Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604

Resolved

 – WP:AMERICANFOOTBALLPLAYERWHOCANNOTBENAMED himself.

Hi, I am being hounded by NawlinWiki at [1]. Basically, I need to get in touch with Jimno Wales to discuss some personal issues. Unfortunately, NawlinWiki has decided to appoint himself judge jury and executioner, describing my messages as "threats" (which they certainly are not!) [2], [3] & [4]. He then won't let me appeal and argue my case, (by blocking me, declining unblock requests [5] & [6] and protecting my talk pages [7]), and has reverted any "toned-down" (there were no threats in the first place!) messages as I have "abused multiple accounts" (which is extremely unfair given that i was never given a chance to do this with the first IP I was on). Please can someone sort this out, and let Mr Wales know that I need to speak to him urgently in private. Thanks, 79.75.181.144 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has e-mail contact info on his user page. If this is a personal matter between the two of you why don't you try that?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"We have 'issues'", "I must warn you that it is not in your interests to ignore me, as I will not simply vanish". Blatant harassment. Jimbo's a big boy and I'll leave it up to him whether or not he wants to take it seriously. But as for Wikipedia, blocked this IP for 1 year. --Smashville^talk 14:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All Tiscali IPs, hopping from one to another -- seems like User:The abominable Wiki troll to me. In any case, as Smashville says, this is clearly harassment and trolling (given that Jimbo's user page expressly states how to contact him). NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

79.75.128.0/17 blocked temporarily for abusing admins ;) –MuZemike 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean abusing editors... Surely there's no special penalty if you're abusing an admin? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no gain in abusing the rank-and-file editors. Abusing admins can get their bits revoked. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 22:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't read that last post without seeing a double entendre, probably unintended. Although I wonder which party will have their bits revoked -- the user or the Admin? And just how painful would that be? -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, British Airways staff are going on strike as of midnight UTC, 20 March. The article is likely to get a lot more attention than usual in the next few days. Therefore, as a damage limitation exercise, would it be worth semi-protecting the article for 10-14 days, or should we just keep a weather eye on it and only protect if IP vandalism becomes too much of a problem? Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I vote "weather eye". Watchlisting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Watch, use the same policy as we do for the mainpage. -- /

Notify Me

\ 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No more reason to protect this than any other article in the news. I've watchlisted it as well. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd be better off watchlisting the article on your own birthday if you want to stop drive-by vandals. BA? Sod 'em. Disclaimer: this user mey or may not be friendly to a greater or lesser extent with certain former directors of operations at certain airlines, with whom he may or may not be a frequent flyer anyway and of whom he may or may not have formed the view that they are a shower of dunces. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with guy, they're a bunch of twats and deserve everything coming to them 86.180.144.161 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing more we can do at this point. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

See cross wiki adits - all are vulgar personal attacks (nazi, homo, fascist etc., just like on other wikis). Pls block, -jkb- 14:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jkb- (talk • contribs)

thx, -jkb- 14:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -jkb- (talk • contribs)

He's blocked on this wiki. Try the Polish wiki? There's not much we can do.

Xavexgoem (talk

) 14:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user here on the English wiki, and he's already blocked on the German wiki. I deleted his edits here, too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is on multiple wikis, try Meta wiki. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The account has been locked by the stewards.

Talk // Contribs

19:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How is easy. Why is more difficult, but I suspect that at least that part was copied from elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 16:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's spam anyway, Mr. Gokhan Engun is listed as the main event contact at [8] and the creator is G engun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your definition of "spam" seems a bit too broad to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an article on a commercial entity created by someone employed in the promotion of that entity, that's not an especially controversial definition of spam here. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC).

The user keeps adding the Euro200 chart positions although it has been made clear to him or her that the chart is listed as a

Should be blocked for the User name. Woogee (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP Adress ""85.186.118.20"" don't stop to modify

Thanks . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zupfk (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Only one change then 2 reverts, so not 3RR. Warning given. Take to

WP:AIV. SGGH ^ping!

21:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi all. The Christ myth theory is simultaneously undergoing peer reivew and mediation. We've generally been able to keep these things separate, but that seems to have changed recently. An editor involved in the mediation just posted a snarky comment [15] on the PR page in keeping with her position in the dispute. Naturally, another editor involved in the mediation felt compelled to rebut the comment [16] in keeping with his position in the dispute. Would one of you wonderful administrators please remove these last two comments. I'd hate to see the PR page become just another place for the argument to play out. I'm afraid that if I do it myself since, as a party to the mediation, I'll be suspected of having acted in bad faith, or something. Eugene (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Could i get some extra eyes on this article? I believe that edits such as this one are non complaint to

Judging by the number of warning templates on their talk page,

I have warned the user. The next time

WP:AIV. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK)

01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Researcher88 has continued past warning and got blocked for disruption. Materialscientist (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to report this user who is obsessed with deleted and wrongfully altering the Wikipidia composer biography page Joseph Lerner which is a long time existing Wikipidia article. This user users inappropriateness and his/her suspicious activities are also discussed in other Talk's in Wikipidia. [[User:4meter4|This user] has been warned numerous times not to delete or alter the article incorrectly and unjustly. Researcher88 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2010

I don't see where you notified 4meter4 about this report, as you are required to do. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this report. First, I have never attempted to delete the

conflict of interest at the Joseph Lerner article. He has admitted to a close connection to the subject. Initially he copy pasted the official website of Lerner into the article which I removed. That prompted an edit war and an attack on my user page. See his talk page for the several warnings he was given and the block. He has since updated Lerner's website to include GNU licensing to allow the website content to be used legally. However, that only solved the copyright issue and not problems with COI and reliable sources. I have repeatedly tried to explain this to User:Researcher88 but he doesn't seem to understand. Please see my comments at Talk:Joseph Lerner.4meter4 (talk

) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest

WP:BLP policy and stop attacking WP editors who follow it. Their WP editing is very close to being disruptive. Materialscientist (talk

) 00:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

R88 has now been blocked for a week. But, I just noticed this edit to 4m4's user page. The edit summary contains an explicit legal threat which, as far as I can tell, has not been retracted. In my view, R88 should be indeffed until he withdraws the threat. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've indeffed him, and explained that if he does retract it while he still has his one week block he'll have to wait that out. Which does mean that if an Admin unblocks him after a retract they'll have to reinstate the one week block. I didn't know any other way to do this.

talk

) 13:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

User:P.t.rajan is removing sections and infobox from article P. T. Rajan repeatedly . He has done this 3 times in the past two days and (i suspect) twice from an IP. He tried to create a new article with the same name and that was speedied (as CSD:A7). After that he has come to this article and started removing whole sections. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Scratch that. I found out what he was doing. he has accidentally copy pasted the article twice and has been trying to remove the duplicate sections since. And it has triggered "page blanking" defenses.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And you got me all excited. Warning, protection, removal of warning, unprotection. I hope all is well now. -- Hoary (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Skäpperöd (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The file File:Eric XIV of Sweden.jpg prevents me from using another image with the same name, hosted at commons, on en.wiki. How do I move it to another name, so it won't interfere with the commons' image anymore? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to File:Eric XIV of Sweden (2).jpg. Moving files is something only admins can currently do, AFAIK. Otherwise, the only way would have been to deleting and re-uploading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Deleting is also not really an option to me, so I am glad you moved it. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to notify the user. From what I can see Chris, your edit summaries "watch who you call a vandal, dick. I gave a clear reason for my revert, what's yours?" are as uncivil as his "you can put back the nationalist propaganda if you want but the actual facts must stay". Forgive me, but this edit does have a reference in it. Perhaps the caption could be changed to "according to". The previous caption was uncited. This is a content dispute, not vandalism, and as such you are both under the restrictions of

WP:3RR. I have advised on the article talk page that reversions stop until content dispute is resolved. SGGH ^ping!

13:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I lost my cool too but I got tired of having so many of my edits reverted by Kintetsubuffalo on this article and others. The problem is that I rarely see him making any contribution on the articles on which he is making so many reverts, and he is rarely on the talk pages either. Wikipedia works by consensus - not just by reverting other people's stuff and moving on.

talk

) 15:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Deleted per CSD G7 by User:Tim Song. --Taelus (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See this edit. I am not certain if this is true or not, but i left a basic a basic

If it is a notable topic, then she can't request its deletion because she doesn't want the page to exist. The knowledge of her existence is in the public community, so it can be put on Wikipedia. If I wrote it about her she couldn't request it be deleted because she doesn't want the info on Wikipedia could she? SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I hasten to emphasise: if the topic is notable, then I believe the above applies. If not, it could be CSD or AfD anyway. SGGH ^ping! 17:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems centre on scroll saw but there have been issues on other articles. Relevant activity began a few days ago with links to various Fox Chapel Puplishing sites added by 173.163.134.97. These were generally not strong enough to justify ELs anyway but Dig shows that the hostname for that IP address is gateway.foxchapelpublishing.com, therefore this is a clear conflict of interest and spam which I reverted. Links were subsequently re-added by two other IP editors and reverted each time.

Then user:Gloden, apparently a new account, also began adding these links. Other links have been added apparently in an attempt to conceal the relevant links but the link to www.scrollsawer.com always remains.

This has been too slow burning to trigger a 3RR (although it is arguably still edit warring) but the persistent re-adding of these links and their inappropriate nature leads me to believe this matter needs some form of administrative attention even if it is only active monitoring of the issue.

I don't see where they have added the link since their last warning. I agree, if they add it again, then a block may be in order. Lets see if they respond to the last warning and to this discussion if. I would support a block if they continue from this moment forward. But lets see where this goes... --Jayron32 04:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I must say, I was not aware of what in the articles was annoying the bots, or what I thought were bots, so I reverted, and reverted, and reverted. The article in question is weak at best and I am trying to add some meat to the otherwise weak article. I have been looking at other entries where crispmuncher has been repeatedly reverting contributions for a while. I'm still looking into the nature of these edits and the specific history of that editors influence on this article. In the Scroll Saw community, regardless of who owns it, www.scrollsawing.com is a goto "FREE" source for forums and a wide breadth of information. I am not associated with any commercial interests with that site, but in this community, that is where scrollers go. I had started a disscussion on one of their forums about giving this article some depth so that when users are looking to find out a little more about "scroll sawing" they don't get a glossed over simple article that ceases to even discuss the primary project types of the project or give anything more than an association. You can see the discussion of this article on their forum at: http://www.scrollsawer.com/forum/general-scroll-saw/29567.htm. You can see link suggestions by other scroll saw users and etc, and note, this thread began before the first wiki edit.

Adding the most common references in our "circle" seemed to be the best way to quickly add some depth to the aricle. Adding aricle to describe terminology (for a better understanding element of that craft), takes a greater amount of time. To appease the "gods", I've ripped out the www.scollsawing.com link. This type of attitude toward contributers is not what made wikipedia great. It is a shame for crying out loud. After all this time, it's no wonder it is what it is.

Randy Gloden [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read over the guideline on

MrOllie (talk

) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any of the original links you guys are going to allow to stick?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a complaint about the way this has been handled. My original goal was to try to strengthen the scroll saw article. I'm new at this, and broke some rules, reverting, links to forums, etc. and etc. Thats a given, and I don't deny it. I wasn't sure why the article was being reverted, nothing was showing up on the talk page for the article nor on my own. If you look at my edits, my first guess was that the commercial patterns link was the issue and you can see that and a few others I removed in an attempt to please the bot and wiki gods. While looking back through the history, I finally noticed a refernce to www.scrollsawer.com and then I removed that link. Ollie reverted again.

I did not revert again as evidently, I'm getting hit from a different angle now. So, having stopped the reverts, and well on my way to getting a better handle on the policies, I start a talk page, hoping to be able to explain why, in this specific situation, the original link in question should be reconsidered. So while no further reverts are happening, instead of staying with the topic, CrispMuncher and Olie adds threats of blacklisting or banning based on revert that had already ceased. Really? Are we all under the same rules of conduct? Does this reflect vindictiveness, or it that just the way things happen here? Gloden (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Crispmuncher: communication consisting of one welcome template and edit summaries is rather thin. Sometimes there is a learning curve with

So, Ultimately I'm a Spammer? Very nice guys. I'm done, you win, I'll not have any dealing with Wikipedia going forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Canonical case of

WP:ROUGE

, even spelled correctly

(e.g. rouge admins and their bots and aliases) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.218.218 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you report administrators and bots who vandalise?

First of all, please stop posting this all over the place, it's inappropriate. I'm looking into this. Rodhullandemu 22:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

He who shall not be named, hmm? Woogee (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at it. Empty complaint, nothing to see here. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very valid complaint! Please check refs on Peter Bielkowicz and health and other attributes (such as the cropping of ears) on Dogo Argentino plus recent edits to both pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.235.46 (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to start blocking people who keep reverting this section. Woogee (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Latest Whack-a-Mole blocked. But a credible

WP:RANGEBLOCK is building up nicely, thanks for being the fish in the barrel. Rodhullandemu

23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually disappointed my name didn't get mentioned in his complaint :( Jarkeld (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as he's taking them of himself, he's not violating copyright, and there's no problem with personality rights. While the photos are certainly not my cup of tea, Wikipedia is not censored and the user hasn't done anything to earn a block. I notice he has also edited articles on military planes, so he's not here just to upload images of his genitalia. I'm not an administrator, but this is the way I see it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as he is using the pictures of his junk constructively, then we shouldn't try to dissuade him. If penises disturb you, just apply brainbleach as needed and move on. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

When I look at my watchlist and hover over the link to ANI I get an image of a nazi flag. Someones idea of being funny and making a point? I can't see where it is coming from. Could someone nuke it? JodyB _talk 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I use the popups script if that helps. JodyB _talk 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Popups shows the first image on a page. The only image on this page (currently) is a tiny Nazi flag in a post by Baseball Bugs, where he was trying to be humorous (not describing admins, but making a point about someone accusing admins of being nazis). I don't see the need for nuking it, but don't see the need for keeping it, so now that I've provided info, I'll sit back and see what happens. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the popup feature, as I have all popups disabled. But maybe there should be some kind of image at the top; maybe the one to the right, maybe another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And I don't call other editors Nazis (except when they actually are self-described Nazis) as that's too much of a cliche even for my low standards. Morons, idiots, vandals, trolls, socks, and even (gasp) upstarts, ja. Nazis, nein. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Something has gone awry. It is supposed to show admins eating babies whilst whacking the block-button at speeds which would cause RSI in anyone else. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, since it bugged you, I've removed the image. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of replacing it with File:Monster Raving Loony Party.png. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm holding out for this --Ludwigs2 16:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad idea, Wikipedia shouldn't be taking a stand between Narutards and

Luffites. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori}

) 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I say that we put this image up top. →
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I thought, incorrectly, someone was making a point. But since that was not the case it doesn't matter one way or the other. JodyB _talk 11:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Unapproved bot blocked, articles deleted. –xeno^talk 18:20, 22 March 2010

Let me just preface this by saying that this is my first ANI report, and if I'm in the wrong place, let me know. Between 05:00 and 05:06 UTC,

Many thanks, Ironholds (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Merged with the above thread on the same user.

talk

) 05:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference. In Tratra's articles, the {{PAGENAME}} was not subst'd.

talk

) 05:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block -- unauthorized bots are not allowed. The article subjects are very different from User:ChinaRailwayENGED, but that's after a somewhat cursory glance. Not enough for me to say WP:DUCK. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block, I had left this user a message about this, but got no reply, despite it being clear that he had read the message.

WP:BOTPOL says we can assume he's a bot, and unless he's going to reply to the concerns on his talk page, I'd say we should. - Kingpin¹³ (talk

) 06:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fully Endorse block. Looks like the block worked, it got his attention and he finally piped up, explaining in his unblock request: "want to fill red links and let number of articles goes up". Sounds to me like all this user cares about is watching the article count rise with absolutely no regard to quality, as if he's trying to get a high score in some video game. This is not improving the encyclopedia. -- œ^™ 11:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. I am still working on getting my bot approved for this task. Can these articles be deleted quickly before someone makes changes? I am still revising the data that will be used to create these. So the Ganeshbot articles will be different from what this user created. Please let me know. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked again. They seem to be perfect copies of the same content. Ganeshbot creates articles that have unique references. Here is the list of articles that Ganeshbot created for the bot trial. Please note the reference link will be different in each of those. So all the content from this user needs to be considered spam and speedy deleted. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the bot-generated articles. Nakon 04:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nakon. Phew! Ganeshk (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just out of curiousity, if one had a great interest in these sea snails, could this article(s) be created if done in good faith? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, they qualify inherently as they are species. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A report has been sitting at

• Although this is not a BLP there are definite BLP issues here, the level of warring is low but it would bear more eyes I think. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Large scale as in this has been going on for what seems like about a week back and forth, perhaps not 3 reverts a day, but 2 every day, etc.--Terrillja _talk 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If that is large scale these days then we have really moved on :-) Guy (Help!) 20:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. The talkpage has sort of fallen into a case of

WP:TLDR and it has been spread across a number of noticeboards, just getting tired of this while thing dragging on and wasting peoples' time.--Terrillja _talk

20:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See

WP:AN3#User talk:Ghostofnemo reported by User:Cptnono (Result: No action). Editors should work together on the talk page to see what wording can gain the most support. If there is no serious attempt at negotiation, full protection may be the next step. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This is actually a separate issue. Another editor removed a large chunk of info and its re-inclusion was part of several reverts by GoN. I have little opinion on this one so have not discussed it much.Cptnono (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Admin has advised the editor to stop edit warring.

William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues his campaign to have the Fort Hood incident labeled a "terrorist attack", despite a lack of consensus for that either here or in the sources. He's already been blocked several times. I think this needs further attention than just WP:3RR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors are ignoring the page's criteria for inclusion. Baseball Bugs and O'Fenian refuse to discuss the issue on the talk page. They just mindlessly revert. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed the issue, however there is dispute between several editors and William S. Saturn about whether the incident meets the inclusion criteria. William S. Saturn will not engage in any meaningful discussion or seek outside opinions, just continually edit war. O Fenian (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Saturn has been told time and time again that there is no consensus. He chooses to ignore that in lieu of pushing his particular point of view on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the inclusion criteria, editors are just making up their own criteria for inclusion, and ignoring the actual criteria found in the lead. I asked O'Fenian a question several days ago, which he has refused to answer. I have no problem with meaningful discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you are edit warring, and that is against the rules and is futile in any case. You're at the 3-revert edge right now. You were unblocked on a promise not to edit war. You need to keep that promise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as edit warring because O'Fenian is simply ignoring the criteria, and is therefore being disruptive. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Naturally you wouldn't see your behavior as edit warring, but repeated reversions against consensus are edit warring, by definition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

How am I editing against consensus? I'm just following the page's criteria. No one has argued against that criteria. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, there is no consensus for labeling that event terrorism. Nor is there consensus to allow edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps among editors, but reliable sources must be used to determine if an event has been labelled as terrorism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

William has been warned now. Should he revert it again (and I mean whenever that should happen, not just in the next 24 hours), I'll block him. If there truly is consensus for his edit, then someone else will no doubt make it so he doesn't have to. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I just reviewed the talk page and what shocked me was the blatant soapboaxing by Saturn. I think he needs to be warned about it and stick to discussing the article.

As someone else pointed out on the incident's own talk page, this is not just a content dispute or an edit war. There is also a BLP issue, as only a few sources have called the guy a "terrorist", and supposedly he has not been charged with anything that labels him a terrorist. So calling him a terrorist is a chancy BLP thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Durova⁴¹² 03:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently saw this change to Latin America by 187.146.58.83 (talk · contribs) (a user with only 3 edits to 2 pages) with the edit summary of "(Reverted to revision 350669670 by 146.164.40.134 (talk); Vandalism . (TW))." I don't think that an IP should be using Twinkle, and I don't really know about this. It does, however, not actually appear to be a revert. I have not reverted this change. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

It's fake. Anyone can copy "Vandalism . (TW)" into the edit summary. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

^Agreed. TW requires an autoconfirmed account, which no IP is. Probably a copied edit summary. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:17, 21 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Reverting the edits. Yeah, It is clearly fake now that I look at it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Regrettably we have now had to move into escalating blocks, hopefully an offer of mentoring will be accepted.

Levineps (talk · contribs) was banned from "Moving or Renaming any Page" as a result of this discussion on AN/I. As that thread makes clear, this new ban was an expansion of previously imposed sanctions that, among other things, banned him from editing in category space. The complete sanctions can be seen on his user page.

Notwithstanding these very clear and very absolute restrictions, he has engaged in several page moves recently, as can be seen in his logs here. This is not his first violation; see also this AN/I post from January.

None of this has stopped him from repeatedly asking for his restrictions to be removed, both here on AN/I and to individual admins, apparently on no other basis than the passage of time. The latest request is here, from yesterday. Ironically, the decision to extend his restrictions to page moves arose only once he posted a request for an end to the sanctions on AN/I. postdlf (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I belive a short 24 hour block can be justified in this case. We need to tell show him that these restricitons are there for a pourpose and he cannot just ignore them. Perhaps a mentor should be given to him as well...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with WS) Sigh. I followed the earlier discussion and was going to close it in the same way, but was beaten to it. The consensus was not "no page moves unless they are in fact good ideas" - it was for a blanket ban on Levineps carrying out any page moves. I would be inclined to give Levineps a time-limited, non-trivial block for this clear violation, but I'm about to get some sleep so wouldn't be around to discuss any block I might issue further, so I'll leave this for others.

Bencherlite

^Talk