Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive639

Vandalism at Jewish Internet Defense Force

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

---

he has proven he is a nazi at JIDF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jews 4 Wiki Justice (talk • contribs) 03:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time, use WP:AIV for this. In other news, I think User:Weaponbb7's account has been compromised... Grandmasterka 04:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else think its odd that that accts only edit is this report? Anyone else smell a User:DavidAppletree sock here? Heiro 04:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who made the edits, regardless of where it was reported, and regardless of who reported it, the edits in question are absolutely horrific and I hope they can be oversighted or otherwise removed from the edit history. Neutron (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either Appletree or Einsteindonut (assuming, of course, that Appletree and Einsteindonut aren't one and the same as well). Stonemason89 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They've been REVDELed, so nobody but administrators can see them. If you want them completely expunged from the edit history, e-mail User:Oversight. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No Malik, that seems fine. As far as I am concerned the edits are now invisible. What administrators can or cannot see does not really concern me. (I hope nobody takes that the wrong way.) Neutron (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Weaponbb7 and David Appletree have a recent history together. I'm guessing Appletree compromised the account and then made this report. Grandmasterka 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a very wild guess, and I believe it is rather easy to check. The only thing that should be done is to compare IP of User:Weaponbb7 before the vandalism and during vandalism and then compare IP used to vandalize the article to IP used by Appletree. I agree it looks like User:Weaponbb7 account was compromised, but to claim that Appletree has done it, there's no reasons for this whatsoever. Let's AGF and check all IPs.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

EC. I totally agree, it should be revdeleted. I just think its suspicious. Considering our own article has this nugget : "the JIDF "prefers the terms 'seize control,' 'take over' or 'infiltrate' to 'hack."[1] concerning their methods on Facebook and the fact that User:Weaponbb7 was one of the editors involved here with the David Appletree mess several weeks ago, it just seems suspicious that User:Jews 4 Wiki Justices only edit is this report.Heiro 04:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, by the time I found that cite, wrote that, and ec'ed a bit, its been handled. Heiro 04:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This might be in response to JIDF's call in Twitter and Facebook to create accounts and send login info to them. Bejinhan talks 05:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that, considering some of the things that went on between Weaponbb7 and Appletree, as referenced by another user above.Heiro 05:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

•  Confirmed The IP that made the horrific edits was that of User:KatWomanUSA and User:Jews 4 Wiki Justice, who may not be Appletree, but is/are (a) known JIDF supporter. Unfortunately, as the account is compromised, and User:Weaponbb7 has neither a cryptographic commitment nor GPG key, I'm not sure if we can restore access to the account. -- Avi (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  It is strange " who may not be Appletree". I believed CU is capable to provide a positive answer for such a question. If those edits were made by Appletree, the article about the site he runs, should be deleted once and for all. On the other hand, if it was somebody else, who made the edits, those accounts should not be marked as socks of Appletree.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

  Having been a wikipedia checkuser for about 2 years now, I can tell you that it does not always give clear answers. -- Avi (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Weapnbb7 has a userbox that says has has multiple accounts, so he can either edit from one of them or they may also be compromised, if his account has been compromised. Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps under the circumstances you should full-protect the page in question. One account has been hacked already to get access to it... HalfShadow 18:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Or, perhaps delete and SALT the page in question, since it's turning into such a magnet for hackers and trolls. As I always say, if the heffalumps are trying to steal your hunny, it's best to get rid of the hunny pot. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban of ALL editors connected with JIDF

They're hijacking people's accounts now (as well as using them to make horribly offensive comments)? That's disgusting. I'm not sure if we've ever community banned an entire organization before (rather than a single editor), but I'd like to propose a community ban (or some sort of sanction, at least) for any and all editors who can be shown to be members of, or have links to, the JIDF. That way, it won't matter whether Kat WomanUSA, Einsteindonut, etc., is David Appletree or not; they will all be banned and we will be able to revert and revdel their edits. The group has shown themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of hackers who have no respect for Wikipedia; they've essentially declared war on us and have been causing nothing but disruption. I don't think any of their contributions have any redeeming value. We shouldn't have to put up with their antics. Stonemason89 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: Apart from the obvious fact that we have no way of proving that a user is associated with the JIDF, what level of involvement would be required? And how can we justify not only blocking, but banning all members of an organisation on the actions of a small group of individuals? This proposal wasn't very well thought out. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not "the actions of a small group of individuals"; the organization itself has encouraged its members (on Twitter and Facebook, as mentioned above) to create accounts for the sole purpose of sending information to them. That's basically espionage, and it runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. Like I said before, I don't think we'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, since this group is all bathwater to begin with (has no redeeming value). Also, the JIDF accounts we've encountered so far are quite DUCKY; they're single-purpose accounts that are quite obviously pushing the group's agenda. It shouldn't be too hard for us to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is a JIDF editor. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence. Much hysteria. No ban.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Users who edit controversial articles with obvious issues should take care not to have identifiable details available that allow themselves to be compromised, that should be obvious. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You might want to read the article on blaming the victim. While Weaponbb7 might have been able to protect his account from being compromised, that does not mean that David Appletree/JIDF/Einsteindonut (whoever was responsible) aren't to blame. It's still 100% their fault, not Weaponbb7's, and they should face the consequences, regardless of whether or not Weaponbb7 secured his account or not. Hacking is never acceptable or justifiable, regardless of whether the victim failed to protect their account or not. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See, there you go again, there is no evidence at all that the account is under anyone elses control, it could just as easy be an 11 year old editor that is venting off. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See the checkuser results above. The account has been compromised, and is being used from an IP address associated with 2 other sockpuppets of David Appletree. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it? I am confused as to what is guack results and actual checkuser results. I don't think that is as clear cut as that to allege this action is absolutely an identifiable person. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Avraham said that it is  Confirmed that the IP on Weapon's account making those accounts matched that of two other accounts which are suspected sockpuppets of David Appletree. Avraham is a checkuser. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rob, AGF and prior behaviour suggests strongly this is an account compromise. Lets assume it is that until better evidence appears (if it ever does) - casting aspersions like you just did is a personal attack! As it is I have had a hacking attempt from someone associated with the JIDF (earlier last week) sadly for them they musn't have realised I work in computer security/forensics :) so it is reasonable to assume this is a similar result. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - completely unworkable, much better to block/ban disruptive editors as they appear. I am certain most of this is born from a single person anyway (and the JIDF is almost certainly just him) plus a few die hard Twitter followers. It's untenable to ban all of them, and the results would be no different --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It's not necessary to save the 'pedia, but it would save us the disruption. It has become very quiet around the "JIDF" recently, and their recent activities here seem to be an effort to get a greater mindshare again. In other words: We are being abused for advertising. Even these ANI threads are advertising for them. The best way to stop that nonsense is if we can revert obvious JIDF edits on sight. – Anyway, technically banning the whole bunch is not necessary because it has long been established that if a user is indistinguishable from an earlier user who was banned for the same behaviour, then we simply treat them as the same user. The reason this isn't sufficient in this case is that the ultimate aim of the banned user seems to be not so much to change article space but rather to get the JIDF mentioned before the worldwide audience of ANI. Hans Adler 13:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The worldwide audience of ANI that is the exaggeration of the day. This is a totally ridiculous unworkable attack on a legitimate group of people. Off2riorob (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a "legitimate group of people"; though. See below; it doesn't even have dues, bank account, headquarters, officers or elections, etc. I don't know how you could possibly call a group like the JIDF "legitimate", considering what they have been doing. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

They can not all be tarred with a evil people brush either, they are a loose Knit bunch of people with a similar aim, a very small number of them have caused some disruption here, those that have caused the disruption also claim their group was being negatively portrayed and biased against here at wikipedia. Lumping them together is clearly imo another attack on the group and will likely attract more attacks like this which we can do absolutely nothing to defend. Portraying them all as evil and asserting they just walked up and started attacking wikipidia without any cause is imo false portrayal of the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riorob.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Many FRINGE and extremist groups claim to be "negatively portrayed and biased against here at Wikipedia". That doesn't mean they deserve our sympathy, or that we shouldn't ban or block them when they are flagrantly violating the rules and acting like huge dicks. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary; we don't go against our own WP:NPOV policy to prove a WP:POINT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Desirable, but not feasible unfortunately. I'd like to send the article to AfD though and see if it can survive a liberal application of WP:EVENT (all they're known for is hacking or shutting down facebook groups), though I fear we'll just see the partisans come out to play as they did at DRV recently. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Long rambling comment. The proposal itself seems a little overdramatic, but if the group is indeed organized around the common purpose of bad faith editing on Wikipedia and other community-generated content sites, then declaring oneself a member is more or less an admission of bad faith. It doesn't seem to be a real organization - no dues, no officers or elections, no bank account, no membership criteria, no headquarters. Rather, it's just a self-declaration on the part of people who want to identify with its apparent aims and tactics. If it is a legitimate group, then members who edit articles about the organization and its activites would have a COI, and organizations do indeed get banned from editing their own articles when they persistently misbehave. Adding racist garbage to the encyclopedia in order to blame it on someone else is about as bad as it gets. If it is simply a declaration that one is not here to improve the encyclopedia, then it is reasonable to show people the door if they say it like they mean it. In practice that would probably require some underlying misbehavior, not a casual comment. No prior consensus or discussion is really needed. Any administrator observing clear misbehavior has the mandate to take reasonable, appropriate action. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd love to support this, but don't see how it could be applied within policy or gain the consensus needed to be passed. The editors associated with this group seem to be especially nasty pieces of work, what with the User:Davidappletree fake User talk:Scott MacDonald post a few weeks ago and now hacking anothers account to post Anti-Semitic rants. By policy, I think the only thing that can be done is play whack a mole when they show their heads. Heiro 13:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I just blocked three socks that showed up on my talk page. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)As it is I have had a
    • Unless you are absolutely sure you know what you are doing (or have done it already) you should contact a checkuser. The IP you blocked is from a university, and the account you blocked was Weaponbb7's legitimate second account. Hans Adler 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes i noticed that the Weaponb7-2 (or whatever) account had only made one previous edit, in April, to its user page declaring itself as an alternate account of Weaponbb7. Seems unlikely that Appletree was planning this for that long. However, I don't really understand how the password was hacked by Appletree (virus installed on a computer to visitors of his site?) If that was how it was done, then it's possible he has the password to all of weapon's accounts and we could presume them all compromised. But I don't know if that's how it was done (or if that's even feasible), and it puts the actual editor in a terrible bind; all efforts at communication are presumed to be the troll appletree; what avenue does the actual editor have to communicate? Presumably CU can confirm previous IPs of weapon from before this happened, and determine if posts are coming from those IPs. I propose restoing talk page access on the alternate weapon account (if it was taken away in the first place) and seeing if this can be worked out on that talk page (given long enough conversations, i think we'll get a good read on whether it's actually weapon or not).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Talk page access is available. We have no idea what happened, but when somebody comes to my talk page and posts with at least three different accounts or IPs in rapid succession and claims to be the same user as an IP that made a trolling post on WP:ANI about purchasing of sex toys,[2] I am pretty sure that blocking all the accounts until somebody sorts out the matter is a very good thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) @Bali: Unfortunately we can't really be sure which method was used: if Weapon uses one password for several sites, he could have registered on a dodgey website and had his password stolen (or simply a site with very poor security which allowed the password to be cracked by brute force or a dictionary attack), or any number of other ways, especially if the password was low-strength. I wonder if Weapon frequents IRC and has a wikimedia IRC cloak? Either way I think the combination of checking IP addresses and conversing with the user should start making it clear when it's actually Weapon doing the talking. The recent IP pretending to be Weapon had a very different manner of writing (especially grammar). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
          •  Confirmed Wbb7-2 geolocated to WBb7 and not KatWomanUSA. I have unblocked accordingly. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Unenforceable. What we have is banned User:DavidAppletree who in turn appears to be a return of banned User:Einsteindonut (cu found this connection "likely.") either by himself or with a few confedorates (the pseudonymous appletree has vowed to vandalize wikipedia and sought to recruit others to do this) driving editors in good standing away from the project. We have the weapon account hijacked, for the purpose of making antisemitic edits in order to falsely smear that user. Appletree earlier spoofed a post of an admin to try to make him look antisemetic (so we now have at least two JIDF postings of antisemitic material here, notwithstanding that the group says it's interested in stopping antisemitism) which speaks to Appletree's low tactics and interest in fighting a propoganda war, not improving articles. What to do? Block the socks of the banner user(s), revert all their edits, and block the meatpuppets/sockpuppets as they come along. As for banning "all members of the JIDF," well, who are the members anyways? It's just some internet yahoo and people he occasionally convinces to follow along. Much larger and better organized groups have been a problem in the past (the scientologists come to mind). This one is a minor nuisance.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Unnecessary and redundant - The user is banned. If they appear, or convince a friend to appear on their behalf, the new account(s) can be blocked. No additional authority is needed. I am not sure JIDF is a group at all. It could just be one lone person on a bizarre mission. Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose absofuckinglutely not. Unwritten rule #1 of Wikipedia is that we don't care where you come from, you're welcome here as long as you behave yourself. All disciplinary actions are taken against the individual for the behavior of the individual. Period. --Jayron32 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed to ever blocking anyone by a racial litmus test, which is precisely what this boils down to; it prejudicially assumes this group is not here to contribute constructively. I'm appalled this would even be proposed. No witch hunts. No assumption of bad faith. No prejudice. We always start by assuming someone is here to be constructive, until proven otherwise by measurable action. I seriously question the neutrality of the person proposing this...   Thorncrag  18:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial? The problem with the group isn't the "Jewish" part of its mission, it's the next three words, "Internet defense force", coded language for hacking Wikipedia and other sites. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"It prejudicially assumes this group is not here to contribute constructively" ? In the last few weeks editors associated with this group have faked anothers post with antisemitic remarks( the User:Davidappletree fake User talk:Scott MacDonald post a few weeks ago), outed and threatened users(User:Jewdefence remarks to Weaponb77 back on the 30 or 31st of August[3] revdel between these 2 edits), offwiki attack pages and lists of editors they disagree with, twitter posts calling for people to vandalize wikipedia, calls on twitter for people to set up accts and forward them the passwords so they can vandalize wikipedia, and now hacking anothers account to post Anti-Semitic rants. Exactly how constructive do you think they will become in the future? AGF isnt a suicide pact. Heiro 18:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial litmus test? Puh-leeze. First of all, Jews are not a race. Second of all, I harbor absolutely no ethnic, religious, or racial double standards whatsoever. If there were a group calling itself the Palestinian Internet Defense Force and it were to act in exactly the same manner that the JIDF has done, I'd have proposed blocking the "PIDF" too. No "litmus test" whatsoever. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh "Jews are not a race"? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States Census Bureau only recognizes white, black, Asian, and Native American/Pacific Islander as races. Hispanics are not considered a race (most list their race as white); the same is true of Jews. I believe the situation is the same in most other countries, too. Ethnicity, yes. Race, no. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter how you define Judaism. The point being made was that banning members of this group was banning them based on their identity as Jews. I disagreed, saying it would be based on their declaration that they intended to edit in bad faith. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was already established above that this is not an "official" group; therefore, how can you categorically lump anyone who happens to slap what amounts to a "JIDF" user box on their userpage as automatically here to behave unconstructively? Further, it is basic common sense and logic that this would be completely unenforceable, not to mention the fact that it would be completely unprecedented for Wikipedia. Your efforts seem disingenuous at best and call your motives seriously into question. I'm going to go make up a JIDF badge and slap it on my userpage, should I be summarily banned too?   Thorncrag  21:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you would even consider putting a JIDF badge on your user page calls your motives into question, not mine. Why would you defend a group that hacks into people's accounts and has caused nothing but trouble for Wikipedia? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

...I rest my case.   Thorncrag  22:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If the JIDF's proponents have something constructive to add to the article, that's fine. This is more about creating drama to get publicity. Perhaps more like a little kid screaming for attention. WP:TROLL and WP:DENY apply. Revert, block, ignore. Don't take it too seriously. --John Nagle (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As "unfeasible". However, deleting and salting the JIDF article is not a terrible idea, IMO. Any group who deliberately targets WP editors for purposes of outing (and then "smearing" them) based on alleged biases doesn't need a platform here by having this page, and they are using this page to do it. It's abundantly clear what their goal is. It shouldn't matter what their particular POV or rationale is: I think it's wrong and potentially dangerous (as cases of compromised accounts have shown). The fact that any editor not connected to the JIDF should have to change their passwords as a result of editing there is quite disturbing. Are they notable enough to cause the growing damage? Maybe, but this "cyberterrorism" can't be tolerated. And I agree that it is cyberterrorism... Doc9871 (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I somehow get the impression that deleting and salting the article would, in some way, just be giving them what they want. HalfShadow 00:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course, it would not be for alleged anti-Semitic reasons (which is preposterous): but for extreme disruption. They can "tweet" about it all day long, but deleting the page would be denying them on this site the recognition they seem to crave so much... Doc9871 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A note to JIDF related editors

As I mentioned above, last week someone made a reasonably sophisticated (but, note, unsuccessful) attempt to compromise my Facebook and Gmail accounts, the target appearing to be my WP account. This week we tracked it to an individual in the UK who appears to have JIDF connections (in that he follows the JIDF twitter feed etc). This appears to be another example of the same thing; the inference here is that it may not (even probably) be "David" doing the attacking, but others reading his material. Obviously I can't provide any more details about the person who attacked me until it gets sorted the poor sucker obviously had no idea I was a digital forensics analyst :P but if anyone is worried about being compromised drop me an email for general advice. I recommend anyone involved with the JIDF article consider changing all their passwords (or at least the most insecure ones) as a safety measure. this account is not compromised and was not close to be, I have safeguards in place for these instances due to the fact that my job makes me something of a high profile target and these stopped the attempt fairly quickly --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Really these are measures which should be recommended to all users, especially having seen the potential results of using a non-secure password. The internet as a whole tends to drum basic security into users these days; another recommendation (albeit from an esteemed digital forensics analyst ;)) is unlikely to get the attention of anyone who doesn't already listen to the advice. There's not much more to say on the matter of account security. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Heh, well at the very least it makes me feel better if it happens to someone else now :P We get an awful lot of work from companies who lost XYZ website/profile or even have their networks compromised due to a lack of simple common sense security (like, uh, not using your company name as a password.... :P). --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I got a refreshingly high number of mails related to this (usually people don't care! so that is great). Just a note to say replies will come but it may take some time, I have work shock horror to get done before my boss fires me :D --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that administrators had to have a strong pass? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 18:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's an explicit requirement, but as I recall, in the past, the developers have gone through and invalidated passwords of administrators that would be considered weak, and require them to change them. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I didnt change mine after my RfA. I only changed it a month or so ago. —Soap— 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I changed mine to "tiger". Seriously, though, the advice above was to change all passwords, or at least weak passwords, not just Wikipedia passwords. If the IP who posted earlier is to be believed, Weaponbb7's account was compromised because they used the same password on Facebook and Wikipedia, and their Facebook account was compromised. Whether or not that's true, tmorton166's advice is sound. Passwords should be strong, they should be changed periodically, and different passwords should be used on different sites. TFOWR 20:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Boy, and I thought all info on Facebook was totally safe! /sarcasm. I wonder what kind of script was used to dig out the password? Or if it was truly via facebook or some kind of spoofed e-mail or even a browser hack? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• The best advice is be vigilant: that means keeping a strong password, but also watching out for obviously suspicious stuff, because bruteforcing the password isn't the only way to be compromised. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for a site that's "against terrorism", they don't seem to get that hacking someone is itself now technically considered a form of terrorism. Irony, yes? Or does it only count if they're brown and blowing up airplanes? HalfShadow 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, I definitely think they'd qualify as a cyberterrorist group. Which is why I think we ought to do whatever we can to stop them from attacking Wikipedia. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Anyone want to take a look at the user contributions[4] for the editor that just closed this thread? Maybe I'm wrong, here, but... Doc9871 (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's Weaponbb7's new account. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Pesf and non-free images

Pesf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is largely a SPA on Boyzone related articles, has had many warnings over their editing, including inappropriate use of non-free images. Today right after a two-week block, they are back to the same disruption. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also this. O Fenian (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this is not helpful either. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

this is stale but I am increasingly concerned about this editor's behaviour --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinitely. I considered just blocking for a month or two but those edits very blatantly vandalism, a couple of them involved BLPs (and were nasty ones to boot) and it seems like whatever this editor used to do they are only interested in vandalism. -- Atama頭あたま 23:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User Talk:Josh Rumage

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

This editor has uploaded multiple images of dubious provenance, yet has failed to heed many warnings about providing copyright information, and recently has taken to blanking his Talk page on a daily basis. Whereas he is entitled to do this, I've sufficient experience to think that this is an attempt to "make it go away". I'd block, but I prefer to give an opportunity for this editor to explain himself. Comment welcome. and I am about to notify of this thread. Rodhullandemu 22:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Josh has replied on my own Talk page, and I have responded. If outside eyes think this is adequate, please feel free to mark this thread as closed. Otherwise.... Rodhullandemu 23:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary of the week/month/year

Please share a healthy moment of maniac laughter on that one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viviane_Reding&action=historysubmit&diff=385289523&oldid=385223200. Cheers to all, --Insert coins (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Some things are just too weird for words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that friggin' Space Knight. Who does he think he is, anyway? HalfShadow 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question seems to have a rom chip on its shoulder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because you're giving him grief. Don't Byte the Newbies. HalfShadow 04:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from Oclupak

Resolved

 – User notified of the existence of discretionary sanctions. Report may be reopened if issues persist. NW (Talk) 03:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oclupak has been warned multiple times not to use article talk pages as places to make comments better suited for forum. This editing goes far back in his history, such as [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The editor also ignores calls that his sources be reliable, and continues to push youtube links: [13], [14], [15], [16]. His personal attacks on editors he claims 'owns' the pages he edits is also a problem: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Lastly, he has latched onto MONGO as someone to harass about his previous employment, even though the discussion was resolved. [23].

This user has a long history of pushing POV, writing rants and forum like posts, pushing youtube links where they clearly don't belong and are not welcome, and refusing to work with the project, instead of against it. I request action to remedy this problem. I am aware I can take this up on the 9/11 admin board, but since this editor dabbles in fields outside of 9/11 with the same furor, I felt this would be the better place to debate it. The links I have posted only go back to last year. There are FAR more examples of blatant disregard for the pillars of Wikipedia, but I don't have the time to research them all. --Tarage (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "9/11 admin board" (I can't find it), since the major issues with this editor appear to revolve around that subject and it would be pertinent to see what remit that board may have? I think there is a case for bringing the matter here, providing ANI will not be stepping on anyone elses' toes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

[24] This is the general board for arbitration. --Tarage (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, throwing unsubstantiated allegations around is probably best avoided. --John (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I back up everything I say. However it was marked resolved before I could get back to it. But that is neither here nor there. --Tarage (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is no 9/11 admin board I can see...so the place to ask for admin intervention is here...any admin can apply discretionary sanctions to those that aren't following the ruling set forth by arbcom two years ago...as shown at the 9/11 arbcom case regarding 9/11 articles. I have restored this section from archive 638 since it wasn't addressed....and this appears to be the only forum to notify uninvolved admins about an ongoing problem.--MONGO 10:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Has the user been informed of the existence of the 9/11 discretionary sanctions, or otherwise indicated that he is aware of them? The sanctions cannot be applied if he has not been so informed. I could not find any evidence that he had been so informed, so I have notified him now. NW (Talk) 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he was. I notified him myself. He ignored it. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. I could have sword I warned him. I guess I'm still in a haze. --Tarage (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel like digging into ANI's history, but can someone explain the timestamps in the comments before MONGO's? They range from the 14th to the 15th of September, but this thread would be out of place if they were really posted then. Was this thread resurrected or moved from before? I'd like a clarification so that we don't have edits that are misplaced and/or represented, and that the parties who appear to be participating in this discussion prior to the 17th know that it's even happening here. -- Atama頭あたま 20:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The thread was resurected because it was archived with no form of closure. I have been sick the last few days, or I would have protested. --Tarage (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd missed that MONGO had already declared that in the first post, never mind. -- Atama頭あたま 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

User:212.156.67.30

Cross-wiki harassment and personal attacks. For details, see: User_talk:JamesBWatson#Personal_attack. If you need further information, please feel free to ask me. Your assistance will be much appreciated. Pinar (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that either you or Yabanci did anything here to provoke the IP, so it looks like they're just dragging whatever issue you're having on tr.wiki here. Which isn't cool. I'm going to block the IP for a week for disruptive editing, attacks, harassment, and pulling too much dirty laundry around. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And just in case, I translated the block message into Turkish using Google. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please sanity check my behaviour

There is an ongoing dispute on Talk:Libertarianism that has tended to be a little uncivil and get massively derailed into comments about editors and OR discussion. In an attempt to reign this in I have quite heavy-handidly closed down off-topic discussion and tried to force the use of sources in discussions. However two editors have notified me they are unhappy with this approach (one here and another here). My thinking here is that the talk page needs a serious hammer brought down on it to help keep things civil and avoid blocks/sanctions; I'm aiming for a sort of neutral, hardline mediator role. I'd really like some uninvolved admins to take a look at this and tell me if this is an appropriate approach or not. Also, ideally a couple of other uninvolved editors to help out would be great :)

It's worth pointing out that BlueRobe also warned me for vandalism both with a template and here, I think for my talk page actions today. And has accused me of threatening and harrassing him (here). Could someone please check my messages to BlueRobe now and let me know if I am harrassing or threatening him - I believe this is not the case but wish to be assured one way or the other :) (here are my messages to him: [25], [26], [27], [28]).

I raise this myself because I have told both editors that if they disagree with how I propose to handle the talk page discussions they are welcome to take it to the community - and if I am advised not to, then fair enough :) However, neither have come here and I wanted to raise the issue and get it cleared up now... --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly nothing but good faith efforts at neutral moderation of the talk page, and all justified actions as informal mediator, per WP:NOT#FORUM / WP:NOR / WP:TPG. Efforts such as Errant's can only defuse the continual stream of noticeboard complaints stemming from the Libertarianism article -- my only wish is that we could get one or two more editors to volunteer outside eyes on that page. Sadly, I don't think Errant's efforts alone will be respected (and, in fact, there's evidence that even the overwhelming voice of the community will be rejected by some of the involved editors), but, all the same, I'm glad as hell that he's willing to try. I commend him. Also unfortunate is the certainty that this commendation of Errant's policy-justified actions will be seen as evidence that he's a card-carrying member of "the Cabal" that is supposedly arrayed against the vocal minority on the Libertarianism page, instead of more evidence that their arguments are flimsy and their talk page posts disruptive. BigK HeX (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Their arguments are flimsy and their talk page posts are disruptive. Errant is taking precisely the right approach. TINC. Yworo (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I likely shouldn't say this as an involved editor, but ... as for the complaints of incivility, User:BlueRobe seems to think that relaying one's opinion on violations of policy -- no matter how politely worded -- amounts to incivility. Incivility and informing a user of potential policy issues are not the same thing. BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, as I have already noted to Errant here, I have zero confidence in Errant's ability to be a neutral mediator. And, without meaning to provoke any tangential disputes, I view the eager endorsement of Errant by BigK HeX - Talk:Libertarian's resident serial Wikilawyer - with deep suspicion. Indeed, the greatest irony of Errant's sudden attack against a productive, intelligent and civil editor like Toa Nidhiki05, who has remained relatively calm in the face of some pretty antagonistic discussions, is the way Errant has completely overlooked the constant WP:HARASSMENT of other editors by BigK HeX, a user who virtually embodies WP:BATTLE with his constant Wikilawyering.

Further more, as I have noted here, Errant's attempt to control and moderate Talk:Libertarianism have ground all discussion on that page to a standstill (during its busiest time of the day).

I noted Errant's threats against me here. There are one or two others, but I don't have a clue how to find the diffs of another User (Seriously, how can Wikilawyers be bothered with all that crap?).

I apologise in advance if my formatting of this post has some errors - I'm not as experienced with diffs and Wiki-litigation as some. BlueRobe (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you can find my contribution list here. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Errant's posts as attacks. I've been reading that page for about two days or so. I was tempted to share my opinion once or twice, but the veritable battlefield that it has become always turns me away. I can't imagine what mediating that talk page must be like, but I believe Errant is doing quite a reasonable job. Hazardous Matt (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of discussion is about the meaning of the topic and there is a lot of original research presented without reference to sources or policy. It would be helpful to have an administrator who could threaten to block editors who stray into OR. TFD (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No way am I getting involved at the talkpage, but I looked at it yesterday and it did seem that Errant's collapsing of the off-topic, WP:OR, WP:FORUM cruft was extremely useful for keeping things focussed. My experience of doing similar things elsewhere is that it immediately attracts shrill cries of "censorship", so Errant seems to have escaped relatively unscathed, all considering ;-)

In the absence of any diffs demonstrating "threats" or "attacks" by Errant I'm going to have to assume that this is just part of the usual baggage mediators have to carry. What I have seen done by Errant is useful and valuable mediation.

I did see things that concerned me, but it was from other participants - editors basically saying "no, I'll continue to post original research here", some casual homophobia, some bizarre synthesis (a Right-Libertarian website in New Zealand being used to claim that "libertarian" in New Zealand meant something quite different to the usual, wider meaning), etc. This did seem to be from a small but vocal minority, so I'm hopeful that these are not insurmountable problems.

I agree with TFD that refs and policies are key. More admin eyes would be useful, too. Just not mine. I see attempts to redefine "libertarian" as purely a right-wing current as a US-centric, recentist development, and it annoys me too much. This is just one of those areas that I don't believe I could be useful in: I'd cause more problems than I'd solve ;-) TFOWR 12:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded sockpuppet accusation from suspicious account

Resolved

 – User indef blocked as sock of User:Wikipedian05.— Dædαあるふぁlus ^Contribs 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A seemingly suspicious account, User:Brownspite, has falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. The user has tagged my user page, as well as created and tagged a user page for the alleged sockpuppet at User:64.131.34.149. I believe this user has ignored proper Wikipedia policies and guidelines with these actions. My response to Brownspite is on his talk page is here, in which I illustrate that I am not operating from this anonymous IP. Upon consultation with a former Wikipedia administrator, I was advised this could be considered harassment, and due to the suspicious nature of user account, that I should post this incident immediately to ANI (see here for that dialogue). Please take what ever actions are necessary to rectify this situation, or give further advice on action that I should take. Thank you. CrazyPaco (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The recommendation of said former Wikipedia administrator is to remove Brownspite templates and to warn him that his action can be seen as violations of WP:HARASS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that editing pattern looked familiar. Checkuser has  Confirmed that Brownspite is actually User:Wikipedian05, along with a slew of other accounts I will now be blocking. I haven't CU'd you, Crazy (I've no reason to), but I'm quite more than willing to take your word that the accusation of your socking is false, given the witness's history. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no problem being CU'd. I do not believe in hiding my edits. In fact, by logging out of my account, I had purposely displayed my current dynamic IP located in the San Francisco Bay area in my response to Brownspite on his/her talk page. I will be away from Wikipedia over the next couple of days so I will not be able to reply further until then. Thanks for everyones' help. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot archiving to wrong place

Resolved

 – In future, you should post to the bot operators' talk page in the first instance. There are a number of people watching Misza13's talk page that could've helped with this. –xeno^talk 13:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User:MiszaBot II appears to be archiving form Wikipedia:New_articles_(Australia) to the wrong spot, Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)/Archive 2008 (2008 instead of 2010) eg [29]. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because the counter is set to 2008, whereas really, to get the year, you should be using the %(year)d variable, in the archive parameter, rather than the %(counter)d variable. So get rid of the counter parameter and change the archive parameter to Wikipedia:New articles (Australia)/Archive %(year)d. I think, I'll try this in a second :/. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

Edits by IP User:66.66.47.209, Special:Contributions/66.66.47.209, appear to show a similar pattern of interests and behaviour to those shown by User:NYScholar who received a community ban on 3 July 2009.[30]. Could this be checked out? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

She may also be editing as User:24.213.147.7. (See: Special:Contributions/24.213.147.7). -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

While banned users are not meant to be welcome to edit here at all, a series of entirely benign minor copyedits is not quite time to ready battle stations. If indeed this is NYScholar, it's worth monitoring to see if the edits get more involved: if so, it might be worth contacting him to see if he fancies appealing his ban through the proper channels. It's been a year, after all, and until now he's behaved himself in absence. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more than "a series of entirely benign minor copyedits". The size of Harold Pinter has increased by 20kb since 13 September as a result of edits by the two IPs cited above. The necessary pruning agreed by consensus after NYScholar's ban, and in fact discussed repeatedly before it, is being steadily reverted with the re-introduction of repetitive material, unnecessary detail and minutiae. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jezhotwells - the streamlining and pruning that we so painfully accomplished a year ago is being reversed, and this editor's obsessive editing is following the same unfortunate patterns as before. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what next? Should a sockpuppet investigation be launched? Should we revert the edits? I am looking for guidance here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:66.66.47.209has been blocked for a week. I have reverted their edits and am going through them, salvaging any useful content. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – Obvious sock is obvious, blocked

188.23.178.232 is currently blocked for edit warring. S/he has now switched IP addresses to 188.23.180.208 in order to continue engaging in edit warring as well as to continue adding unsourced information about people's religions. Brian the Editor (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It gets worse. Looking a little deeper, he was already blocked for harassment (not to mention the gross anti-Semitism) as 188.23.191.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Note this request. (For those who don't know about it, this is a useful tool.) Antandrus (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And I keep finding more. Persistent POV-pusher and anti-Semite; RBI. Antandrus (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Need extension of range block.

There is a persistent date change vandal problem in India related articles coming from the IP range 117.204.112.0/20. This IP range was blocked four times for a total of six months and the block expired on Sep 11. The vandal is now back [31] [32]. He is a subtle vandal, who masks his disruption with some legitimate edits. I request an extension (last block was for 3 months) of the block. There are only 4096 potential IP addresses affected.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. NW (Talk) 17:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Periodic vandalism

Resolved

 – blocked Toddst1 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I request the attention of administrators to this article Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish and Shopnomukarji (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly removed a large amount of data at periodic intervals - [33], [34], [35]. At the first instance, I asked him to explain his action, letting him know that such unexplained deletions would be seen as vandalism, but he/she did not respond and continued to remove the data in intervals. I gave him a a more direct warning, but as this user appears every 3-4 days and does the same thing, without making any attempt at explanation or communication whatsoever, I request an administrator to take the appropriate action. Shiva (Visnu) 17:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the bots: Reflinks vs. SmackBot

So it appears that SmackBot (talk · contribs) and WP:REFLINKS are fighting each other. SmackBot changes cite to Cite and Reflinks changes Cite to cite. It seems to me Cite is correct being the actual name of the template, but we need to pick one and make sure that all of the automated tools are doing the same thing. --Selket ^Talk 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a rule that any edit that only changes the capitalization of templates is an edit not worth making. The bots are only allowed to do that if they are changing other things in addition (which they are). It might be nice if they could agree on which spelling to use so that they arent constantly changing each other's edits, but I'm not sure it actually slows anything down when it happens. I think actually if I had a choice I'd prefer the lowercase version since it's one less keystroke when you're typing it manually, and it looks better, esthetically speaking. —Soap— 23:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Barring that, we could just watch until one of their heads goes "BOING!" HalfShadow 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If they are making another entry they are allowed to fix capitalization though. It's fine to have them fixed once, but every time SmackBot touches an article after someone Reflinked it the changelog is going to be a mess. -Selket ^Talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Consistent lowercase (at least as far as bots are concerned) is far less likely to lead to long-term problems, especially when interacting with new, case-sensitive bots. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure it actually slows anything down when it happens" An edit with more diffs is going to take slightly more storage and thus time, but I doubt its anywhere nearly enough to worry about. Fell Gleaming^talk 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't recall which bot it is that changes "wpbs" to "WPBS", which always seemed like a waste of time to me. Perhaps the bots are infected with editcountitis and are driving up their numbers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, if the bots run for adminship they'll get rejected for having too many automated edits. -- Atama頭あたま 00:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Support Reflinks' RfA. While I note the concerns of the opposers (too many automated edits) I've always found Reflinks to be an extremely helpful editor, and I think they'd make a great admin. I am concerned about apparent edit warring with another editor (SmackBot (talk · contribs)) but I believe the positives outweigh the negatives, and I note that Reflinks has a clean block-log, unlike the other editor. TFOWR 09:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with thumperward - consistent lower case is best. Also, capitalizing Cite or Dead or whatever follows a double bracket is small but pointless complexity when filling in cites by hand. KeptSouth (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Core war! Oh, wait. Oops. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, keep them lowercase. I like it both personally and because of the benefits Chris mentioned. —fetch·comms 03:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I happened to notice the notice on Dispenser's talk page, but didn't have time to chime in. I'll drop a note. Rich Farmbrough, 04:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

• SmackBot is my wikistalker. It has been stalking my contributions for years. Others may edit with impunity. I make an edit to an article, however, and, sure as sausage, along comes SmackBot. Optional question from Uncle G: What is the candidate's view on wikistalking?

  On a more serious note: I agree with thumperward, too. I've noticed the change from "cite" to "Cite". When SmackBot stalked my contributions to hake, I noticed that it was changing "for" to "For" as well. So this seems to be an across the board change. I agree with Selket as well. The 'bots should all be on the same page, because on a wiki without $wgCapitalLinks=false, such as the English Wikipedia, this is just senseless to-and-fro. Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think there may actually be something to be said for Cite rater than cite in that Cite is actually the name of the template. At the template documentation page the usage is inconsistent but Cite seems to be favored. I'm kind of surprised we don't have a policy on this yet. Here's how I see the easiest way to resolve this. 1) Open up an RfC for broader community consensus on what should be the policy going forward. 2) add it to WP:MOS. 3) Enforce the policy against all the bots making edits on en. Any thoughts? -Selket ^Talk 16:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • If someone comes up with a policy saying Thou Shalt Spell It "{{Cite" Lest Thou Suffer The Stalk By The SmackBot, it will be ignored by most editors. In fact, such a thing probably won't even get a consensus to be a policy in the first place. The best thing to do, I think, is just to get the 'bots to agree. As long as the 'bot owners and the 'bot writers make sure that we coördinate, there's no need for something formal. And in general we do try to make sure that we don't have 'bot wars. Lots of clashes and conflicts are sorted out without need for formalities.

      See the Wikipedia:Bot owners noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inés Sainz

Resolved

 – Jets need to work on their skills at making a pass; in the meantime, we're keeping the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has withdrawn the request and there is only one delete !vote. It was initially non-admin closed, but by the primary editor of the article who withdrew the close when I asked. Could we get an official "close" by a non-involved party or decision that it should run the full length? ThanksActive Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I have closed it as keep in my adminly capacity. Not something I do every day, but it's taken care of. Go Jets!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Help

User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden seems to be having difficulty grasping the main points of WP:BLP. I lack the necessary tact and patience to deal with the situation at Ines Sainz (reporter), a biography they created in response to a minor incident a few days ago. I believe that the editor has been convinced that that particular incident should not be included in the article per WP:UNDUE, but they seem to be insistent on introducing poorly sourced or unsourced material (mainly relating to the subject's physical appearance) into the article. Note that the Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden is not a new user, but someone who has "retired" with another account, so they really ought to know better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is Delicious carbuncle who is unconstructive through being overly heavy handed and uncommunicative about editing issues.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If this is purely a content issue, why don't we just leave it out for now and have a nice discussion on the article's talk page about whether to add it in or keep it out? —fetch·comms 03:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If Delicious carbuncle lacks tact and patience, perhaps she/he should consider taking up a new hobby. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.69.23 (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice. I find that occasionally certain editors are difficult for me to deal with and I acknowledge that it is better if I let someone else intervene. No one has come forward in this case, but I am hopeful as always. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Threat to conduct to massive attack by IP???

Per this statement, the IP editor (71.178.55.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), now blocked for 24 hours, which IMO should be 31 hours instead) is threatening to conduct such an attack. Can any other Admin please take a look into the matter? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Admins and CUs please take note, the IP has started to make his move per this latest edit. Help? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This vandal/troll has used at least the following 9 IPs: 68.171.233.199, 68.171.235.155, 68.171.233.214, 68.171.234.204, 71.178.53.60, 71.178.55.113, 71.178.64.210, 71.178.146.183, 71.191.119.34 and the registered account User:Skruphie. At least 36 user talk pages have been affected. I have placed a couple of range blocks which cover most, but not all, of the vandal's IPs, but I am reluctant to make range blocks either too extensive in range covered or too prolonged in time because of collateral damage. It may be worth making sure that all the IPs are blocked at the time of the threatened attack ("noon eastern time tomorrow"). I wonder about semi-protecting the relevant user talk pages briefly around that time, but I am not sure about doing so without consulting all the users affected, and I am certainly not in favour of doing that, as comments about this on all of the pages attacked would be feeding the troll. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed per WP:RBI. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that there is a little ambiguity in the threat. If my understanding is correct, the threat linked above was made at 4:10 18 September Eastern Standard Time. At such an early time of day "tomorrow" could actually mean "during the daytime of 18 September", or it could meant "19 September". Or it could, of course, mean nothing at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If the IP's keepjumping, use an edit filter. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out they meant today (September 18). I was, apparently, one of their many targets (link), and by the looks of their contributions they sent the same troll message to half a dozen editors. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"massive" was overly hyped, even by web standards. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that only a small amount of users were affected, but the real question is how persistent is this person? I've met some pretty persistent people in my time, both on and off Wikipedia. If they're persistent they'll continue to ignore the warnings and range blocks and keep attacking and trolling. But if they're not then we have nothing to worry about. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 22:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Zarapastroso doesnt appear to be very committed to vandalism. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You could be right. Or they could be bluffing. I think they should be kept blocked as a precautionary measure. The Utahraptor^{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I love you! You know me! And what my name means! FFuyscr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isvie Mandalov (talk • contribs) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution is WP:RBI. No other response is needed or warranted. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Grundle

Resolved

 – 02:16, 19 September 2010 Timotheus Canens blocked Great Pumpkin (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600)

Great Pumpkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Don't know if somebody is pulling our collective leg, or if he's really that dumb. Have at it. Grsz¹¹ 02:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved, user indefinitely blocked, see above. Exxolon (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Hoary

Background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#Legal threats: User:Opinoso & User:João Felipe C.S, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#More article ownership by Opinoso' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Personal threats from User:Lecen, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#White Brazilian, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#Latin American demographics again, revisited (son of), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Removing informations and edit-warring

I do not know if this is the correct place to talk about an administrator's behaviour. I'm here to talk about Hoary.

This administrator has some personal problem with me. He already claimed that he "deslikes me" and accuses me of being a "child" and being a "false" person.

This administrator is always protecting another user, named Ninguém. Ninguém is always asking this administrator's help in his talk page, and Hoary is always helping him, and always against me. Since Hoary already said that he "deslikes me", of course he is not able to be neutral when it comes about conflicts between me and Ninguém. He abuses of his administrator condition. The newest case is going on in article Afro-Brazilian. This article was full of "fact tags" added by user Ninguém. I added sources to those tags, and user Ninguém reverted me (he asked for sources, but doesn't want people to add them). Hoary, as usual, is now helping his friend to keep that article with all those fact tags, after I spent several minutes looking for sources.

Hoary doesn't respect my work of Wikipedia and protects his friend Ninguém. I ask an intervention, and that Hoary from now start to be away from conflicts where his friend Ninguém is involved. Opinoso (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the editors mentioned here regarding this thread. Also, some diffs to back up your statements would be useful for admins looking this over. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a dispute involving administrative tools. This board is just about the worst place to resolve a content dispute, because the administrators who respond here are going to look at conduct. I have no particular expertise on the subject under dispute; I'm just offering you some friendly advice. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are required to notify other editors you discuss here, but I've taken the liberty of notifying Hoary for you. —DoRD (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No redundancy there, DoRD! Thank you for the notification.

I strongly dislike various aspects of Opinoso's approach to editing articles, yes. I'd be interested to know how I have abused my position as administrator.

To me, Opinoso is no more or less than the sum of his edits. He has of course made some good ones in his time. But as for his recent ones, please see this for the specific and this for the sweeping. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A cursory read through the thread on that talk page should be enough to dispose of this section. While content is at issue down the chain, it's also about adherence to WP's sourcing policies and guidelines, which I have advised Opinoso to read carefully; and it concerns Opinoso's tendency to launch personal attacks, although at the lower end of the intensity spectrum. (Disclosure: I am a wikifriend of Hoary's.) Tony (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would say Hoary is a bit involved to make it preferable if other Admins were active in that area. They may well come to the same conclusions as Hoary but imo it would be better if someone else took any Administrative actions required in that area. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd welcome the attention of other administrators. Incidentally, I haven't used any of my administrator superpowers in that area for quite some time, as far as I remember. Possibly some sprotecting and wrong-version-full-protecting, but even that wouldn't have been recent. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool thanks for that, then user Opinoso has little to complain about then, you oppose his position as an editor just as you are free to do. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "position as an editor". I have no ideological or similar beef with him. (I continue to take a dim view of his methods and standards: his misreading of sources that I can find and read, his refusal to specify page numbers within large books in Portuguese that he cites [books that I neither possess nor would be able to read, but that others editing the article would], his unwillingness to discuss, his tendency to revert others' reasoned and thoroughgoing edits, and his eagerness to label as "vandalism" what clearly isn't vandalism.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Psst! "you oppose […] as an editor". Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass removal of tfd templates required

Resolved

 – Task done. Thanks, ---Taelus (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello - in the late of August, a tfd-discussion was held regarding all the language icon templates, and as a result, all the language icon templates (see Category:Language icon templates) were slapped with {{tfd}} to notify passerbys that the templates were up for deletion. However, after the discussion was closed on August 27, no one removed all the tfd-templates from the language icon templates. I was planning to run through them all and remove them through AWB, but alas, all the templates are fully protect, so I cannot do so. Is anyone here that is capable of doing so willing to clean them all up (or give me adminship powers )? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've just picked four templates at random from that category, and they all had the TFD notice removed on 2010-08-28 by MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs). None of the four were protected, either. Please point to an instance of the problem. Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, the several that I had looked at were protected and had the tag, so I assumed they all were like that. Guess not. Thank you to Taelus below for taking care of it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, all templates in the category checked, old TfD templates removed from 89 of them. Regards, ---Taelus (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's some attention being paid to the matter, can anyone work out what's causing {{zh-hans}} to break? I don't have any more knowledge than is required to remove the TfD template from a bunch of unprotected pages, so I can't tell where the issue might be myself. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooeer... Very odd. I must admit that as I swept past it, I assumed it might be something to do with a language pack, as I have experienced oddities and unreadable/broken things before which others users assured me rendered correctly with the relevant language pack. However, looking at the content of the page when it is being edited, I cannot see anything in non-english characters... Anyone know where that ISO number might be coming from? ---Taelus (Talk) 23:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Upon some messing around, the issue is caused by zh-hans not being recognised as an ISO language code. If you change it to "en" it says "English", "fr" to "French", etc... Thus I assume that the template is rejecting zh-hans as not existing. I did a search to try find the language code for Simplified Chinese, and found it to be zh_CN or similar, yet the template didn't like any of these either. Anyone know the exact ISO code? ---Taelus (Talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Intelligentsium got to it and fixed it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Salt required? Meredith and Springlyn

A many times recreated article by an editor who from the looks of it [36] [37] [38] isnt going to take no for an answer and is going to be very impolite about it on their way out. (and those pages linked could probably use a bit of cleaning themselves) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the WQA I've opened as I'm willing to give the user an opportunity to improve their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're an optimist. This deleted edit suggests that the keen author of this article is troubled to an unusual degree. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF untill the user demonstrates that they are not worthy of AGF. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Amply demonstrated. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User in question has been indeffed, but salting the article would still be a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Salted. —fetch·comms 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know what people think of me... I guess I'll see you all in hell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話はなして下ください) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks?

Can anyone check these two edits [39] and [40]. They look like a coordinated campaign. Dr.K. ^{λらむだogosπぱいraxis} 06:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

QUACK! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds (looks) like it. Dr.K. ^{λらむだogosπぱいraxis} 06:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they're  Confirmed; I could not help but think that this is somehow related to the Dr. Leigh-Davis hoax perpetrated by CreativeEndeavors (talk · contribs) (but I could not find a technical connection there); the type of complaint is almost spot-on. –MuZemike 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much MuZemike. I didn't know about the hoax background but when I saw the type of claims they didn't look very good for sure. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λらむだogosπぱいraxis} 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

please delete my account and my other two accounts

Resolved

 – User and socks blocked

• User:VTomi
• User:Xx.tom.green.xX

i dont like wikipedia anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simcontributor (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, sorry. Tommy! 13:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then just stop editing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your accounts cannot be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jamie jca: compromised account?

• Jamie jca (talk · contribs)

User:Jamie jca has been a productive editor since 2007, a few featured lists, a featured topic etc, until recently when he vandalised the article God with this edit on 23 August and then the David Cameron article today with this edit. For what its worth I removed the reviewer user right today but should the account be blocked? Woody (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bit drastic. Did anyone try to talk to the user re: the god edit? If his account is compromised then i'd expect blatant vandalism, meaning, blatant page blankings, etc, like the crap I revert with Huggle. AGF for now is my opinion. Tommy! 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But he's been blocked anyway.. well I guess we'll find out either way with an unblock template. Tommy! 14:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to try emailing the user but no email address specified. Woody (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible in that Jamie's account was compromised in a number of ways: someone could have gained access to Jamie's computer via a sale, a roommate be vandalizing Wikipedia with her still being logged in, etc. So blocked for now, let's see where this goes. NW (Talk) 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 misusing Vandalism Templates

Resolved

 – Reviewer privs revoked. User agreed to mentoring. WP:CIR problems are evident. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Inka 888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing Recent Changes patrol, but doing it very poorly. The user reverted this edit and this edit, an anon user removed outright vandalism. He reverted him and then warned the user, an inproper user of warning templates. Moments later, he did the same with this edit and this warning. He also reverted a block template here from User:HJ Mitchell, an admin. When I gave Inka 888 a warning, he posted on my talk page that I "[had] no idea what [I was] talking about" and was "way too emotional". This user obviously hasn't gotten the last two times there were at ANI that Wikipedia isn't a game and to slow down. This is in need of an admin's attention before he messes something up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this, the third time in a month? I'd block for incompetence or something like that, but I think I'm a bit too involved with him. Although a block is in order. —fetch·comms 03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not RC patrol. Reverting reverts of vandalism is comparable to reverting removal of copyright. Just as the latter is still copyright infringement, that's simple vandalism, really. Also, considering Inka 888 has outright ignored Neutralhomer's warning (and even accused him of harrassment), there is no question he's not here to be conducive. Would also suggest removal of reviewer rights. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Competency is required. This person has taken up way too much space here due to either not listening, or not understanding what they've been told. At this moment, they're a net drag on our resources, and a short block to get their attention would be completely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I have also notified HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of this section on his talk page as he is in some way involved. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, forgot to notify him. My apologizes on that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason reviewer rights can be removed is if the user is misusing them, I'm not so you can't remove them. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are misusing them. And you're misusing warning-templates. And you're wikilawyering. And you're being stubborn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Competency is required, if no one is willing to mentor them they need to be blocked until they are competent enough to edit constructively. Heiro 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's they, and several people have his talk watched and have been giving advice. I'm practically his go to now for questions. Sooo... Me? :D--intelati^(Call) 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another user and I both suggested a couple weeks back (at his first ANI thread) that he get a mentor and he quickly turned it down. I brought it up again, it was slammed back at me. This user is confident they know what they are doing, which is dangerous since they have proven they don't and want no help learning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you were the first one to suggest it that is why I brought it up to you. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So once again it's about Neutralhomer? Would you please convince us that you're not going to blatantly screw up again -- or would like to have yet another one of your rights removed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Yeah and you outrightly turned it down. User:RobertMfromLI suggested it too, turned him down. I suggested again, you said you knew what you were doing. If you did, people wouldn't suggest mentors and take you to ANI three times in under a month. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentor problem solved. Inka accepted my request to mentor him after his one week Wikibreak.--intelati^(Call) 04:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution

Inka 888 has said he "will work on [his] mistakes" while User:Intelati has extended an offer to be Inka 888's mentor. Inka 888 has accepted mentorship after a Wikibreak (good idea).

With Intelati's mentorship, I think he should be watched closely by other users. Mistakes, like marking people for vandalism that isn't vandalism, should come with a consequence, be it a block or not, I leave that up to you all. I recommend the Reviewer access be removed as the user isn't ready for it at present and is possibly misusing it, though they may request it back after a reasonable period of time (2 months sounds good). What say the community? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inka 888, on their talk page, has stated agreement with being mentored: "Go ahead and mentor me when I get back from my wikibreak." 12:30 am, Today (UTC−4)
  
  I still believe Reviewer rights should be removed until intelati and others believe their return is warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support As mentor :D. I am watching him closely--intelati^(Call) 04:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support under the above conditions. Heiro 04:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Question - Should a consequence be a block, warning, what? Want to make sure that is established before we put this into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably depends on the offense. More major offenses call for a block, minor offenses call for a warning.?.--intelati^(Call) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time Inka 888 re-instates vandalism, it should be treated as vandalism by Inka 888, as should misuse of warning templates, starting with a level 3 warning. That should do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree--intelati^(Call) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Good plan. Gives the user a warning and a consequence. Same should go for other instances where problems arise. Warning issued for the problem, re-instate of the problem, goes to a Level 3 warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Heiro 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree and support overall proposal: I'm a bit late joining this discussion but as an ANI regular and a stalker of Neutralhomer's talk page, I've seen the disruption the user's been causing with apparently good-faith editing, and their refusal to accept that their actions haven't been constructive. they've now had it made very clear that undoing a vandalism revert is vandalism itself, so a level 3 warning if it continues will be appropriate: we have no choice but to believe that continuing to do so now would be intentional disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries on being late. An admin would have to notify the user of the community's position (unless I am misunderstanding some rule) before this can be put into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've resolved this thread and issued what can be construed as a final warning with what I hope is blunt and constructive advice. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support, with reviewer rights removed. If Inka wants them back, he should have to re-apply for them rather be handed them a second time without question. Also, if he reverts reverts of vandalism, he should be blocked for vandalism (because that's what it is). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I am agreed with intelati, I also propose that Inka 888 be instructed to simply ignore any revert work that he is not 1000% sure of how to handle - or ask intelati (or someone else more experienced) to help or offer advice. If that rule is followed, there shouldn't be any mistakes other than very minor ones. On the other hand, with such communicated (again, but this time as the terms of this ANI), it means it will give Inka 888 no leeway for any excuses for a major mistake, as the proper route would have been to ignore the issue or ask intelati for help/advice.

Also, reinstating vandalism, or warning a user who reverted vandalism, or warning someone who made an obviously good faith edit, to me, is a major mistake; and if not retracted immediately by Inka 888, should be treated as such (IMHO). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I resent that. :( JK :)--intelati^(Call) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support and Agree Being involved, I'm familiar with this editor: and he needs a "wake-up call"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I suspect that this is a competence thing. Tommy! 13:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support and I have removed the reviewer flag. Inka can have it back when his mentor says he is ready. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Tommy that it seems a competence issue; and I endorse removal of reviewer flag: user can't be trusted to recognise vandalism and other violations, so he's not yet ready for the ability to review someone else's edits... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Edit war at Apollo TV camera

There's an edit war breaking out at Apollo TV camera. One of them might have broken WP:3RR, but only reporting one would seem unfair, as they both/all appear to be misbehaving. They have also started fighting on the Talk page. I'm just about to inform the two main protagonists. (Didn't know where to take it, as it potentially covers WP:AIV, WP:3RR, WP:RPP, so I brought it here instead). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally these reports should go to the edit warring noticeboard. They've both demolished 3RR, though, so I'll be blocking both for 24 hours. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - didn't know of the WP:AN3 noticeboard (but I do now). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Anishviswa on Mayuri Kango/Mayoori

Resolved

Recently, an AfD discussion was closed as a speedy keep, a discussion that I was deeply involved in (having improved the article in the interim). After the AfD discussion ended, User:Anishviswa posted a comment on my talk page and on the article talk page. I replied both there and there.

My reasoning is that, there has been no proof in reliable sources shown that they are two separate people. All we would need is a reliable source showing something that Mayuri Kango had done since 2005, but that hasn't been given. And, as can be seen from a Google News Archive Search, Mayuri Kango's last news bit was in January of 2005 (the two 2008 things just being discussions of things Kango did in the mid-90's). So, it reinforces the idea that Mayuri Kango and Mayoori are the same person and did committ suicide in 2005. I have seen nothing to the contrary thus far.

After my reply to his comment, the user, about an hour later, tried to Speedy Delete the article under A7. This was promptly denied.

And, then, I woke up this morning to find that the user had moved the article name to Mayoori and then deleted most of the content. I still have not received a reply on my talk page or on the article talk page from this user.

It seems quite clear that this user neither wants to submit proof or discuss the issue, since they are clearly carrying The Truth. Silverseren^C 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Silverseren^C 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anishviswa (talk · contribs) is clearly correct here, even if you just look at the sources in the diff you submitted above. One set of sources about Kango clearly list a distinct set of movies compared to the other set of sources about the actress who was 22 when she died in 2005. We need to make sure that the sources are about a person, not the other way round. It's not synthesis/OR, based on the available sources, to say that these are two different people, quite the opposite in my opinion. I'm moving back the article to Mayoori (actress), the other one - Mayuri Kango is a BLP unless proved otherwise and we shouldn't have any dubious death dates under that title. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I added all of the references that are in the article, and i'm not seeing the differences that you are talking about. Could you explain more, please? Silverseren^C 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, please give one source that says Mayuri Kango died in 2005. None of the sources you've added say that. Filmography in the article was based on "Mayuri Kango", marriage was based on "Mayuri Kango"; death date and name of "Shalini" was based on "Mayuri" with no mention of Kango. Two distinct sets of sources that have no overlap. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. But...question...I thought you were going to split the two articles, not delete the Mayuri Kango article? Kango is the far more notable person than Mayoori. Silverseren^C 17:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left the content intact on the current article for you to split it out (since you were the originator of the content), it's just been commented out, as I mentioned on the edit summary; the reason for the move was because the "dead" actress was the one sent to AfD, not the BLP (although it appears that there was confusion at the AfD on this count). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste move

Resolved

 – Article histories are where they are meant to be Woody (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a free moment could they please fix a copy/paste move error General list of masonic Grand Lodges -> List of Masonic Grand Lodges :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My error... I thought I was moving the page correctly, but apparently not. My apologies. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI: There's a page specifically for this sort of request at WP:REPAIR. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wicked! Had no idea of that one, thanks --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User claims to be friend of an X Factor finalist and isn't prepared to listen

Justtheme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding information to The X Factor (UK series 7) about how allegedly contestant Nicolo Festa has made it through to the live shows. See here, here and here despite me reverting it twice and also leaving multiple messages and three warnings on his talk page. He then posted on my talk page several things which need addressing:

• He said "I am Nicolo's friend!" → meaning he has a vested interest in/has a common interest in the subject and therefore lacks neutrality
• He then says "And of course Youtube and Twitter are verifiable sources. His Twitter account has been verified." → blatant ignored wp's policy for reliable sources and verifiability.
• He's also said "And if this was speculation, there are tons of other Wikipedia articles that have it," → blatantly doesn't understand WP:OTHERSTUFF / WP:WAX.
• When I pointed out that if he refuses to remove the information then inline with policies I will have to ask administrators to get involved he said "I will report you for removing content that is perfectly written, with sources that say exactly what I'm posting, nothing more, nothing less." → a complete lack of care of encyclopedic content.

I suggest the content is removed from the page because it is in complete violation of all wikipedia policies. Youtube and Twitter are not verifiable sources. Furthermore the twitter source he's used doesn't even verify the claim he's making. Finally as he's claiming to be best friends with the alleged finalist perhaps a topic ban is in order as its obvious this user is going to prove problematic? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

note 2 minutes after this thread was posted and following the notification that Justtheme has been reported to WP:ANI he has magically removed the paragraph himself [41]. Do I need to say anymore? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"2 minutes after this thread was posted and following the notification that Justtheme has been reported to WP:ANI he has magically removed the paragraph himself" means that this is resolved. I don't think it's wikipedia policy to block or ban new editors for beeing unfamiliar with our policies. Taemyr (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He isn't that new... he says he's been editing for a while and has just threatened on my talk page to report me to administrators once Nicolo has been confirmed as a contestant. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He is new enough that he is obviously confused about our RS policies, also he has less than 30 edits. Threats are obvously bad, OTOH what he is actually threathening to do is to bring more eyes to the issue before reinstating the content, so I would recomend that you shrug those threats off :) Taemyr (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ignore those threats but in relation to his edits... But let's disect his/her edits for a moment: 1) the first source added allvoices.com only confirms that Nicolo audtioned in London but instead was used to claim something else. 2) The official youtube source confirms what song Nicolo autioned with [42] and the third source is twitter simply speaking about an airport. There is a large constitution of WP:OR here. And whilst I accept I might be seen to be harsh with the relatively new editor, he/she should be made to understand that threats (however idol) are not WP:CIVIL. Additionally someone needs to explain why his/her edits are incorrect per our policies as they don't appear to understand the warning templates. Thirdly it needs to be explained to said user that there are neutrality issues because he/she is claiming to have an affiliation to the subject being edited. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts all spamming references to a single book

The following IPs and accounts have all been adding references to a particular book to various articles about drugs, the British penal system, and towns in Yorkshire and Humberside over the past couple of days:

It's probably not a good case for a sock puppetry report, because the socking is so blatant. These are edit-only accounts following a pattern of edit warring and sockery:

• 86.139.198.225 (talk · contribs)
• SteveDollarPound (talk · contribs)
• StanCrafti (talk · contribs)
• MikeyJBC (talk · contribs)
• DaveyBoy12 (talk · contribs)
• Nailclipper1 (talk · contribs)

The book is "Lowlife: Life in British Prison with Drug Dealers, Gun Runners and Murderers" by Simon Eddisbury (John Blake Publishing). The editor is using the book as a source for facts on a number of articles, but the pattern seems to be consistent with a spamming campaign to advertise the book.

The book's official release date was a couple of weeks ago but the publisher's website doesn't even mention the book on its front page. There are no published reviews yet and this is the author's first work so there's no way of assessing the book's reliability. --TS 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate use of Wikipedia, whether the book is reliable or not. I've reverted the outstanding edits you didn't get from the above, and warned them all about promotion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also:

• GarryHomestead (talk · contribs)
• BeverleyStandChair (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed:

• MikeyJBC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DaveyBoy12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SteveDollarPound (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BeverleyStandChair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• StanCrafti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GarryHomestead (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nailclipper1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-working bot code snippets

I want an outsider(s) to comment on this dispute. --Kslotte (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and doesn't seem to require admin attention. Is there a particular complaint which does? Also, the request seems to be the very definition of a request for comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a RFC suits better. --Kslotte (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are:

• Mis-attribution of vandalism: [43]
• Inappropriate canvassing: [44]
• Repeated personal attacks in article talkspace, calling people "clowns", "delusional", "lunatics", "you are slimy and insincere", and other abusive language: [45] [46] [47]

[48] [49] [50]

• Repeated reversions without talk page discussion: [51]
• Edit Warring to the point an article needs protection: [52].

I admit I am partially to blame for the last item, however I have a total of 3 edits to that article in the past week, whereas Screwball23 has 20+, the majority of them contentious reverts against multiple other editors. I am not asking for the user to be banned; I simply ask that an administrator reacquaint him with policy so we can continue work on the articles in question. This user has hardened his position to the point that discussion or compromise just isn't occurring; every action is a total revert, followed too often by abusive language. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Several other editors here have noted other recent cases of Screwball exceeding 3RR and making personal attacks. He has also apparently been banned several times for similar actions in the past. I feel compelled to change my earlier opinion, and now feel action stronger than a warning is necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball does appear to have rather more then 3 reverts in one day. As to incivlity. Sorry but calling an edit or comment garbage is not a PA (however I may feel about this thats the rule) he does appear to call two eddds clowns, that may be PA but I doubt it. By the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3 is where you report edit wars (and this seems a very valid concearn).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast amount of issues appears to be stuff you'd report here; the edit-warring is just the icing. HalfShadow 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that saying something is vandalism when its not is reportable (unless done on a very regular basis (and I doubt it would be even then). The canvassing is an issue, but I think we really need more then this for sanction here. Most of the PA accusations will fail to convince (only one actually seems to be about the users not his comments and half appear to be difs of a history page, and i can see no PA’s there. The edit warring (and blatant 3RR violation) appears to be the only real issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Screwball23 has, indeed, used grossly incivil terms repeatedly with any who fall into his path. He does not, apparently, understand just why NPOV is quite so important in BLPs. Further his edit history, amounting to hundreds of edits in single articles, shows him to be a very single-minded person when it comes to inserting material he wants in BLPs. Further, he inserted a great deal of improper material into the History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment article [53] , and asserted that WP:BLP did not apply there This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP was the claim Screwball23 made. See also [54], [55], [56] etc. Multiple warnings over edit warring. Multiple extended blocks. Multiple civility issues. In all of under 3K total edits - of which over a third are about a single person! Not to mention an extraordinary block history (three times in the past few months, not to mention civility and canvassing warnings, etc.). As many know, I always oppose draconian punishments here. I might not comment on one here. Collect (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, calling anyone "delusional" or "insane" is, by any logic at all, a PA. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three blocks, plus additional warnings in the last few months? I had originally thought this was an isolated case, but it seems it may be part of a much wider pattern. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better diffs are needed. I have had to dig to find him calling some one delusional (its not in the diifs above but is part of the discussion the difs relate to) [[57]]. It might help matters then if we see the actual comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[58] if you think there is no support for it being in the infobox, you are delusional; [59] Collect is delusional to think that his view is unanimous on this issue. Sufficient? Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think its clear he has made PA on at least two users despite previous blocks. its not as if he is a new user either. He must by now kow his actions are unaceptable (or is unable to learn).Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't enough to warrant Admin intervention, I don't know what will. Frankly Collect, I don't know why you didn't just delete the section at its inception as clearly in contravention to WP P&G (WP:TALKNO) on talk page content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the record of the person. 3 major blocks in under four months is likely to indicate Screwball is a problem. That he used a section to attack me shows I have a fairly thick skin which he has finally breached. Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When an editor brings a complaint to ANI they should get their facts right.

• "Mis-attribution of vandalism" is a refer to an edit summary saying "POV vandalism" - not the same thing
• "inappropriate canvassing" is asking for advice by someone confused by WP dispute resolution processes
• calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[60]
• complaints of edit-warring should be addressed at the edit-warring noticeboard

Based on the above, this discussion thread should be closed.

My advice to Screwball23 is to read all polices and procedures, and use content dispute resolution. That will bring in other editors who understand procedure. The article involved is the biography of a controversial politician running for office. The article must present the subject as they are being reported in mainstream media. If the media give little coverage of some aspect of her biography then that is what we do as well.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I have to agree. He has however called users delusional. There are also otehr PA's.

:*calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[61] Read further down in that same link. To quote: "You're incredibly slimy and insincere". This is not an attack on an argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited edits are full of blatant personal attacks and edit-warring, and this editor has been blocked three times over the past few months, the most recent in July, for two weeks. A one month block would be appropriate at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD, this does appear to be a part of a larger pattern and "garbage" does not appear to be even close to the worst things that have been said and directed at users, not arguments. Silverseren^C 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can dismise "Mis-attribution of vandalism" and "inappropriate canvassing" I don't think these hold up really. The issue of PA is different and there does indead appear to be an issue here. He has called users Slimey, Delusional and insincre are PA. I also have to say that as the usre has been repeatedly blocked to do so again seems a waste of time, if he has not learnt by now he nevert will.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED, in the sense that 1) I've warned him for BLP violations, 2) He's called me "Collect's lackey", and 3) he's tried to start an ArbCom case against me on the basis of my cleaning up History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Diffs aren't that hard to dig up, and I can do so if desired, but I'm not seeing how this user is in any way, shape, or form a net positive to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to vote for a topic ban from the Linda McMahon or professional wrestling arenas if he continues to not get it, or an outright ban once he exhausts the patience of the rest of the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Three reverts on Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010 just yesterday: [62][63][64] On the procedural side, the editor has already been blocked twice for violating WP:3RR. On the content side, the editor appears to be adding content to the article that doesn't match what the source says (e.g. the source states "person1 said..." but the editor adds "person2 claimed..."). I think at the very least another 3RR block is warranted. This has been going on for a while. As you can see by the contributions the editor had reverted six times on 9/16 alone. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack by user:72.183.253.122

72.183.253.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just posted this to user talk:Paralympiakos. Even if the IP user and Paralympiakos were haveing disagreements, that doesn't excuse "your not the boss. you should stop before your account gets deleted for being such a fag." Some admin intervention would be appropriate, in my view. EdChem (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I don't really know who this IP is. I've had limited discussion with him/her and that was of a friendly nature (him/her asking if I was attending an upcoming event and me responding). Paralympiakos (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend the anon be blocked, rangeblock if possible to keep the from popping up on another IP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After some looking into it, this is about this issue. Currently, the official website doesn't say which fights will take place on the main card and which are not going to be shown. I came up with that compromise as it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL which the IP is crossing. (Excuse the MoS heading problem by me though, that was collateral damage in the undo). Paralympiakos (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, what's going on with this then? The user has stopped editing since and I'm fairly indifferent about seeing them blocked, considering they can on occasion come up with positive quality edits. It's just that I'd like to see resolution one way or the other. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a single instance of a violation of WP:NPA? Could this not have gone to WP:WQA first if it is? Especially considering the normal "good edits" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of Twinkle by Typ932

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding of twinkles purpose. Typo932 did not violate any rules --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, WP:Twinkle should be used to revert vandalism only. Well, here's an incident where User:Typ932 used it to revert good faith edits that are definitely not vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AAutomobile_classification&action=historysubmit&diff=385386899&oldid=385379686 Please do something about this. Netrat (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Have you discussed this with Typ932 before raising this here?
2. Have you notified Typ932 that you've raised this here?
3. The edit in question provided an edit summary - it wasn't a "vandal rollback", which I agree would be inappropriate use of Twinkle. Twinkle has options for "Good faith rollback", "Rollback with edit summary", and "Bad faith/vandal rollback" - this was not the latter.

TFOWR 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Typ932 of this thread--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this edit. Since the user provided an edit summary, this is no different than using the undo button. AniMate 10:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary ("reverted to revision xxxxx by user so-and-so") is obnoxious even if there is some text after it. It tells the user that their (ahem) carefully written edit got zapped by some kind of machine in a fraction of a second, instead of by another person. Better to just use normal editing for non-vandal reversions. 75.62.108.42 (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle is not a machine, it is a script that does the same thing as the undo button, it is just faster. 75.62.108.42, the edit by twinkle can be undone by clicking the undo button in the page history. Typ932 provided a edit summary of why he/she reverted the edit. He/she didn't break any rules by using twinkle, it is a valid tool made to make reverting faster. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Obnoxious? The purpose of "reverted to revision xxxxx by user so-and-so" is to just have an informative edit summary about which edits were reverted. --Stickee (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP75 - you do realise that with twinkle the decision to press the button is a human one, don't you? No machine is making any judgement. The script automates some manual tasks that would happen anyway. It's useful, not a way of bypassing individual judgement.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems no further administrator attention is needed here. Report here was a result of a misunderstanding of Twinkle's tools. --Stickee (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Lex and Terry

Resolved

 – Lex and Terry Deleted underCSD G11 Criteria The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone else take over monitoring the mess at Lex and Terry? This violates damn near every policy I can think of. – iridescent 13:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD G11 Nommed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Including a pretty obvious copyvio photo that's existed on Commons for ages... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

And Deleted under CSD G11 criteria by a third party The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Another look at AN3

I need to run for a bit. Can someone please take a long hard look at the last entry on WP:AN3? I mean the one about Jet Engine. There's clearly a 3RR violation, but since this seems to really be a nationalism dispute (a la Chopin) it may fall under digurwen or arbmac. --Selket ^Talk 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it justified to remove a deletions nomination when the nominator doesn't know what a page is about?

Resolved

 – Sock blocked, puppeteer community banned, AfDs allowed to run their course - Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently an editor User talk:Donald Schroeder JWH018 has nominated a bunch of Transformers articles (again). This guy doesn't even seem to be reading the articles or know what they are about, as he says in every nomination that he wants to get rid of "Gobots crap" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razorclaw, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (Transformers) and there about nearly a dozen other times. I've asked directly if he's joking about thinking they are Gobots, he isn't. He does point to a link about some character who did a "gobot" rant from some movie. ("And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots.") Can a deletion nomination be closed early based on clear proof that the nominator either doesn't know what the article is about or that he's making a joke out of the nominations process? Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can argue that the AfD be speedily closed as keep, and if the reason for listing is blatantly unfounded I believe an admin can close it as such. I'm not 100% on that though; it may be necessary to allow the 7 days to expire to gain consensus on closing it for such a reason (or per WP:SNOW). Someone else should be able to confirm or deny that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what the articles are about. They are "about" failing the WP:GNG standards and having no reliable sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that both of the AfDs linked to here have at least one additional, justified, delete !votes; such AfDs certainly can't be closed in such a way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 judging from his edit history and his talkpage appears to have some civility and ranting issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something there. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These nominations for deletion are all perfectly acceptable AfD nominations that should be discussed on their own individual merits. There is no ill faith on the part of the nominator, and as far as I can see there is no "speedy close" reason applicable. Let the discussions run their own course; the closing admins will be perfectly able to gauge the consensus. Filing this AN/I report is an example of frivolous forum shopping. And oh, by the way, if you are keen on Transformers, the Transformers Wiki is that-a-way -- I am sure they would be extremely appreciative of your efforts to enlarge their database. But Wikipedia is not a fanboy's magazine. 80.135.18.50 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Concentrate on the issue at hand, the continued failure for the majority of our Transformers coverage to have significant secondary sourcing, rather than constantly running to ANI to get people un-personed for raising that as an issue. Saying "gobots" instead of "transformers" is not in itself a flagrant example of bad faith nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Donald Schroeder's civility issues are not a reason to declare an AFD invalid, and even if he is mistaken about the cartoon series involved he is actually right about the lack of reliable, independent sources. And since there are good-faith delete votes at both AFDs now, an early close is ruled out. This recent spate of Transformers-related deletion discussions is the inevitable consequence of nearly two years of legitimate concerns about these articles. You should have made an effort to fix the problems when they were brought up, but you didn't. Ignoring people for two years and then whining loudly everywhere when the community finally gets fed up and gets on with things without you is not very constructive. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all that came from. You seem to have a personal problem with me. I had a legitimate question about nominations from someone who seemingly was just ranting about gobots in the nominations rather than addressing the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was intended as an honest criticism of your attitude towards this issue, not a personal attack. I do not hav