruptive behaviour and for edit-warring. He has had run-ins with a large number of editors which is evident by simply looking at his talk page. I think WP can do without contributors of this type, despite his high level of apparent contribution: edit count and large number of article creations. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the incidents. Based on overall contributions, I believe that I prefer a Wikipedia in which Badagnani exists. This is more of a fervent content dispute that has spiraled out of control, rather than a blatant personal attack. I earnestly recommend mentorship, as opposed to temporary or permanent removal.   — C M B J   06:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have had my own frustrating run-in with Badagnani on another article, but on the balance, I too prefer a Wikipedia in which Badagnani exists and continues to contribute. I also note that until recently, Badagnani has done more complaining on the talk page than edit-warring in the article, in this instance, although the edit warring appears to have begun to escalate. I'm not sure mentorship is the answer, however.

Regarding Badagnani's revert on 8/28, I saw nothing wrong with it. The fact that I earlier agreed that non-notable names don't need to be mentioned doesn't mean they mustn't be mentioned if removing a name disturbs the reading flow. I think Ohconfucius has become overly sensitive of Badagnani's edits, and is now targeting them as a focus of complaint, just as Badagnani has been targeting Ohconfucius' edits.

Personally, I think a topic ban is in order. =Axlq 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am with Ohconfucius on this. Badagnani has been unreasonable, even now. If you try to discuss things with him he ignores you. I am not saying I want him banned, but would like for him to see reason. And for him to stop acting like he owns everything. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been embroiled in some kind of sockpuppet frenzy. What are the quickest ways to exonerate myself? I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but it's turned into something of a nuisance when I come to make edits of my own. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this note from Maunus here already suggests "the best way you can exonerate yourself is by maintaining an impeccable conduct..." Since you were cleared at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco, I'm not really sure what else you are looking for. I agree the best course of action is the very one recommended by Maunus: "Don't worry about it" and continue making quality contributions. — Satori Son 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the best I can expect, it'll have to do. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Tocino (talk · contribs)

He makes propaganda comments about "seperatists" and other things. His aktivity at the sites about Kosovo are disturbing. Please do anything about him.84.134.104.242 (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First, have you tried to talk to him directly? Second, can you tell us, where that allegedly happened (provide diffs please)? Third, you should consider dispute resolution if that happens. SoWhy 19:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all I'm seeing is a lot of harrassment to him from someone with an 84.134 prefix, which, under the circumstances, leads me to believe this is you. HalfShadow 19:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Orator

As I just cleaned up the list of modern examples, I'd like someone else to look this over.

This is an IP on his third revert to add Ted Kennedy to the list. (Note that I don't believe that he was one of those which I pared from the list.)

Those listed are individuals noted for oratory, beyond just the norm of political (or religious) speeches. (To list everyone who has ever made a speech would be prohibitive, obviously.)

I've requested that the IP add a reference before re-adding, which hasn't happened.

Anyway, third-party action/opinion welcome. - jc37 20:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just when I filed the above report, the suspected socks started playing around like before (just like when I filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/200.215.40.3). I am sorry for the long report, but I really want to get this off my back. As it says, I expected at least one of the suspected socks to go around editing while I file the report-just like the last time. User:Ausonia is doing just that and keeps making undiscussed/controversial page moves and changes by using several sock accounts.

...The last time I filed a report, the socks noticed it and made more negative edits. It looks as if this guy is contributions-stalking me and that really disturbs me. I have had about enough of this and want it to end ASAP. There should be no excuse for continuing such edits for the millionth time. Isn't there someone who can help me out here? ~ Troy (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Jpgordon looks to have responded, at the SSP subpage; checkusers can be quite useful dealing with this sort of problem, sometimes. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Hopefully this mess gets cleared up—I can't let it happen ever again. ~ Troy (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This user looks like User:Benkenobi18, almost identical editing interests and fondness of moving pages. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Onceloose (talk · contribs) I have just about had it with this user. I was contacted by both him and Pink Evolution (talk · contribs) about a disagreement on both Isis Gee and For Life (Isis Gee song) about the placing of the song at the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. Onceloose insists that the song finished "joint last" with 14 points even though the official website shows a break in the tie with 23rd, 24th, and 25th place being awarded with Isis Gee receiving 24th of 25 entries. There is no source that says in words "the tie was broken" but it is shown broken in the table here. In past contests when there was a tie, say in 2003 when there was a tie for 11th, both countries are shown in the table as 11th place, unlike the 2008 where the tie seems to have been broken and the placings awarded. He undid my edit [25] which showed the song placing 24th which isn't last when there are 25 entries and also the other source saying that one of the other tied songs was awarded 23rd place. He lectures me about user:Pink Evolution being blocked in the past [26] and how she must be wrong here too and then tells me as an edit summary for his version that there is an "administrator approved" wording and a consensus but fails to prove any of it [27]. I warned him about removing verified content and adding unsourced information [28] because he has failed to supply proof of the song placing anything other than 24th of 25 and is refusing to accept any view other than his own. I think his actions need to be reviewed and a block possibly issued. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

He also, added himself to the wikiproject and deleted another member [29] and issued me and pink evolution the vandalism warning I gave him?!?![30][31]. This smells like disruptive editing. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

And now harassing me by warning me again after I removed the first warning [32]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way: This is a forgery of signature. Pink Evolution (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the official site shows the song finishing in 24th place, and tied for points with 2 other songs. Whatever tie-breaker method they used to determine the final placement is not really relevant to this fact. The official, verifiable, results show it 24th of 25. It is therefore inappropriate to remove the properly cited fact stating this. Arakunem^Talk 22:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the first person to edit the "24-place" to "shared last" was a banned sock: [33] Arakunem^Talk 23:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems very possible that this is another sock considering he is just as stubborn as the sock is here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left some comments on his talk page, where the discussion seems to be taking place, such as it is. Arakunem^Talk 23:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For Life (Isis Gee song) is protected, would it be too much to ask to unprotect it so I can re-add the information in? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the protecting admin, you should create a section on the article's talk page explaining the current rev, and the rev you want to change, complete with cite. The protecting admin did not see evidence of the cited fact when he protected it, probably because the discussions were all off-article on user talk pages. Arakunem^Talk 23:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see that the admin moved the discussion there. I chimed in my opinion. Arakunem^Talk 23:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

After some research, I think we have another sock after comparing these two edits here and here. "came equal last" is not a common phrase. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

On the KylieX2008 article, there is an anon IP user that is reverting the edits of Dancefloor_royalty and KM*hearts*MC. This started over a content dispute, where I agreed with the edits of KM to the Broadcasts and Recording section of the article. The IP user then went on a tangent to claim that "there was no freedom on Wiki" and changed the section title to "KM*hearts*MC Ver of Broadcasts and Recordings (approved by Dancefloor royalty)". The user (by KM*hearts*MC) has been explained to the anon IP user why his/her edits were not constructive [34] [35]. The IP addresses all belong to TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD. This situation is getting annoying as I have to go back through and reverted my constructive edits on other articles. I am not sure if this is a case for blocking. Any assitance would help. Thanks. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

These IP addresses are reverting my edits along with KM:

• 60.50.180.146[36]
• 219.95.22.62 [37]

These IP addresses made the various edits to the KylieX2008 article

• 60.50.187.58 [38]
• 92.5.147.35 [39]
• 219.95.23.27 [40]
• 60.50.181.20 [41]
• 60.50.179.194 [42]
• 60.50.180.178 [43]
• 219.95.20.219 [44]
• 219.95.16.78 [45](edit-just popped up a few mins ago)Dancefloor royalty (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason of editing: The new fact in Broadcasts and Recordings have to be added inside as that is what its shown. The missing part not shown in TV have the reason to know by everyone. Those who not going to the live of the concert might wonder that live tour only as that short as what is shown in TV. The current problem in KylieX2008 is KM*hearts*MC and Dancefloor_royalty consider KylieX2008 is belong to them, not allow others fans to add fact and info. This is revert of whats the Wiki main purpose here, showing the history to the public and get knowledge from it. This act done by KM*hearts*MC and Dancefloor_royalty is totally not care of others fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.16.78 (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) As it is a dynamic IP address, your best bet would be Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 02:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see this diff The protection was meant to be for 3 days and is far overdue, obviously User:PeterSymonds made a boo boo at the time.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New editor Dowhatyoudo (talk · contribs) uploaded a number of copyrighted images, which have been speedily deleted, but now he is uploading them again. He was warned on his talk page about each violation. He states variously that they are his images (not true) or that he has permission to upload them (probably not true). Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 01:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it is. Also appears to be probable sockpuppet. Black Kite 02:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I managed to find ABQSNOW.jpg (MD5: a1530a62faad084bef22ba0806b53423) over on Flickr. The remaining images all need to be examined.   — C M B J   03:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I've deleted them all. The combination of the one found on Flickr and the fact that the EXIF data showed wildly different cameras and dates suggests to me that they're all stolen. Black Kite 10:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So this may be a false concern, but on Job Charnock I'm seeing some pretty drastic edits by a user at such a ferocious pace that I can't keep up without violating WP:3RR. My attempts to communicate with the user (User talk:59.93.178.151) have been absolutely useless so far, and my original attempt to communicate stemmed from the fact that he was removing what was the second paragraph in the Life section, which seemed to not be controversial, and which was well cited. I don't have much knowledge about the article subject however, and I'd just appreciate it if someone could take a look for themselves to make sure the user isn't either only making appropriate edits to the article or only vandalizing the article, because if the former is the case I can stop heckling the user, and if the latter is the case, I, or someone else, can revert the user.--danielfolsom 06:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP seems to be making edits identical to others made by Devarshiroychoudhury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has not yet been blocked but has been warned about vandalizing the article and once created an article called "Forget Job Charnock". The IP is likely to be the same user trying to avoid impending sanctions. I think the best thing would be to semiprotect the article and revert to the last good version. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost forgot to say that the autoconfirmed account should probably be blocked for disruptive sockpuppetry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article, and blocked Devarshiroychoudhury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) until there is a commitment to discuss changes. Kevin (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Kevin. Now someone who knows India should have a look at both accounts' other edits, for instance, I note that Sabarna Roy Choudhury Paribar Parishad has been created and deleted five times, yet the autoconfirmed account has created an article called Sabarna Roy Choudhry Paribar Parishad that still exists (note Choudhury≠Choudhry). I suggest deleting and salting both titles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Carrington family and Carrington, North Dakota is seeing persistent vandalism from a certain range of IPs. 58.178.149.68 (talk · contribs) is the latest one. JuJube (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

9 edits in the past 10 days on Carrington family and nothing since the 15th on Carrington, North Dakota. I dunno... WP:RBI seems like the best idea. Range-block could have negative consequences and the disruption here seems low-key. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've semi protected Carrington family for a week. Maybe that will be enough for them to get bored and move on. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For several weeks User:Mamalujo has been inserting the claim that John Cornwell, the author of Hitler's Pope, "recanted" the main thesis of his book. He has refused to provide a source for the claim that Cornwell "recanted" his thesis; indeed, he refuses to come to the Talk: page at all. Saying that an author "recanted" the main thesis of his most famous book is a very serious charge, and I've several times warned Mamalujo that this is a WP:BLP violation. Unless I get other advice here, I plan to block him next. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Some diffs showing that the behavior is persistent and that the user was sufficiently warned would help. But assuming that the user was indeed warned and his behavior is persistent I think blocking is the only way Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, here are some diffs of him doing it: [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

Here are diffs of warnings: [51] [52] [53] [54] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two minutes after my last warning, he removed the warning from his Talk: page, under the guise of archiving it, and told me he would give my "hasty warning" "the consideration it deserves". He has yet to discuss this on the article Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to notify him of this thread, reiterate this is the final warning, and if he does it again block him. --mboverload@ 00:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He did in fact archive the whole contents of his talk page, but his behavior here is stretching the limit. I'm going to leave him a warning as an uninvolved admin that his behavior violated policy and further reverts without citing reliable sources to that specific effect will be blockable under BLP (what he's writing is also OR, as far as I can tell, lacking a RS to the contrary...). Assuming good faith, a clear explanation of my conclusions will go on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true, he suddenly decided to archive his Talk: page, for the first time since January 11, 2008, 2 minutes after my warning. And you're right, he appears to have cherry picked a quotation from an interview with Cornwell, and is using that primary source to synthesize an argument. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Your position is correct in the underlying content dispute regarding the Cornwell quote. But why haven't you notified Mamalujo of this AN/I thread? Nsk92 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Because within 2 minutes of my first posting to his page he deleted my post, so I thought it would seem needlessly confrontational. But I'll notify him now, and hope for the best. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am strongly against blocking the editor. I understand the severity of a BLP vio, but I think what Mamalujo needs is a calm voice to explain BLP, and, especially, OR. I feel the editors actions have nothing to do with an attempt to cast a shadow upon the article's subject, but rather make assumptions based on their own opinions of the article. This is a distinct POV that results in original research, but they might not understand that. There is no reason to block an editor who is simply trying to improve the encyclopedia (for better or worse in this case), although I do understand Jayjig's position. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that, judging from the tone of the reverts, as well as the snippy on Jayjg's page, that this dispute is far from over. and in fact will prolly lead to a block. While a calm voice does help, when one is reverted, the time for discussion is then not after an ANI thread is begun. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Prolly" a block, you say? Edison2 (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Prolly = probably. And yes, while the well of Good Faith does spring Eternal, some of that headwater peters out when some folk abuse it too much. I am guestimating that the user has a tiny bit of good faith left, and it won't help them the next time they go flippant. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to give my perspective of this dispute and point out that I'd been acting in good faith. From my perspective, you have a book, Hitler's Pope, which ascribes evil motives to Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. Then, after authors like Ronald Rychlak point out to him myriad factual errors, mistranslations, ommissions and misinterpretations in his book, he says that he can no longer judge the pontiff's motives. If words have their plain meanings this is recanting or retraction. First he says bad motives then he says I can't judge his motives. This didn't appear to me to need a source, it's a recantation or a retraction on its face, at the very least in part (a very significant part). I didn't think it was OR either because it does not really require any interpretation at all. There didn't seem to me to be any real BLP issue, either. Cornwell's words seem to be plainly and unequivocally a recantation or retraction with regard to Pius' motive - I can't imagine that Cornwell, himself, would even object to calling it recantation or retraction. The edits merely called his statement what it is. And to show how reasonable that characterization is and the fact that I was acting in good faith, you can see that at least two books have made this same characterization (using the word recant or retract): Righteous Gentiles at p. xiii and The Myth of Hitler’s Pope p. 138. Also, his words were characterized the same way numerous other publications: the New York Sun, the Washington Times, Frontpage Magazine, Human Events, Seattle Catholic, National Review, Homiletic and Pastoral Review and First Things. Some of the individuals who have called Cornwell's statement recanting or retraction include professor of history and polical science Rabbi David Dalin, UCLA Law Professor Steven Bainbridge, writer and law professor Ronald Rychlak, and philosopher Michael Novak. If I am mistaken about BLP and OR policies with regard to this matter, so be it, but I was acting in good faith. I don't think my position was unreasonable considering these other characterizations of Cornwell's statement. I understand in retrospect that I should have acted more moderately, addressed the issue on the talk page or perhaps found a cited source. I will keep that in mind in the future. Thanks.Mamalujo (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mamalujo, I understand that you believe that this sort of fact does not need sources. However, the beauty of a reliable source is that even people that doubt the information can't deny it. If you truly believe the fact is true (I have no opinion on the matter since I am not acquainted with the subject) research it and find a credible source to back it up. Good luck, and, once more, I understand where you are coming from. Cheers, ( arky ) 14:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:HarryAlffa is exerting ownership over Solar System, including a number of personal attacks, despite repeated warnings (see User talk:HarryAlffa, and note that he has acknowledged more warnings by removing them). Three other editors (myself, User:Ckatz, and User:Serendipodous) raised these issues in a Wikiquette alert (permanent link), but Harry has continued his pattern of insulting comments. His behavior makes it very difficult for the other editors to make improvements to the article, so I think some administrator intervention is now necessary.

Ashill seems to have copied Ckatz claim of "ownership", where I challenged Ckatz to offer evidence, which was not forth coming.

Please do read the Wikiquette alert (permanent link), where I rebutted. It was closed as stale. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of his difficult comments are listed in the wikiquette alert, such as accusing Ckatz of lying, saying I "show a lack of cognitive ability," calling Serendipodous "Sod", calling other editors "drunk", and, after I said I'm a scientist, saying "if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one. C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!" He also accused me of operating Ckatz and Serendipodous as sock puppets.

You keep brining up this sock-puppet thing - I was genuinly suspicious, and have long since, and more than once, accepted that this is not supported by evidence. Ashill, you look dishonest when you make it seem like I still advocate this.

I showed that Ckatz was lying!

When I said a comment of yours showed a lack of cognitive ability, are you saying it actually showed the opposite?

Serendipodous's name is to long, and the way he signs it the "pod" is super-scripted, The initial "S" and "od" just fell from my fingertips - oops!

I didn't call anyone drunk. In a critique of Ashill's contribution I used a rhetorical device of asking "Are you drunk?".

Here is the full quote with emphasised text from the quote above;

My initial choice was hail instead of blast, in an earlier edit. For someone who claims to be an ISM scientist, you say "unceasing" is an inaccurate way to describe the solar wind? Are you drunk? The solar wind does occasionally cease? - No. It doesn't. From what you have written then, if you really are a scientist, it has to be concluded that you are not a very good one. I won't even comment on a single word not being a compendium of knowledge. No! Really? Oh! Pardon me, you meant that "unceasing" and "blast" were unsuitable for use in an encyclopaedia? You want to remove these two words from all of wikipedia? No? You didn't mean that either? Are you drunk? A blast from a car-bomb is small potatoes compared to the blast from an atom bomb. It doesn't mean you can only apply it to the latter. A blast from a fire-fighter hose is small potatoes compared to the blast from a ship's steam hose. It doesn't mean you can only apply it to the latter. The volume of the interstellar medium virtually equates to the volume of the galaxy itself. Are you drunk? Of course it's not going to impact much of that volume, nothing will! Yes, the solar wind could kill an astronaut without specific shielding, for example, on the surface of the moon. You don't think it would be the speed of the particles that would do it? Are you drunk? It's a hail of free protons, and electrons! The faster they're travelling the more deeply they'll penetrate matter. So yeah, sure, the speed doesn't matter, yeah, yeah. Sure. C'mon, you're a computer technician at an observatory aren't you! Confess all!

You will have noticed that Ashill also looks dishonest when he used the plural when he siad I called other editors of being drunk. Anyway, what's wrong with being drunk? It's a terrible curse The Drink, ... long may it remain. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Today, he said "The version [Ckatz] obliterated was a merging of what I had done on Ice plus what Serendipodus had done on Rock and Gas" (ownership) and "Ckatz and Ashill's rv was emotionally motivated, not logically." "I can only shake my head in pity at Ashill 'not liking the wording' of "intrinsically bound". That was a sentence with beauty and truth. Only a philistine would fail to appreciate it." Lastly, Harry said "I have no need to attach any adjectives to [Serendipodous], appropriate ones will spring to the mind of any intelligent reader. " —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 15:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Having examined the article and talk page, it appears to me that all involved parties are intelligent, well-meaning people who have contributed substantially to the article. This may be an ideal case for mediation. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would ask that you also review HarryAlffa'a contribution history. In particular, his edit summaries and talk page contributions illustrate a pattern of behaviour that - while not extreme - is becoming increasingly disruptive . Since resuming editing in mid-2008, he has focused virtually exclusively on adding his particular changes to just one article, Solar System, and has demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to other contributors. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Ckatz, if only you had put a little of the effort of critiquing me here and in the now stale wiki alert into the Solar System talk page then ... who knows? But then it wouldn't take much effort to score higher than the near zero you presently score in this department. -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: User:Looie496 has offered informal mediation at Talk:Solar System, to which User:Serendipodous and I have agreed. If User:HarryAlffa also agrees, administrative action would be inappropriate for the time being. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn where you agreed to this. In wikipedia somewhere? -HarryAlffa (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Just recently, there was an issue with User:Disneysuit ([55]), who was permanently blocked, because he kept posting one-sided arguments on his view of an "ongoing" lawsuit between himself and Disney on the Pirates of the Caribbean page, in addition to posting personal attacks against other users (myself being an example). We have asked him not to further do this and once again, he has posted the same information online using an IP address: [56] - his edits on the Jerry Bruckheimer page have also been reverted.

I'm not entirely sure as to what to do at this point, but he does not seem to want to comply with Wikipedia Rules which have so often been brought up in his situation. I thought it best to bring this up to you, the administrators, who would know what is best.

Thank you for your time! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: User:Disneysuit was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats after repeatedly inserting biased, COI edits regarding his complaint against Disney. He showed no willingness to accept Wikipedia's policies and the consensus of other editors. &#151;Whoville (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edit an hour ago, likely the IP dynamic and nothing needs to be done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who I can only assume is the same person is currently arguing to get an article on Wikinews. Let's just say it's not looking likely. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Royce Mathew says I had no choice but to dismiss my lawsuit on his website so there's little value in adding information about it to Wikipedia. He appears determined to "prove" his case outside a courtroom. &#151;Whoville (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

what's going on with this page's layout? the borders seem to be vanished. every other page lays out fine though... ThuranX (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you using Firefox? The same thing happens to me. Not on just AN, but many really big pages, like the AfD archives. I'm not a programmer, so I'd have no idea how to fix that. Paragon¹²³²¹ 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This has been going on with a few of the longer pages. I have no idea what's up, but WP:VPT is a better place to get answers. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be the case. Thanks, I am on Firefox... but I'd hope that 3.0 would be more robust about such things. ThuranX (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How would Firefox fix malformed code? --mboverload@ 05:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Firefox has screwed a lot of shit up. Pardon my French. JuJube (talk) 06:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Firefox upgrade changed mine; I think the borders only last for a default length, effecting cells and other stuff. It will be fixed in due course, I suspect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've run out of patience here. Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) is relentlessly trolling Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, after I reverted his rewrite of a sourced lede to a totally unsourced version. So far as I can make out he's trying to say that we should totally change the scope of the article, when consensus is quite clear that the current scope (and content) is not only acceptable but also desirable. He's already had a 48h page ban page, along with a long history of disruption in this topic-area. And now I see he's turned his userpage into a POV fork of the article in question. Can someone enforce the article probation, but this time to the tune of something like six months. I am bashing my head against a brick wall trying to argue rationally with this Afrocentrist. Help? Moreschi (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think that is long overdue, looking at it. Ice Cold Beer has issued a notice to that effect, and frankly I think we should consider blocking if he doesn't drop it. Relentless civil POV-pushing is simply not acceptable, it causes good editors to burn out and undermines the ability to assume good faith. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) Banned for six months by me. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank God. Infinite thanks to both of you. Moreschi (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to the point. The article Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy is about the minority openly challenging the concensus view of the majority as being motivated by racism. Sure, wikipedia has a policy of pushing the consensus, but if the consensus is the topic of the debate then how can you be objective and push the consensus? And when you talk of issues involving race in America and controversies related to such, it would behoove people to use common sense. If the minority is (and has been) openly challenging the consensus and authority of the majority over an issue, should you minimize the minority view? Do you push the view that the consensus should be accepted? Sure that may work with other types of controversies, but in this particular case, it should be obvious that caution should be exercised.

On that note, my latest comments on the newly revised article have been consistent, which is that Moreschi and other admins on the topic are not interested in being objective. They openly hold the ideas of the minoritities in contempt and have openly slandered such views as being inferior or not worthy of debate, ie. as WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE on the talk pages. They have openly shown scorn against African scholars and African Universities and they openly announce their support for the "consensus", while at the same time claiming to be objective in a controversy surrounding the consensus. It can almost be viewed as saying minorities have no right to challenge the views of the majority. Now we can pretend that this topic is purely abstract and theoretical, but the fact is that minorities in America have been openly challenging the views of the majority for a very long time. And we know that the majority has been "supporting the consensus" on many racist views in many ways for a long time as well. Therefore, we need not kid ourselves about the nature of the controversy. This is why I have written my comments on the talk page concerning the POV of the admins. Moreschi may not like the fact I challenged his "authority", but that is precisely what the controversy is about and why he should refrain from trying to enforce "consensus" as being the correct view as if that is objective.

I am not claiming that one has to agree with what I say on the topic. But I am saying that Moreschi is abusing his authority as an admin to promote a biased view of a controversial subject and that this ban is an unwarranted use of administrative privilege to enforce consensus on a controversial topic.

As for the copy of the article on my talk page, I put it there so I could edit it without disturbing the main article. I never intended to make tenditious edits and if I did it was unintentional. I only made one series of edits to the actual article and that was to remove the overt "support of the consensus view" that appeared right at the beginning, which again reinforces the idea that the article is not intended to be objective, but is biased against the views of the minority and can actually be construed by some as being against the views of minorities. Bottom line, if one cannot stand the heat they should get out the kitchen and if you don't have a clue about why race and power in America as always having been a controversial issue, then you shouldn't be an administrator for such articles.Big-dynamo (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

We follow the sources, by which we mean the acknowledged references. If there are minority viewpoints which are disallowed by the orthodox authorities then that is a matter to bring up with those authorities. WP does not have the expertise (nor the remit) to challenge the orthodoxies on which it bases its references and sources. Your argument is with the communities upon which WP relies for its sourcing, and not the project community. Lastly, to the lasting good to WP, this project allows - with due weight - viewpoints articulated by minorities which are not encyclopedically represented elsewhere (until recently, anyway). I suggest you direct your energies to where they might result in the changes you desire. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Big-dynamo, if you really think your case is helped by trying another counter at the Wikipedia Forum Shop then I think you may well be sadly mistaken. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a community ban of Big-dynamo might be in order? --BenBurch (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his talk; if he can't bring himself to leave this alone then we might have to forcibly assist him, but let's see how he reacts tot that note. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Both vandalism and legal threat? Special:Contributions/99.249.172.137. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really a legal threat (describing something as libellous isn't a legal threat, nor is saying that someone has been warned by the police). Unhelpful, and clearly sockpupetry, so rolled back and blocked. _Gb^T/c 20:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Now he's saying he's going to contact the "Wikipedia police", whoever they are. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

! will contact policethat sounds like a legal threat from a few days ago..--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll play good cop, who wants to be bad cop? Wildthing61476 (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hell, I came here expecting porn.

How was I supposed to know 'cum' was a real word...? HalfShadow 00:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Any truth to the claims that there's police involvement? If so, in addition to the block, the IP should be instructed to contact them again, and ask them to contact Godwin for more help, this may be a real case of needing an OTRS ticket and off-wiki (or behind-wiki) resolution. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No - have a read of the talk page and a bit of the background on the pages that he's attacking and you'll see that there are already numerous OTRS tickets about this. _Gb^T/c 07:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cum is a real word, but with several meanings, and the meaning used in the heading of this section has naught to do with porn. Wiktionary explains it better than I could, but the heading is using cum as a preposition, and means Vandalism that has changed into a legal threat. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that... Sheesh... HalfShadow 04:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

cum = Latin for "with". – ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Could another admin have a look at the contributions of Jeremy Bolwell (talk · contribs), with regard to overlinking in Welsh village articles please. He has been warned previously about this, and I discussed it with him earlier (as my alter ego), when he agreed to stop. However, he seems to be continuing. I admit my comments to him were possibly a bit bitey, so a second opinion would be useful. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 15:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Kabalu (talk · contribs) Adding statements regarding murdering Sarah Palin.

• First: 11:38, 29 August 2008 "whenn will she be killed?"
• Second: 11:48, 29 August 2008 "kill the bitch g"

Reported by --Elliskev 15:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block. Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. This IP account clearly is a sockpuppet of Wikitestor given the common articles they have edited, the fact that Wikitestor has previously admitted to using 81.184.71.22, and their editing styles. Tennis expert (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• You can file a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets or get some confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Contacted the admin who originally responded to the AN3 report. Also semiprotected Rafael Nadal, Spain at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Roger Federer for a bit. Checkuser might be useful, here, though looking at the AN3 report I'm not sure if we need it. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reblocked Wikitestor for one week for abuse of multiple accounts. I suggest that we consider semi-protection for all the tennis articles that his IP socks take an interest in. Anyone should feel free to block his IPs, in my opinion, but I'm not sure it will do much good. Checkuser probably not needed. (It is obvious which IPs are his socks). EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, even if those IPs weren't so obvious, you could always get confirmation at WP:RFCU as Protonk said. ~ Troy (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been dealing with this editor for almost seven months on various seasons of American Idol. The editor continually changes the weekly themes and makes reversions without a single edit summary. From the end of January to the end of May, I left seven messages on User_talk:Mamasaidnakuout#American_Idol_themes without getting any response. At the beginning of February I started discussions on each of Talk:American_Idol_(season_2)#Recent_theme_week_changes, Talk:American_Idol_(season_3)#Recent_theme_week_changes and Talk:American_Idol_(season_4)#Recent_theme_week_changes, and in April with no response on the article talk pages, I changed the themes back to what they were. In July I found sources for three of the theme weeks, thinking it would be harder for an editor to deleted sourced information, but that did not help either. In the past week, I went through uw-delete1-4 and a uw-3rr warning on the editor's talk page.

The editor has made 466 edits on Wikipedia without a single edit summary. The editor has only made three edits to article talk pages, [74], [75] and [76], all to delete the discussions I started trying to discuss with the editor. The editor also has two User edits, [77] and [78], both times to blank my User page.

I could see how this could be classified as a limited content dispute, but the editor seems to make the same deletions on numerous articles like America's Next Top Model, [79] and [80] without edit summaries. I would like to think I am being patient after almost seven months but it very annoying to deal with this editor that makes no effort to communicate with anyone else. Aspects (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the view that by blanking your userpage that this editor has indeed communicated; I have blocked the account indefinitely in consequence. In the not unlikely event of there being a sudden influx of ip accounts to those articles, please let me know at my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked two socks of community banned users: User:Kostan1 is a sock of User:M.V.E.i. and User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog is a sock of User:HanzoHattori. For the proof see User_talk:Biophys#Good_work in the hindsight it seems quite obvious.

Both socks earned a few short blocks on their own right but overall were reasonably constructive and IMHO have done much more constructive work than disruption. I do not feel indefinite banning them is in the best interests of the project.

I propose to change the community bans to community civility parole and community 1RR per day restriction for the period of one year. Lets say any administrator could block them for the period of up to 1 week for incivility of revert warring (more than one revert per article per day). Three such blocks would mean restoring of the community ban. Thus, they would have a very little room to disrupt but all the possibilities in the world to contribute constructively.

As they are of the opposite POV I feel it is good to keep the restrictions to be equal to avoid supporting a particular POV. Although in my opinion Hanzo was less disruptive than M.V.E.i.

Any thoughts? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Alæxis_¿question? 12:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence and discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/M.V.E.i, plus a cursory look at their block log, I would feel extremely uncomfortable removing the community ban of M.V.E.i. (block log). I haven't yet had time to review the situation for HanzoHattori (block log), but unless they are related shouldn't we be discussing them separately anyway? — Satori Son 12:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I understand these two users edit some of the same articles, but I still think unban proposals should be discussed individually. If others agree, perhaps we should start a subsection for each? — Satori Son 12:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure of the premises here. You blocked two accounts for violating WP policies, but wish to limit the sanction because they have good contributions - even though they are obviously the socks of other accounts who have been banned for using socks to continue their POV compaigns? If I am right, you are advocating the rewarding of a couple of editors whose recent accounts were used for some edit warring by permitting them to continue while the ratio of vandalism to good edits is... "reasonable"? Nope, sorry! As you have had to block them, again, it is evident that the editors are trying to game the system and have not moved on from their previous behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly object to M.V.E.i ever being unblocked, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons. Not very familiar with HattoriHanzo, although what I saw of Captain Obvious suggested his heart is in the right place, albeit he has civility issues. Neıl ☄ 13:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a distinction should be made here. I don't really know M.V.E.I. here but I've seen reports of him creating sock puppets all too much. How many accounts has he created? As for user HanzoHattori/Captain Obvious, assuming that they indeed are the same person, let's recall what got him banned in the first place. HanzoHattori was banned by an admin after he made a bad remark about this admin. This was an extremely dumb move, and in part may have been motivated by bad circumstances and said health problems he had back then. His ban seems to have been protested back then as well. I think that an attempt to give this user limited acces again to wikipedia would be addressed anyway at some point in the future, because he created and updated a lot of good articles to wikipedia. So yes, I support this move, looking back that a ban in the first place may have been far too strict. Grey Fox (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All users are different. This can only be decided individually. I agree with Neil and Satori Son that M.V.E.i. should not be unblocked. As about "Captain", I would like to see a checkuser report.Biophys (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no way should M.V.E.i. ever be unbanned. Do we need racist, neo-fascist trolls contributing to WP? No thanks, I think we have plenty already. I'm amazed this has even been raised again. --Folantin (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:LessHeard vanU and would strongly object to ever unblocking HanzoHattori, or any known sock of his being allowed to edit. He was community banned for very good reasons and the community noted that they had shown an incredible amount of tolerance to him[81]. We should not essentially reward a banned user for ban evasion, socking and violating policy - not to mention Hanzo's sock continued to break 3RR (3 times in a month-check Captain Obvious' block log) and continued to be uncivil-""Fuck this shit, I'm outta here"[82].

For those unfamilar with Hanzo, his incivility was dreadful. Here are just a few examples:

I wanted to post here so Mr. Bot would fuck off[83]

what the fuck[84]

Fuck you Wikipedia.[85]

Oh Osli, you one silly fucker, you can kiss myass[86]

Yes, note this. You can kiss my ass too. [87]

Blanked page and replaced with lol wikipedia[88]

Another Fuck you wikipedia [89]

God dammn. WHAT THE FUCK?[90]

"Well, I've got sort of a pretty bad real life crisis, I'm unemployed but I have a chronic depression and the meds don't really help, so the nonsense like this should be the last thing for me to take seriously about now. You know, I wanted to leave anyway, but I found myself too addicted and also I lied to myself that what I'm doing has any importance. So if they think I was doing a shitty job, fine, I'm not going to BAAAWWWW about this and I wasted my time enough. In short, Wikipedia is worthless, my life suck, and I should instead get off the internets and get my shit together. (Which I probably won't anyway)."[91]

This user clearly has serious issues. As another user noted at his permanent ban proposal, wikipedia is not therapy. Community endorsed bans are given for a reason, we should not reward users for evading bans, not to mention that his sock continued his incivility and edit warring. Allowing an unblock of Hanzo would set a procedural fairness (a legal concept where everyone is entitled to the same procedure) precedent - we would have to tell all banned users "you are banned but if you evade your ban and your sock acts nice then we'll let you come back".--Miyokan (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you have a grudge towards this user, Miyokan. As you yourself have also been nominated for a 1revert limit before I don't think the paragraphs you've written above should influince administrators decisions.

Many of the incivility comments that you seem to have archived are from his old account, and the post about his health problems was under emotional circumstances after he was banned. I agree with Alex Bakharev, this user has also proved himself to be a great contributer. Considering his incivility I would like to address that back then his health problems may have attributed to his, so I'm also in favour of a second chance. Grey Fox (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also strongly hesitate in having Hanzo unbanned. He's made positive contributions, yes, but valid edits aren't a currency that one can exchange for immunity to our civility policies. He's incredibly antagonistic, and I'd rather we not reward his inability to make the much-needed attitude adjustments. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and to comment about the "old account/health problems" thing, please. I have as much belief that Hanzo's long-standing antagonistic attitude was tied to "health problems" as I do that a unicorn will chase the Easter Bunny out in front of my car on the way home. The diffs above are from earlier this year; I first blocked him for personal attacks in 2007, and his first block (for edit warring) was in 2006. This is not some sort of "incivility flare-up" that is a largely isolated incident; it's a perpetual behavioral issue, and one that I don't see any clear evidence has been cleared up (especially since CO's "smartasses" comment[92] sounds exactly like the Hanzo of old, and CO has already garnered himself some blocks for edit warring). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo and all his socks should be indef'd. We don't need this behavior nor disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who banned him in the first place right? Don't you think you've been way too strict? It could have been a long ban instead of a permaban. The only problem with this editor is that he occasionally uses swear words, in the same style as rappers do in the states. Grey Fox (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I had good experiences with Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog - and with HanzoHattori in the past. I support his unblock, and as I said some time ago, we should put spirit (of encyclopedia building) above the letter of our wiki-laws: if a banned user proves he is useful, unban him.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how calling an anon editor a fag[93], or lobbing childish "your mom" jokes[94], or just flat-out calling someone an idiot[95] is in the "spirit of encyclopedia building". If he can't make positive contributions and follow our civility policies, he shouldn't be here; end of story. It's a collaborative environment, and he has issues collaborating. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw someone getting a 2-day block for far worse behaviour (if you want I can show you). Why are these uncivil comments (perhaps against anonymous vandal users) from a year and half ago worth a permaban? Grey Fox (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They are the ones I cited in my block of him from May of 2007. I've got better things to do with my time than to sort through his more recent stuff; he's a problem editor, has been for a long time, and is still excessively antagonistic. User talk:HanzoHattori/Archive 2#Geez... clearly shows that attempts had been made for him to improve his attitude, yet he hasn't. I've yet to see any reason that the ban shouldn't stick. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If this editor wants to return to the project as a purely constructive editor, nothing is stopping them from doing so under a new user name. The sock demonstrate that this isn't someone who has exactly found themself locked out of the project by the ban to begin with, so they clearly know enough to create a new account. If they are serious about being a non-disruptive member of the community, it is almost in their best interest to just start new. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

But Captain was blocked exclusively for being an alleged sockpuppet of HanzoHattory, not for any specific disruption. I had extensive communication with HanzoHattori (much less with the "Captain" recently). I actively argued with him on various occasions. I found him much more collaborative than a number of users who currently edit here. I would actually call him a "neutrality fighter", who was much less biased than me (that is why we argued). He was a strong enforcer of WP:NPOV policy, but an impatient one. And he was extremely productive. Yes, his irony and occasionally incivility was a problem, but I think a civility parole would be sufficient. If "Captain" was him, he definitely demonstrated a visible improvement lately.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, excellent point. It's obvious he's here to be a non-disruptive member of the community, which is why he's garnered three blocks for edit warring.[96] EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Well said. He was blocked indefinitely for being a sock of a banned editor, but that may not have happened if he had not been blocked previously, and had a clean track record. Of course, he was blocked multiple times in the past month for disruption, so the block was entirely reasonable. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No one disputes the block. But a person who made this block (Alex bakharev) came here and asked if these two users can be unblocked. Hence this discussion. My reply to EVula: I have no idea why User:Deacon of Pndapetzim blocked Captain, but in two other cases that was a violation of 3RR rule on his side. On the second occasion (that was actually Battle of Tskhinvali rather than 2008 Ossetian war) he reverted repeated copyright violations by User:Top Gun who was later indefinitely banned. On the first occasion (Okinawa) he tried to remove poorly sourced accusations of war rapes by US soldiers. Yes, he is guilty of 3RR violation. But this does not justify his indefinite block.Biophys (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock. From what I've seen, the positive contributions far outweigh the "incivility". We could do with a few more foul-mouthed neutralists round here to balance out the "civil POV-pusher" brigade. --Folantin (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to find out why Deacon blocked him; see User talk:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog#3RR violation for the block notice. While you're at it, scroll up, and you'll see a slew of additional warnings about civility and edit warring. Gee, almost like he hasn't changed his editing patterns or something... strange, who'd have thunk? EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I took my time to think about this one, and I agree with EVula, LessHeard vanU, and Rlevse that the community ban of HanzoHattori is still justified. Even if we ignore the socking issue, there has simply been too much disruptive editing. — Satori Son 23:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to User:Grey Fox who is defending Hanzo and trying to vilify me, he himself is a sockpuppet of User:Pietervhuis who is trying to avoid scrutiny from his massive block log.--Miyokan (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't throw around sockpuppet claims without some evidence of some sort. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

M.V.E.i. should be NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER be unbanned. The thought of letting this neo-fascist monster run about like crazy is intolerable. He has complete contempt for all our rules: I speak as the blocking admin. Generally speaking, I support unbanning Captain Obvious, probably under restriction of some kind. No, he's not perfect, but he has clearly improved, and on South Ossetia articles has done good and neutral work. Moreschi (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Moreschi. I watched very closely all content changes made by Captain in many articles, because this is my area of interest. I found that he usually make non-controversial changes, including a better sourcing and more comprehensive coverage of a subject. However, he often deleted poorly sourced claims (e.g. in 2008 Ossetian war-related subject or Okinawa battle) which caused a very angry reaction of certain POV-pushers. Note how several socks of M.V.E.i. came to Captain's talk page page to argue with him (User:Chrystal_Blue_Moon and User:Log in, log out). Then Captain struggled to enforce WP:NPOV and sometimes was sanctioned for 3RR violation.Biophys (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Hanzo "struggled" to "enforce WP:NPOV" - what a laugh! You can try to spin it however you want, but the fact is that he broke the 3RR rule 3 times in the month while he was on an indefinite ban, not to mention continue to be incivil to boot, "Fuck this shit, I'm outta here"[97]. And for this we should reward him?--Miyokan (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Clean start under a new name" is explicitly prohibited to banned users Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses_of_alternative_accounts - "This option is also not available to banned users, who are prohibited from editing Wikipedia altogether, either anonymously or under any user name."--Miyokan (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• And this is said by User:Miyokan who edited under at least three different accounts, each time accumulating numerous blocks for 3RR violations, as has been discussed and even voted previously at this ANI page! This edit by Myokan right now is not really civil, and the following my edits only only to make blind reverts does not serve any purpose but disruption as well.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• That is neither here nor there, unlike Hanzo, I was not banned when I created accounts and hence I was allowed to create them. Also, A) "each time accumulating numerous blocks for 3RR violations" - that is just a lie. B) I made clear I that I was was using a previous account B) "as has been discussed and even voted previously at this ANI page" - and what was the result of that ANI? Anybody can create an ANI. Biophys accussation that I stalk him is laughable, when he is the king blind revert stalking me, from the Ronald Reagan, to Terek Cossacks [98] to Chechen Republic of Ichkeria [99] to Russia [100], etc etc. Comment on the content, not the contributor. I cited the facts and policy, while your transparently pathetic attempt at attacking me shows that you cannot refute the valid points I made, which are based on the facts and policy. --Miyokan (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Bstone (talk · contribs · count) refuses to discuss a suggested page redirect, and continually reverts it. discussion Multiple editors are attempting talk page about his objection, but he won't discuss them. HE would rather edit war. This is disruptive. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Fully protected page 4 days. I'm sure it's the wrong version. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a bit premature. I won't be reverting his edit. Could you unprotect it? NonvocalScream (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you assert it was premature? Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• This does seem to be a bit of a repeating pattern with Bstone. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it is, and this isn't the first time he's appeared here with the same. seicer | talk | contribs 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a pattern of behavior. Maybe someone could try having a word with him? I believe I'm banned from his talk page, so it shouldn't be me. Friday (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

this is probably worth a review - and whilst I agree that it seems to have gotten a bit heated for one reason or another, I can't really see the level of disagreement as disruptive (but then I'm definitely 'involved' and believe the page currently describes what actually happens pretty well :-) ) Privatemusings (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)it's always worth taking a breath when considering if someone you disagree with strongly is being disruptive or not, I reckon too.....

Sigh. How did I know this was going to be Bstone as soon as I read the header? He has previous here. Black Kite 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

After being called ignorant and naive by Celarnor and being accused Tendentious editing by NonvocalScream, I stated I would detach until it cooled down. I rather think that detaching and not continuing is the most appropriate thing to do as a cooldown period is never a bad idea when the editing gets heated, but now it seems this issue has made its way to AN/I. I will say that NVSs accusation of tendentious editing is rather baseless and the civility violations of Celarnor are really a tempest in a teapot- which is why I decided to detach and let things cool down. In fact I am going to not edit from now until Sunday, a sort of a wikibreak to myself. Wishing you all a good weekend. :) Bstone (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how the word "ignorant" was used in an attacking manner. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur - being ingorant of a fact or ignorant in a particular field is different from just plain ignorance. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Willfully ignorant" would be a variation that could be an insult. Do I win anything? --mboverload@ 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Without reading any of the above (which I will do in a moment) how do you get accused of tendentious editing on an essay? (And its tendentious, I've refactored the spelling error in the heading - hope you don't mind!) Avruch ^T 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am so disappointed. I was really hoping someone in the argument would threaten violence, and they didn't. Now I'm irony-deprived and sad. In fact, I feel so sad that I think I will kill myself, and then a bunch of other people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

=) +1 non-barnstar barnstar. --mboverload@ 21:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go beat up a barnstar now that FisherQueen has suggested WP:Beans. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

zOMG I am going to report Toddst1 on WP:ANI for that threat. In response to Avruch's comment - I think the problem is that, while technically its status is "essay", it doesn't have the Wikipedia essay notice on it, but instead something that makes clear that one day it intends to be policy. Perhaps that's why people feel strongly enough to edit war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

< you'll notice above, Sheff.. that I've got this weird idea that it sort of is policy at the moment! - in the sense that the page describes accurately how we (the wikipedia community, I guess...) react to such things as and when..... I'm currently accepting applications to join my minority of one!! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Off topic: :) :) This is not how things are already done on Wikipedia. Every threat is not reported. This is reality! :) You even state so in your "minority of one" comment! :) NonvocalScream (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I need to get a particular revision deleted from my user page's history tab because it contains my real life name. Just for the record, it appears that a particular real life stalker has placed that vandalism on the user page. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You probably want it oversight-ed. See WP:RFO. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur. In the meantime, though, the revisions have been Deleted. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 05:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This list of user pages looks a bit beyond the pale to me. The complete Disney Channel schedule and complete list of Disney bootleg download links seem especially beyond reason.Kww (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Main UserPage seriously needs to be deleted, as he gives away WAY too much private information. Further, he's got multiple pages of links to off site downloads. His barnstars are all 'You found a hidden page' nonsense. I'd deep six it all under the ' Wikipedia isn't MySpace'. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The list of bootleg links is particularly troubling and a fairly clear misuse of Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted two pages of "download links" under WP:ADVERT. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm reviewing all the pages, and will be deleting any that are blatantly inappropriate; any I find questionable will be put up at MfD. Some of these pages look like they may be intended for article work, and so I won't be nuking all of them. Looks like Todd just got the important ones, but some of these still need to go, methinks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two mass MfD's posted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#August 28, 2008. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but what about his mainpage? Gives way too much private data, per WP:CHILD. ThuranX (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Any Admisn want to handle this? ThuranX (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just leave him a polite note asking him to remove it? No need to throw the book at him if he can be convinced to take it down himself. --erachima talk 03:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note, but we typically just Remove it. However, it's usually admins doing that, so I'm asking them to do it. ThuranX (talk) 03:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have deleted the userpage based on WP:NOTMYSPACE (mainly an advertisement for the user's secret page game) and the concerns raised re WP:CHILD (user is under 13 and states excessively personal information). Unless someone disagrees or thinks it needs to be taken further, this matter is probably resolved. The many subpages related to the secret page game will resolve themselves at MfD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 14:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I deleted my subpages too. --DCFan101 (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:DCFan101/Secret Page Challenge-- userpages deleted. Dlohcierekim 10:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note, the Plala anon, 125.204.38.32 (talk · contribs) who made this report is blocked for his harassment by admin, Fut.Perf.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • How long is everyone going to have to put up with Caspian blue (talk · contribs)'s modus operandi on Korean-Japanese pages, the noise, the waste of others energy, the admin distraction?
  • How long is it going to take for enough admins to wake up to what he does time and time again?

I am going to quote what some other editor wrote, that Caspian blue contrives as a "personal attack". Having watched and experienced him, I can state this is not an attack. It is a fair, observant and objective summary.

“

The sum of Caspian blue's contributions affirm my dour pessimism. If Caspian blue is joined by other like-minded tag team editors who similarly feign wounded indignation, angered offense, and stumbling-block misunderstandings as a disruptive tactic, the success of that strategy is virtually assured. Any hopes for collaborative work ... are dashed. In the face of what seems like adolescent nationalistic ardour, any scholarly collaboration becomes quickly pointless ... especially in light of the entirely ineffective dispute resolution processes now in place. Wikipedia has been proven to be quite ill-equipped to deal with a concerted, agenda-driven attack ... Without a strategy to avert [such] a kind of failure ... [contributing] quickly becomes worse than a waste of time. by Tenmei (talk · contribs)

”

Yeah, Because of that personal attacking comment by Tenmei (talk · contribs), he has been reported by me at WP:ANI, and you're using it.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue is nothing more than an immature Korean nationalist, albeit one that has run to Mummy America for security and comfort, that is using the Wikipedia to satisfy his delight in goading and then crushing others (primarily who he perceives as Japanese) through a variety of manipulations, admin sneaking and repeated jockeying. How long is he going to be permitted to keep finding new admins to use, persisting in his strategies, perverting discussion and development ... and ultimately damaging the spirit of the Wikipedia?

Surely enough of you have been watching this for long enough to see this; the false summaries, avoided discussion, the pages of complaints, the contrived lobbying and informal use of admins such as checkusers to gain information about and obstruct others. --125.204.38.32 (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not one diff showing any actual wrongdoing. Do you seriously expect admins to take action on the above? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue has filed so many checkuser requests against abusive sockpuppetry on Japan-Korean article disputes that it would be easy to assume they are abusive. Funny thing is, they almost all turn up positive. Thatcher 14:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

And this anon is of course again from the same Japanese IP range as all the previous harassment socks. Damn it, C.B. can indeed be a pain in the ass at times, but this harassment campaign needs to stop before anything can be done about him. (Blocked the IP, by the way. Business as usual.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How amusing that you're taking advantage of the person's comment who are making personal attacks against me at AFD for Joseon tongsinsa, and so has been reported by me. When I ever come to ANI for some matters, Lucy always has tried to turn the topic to me with false/racist/personal attacks. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue is one of the best editors we have. What are you talking about? The Bald One ^{White cat} 15:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

125.204.38.32, Japanese Plala anon, is it a courtesy to notify me first after filing this? Well, Thatcher, I think th user is highly likely Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs) per the same poor attempts to make false accusations against me and same writing habit. Modus Operandi is one of her favorite phrases that Lucyintheskywithdada used to use. Please do CU on the accuser. If the user is really the indef.blocked user, banning the user infinitely is really necessary per the repeated harassment against me (bogus 3RR file, bogus meatpuppetry file, bogus ANI files, personal/racist attacks countless times). Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Very likely Lucy, yes, couldn't just think of the name. S/he is already indef-blocked, not much else we can do right now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning her/him would be necessary, I think. I could not put up with all the same harassment by the user.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking for here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking Thatcher to see if the Japanese anon is Lucy because the checkuser happens to be here. I don't understand why you're asking the question.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is Lucy is already indefinitely blocked, so what action would you want admins to take? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning him in English Wikipedia (if he could speak Japanese and not doing the same thing as here, he can contribute to there).--Caspian blue (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not 100% sure what you are asking. You want us to prevent him from editing any wikimedia project in any language? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Banning and indefinitely blocking a user is different, and given all history of his harassments (you witnessed several cases), I think banning him in English Wikipedia is quite reasonable. I don't know why you keep asking me about the same question.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I kept asking because I did not understand the point you were making. Yes banning is different from blocking, practically speaking a community ban is a block that no admin will lift, and that is certainly the case here. A ban is enforced by blocks. "Banning him" will make no difference in real terms.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that the enforcement of banning Lucy is not much different from that of indef.blocking him. However, it is so obvious that the troll still has been wandering in English Wikipedia (highly likely he/she already created socks as always doing so), and so if his abuses are detected in much later future, indef.block can be some excuse when admin enforce some action to him/her. And banning is not reversible unlike blocking. --15:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Well we already have an indf block in place. And the fact that non one has unblocked means that it is effectively a ban. As for banning not being reversible, I'm pretty sure that banned users have been unbanned in the past. As for socks, if the user has used socks but is not abusing them, they would be undetectable, and if they are abusing them then they would be immediately blocked as the sock of an indefblocked user. (Like in this case) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Lantanabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing content from Territory FM (Clearly vandalim since it's facts from the report and is sourced). I also believe that the user works for Territory FM or Charles Darwin University and could also be the user Territory fm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also did the very removal yesterday[101]. The comments that make be think that this user is a worker or POV-pusher that that the word Vexatious[102] was used in the responce by the station in the ACMA report[103] and is really pushing the point for not having it in the article which is a nice try of PR work. Bidgee (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The proper venue for this is WP:DRV, though they will most likely tell you to create a draft article in your userspace first, to prove that an article can be made which meets Wikipedia's rules & guidelines. 68.156.149.62 (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Erm, 68, it looks like Bidgee has a complaint about content edits by an editor, not the deletion of an article. Could you clarify why Bidgee needs to create a draft? MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

errr the article hasn't been deleted. Just content removal by a disruptive editor which the content meets the policy and guidelines. Bidgee (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, you are in the right place Bidgee, I dont know what 68 is saying, I don't have time to read this over right now, but other admins should review this. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've not much time ATM (After this comment I will be offline and I should have been offline almost 4 hours ago). It's clear that Lantanabelle is using anything they can to try and not have it included however ACMA don't release insufficient investigations. The breach was classed as serious breach[104]. The latest comment is more like a PR spin "This is the point people rush in now with the internet without the appropriate "inteligence" and slap in fast food comentary on subjects they are not qualified to do so. Wikipedia is a wonderful reference tool so why use it to devalue, denegrate and besmurch? This radio station may have recieved a rapp but it must also be doing something right by its listeners to command the audience the site states. At the end of the day what is a broadcasters purpose to cater for its presenters or its listeners?[105]" and as I also said with the edit summary the use of vexatious that was used in the edit summary by the editor was used by the station to responce to ACMA and the word itself isn't used commonly anymore. It's also not the first time a community radio station has removed content about an ACMA investigation and its not going to be the last. I'm not part of any group nor am I trying to be bias. Bidgee (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also found Lantanabelle on Youtube with a Territory FM ad (Video) http://au.youtube.com/user/lantannabelle1041 which proves there is a COI. Bidgee (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, User:Territory fm was asked to change his username; he may have simply registered a new one in an attempt to comply with the rules. Under that assumption, I've blocked the old one. I also blocked this user for the edit-warring; there were reverts after the final warning on his talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The user has lost my good faith. It's clear that they work or are a fan of the station and again content was removed but this time by an IP 121.45.42.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is no doubt Lantanabelle. Bidgee (talk) 09:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to ongoing problems with the IP socks of the curious vandal Jwjkp (talk · contribs) at Major League Baseball 2K9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I am proposing a rangeblock of 67.236.245.9/19. I wanted someone more experienced with rangeblocks to make sure I got the right range to shut down this guy. I have filed an RFCU case to make sure there's no collateral damage and to make sure there's no other IPs/sleeper accts that need to be blocked. Cheers, caknuck _° is not used to being the voice of reason 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• I support the proposal. ~ Troy (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I rechecked my math, and this would require a /19 instead of a /27. Ugh. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Careful, there. If you miss it by a couple of digits, that can influence up to several thousand users. I'm still confident that there is a reasonable range to block. ~ Troy (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This I can say for sure:

• number of edits in the range of "67.236.245.9/24": 8 matches
• number of edits in the range of "67.236.245.9/16": 413 matches

...you sound close, but you're gonna have to make sure. ~ Troy (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

This is my first rangeblock, so I want to make sure I get it right. I checked my work against the applet on toolserver, so I'm pretty sure I have it right this time. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! I'm right behind you, so if anything happens, I'll be there. Also, I have a tool that might prove useful for you. Just remember that you don't want to block ten thousand people living in Texas!^{[citation needed]} ~ Troy (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to be extra cautious, because the CIDR from the WHOIS gave me a /13 range, and that just won't fly. I'm hoping that the IPs are assigned geographically, and the /19 will suffice. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The range checker showed roughly half of the recent edits from the /19 range were by our vandal. I'm placing the block now. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 03:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel uncomfortable with this block. First, I don't see why it was necessary additionally to the page protection, since he seems to hit only the Major League Baseball 2K9 page, and the previous protection from August 21 nearly stopped him (there was only 1 edit to JAF1970's talk page during this week). This may be balanced by the fact that there are only a few IP editors at this range (and some of the other contributions are also unconstructive), but note that the provider seems to assign IPs from this range for some weeks only, and this increasingly, so it's hard to know the real collateral damage for the future. The second problem are the block options. A 3 months rangeblock for 2 weeks of occasional edits is rather excessive, and the AO+ ACB– block is actually an invitation to continue the disruption. If you look carefully at the edits, you see that every IP is assigned to him for 2-3 days, and a suitable block of that single IP effectively stops him for this time. With this range block in effect he can vandalize as long as he wants to, doesn't have to wait for a new IP being assigned to him, and there's no way to stop this (there will be no autoblock). --Oxymoron⁸³ 11:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please end the conversation between Zephyrad and me. I sure can't end it. Schuym1 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you consider striking the word 'jerk'. PhilKnight (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe if you stopped making personal attacks things would settle down. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like he used a sock puppet to reply since the user's only edit is the AFD. Schuym1 (talk)

Hardly, his contribs go back to 2005. I see what you're saying, please use diffs? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going any farther with it just in case it isn't a song puppet. That user scares me so I'm done watching the page. Schuym1 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

"Song puppet" -- I like that. A sock puppet who sings. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

He's at it again. Schuym1 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, Zephryrad seems to be trolling to me, and Schuym1 took the bait. The comments by Zephyrad seemed to be rude and critical of Schuym. However Schuym1's comments are equally as rude and critical. The single purpose account is also worrysome. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: User:Zephyrad noted of ongoing discussion. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1, you're not helping things with comments like this. Please be civil. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is amazing. This admitted (former) vandal calls for one of my articles to be deleted on the grounds that John Peterson, author of The Littles series of books, isn't "notable" or "historically significant" (since he's too young to remember them, is my guess), then can't handle it when I question his claims, then his motives. Then he actually bails out of the discussion, after resorting to namecalling, accusations of sockpuppetry (King Vitiman laughed at that, and I could also make a charge of "biting a newcomer"), four-letter words, reversing himself on Peterson's "notability", admitting he doesn't understand a term he used (in ALL-CAPS AND BOLDFACE, yet), then coming here and complaining.

"Trolling"? By pointing out policy he's already broken, and answering his questions and charges? I don't think so, and I'd say he's the troll, if anyone is in this situation. I'd say he bit off more than he could chew, and doesn't like hearing the truth. I stand by my words and actions... other than I sorta regret getting so far in with him, because all that's likely to do is make him feel important, which I think was his initial intention. Zephyrad (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I appreciate Tinkleheimer qualifying that "trolling" statement ("personally... to me"). That one's a first for me, after three years, 3000+ edits, and a couple hundred original articles. Zephyrad (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment: It looks to me like both of you are going out of you way to wind each other up at that deletion discussion. You've both made your opinions about deletion clear; there's no need for either of you to say any more. Let others comment and the deletion discussion proceed to closure. Schuym1 has no obligation to say anything on the talk page beyond his nominating comments, so criticism of him for "bailing" on the discussion is not well taken. Likewise, Zephyrad has articulated his/her views on the matter. (Full disclosure: I am not an administrator.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The trolling comment is my personal view on it. Like Steven said in the comment above me, "It looks to me like both of you are going out of you way to wind each other up at that deletion discussion." In my opinion, you were both winding each other up in hopes of breaking down the other or angering them. That may have not been your intention, but that is my interpretation, with all due respect. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 08:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Rats, your reply here cost me my initial answer to Steven, via an edit conflict. True, Schuym1 may have no further obligation to speak... but he did so, and from my end, he got in over his head, then ran for help (repeatedly) when he realized where he was. If the AfD debate (which he says he has abandoned) must continue, I hope it will remain open long enough for me to obtain some printed resources, if the notability of a non-Littles book by the author of that series, sold for years through a major publisher, isn't "notable" enough for a few folks. Tinkleheimer, I've left a message on your talk page, and your respect is noted and returned. Steven, thanks for weighing in. I admit I've spent too much energy on this already... and I apologize to everyone else who's been sucked into this matter. (I might have asked an admin to step in, if Schuym1 had continued; I certainly saw no need to run to a sysop, or post an incident. Overkill, I'd say.) Zephyrad (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please block him to prevent edit-warring with tendentious argument and force him to discuss the NPOV vios? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You both seem to be edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of allowing contentious material that is subject to NPOV concern to be removed from the article (until those concerns have been addressed), he insists on reinserting it into the article with tendentious argument. He refuses to engage in proper discussion, refuses mediation (in the same way he did in the past) and other than the article RFC I've opened to hopefully resolve this, I don't know what else can be done. I've left a note for Blnguyen asking for reprotection of the article if necessary, under the version without NPOV concerns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you both have violated the 3 revert rule. I think you should both leave off. I think you should set up an RfC to discuss changes on the article.Cheers, Dlohcierekim 08:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've opened the Article RFC a short while ago pending input by others. I'm about to add a notification to the relevant WikiProject noticeboard in the hope that helps get more input. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I've have given User:Naadapriya a 3RR notice. I don't see why come sort of compromise can't be agreed upon between completely excluding and including the matter in question. "Some say thus and so, while others disagree." Expanded paragraphs covering both sides of the argument?? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. Journal articles acknowledge the cultural/linguistic/nationalistic issues on certain aspects, namely, that one part of India thinks that someone from their region was responsible for how this form of music came to be, while another part of India thinks that they are, while...etc. etc. There seem to be some more serious issues here like synthesis - Naadapriya has a 'he's called the father, hence he's the creater of this genre of music' mentality, and similarly, 'ugabhoga has been sung in a concert, hence it's a form integral to Carnatic music'. He says that some sources say that directly, but there are reliability issues - also, the author of his sources are primarily from the part of India he seeks to promote, and it'd also be problematic to omit exceptional claims from other parts of India too. I myself have come to realize that it's just attempts to fish for evidence that one was there before the other - but it's as futile as trying to prove that the Earth is flat and we'll fall off if we sail too far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can one of you end this? It was started on August 21. Schuym1 (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When are we going to get an adminbot to close AfDs? --mboverload@ 22:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

When we can code Clue. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

if(rand()%1)
  Close("Keep, exists");
else
  Close("Delete, non-notable");

— Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong language! if( rand( 1, 999 ) == 257 ) { Close('keep'); } else { Close('delete'); } X!xlamation point 00:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fools! Python ftw!

Mr.Z-man 00:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An adminbot to close AfDs? What exactly will it do? Could someone explain to me the details of this "adminbot" planned to be in use? Thanks. -- RyRy (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke RyRy.;) You can't really create a bot "smart" enough to find consensus in AfDs, though maybe Data could be connected to Wikipedia's servers to do the job.:P--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I see. :P Bots can't possibly decide consensus and have good judgement enough to close AfDs... (Or can they?) -- RyRy (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No one thought that there would be anything like the internet a hundred years ago, and look were we are today! (I still doubt any idea of bots being able to use "logic" for making good judgements). ~ Troy (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

True, oh so very true. But still, what about future robots? Say, they are directly connected to the internet and have human level intelligence? What then? ;)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Then why should humans edit Wikipedia when there are "high-tech bots" to do the work for us? But as far as I know, that will never happen, and if it did, I wouldn't enjoy it. Wikipedians should be the ones building Wikipedia, not bots who do all the work. But again, I doubt that will happen at all, so lets not worry about it. :-) -- RyRy (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If a guy didn't do any work on anything, how would he/she feel privileged? That's the whole point. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" (*not vandalize*). But then again, I agree that high-tech bots are unlikely and I will probably have been dead long before that sort of thing could even exist. ~ Troy (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

if strloc($_CONTENT,"POKEMON") return (KEEP) else return (NO_CONSENSUS); Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to handle the errors. Seriously, I think the best we programmers can do is hack up something that executes the human-made decision. MER-C 06:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Now there's an idea. A twinkle-style script for admins to close AfDs would actually be useful. It's quite labour intensive. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Like this? :-) the wub "?!" 10:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • cool. thanks. Dlohcierekim 10:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I used to use this, but it no longer works for me, either in IE or Firefox. The "close" tab no longer appears. Black Kite 10:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • BK, have you tried opening the discussion for editing? That is, apparently, the only place the close and relist tabs work. As a side note, all the code above seems to have broken section editing. Never mind, it is mysteriously unbroken, now. —Travis^talk 14:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone please look at this stranger than fiction note in my talk page? Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he is getting you confused with User:Taamu. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have no involvement with the article(s) in question, just ignore it and move on. — CharlotteWebb 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this person has been sending abusive emails, and has made threats against User:Tvoz, stating where she lives, etc. This person has also threatened to "massively vandalize Wikipedia" and has been shown by checkuser to have abused multiple accounts to evade block. The talk pages have further details - Alison ^❤ 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Godheval (talk · contribs)

I warned Godheval for general incivility here (note the more petty comment was removed). I received a rather sarcastic 'apology' of sorts, and then saw that Godheval had also been warned for incivility elsewhere shortly afterwards. He has showed no sign of slowing, and even his last edit was rather confrontational with an I-don't-give-a-shit-if-I'm-insulting-people attitude. I have blocked Godheval for 48 hours. I don't block many people, so I was wondering if someone could just check I haven't overreacted. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable block for the incivility, since it was repeated. Perhaps the wikibreak could allow the user to go away and gain Clue that Wikipedia != IGN and Gamespot, as well. Black Kite 15:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally, I don't support blocks for lack of clue (yup, self interest!) but this editor revels in his "unorthordoxy"; image policy does not interest him, nor does the policies and guidelins generally, and neither do the volunteers who edit and police the website, and he isn't going to refrain from acting (or speaking) as he sees fit... Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Kay Sieverding - is this appropriate? Movingboxes (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• No it isn't, and I've deleted it. Black Kite 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who knows a little law should take a look at their contribs. Looks like they've put a lot of undue weight info into articles based on their own experiences in court. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've notified the user so that they can find out what's going on. They deserve at least that much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the user responded by putting the inappropriate material back again. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They re-inserted the material, so I've deleted and salted, and explained why on their talkpage. Black Kite 19:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All of their edits seem to be related to the court case, including those back in March, reverted by User:Famspear. I have now reverted all of their unreverted edits, except for a comment to an (apparently random) IP's talk page. They all seem to be "case law dumps" (without a secondary source for the relevance or interpretation), or comments about their own court case. There may have been some valid edits within sequences of edits, but I have my doubts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Today I deleted a medium-length discussion from a WikiProject talkpage as it was merely general chitchat about the TV show in question rather than anything else. I quoted from WP:TALK as I did so ("Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.") Phil used his rollback (reserved for "blatantly unproductive" edits - perhaps those quoting two policies/guidelines are not quite so blatant?) to undo my deletion. He didn't notify me or try to enter any discussion.

I politely tried to engage him in a discussion, suggesting that if he didn't want to talk to me, there were other places he could go to. He was clearly not interested in having any useful discussion. Could someone either:

• Advise on whether the material should be deleted as a waste of space and a breach of WP:FORUM and WP:TALK
• Talk to Phil to try to stop him simply edit-warring over the issue and making unhelpful comments like the one I linked above, and this one where he called my edits "utterly stupid"
• Protect the page

One or more of the above suits me! It is also worth noting that 3 of Phil's blocks of me were overturned, one specifically about the issue of deleting talkpage comments for irrelevance. See also this. Thanks, ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting. You could have talked about removing that section, even if invoking WP:FORUM. Personally I think the section should be kept because while most of it is forum-like discussion, some bits are maybe useful for the related articles. Wiki is not paper so I do not think "waste of space" should be of any concern. If there is only the slightest reason to believe that this discussion might be useful in the future, it should be kept.

There is no reason to go edit warring about this. Phil's reverts were not really nice and the language he used could have been better but neither was your revert to him any good. You could have discussed it with him or on WT:WHO before doing so; there might not have been any reason for this section here then. SoWhy 18:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If other serious users were willing to respond to these comments, then they probably also disagree with your interpretation of whatever policy you are appealing to. I strongly doubt this is a "Phil Sandifer problem". — CharlotteWebb 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(-: How does one misinterpret the passage I quoted? ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I notice on a few tickets that there are range blocks affecting legitimate users. 90.200.0.0/16 is one of them. Why such large ranges? NonvocalScream (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• One of User:Raul654's massive rangeblocks to deter one vandal. You'd need to talk to him about it, but I doubt if you'll have much luck. Black Kite 21:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I am requesting review. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, why do we have to block entire /16's just to deter one of Raul's pet peeves? Raul should leave Scibaby to somebody else who can handle it in a more rational manner. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Deaths in 2008 article, 91.104.221.210 added obscene stuff. I reverted the edits. Can someone look out for this person? Noble12345 (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped after a warning, but I watchlist that page. --Rodhullandemu 22:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

When reviewing the unblock request for Bomsalam (talk · contribs), I saw in the history of Emil Gilels EricV89 (talk · contribs) apparently using Huggle and rollback to revert war with Bomsalam, who is apparently the article subject's niece. Bomsalam received only 1 warning for vandalism, though EricV89 reverted her 4 times over the course of 2 days. This seems to be a fairly major misuse of rollback and this does not look like vandalism at all (Bomsalam did at one point blank the page several days ago, but reverted it a minute later). As I said on EricV89's talk page, if the article was a BLP, I would have removed rollback immediately, but as its not, I'm bringing it here for further review. Mr.Z-man 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse removal. —Animum (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, should be removed. That's rather shocking really. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see his response first, but this is certainly not what rollback is for and is probably one of the worst situations in which you could have used it. John Reaves 00:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, edit warring with rollback is wrong and the edit you cite was clearly not vandalism. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(massive ec) JaGa was uing Huggle to revert the same non vandalistic edit - needs looking into - I dont have time now,. Viridae^Talk 00:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

As JaGa only reverted the once I have left a stern reminder at their talkpage about the appropriate use of semi-automatic tools, while noting this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I stand by my edit. I saw a user remove cited content, and I put it back. I didn't warn the user, since it wasn't definitely malicious, so I don't think I abused Huggle in any way. I disagree with the idea that this was definitely not vandalism; I saw this as a POV struggle (trying to spotlight vs. obscure Jewish heritage) and sided on keeping the adjective, since it was already established in the article and cited. What good is there in removing information? (Side note, of my many Beethoven sonata recordings, Gilels is my favorite. I only wish to honor him, and not offend his family; but I also want to maintain a good encyclopedia, and don't think I did anything wrong, despite my warning.) --JaGa^talk 01:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You will note that WP:VAND#NOT mentions NPOV violations as something that is not by itself vandalism. Taemyr (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JaGa, that edit was still a rollback, so it shouldn't be used in content disputes. Does a few seconds of convenience sound worth the trouble? ~ Troy (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in an edit war or a content dispute. I saw a user remove established, cited content and I put it back. I didn't warn the user. I feel like I'm getting piled on via guilt by association with EricV89. We can split hairs about content disputes, but I don't think an impartial observer will find anything wrong with my choices. --JaGa^talk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) A much batter idea to have done was to discuss the issue on the article's talk page instead of rollbacking away. I would think discussing something first before taking any action (if any) would have been best instead of reverting, especially while using rollback. I see myself echoing what Taemyr mentioned that WP:NPOV violations is not vandalism in most cases. Rollback should only be used to revert vandalism and vandalism only. -- RyRy (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

JaGa, I'm afraid that you misunderstand: rollback is only to be used for actual vandalism. Sure, it is easy and even tempting to press the rollback button, but you could have easily written a short edit summary. No one said that your rollback was to be revoked for one edit (*silliest thing I've ever heard*), but it isn't a good habit to revert good faith edits. Also, since you were technically in an edit war, I expect you to give a 3rr warning or provide an informative edit summary. ~ Troy (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Troy. Simply using the undo button would have been much more convenient, having the ability to provide an edit summary, rather than using the rollback feature. -- RyRy (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting question - why was she so determined to take that out anyways? It he not of Jewish descent after all? --JaGa^talk 02:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were wondering why, then that's all-the-more reason you should use the user's discussion page instead. Even if you use the rollback feature, which you shouldn't, you should at least give a valid reason at the right time. Instead of waiting until this issue affects you (ie: here and now), you should have discussed/explained it while the edit war was going on. ~ Troy (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this poor, dead horse. OK. This user started an account with one purpose, and one purpose only: remove the mention of a Jewish family from the Emil Gilels article. The content was established in the article, and cited. The user also blanked the page. Page blanking and anti-Semitic edits (and yes, I think editing the article solely to remove cited references to Jewish heritage smacks of anti-Semitism) is vandalism. So this user was acting like a vandal, and I rolled them back. Now they claim to be Gilels' relative (do we have any actual proof of that?) and we're all falling over each other to throw EricV89 and myself under the bus to show this user how sorry we are. I don't think what either of us did is wrong. If you disagree, feel free to take away my rollback, because I do not think I did anything wrong, and would do the same thing again. Otherwise, let's let the dead horse be and agree to disagree. --JaGa^talk 03:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. It was a "cited reference" - cited with an OTRS ticket, which is not exactly a topnotch reliable source. What you characterise as "anti-Semitism" could also be an exercise in removing information that had been given undue weight - there is nothing else in the entire article discussing how his Jewish heritage influenced his life or his achievements. As I've said below in response to EricV89, I could probably accept a single revert on this, although it would be much better using "undo" than "rollback" since it isn't clearly vandalism. Remember that almost all Wikipedians start off with just one article on their watchlist, where they make mistakes and try things. One of the most valuable things that patrolling editors can do is reach out to these new editors and help them to learn our processes. But before one can reach out, one has to have enough of an open mind to believe that new editors might have something to add, even if they do it imperfectly. Risker (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Ah, I think we finally have some common ground. There are different ways to perceive this user's actions. What I saw looked like vandalism and I acted accordingly. Now, we have new information about this user, so things are perceived in a different light. The point is, (and I believe this of Eric as well) I was not trying to win some content battle or something like that. I saw actions that I thought was vandalism, and dealt with it. The question is, was my intent bad? Was my reasoning at the time unreasonable or indiscriminate? Did I want to bully some new user with the awesome power of Huggle? No. Look at my edits. It's not my way. I'm trying to do a very thankless job of vandalism patrol as effectively as possible. And I think the same of Eric. We talk about having an open mind toward the new users, but we don't have enough of an open mind towards Eric's intentions to even let him try to explain himself before taking away rollback. That is unjust - look at his contributions, he's done loads of great work for Wikipedia: 9000+ edits, never been blocked, adopts new users. We worry about the harm we did to the new user, but what about the harm we did to the established one? Is the kangaroo-court rollback revoking any different than Bomsalam's block? In both cases an authority rushed to judgment before hearing all the facts. I'm sure my arguments can be wikilawyered to pieces, but there's a spirit to the law that I'm concerned with here, and I don't think Eric has received justice. He should get his rollback, er, back. --JaGa^talk 08:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC) There are a few issues that concern me here:

• For the most part, the "edit war" was over an adjective - whether to describe the family of the subject as "Jewish" or "musical". That makes it a clear content dispute, with no reason to think this was vandalism. Ordinary content dispute mechanisms should have been used after the first reversion. There was nothing on the talk page of the article relating to this, the last entry being June 2008.
• One of the editors, apparently the niece of the subject, was clearly new to Wikipedia and was focused entirely on this article. Her first edit was August 13th. She received no welcome, no assistance on how to edit, and no personal messages on her talk page to help her understand what the problem was or what steps to take to resolve the content dispute.
• An OTRS ticket is involved in this situation. I have asked the admin who inserted the OTRS message to please comment on the talk page of the article, as it appears to involve the information in dispute. The OTRS ticket was issued on August 24th, and there is some indication that the editor who was blocked may have been the person who provided the information for the ticket as well. Incidentally, the OTRS ticket is also not mentioned on the talk page of the article.
• It's unclear to me, having read the article, why anyone would consider it essential to include in the article whether or not the subject was Jewish. There is nothing in the article to indicate that the subject being Jewish had anything to do with his accomplishments or the key events documented in the article.
• This isn't a BLP; the subject has been dead for over 20 years.

Not only do I see rollback abuse, I see a textbook case of WP:BITE, and some very significant communication issues happening here. Risker (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) (<--) I endorse revoking rollback from this user. Obviously this user is committing repeated and disruptive misuse of rollback. Causing revert wars with the help of rollback? Certainly a situation to remove rollback. -- RyRy (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Risker, my impression is that you are entirely correct in saying that this is a bad case of biting a newcomer. However, I would like to know what sort of explanation Ericv89 could come up with. ~ Troy (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse removal of rollback. It is abuse to use it for edit warring.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will still also endorse revoking rollback, though. ~ Troy (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed EricV89's rollback flag, not sure why it was not done earlier actually. Tiptoety ^talk 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I sent an approved AIAV report and he was blocked for disruption for vandalism. The user was blocked by a admin and I thought that it was a decent AIV report. Not only that but Tiptoety closed this before I could respond. This is ridiculous, I've sent tons of good AIV approved reports considoring my thousands of edits of vandal fighting, you seem to see only a recent, focused event to take my rollback rights. How am I suppose to revert vandalism now? --eric (mailbox) 05:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this might have been a premature action. The disputed information that Bomsalam was removing was inserted as the result of an OTRS ticket. EricV89 was reverting removal of the information. There may be more going on here, and I'm not certain that rollback should have been removed from his account. AniMate 05:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

RyRy, get your facts straight before you accuse someone of only using rollback to edit war and disruptions. Everyone runs across people who disagree but I have never intentionally done anything to disrupt Wikipedia, if it is a personal issue then it can be solved on talk pages and not by revoking someone's rights. Why do I feel like I'm being ganged up on? The user's SPA was to edit Jewish to musical. These don't even relate to each other. I reverted them as vandalism becuase the edits seemed to be unconstructive, not only that but no one confonted me in regards to this prior. You are making irrational ideas. --eric (mailbox) 05:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

So what do I do now? --eric (mailbox) 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep editing without rollback, is the easiest answer. I've never bothered to ask for it (though I probably should), and have never had a problem. If you really want it back, I'd engage Tiptoey as the administrator who revoked it and you should probably contact User:Avraham about the OTRS ticket that was responsible for the inclusion of the information. Finally, you should remember the "undo" button isn't that tough to use either. AniMate 06:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric, you continue to do the things you enjoy doing here. I'm still looking into why the information you were putting back into the article was even there; the fact that an OTRS ticket is used as a reference source is somewhat unusual, especially for what is an apparently trivial point. Perhaps that is a take-away lesson from this; when a new editor is determinedly trying to remove information, take a look at the information they are trying to remove, and its reference sources as well. Reverting it the first time was reasonable; when the removals continued, that was a good opportunity to start asking some questions: what's the issue with this content, is the source any good, is this content essential to the article, is it just an editorial decision to modify this sentence, etc. Article talk pages are also available to editors carrying out RC Patrol, and I'd encourage all of them to use them more often. Even I have found myself rolled back by RC patrollers under similar circumstances, but at least I know how to address the situation.

With respect to the OTRS ticket that is being used as a reference source for this article, a message has been left for the administrator who worked on this ticket requesting some further information. It is my understanding that he will not be on-wiki before Sunday at the earliest, so this aspect won't be fully addressed for a while. Given there is no immediate concern (i.e., the subject of the article is deceased so there is no BLP issue), I think it can probably wait. Risker (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

(<-)It was incorrect of me to use the ticket as a source when there was a conflict. I have removed those entries from the article and instead placed a sanitized version (without the name, e-mail address, snail-mail address, and phone numbers of the great-niece) on the talk page for further discussion. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused. -- Avi (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin was move to Palin (disambiguation) without discussion even though it was always going to be a controversial move as Michael Palin is a rather well known person, probably better know worldwide then Sarah Palin before she was selected as the Republican VP candidate. How should this be handled? IMHO, the move should be reverted and a discussion started as per WP:RM but I'm open to suggestions Nil Einne (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Palin to discuss. In my opinion this move is a bit U.S.-centric. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to discuss the move before going ahead with it—even if it "doesn't look controversial" because there is always that chance that it actually is. Discussing is a good editing practice, and, for controversial moves, they should always be discussed. I suggest that you use the talk page instead of reverting the move in order to avoid any edit warring or incivility. ~ Troy (talk) 02:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

palin is once again the disambig page and has been protected. Looks like the way to go. Dlohcierekim 09:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On Friday, for just a hot second, I thought Michael Palin had been selected as McCain's running mate. Imagine McCain's campaign ads including "The Lumberjack Song". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bizarrely ... [106]. Black Kite 11:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Obviously the surname / dab page should be at Palin, anything else would be both parochial and recentist. It is a surname, and Michael Palin made it globally famous well before any politician did. As an aside, this choice of running-mate was one of the most shameless pieces of tokenism I can recall! Guy (Help!) 14:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So speaks the defender of NPOV,--Cube lurker (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely. In this case NPOV demands that we don't prefer the two-year Senator over the groundbreaking comedian, actor and world-renowned travel writer. Or vice-versa. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever lets you sleep at night.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Re-reading your comment, i agree on the disambiguation, it's your messageboard like comment that brings all your actions into question.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This Grawp sock spent a while welcoming users (none of whom have any edits) before making Grawp edits. Anyone want to consider the possibility that the users he/she welcomed were Grawp socks too? Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. Probably just a cover-up. Xclamation point 22:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like just went straight down the user creation log. I don't see any unusual surge in account creation frequency during the time he was "welcoming." (I'm glad I wasn't welcomed that way). Antandrus (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Should someone go through these users once more to "re-welcome" them? In particular, the welcome template invites sending questions to the users talk page, and that might not be best. Taemyr (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

No need, unless he tampered with the links on the welcome template. I say we just add the welcomes to the very short list of Grawp's positive contributions and move on. ON a different note, wasn't "nimp.org" blacklisted from edit summaries. I recall that domain being used by the Avril Lavigne vandal... caknuck _° is geared up for football season 05:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the vandalism in his page forwards?? its not just vandalism its crude and a disturbance as well. Thorough uncivil. Lihaas (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Antandrus , have already indef blocked the user. [107]. Taemyr (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

could an administrator review this article - which I've just reduced to a one line stub. Some folk may be aware that I'm currently under mentorship for BLP editing (I've noted this in my mentoring pages, and haven't yet touched base with any mentors) - it was in such a truly icky state, that I'm popping a note here, and am now heading over to the BLP noticeboard..... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be bewtter off just deleting it and starting over. What you have now is essentially '...was just some guy, y'know?' HalfShadow 03:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

there's some good stuff in the history, Half, and I'd say he's definitely notable - it's just that I'm not really able to help at the mo! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this many hours ago, and no action or response was taken on it. It was then removed by bot. One of the socks of this person posted my real name and email address on a talk page, which was removed by oversight. This is a serious issue and really needs action taken on this persistent sock. Thank you.

Multiple blocks have been placed based on sock cases regarding this user, including Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (3rd) which have included both editing diffs and statistical work, resulting in conclusion that IPs in the 76.93.8x range are IP socks. Specific to this report are approximately identical edits to Wonderland Avenue to include and return non-relevant material related to an ancient arrest of MacKenzie Phillips, here by sock master User:Nyannrunning, here by proven sock puppet User:Evanbayh, here by one IP proven used by sock master, here and here by sock puppet User:Seth4u2nvcs. Related IP in range 76.93.8x, specifically 76.93.87.176, has returned tonight to again add same material here and again here, this time with a comment accusing me of sock puppetry. Requesting longer block on 76.93.8x based on evading ban (as well as recent more serious issues addressed by oversight). (Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC) first posting). Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per this talk page edit, 128.103.142.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Holla213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and has been editing in evasion of his block. He admits the evasion here, but made no effort to undo his edits. It is also telling that his block-evading efforts were to immediately return back to the page he was blocked for edit-warring on and repeat the exact same series of edits. I've reverted his edits because of the block evasion. Perhaps a block extension is in order?Kww (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No. I used proper sources. You need to use the proper discussion page before you undo. You're the one who told me that when people take stuff of the page, it stays off until it's discussed. I will continue editing as a good wikipedian. If necessary, I will get Jimbo Whales and the Berkman Center involved as they are here on campus. Thanks. 128.103.142.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Isn't anybody home? A block-evader edits WP:ANI, and no one acts?Kww (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Continues to edit war on the page he was originally blocked for edit-warring on.Kww (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Handled. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He or she is back and using User:74.94.191.89. In addition, can we please get a CheckUser to handle the request we made a week ago related to this editor? --ElKevbo (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

One edit, and gone quiet for now... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

True that he is gone for now, but looking at the edit history of 74.94.191.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it is apparent that it is a residential semi-static assignment: he has had that IP for several months. A block on his home IP address qualifies in my book as preventative, rather than punitive. Why make sock-building any easier than it needs to be?Kww (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please undelete page Lê Quan Ninh. I tried to delete it temporarily as part of a db-move that turned out to need histmerge; but when I tried to undelete it I get this error print:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

{SQL query hidden)

from within function "ExternalStoreDB::store". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 136 from storage engine (10.0.2.102)".

The file was deleted 3 times because each time I tried to move the other file in over it, I got an SQL error, but the move was done also.

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've been getting this error message on and off for a couple of hours - seems the servers are a bit stretched. (ironically, it just happened when I tried to post this message) It seems to settle down if you have patience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• I am still getting the same error, after 2 hours and a bit, whenever I try to undelete page Lê Quan Ninh. (I have given it a current version by copy-and-pasting from its latest deleted edit.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
• Many people are getting this, major issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec - to Anthony Appleyard)I'm not sure that that would be compliant with the GFDL, as there is no attributions in a copy and paste. Better to have it deleted, and undelete when the bug is fixed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's undeleted now, no need to call in the lawyers ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This came up at AIV last night, but after today's reverts, I thought it would be best to bring it here for admin attention. Dan Schneider (writer) is an article about a semi-notable writer, which was created legitimately (no AfD's or quite a while ago. I believe by an admin. However, for the last couple of years, the article seems to have been maintained by a series of SPA's (and possible sockpuppets). Check out the contributions of Cop 666 (talk · contribs), Mitziohara (talk · contribs), Mathemaxi (talk · contribs), Vester99 (talk · contribs), Nightnipper (talk · contribs), Lyledag (talk · contribs), Wallaby Jones (talk · contribs), and Corinthiani (talk · contribs). All of them seem to exist only to edit this writer's article, and also insert his links into other pages.

After this came up at AIV last night, StevenEdmondson (talk · contribs) pared the article down, then was reverted by one of the SPAs above [108] which called the edits vandalism. This happened again [109], which was again called vandalism. Cop 666 did post to the talk page in this time, which seemed to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The page seems to have become a complete vanity page, but with the large number of SPAs editing the page and the possibility of an edit war, I wanted to bring the matter here for the admins. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• If they continue to edit war then they can be treated as one editor per established precedent. We can protect the wrong version, too. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it's good to see the page has been 'capped' so to speak so the information can't go back in. I came to the page after being made aware of the review links he puts under so many film articles. I've removed loads of those, however he is very prolific so it's impossible really for me to get them all. My problems, to outline, with the page was that it was essentially a plug for himself and the sites, and was written by himself, (writing style is very, very obvious, as is volume of what he writes). It was also irrelevant. I think the page is a strong candidate for deletion altogether, but it's not really my place to say, and I have edited it down considerably, but would leave it to an admin, if deemed appropriate, to delete the article. (Just a quick note, I remembered that the article had been nominated for deletion previously- Before it was inflated to a huge length. Therefore it makes sense that the article is kept, as previously decided, but in a smaller, and crucially unbiased form)(StevenEdmondson (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC))

Note: two of the references are dead links. The other is a self-published site featuring one of Schneider's poems. This doesn't establish notability. You can't leave it to an admin to delete the page. It has to be nominated for deletion and left to the community to decide. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, it might be a good idea to ask that cosmoetica.com be put on the blacklist. That's Schneider's site that these accounts are spamming all over the project. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, I didn't know that. I'll need to look up how nomination for deletion can be done. I agree that cosmoetica.com needs put on the blacklist, however he has used other sites with similar content before, but a blacklist on that page would get rid of the bulk.(StevenEdmondson (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)).

I deleted quite a number of his links, but remember, blacklisting doesn't automatically remove the links. However the next person who edits the page won't be able to unless they take the link out, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Some of those accounts are stale, but some are still active. Links to cosmoetica.com are manifestly excessive for the objective significance of it, and one more WP:SPA in evidence as well.

• Rebeccamack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits only Charlie LeDuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which reads as vanity.

I think that the 100+ links to this website likely need pruning. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm the original author of this article. It appears that the article has been subjected to a lot of edits by SPA in recent months. However, I have now reverted the article to an earlier version, which was both NPOV and filled with a number of reliable sources proving that this subject is notable enough for an article. This is essentially the same version of the article that was subjected to a previous AfD, where the decision was to keep. While I don't agree with the SPA POV pushing, this is a notable subject and a good article.

I also wish to note that I have a long tract record of writing NPOV articles about literary figures who may not be well known to the general public but which meet the Wikipedia notability standards. Just because we don't like the SPA accounts editing this article is no reason to delete said article. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone be amazed at the fact that a SPA has already shown up. --Procutus (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hear you. But my concern is with the article, not with the SPAs or the link spam elsewhere on Wikipedia. We shouldn't delete a valid and sourced article because of the actions of editors we disagree with.--SouthernNights (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article should not be deleted but it also should not have been expanded to an outrageous length by obvious sockpuppets. Perhaps a reversion to how it was before the tampering would be in order (and thats being generous I think)? I'd also like to point out that the offending editor/s is very likely Schneider himself by the way he writes and takes the whole thing personally. I say very likely- I'm actually certain its him. Tmwns (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already reverted the article to a version prior to the SPA edits (a version that was stable for a number of years). I also think the article should remain protected until the SPAs lose interest in the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, I will note that the decision at that earlier AFD was "no consensus" which defaults to "keep". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the person who closed that earlier AfD was inexperienced and misinterpreted the consensus, as several of us pointed out. In the discussion, there were seven established users who said to keep vs. three to delete, with almost all those deletes coming from SPAs. So obviously SPAs have been an issue around this article for a while.--SouthernNights (talk) 11:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem of SPAs is far worse than I thought. I've deleted as many unnecessary links as I can (around 100)but there are probably more. I'm starting to think that a vast amount of cosmoetica's hits have been a direct result of this outrageous spamming. Whats more, all edits have been done by sock puppet accounts with NO exception. Either they have been anonymous and come from IP addresses starting with 4.230/231, or by accounts that do nothing but link Mr. Schneider's articles. Here is a list of all accounts I have found doing this:

Theovetes Lazarus86 Mathemaxi Ingupper Athenosia Filialprojector Fordhawk Vandenflexor Wallaby Jones Stratuspower88 Mondocanetoomer Rebeccamack SouthernLights Verbaleaux Verdipun Sunstruckglass Alfonsogloriano Ambersoniata UmaPa Deadsandsflashing Anatolikarpantov Corinthiani Chasfagan Lyledag Timesawaste Slopack Tallulahdor Nathanor Landoloch Good Shoestore

and Cop666 who has elongated the Dan Schneider article.

There are probably much more. It is also very likely that all or most of these accounts are Dan Schneider himself. At least 2 of these accounts (Cop666 and IP 4.230.147.227) have shown themselves to be Schneider by arguments on Talk pages and their personal writing style, although neither admitted it. I was in support of the page being kept, but in light of these underhand tactics I'm not too sure if it even deserves one anymore. Tmwns (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at this [110] Schneider, posting as Cop 666, has gone way over the line now, spewing forth a train of personal abuse against another editor. Schneider, in all of his incarnations here, should be banned from this site. Ovenknob (talk) 22:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to clarify. I am not a sock puppet. Dan produced no evidence to that effect, and it is just a baseless assertion, or rather attack. Also, it is beside the point of what the article is too discus. The AfD page needs closed, as with Dan as Cop66 present, nothing useful will be gained from it, and I think as long as the SPA problems can be kept from inflating the article again, it may stay, kept protected in the form made by SouthernNights. StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea whats going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Schneider (writer) (2nd nomination) but it looks awfully exciting, with lots of SPAs lobbing entire landmasses of text at each other. I have a feeling that admins are needed to either hit buttons aggressively on this, or to hit people. I defer to your judgements, but it's a total horrible mess. rootology (C)(T) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happens with almost any AFD; 'interested parties' just begin appearing like mad. HalfShadow 23:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But before my eyes fuzzed over from not wanting read 4 pages per post of printed text from each SPA, I saw SPAs lobbing civility violations and potential outing of real names like mad. That's not an ordinary AFD. rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please someone close the AfD! Nothing is being accomplished, I am not a sock puppet, I am being attacked and Dan is wittering- Practically no discussion pertaining to the AfD is taking place. It's all too personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenEdmondson (talk • contribs) 23:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC) StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, he's claiming my edits before the Dan Shnider incidents are biased. This is not the case- my edits have primarily have mostly been regarding either the novel Ulysses or Kate Bush, or removing faulty links and such. A look at my talk page on my account will shown that I have previously been commended by an administrator for my edits- no bias intended or present, in fact the nature of most of these edits do not leave room for bias, further more most of my edits have been fairly small anyway. The accusation is an attack, with no basis. Sorry for wittering here StevenEdmondson (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to leave this now. I'm not too sure who the admins think the SPAs are, but this has gone out of control, and I really did not mean that to happen in bringing up this whole thing. Whats more, I don't want to get an entirely innocent wikipedia user in trouble merely by association with all this. I've made a list of all the SPAs for you, I've pointed out the self-editing and such and deleted the links. Now I can get down to actually doing some editing on other subjects (thats if the admins don't think I've violated any rules).

Anyway, sorry about all this. I think I can say overzealousness on my part is partly to blame. Close the discussion down- it stopped being useful ages ago. Tmwns (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ack. It looks like there's more than one type of SPA at work here. In addition to the ones already noted, user Ovenknob (talk · contribs) (who commented above) has been removing every mention of Dan Schneider without regard to whether it was legitimate content, citing this discussion as his/her mandate. The article is now an orphan. I don't know about the user's motivations, but it sure doesn't look like good-faith editing. - Eureka Lott 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have a see-saw effect: on the one hand there are SPAs who link the subject to absolutely everything in an apparent attempt to inflate his importance, on the other we have SPAs excising everything. Is there some off-wiki dispute we don't know about, I wonder? Guy (Help!) 08:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a possibility. Just from what I've seen, this writer doesn't seem like the kind of guy who makes a lot of friends. His page having a slew of SPAs and possible socks loading his page, attacking other editors, and spreading his links to any other subject he may have ever written about probably didn't help him get editors in his corner on wikipedia either. I was going to comment on the AfD, but it's such a bloody mess with SPAs right now I'm not going to bother. I'd move to keep the article in its stripped-down, properly referenced state, then full-protect it and force the two sides to hammer it out on the talk page until something happens. Dayewalker (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another WP:SPA spamming links to Schneider's work: Veraciter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Is it time to ban this rat's nest? Guy (Help!) 09:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd move to keep the article in its stripped-down, properly referenced state, then full-protect it and force the two sides to hammer it out on the talk page until something happens.

I'd agree that the article needs kept in a stripped down and protected form, however nothing good will come out of a talk page discussion- just more attacks and SPAs. StevenEdmondson (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support closing the AfD and keeping the article protected, with the editors forced to work things out on that article's talk page. The article is currently semi-protected; since all these SPAs are new accounts, this should solve the edit war issue (and if neccesary, we can full protect the article). If someone else could close the AfD. It appears that if one removes the comments by SPAs, the consensus was keep.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, consensus was definitely keep in SouthernNights' NPOV form. StevenEdmondson (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) (But problems with SPA needs sorted StevenEdmondson (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC) )

This is just a heads-up, not a request for action. Over at Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force, we have a minor edit war, and a comment by Einsteindonut (talk · contribs): "Also, I'm going to get many more of my friends (with whom I do respect and with whom have NOBLE intentions) to start getting involved."

This seems to be a spillover from something that started as a flame war on Facebook last year [111] and was blown up into "antisemitism 2.0" by some commentators.[112]. Something to watch. --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit war, if you can call it that, is at the article, Jewish Internet Defense Force, not it's talk page. There are currently arbcom restrictions on Israel/Palestine related pages. If it gets out of hand, take it to arbcom enforcement or bring it back here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

See related item Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#More offsite harrassment below. Sigh. --John Nagle (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Given what Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) has written on his user:page, and given he has just edited the talk page of 1948 Palestinian exodus before leaving today [113], may I ask some sysops to keep the page in their watchlist. Thx. Ceedjee (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just nuked Policy wonk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as it named several living individuals with only one of them sourced form one comment in a scarcely impartial news story. I think the subject is important, although it's not clear to me how we can elevate it above a dictionary definition without simply quote-mining and applying the label to the people that $EDITOR thinks are this week's bete noir. I could not find a version that was not full of unsourced this-or-that living individual as examples. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If other sources (with or without examples) can be found then it can be DRV'ed, or more likely recreated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose you found this by googling for "Guy Chapman"... — CharlotteWebb 15:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Now that was funny! Guy (Help!) 18:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)