Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 14:35, 9 September 2013 (Robot: Archiving 4 threads from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit warring on Jesus

God knows that this article has had trouble enough as is, but there is now a bit of an edit war going on as per here. I find it very hard to imagine many would consider me neutral, which is why I won't step in, but I think it would help if someone did something fairly quickly. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's our friend in the section above, of course. Note that this part of the lede has been discussed at length, and that the edits nonsensically leave the header asking the reader not to change the wording of the sentence that they delete. Paul B (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What's going on with User:198.161.203.6? User:Greengrounds last edited at 21:13 6 September (UTC) and at 21:50 UTC 198.161.203.6 started reverting contributions by two users that Greengrounds has come into conflict with. Looks to me like he's logged out and done some poorly disguised harassment... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Major borderline insane reversions of content from Smeat and Ozhistory as shown here, and that IP is already a recognized sockpuppet account. I'm not a checkuser, but I think there is really good grounds for assuming sockpuppetry here. John Carter (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The IP belongs to a public library, so I think the previous sockpuppetry is immaterial. The connection to Greengrounds is apparent, though, and I would have already blocked if I weren't involved in some of these articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And now he's reverted me on Historical Jesus... --Akhilleus (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And this edit by Greengrounds in his account pretty much, in my eyes, is more than sufficient for a short term block, and probably a topic ban. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And told Akhilleus to go to hell on Akhilleus' user talk page here. A block is now definitely called for. John Carter (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours based on the edits above and subsequent grossly unacceptable behavior here. Others are free to review the block, of course. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate block. I was preparing to do the same until you beat me to it. Resolute 23:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something on the Historical Jesus article? It seems like people are edit warring over a line break with edit comments about representation of sourcing, or are people just having fun? I can't help but feel I'm missing something on the last five edits to that article. Canterbury Tail talk 01:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's related to , where Greengrounds indicated he was going to make a reversion to the first sentence of the article. I responded on the talk page , but (embarassingly) didn't notice that Greengrounds didn't make the change he said he was going to, but only altered a line break. Whoops!

Anyway, Greengrounds is indeffed now, so this problem is solved. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I want to re-bring this one up. I do find it worrying that you got so involved with this user that you ended up blindly reverting their edits without even checking to see what they were, and then reverted the IP logged out user again blindly. That speaks to a blinkered battleground mentality there and I find it a little concerning that you could perform such reverts without even looking at what they were and just assuming the user was up to no good. It's made even worse when you say to the user in question in the talk item you link above "Have you read them? Or are you just reverting blindly?" In that you accuse the other editor of just reverting blindly and then go on in your very next edit to revert blindly. I'm concerned here. (note I have no issues with the blocks, they're good and justified, just a little concerned with your own editing in this matter which is not exactly stellar.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why users like this seek to debate the historicity of Jesus in the Jesus article when we have a separate Historicity of Jesus article. I'm actually kind of sympathetic to these POV-pushers, in a way. I know they're wrong, but I was right there with them until I got to college and started studying it. I'm pretty sure the reason people insist that a historical Jesus never existed is because no one has ever bothered to give them a rational explanation. In my experience 99.999% of people who insist Jesus existed historically are not themselves historians, but are doing so based on their own religious biases. I'm actually impressed that the Jesus article can get away with citing Ehrman as the source for the statement that Jesus almost certainly existed, given this fact. Kudos! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Crap. I hit "Save page" before remembering to include my final remark. FTR, I'm with the American and German scholarly consensus on this. Jesus existed historically, but he was not the same as the Jesus of Christian confession. I just think that Christian fundamentalists need to stop misrepresenting what secular historians say as "See? Scholars agree with us!" Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri 88, since you've got some background knowledge on the topic maybe you can come over to these articles and suggest some changes. The editors who work on these articles are, by and large, not fundamentalists, and are quite aware of the American and German scholarship that tells us the Jesus of history is different from the Jesus of faith--the sentence in Jesus reads "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity." (And there's way more detail in historical Jesus.) So I wouldn't agree that on Misplaced Pages fundamentalists are saying that secular historians say "See? Scholars agree with us!" but there's a constant flow of editors who come in and loudly insist that the articles are dominated by Christian ideologues... --Akhilleus (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to say the Wikipedians who monitor the main Jesus article and so on are fundamentalists. I meant that IPs mostly based in the American deep south run rampant on articles in this area, and sometimes they don't get reverted. I'd hardly consider Saint Peter a peripheral article in the area, but when I tried to point out that virtually no secular scholars consider either of the two Petrine epistles to be genuine, my edit was very quickly compromised to say "some scholars reject the Petrine authorship of these epistles". They even had the gall to leave my source intact, meaning they were essentially committing a BLP violation by also claiming that this is what Dale Martin (professor at Yale) says. When I then tried to revert this somewhat farcical move, an established Wikipedian accused me of something problematic. That on top of what happened to me on Talk:Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism, where I questioned what seemed like a very inappropriate use of Bible quotes -- primary sources -- as references, and was immediately accused, again by an established Wikipedian, of being "one of those who think it's all based on the worship of Isis". I'm not interested in engaging in a broader campaign to clean up Misplaced Pages articles on Christian topics. It's a minefield/jungle out there, and I'll venture in to do some XP-grinding when I feel like it, but no more than that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Fish and karate possibly compromised

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.

The sysop Fish and karate (talk · contribs) was inactive between August 2012 and August 2013. In August 2013, they made the following edits which seem completely different than anything they (or any admin) would normally do:

I'm not sure what to make of these, but I don't think we can discount the possibility that the account is compromised. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if Fish and karate responds here and/or makes any edits after being given notice of this discussion. That may give a good indication of what is going on. Singularity42 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that F&K is (or at least was) in the UK, which would make the edits mid-morning, in case anyone was thinking WP:EUI. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

In all honestly, I don't think it points to the account being compromised, it looks more like someone typing a reply by phone or another device (based on the change in their capitalization tendencies and his lack of time spent editing). If you look at the replies they made they sort of make sense. One reply was to a image deletion notice, and he asked why was it deleted, it was a free image taken from his phone. While the second reply seems weird, it was in response to a recent notice that they were going to be desysopped if they do not make an edit, hence he says "wheeee look I make the edit." (it's widely known that a single edit per year means you get to keep your sysop bit if you're inactive). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can't find a single other contribution of his where he talks like he does in those two, and his comment about the deletion sounds like something a new user would post, but I suppose there's always the chance. Also, can another admin post when the image in question was uploaded, or if he has any other deleted contributions since August 2011 that seem off? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see why you find the edits concerning, Jack. He made an edit to prevent his administrative privileges being suspended. It was a bit facetious, but so what? The picture issue made sense to me. He uploaded the picture in 2005 and said it was a picture his sister made who ostensibly transferred any copyright to him. For the recent edit to be compromised, you'd have to assume there was something wrong with him in 2005. My guess is he's no longer very happy with Misplaced Pages (he hasn't edited much in many, many years), but doesn't feel like losing his rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It just sounds a lot less professional than I expect from his writing. I might just be paranoid, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's an oddity, really. If compromised, the user knows enough to use the four tildes to sign, but you would have thought they'd at least have tried to use the admin buttons. But no - so, as said above, not worth acting on at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Prestigiouzman

Straight off a block for editwarring Prestigiouzman (talk · contribs) continues to insert a quote from Laurence Gardner that he claims is from George Rawlinson into articles after it has been clearly explained to him that it is from fringe writer Laurence Gardner. See here for the sourc, it is clearly not Rawlinson. Also continued attacks on editors claiming censorship, trolling on his talk page and elsewhere, eg "it seems yis are startin te choke up a bit boys,and im just gettin warmed up ye see-" at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Celts. Sorry this is short, got to catch a train to London for a huge barbecuse festival! Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

would you mind telling us what knowledge you have of the Righdamhna to feel you have the authority to redirect the entire page--Prestigiouzman (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not only did Prestigiouzman return to making exactly the same edits the instant his block had expired, he left a message on my talk page at 4.25 this morning, "Wakey Wakey" to let me know he was doing it. He doesn't just want to get his nonsense inserted into various pages it doesn't belong, he wants to edit war. The problem with his source, a bit of ludicrous pseudohistory, and his misinterpretation of it has been pointed out to him repeatedly, and I don't believe he is so stupid he can't read his own source. He is a very determined troll, and short-term blocks only encourage him. He needs banned permanently. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have given you ground on this already, now you are redirecting entire pages, and undoing genetic highlights on the Irish people page, can you please explain why you are doing this--Prestigiouzman (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Your "genetic highlights", like the one did on Irish people are far too vague to be useful. You should know that Misplaced Pages can not act as source for Misplaced Pages, still your are using luxurious words as "censorship" over the removals. I am not aware that I have seen editors with two warnings for editwarrring on two different articles in avout two hours. The Banner talk 09:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I redirected the page as it was just a short dictionary definition of a term within Tanistry. There was no need for a separate article. The article on tanistry should be developed instead. Have a look at a couple of things on its talk page for ideas for development, like for instance is it true that only males were entitled to be chosen? - I'd like to see a citation for that. And another person has commented on that the term has been applied to similar customs elsewhere so probably the article should be made more general. If the article gets to some reasonable size then would be time to start splitting it up into logical sections.

And as to some other changes you allude to above linking Irish people and some people in India - being certain about a thing is not good enough if other people don't think so. What is needed is citations. Your ideas about associations is not good enough and comes under WP:Original research. Dmcq (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have become peripherally involved in this. What I see may be slightly different from what you all see so far, so I have left this message on the editor's talk page in the hope that they may start to understand the issues and how to work here. I see boundless enthusiasm and expertise and frustration at the brick wall of Misplaced Pages's ways from a new editor. I hope what I see is correct and acknowledge that it may not be. I'm hoping we have a case of frustrated expertise, hence my suggestion of their reading WP:ACADEME. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I realise that future editing behaviour must bear this out. The editor has made wise replies on his own talk page. I have hopes that this is likely to be sorted out and become the simple hurly burly of collegiate editing from now on. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. Meanwhile as he has been ignoring 3RR straight after a block for editwarring I've reported him again. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouting and roaring about censorship in not a good way to start. The classic "What? Why?" works far better... The Banner talk 17:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it disappointing when one tries hard to make the challenging new editor feel welcome and they immediately let you down. No-one can accuse us of not trying. 91.84.97.240 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The editor is now blocked one week per the report at AN3 as explained at User talk:Prestigiouzman#Edit warring at Irish people. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Khoka420

How this normal user can change the protection settings like that? https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=+Khoka420&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=

- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 08:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• He didn't change them. They simply moved from the old name of the article to the new one. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2 making everything personal and being completely incoherent

I have started two ANI threads on Enkyo in the last few weeks. The first had 3 participants other than me, of whom one agreed with me on the substance, one asked for more info, and one dismissed my concern and closed the thread before I had a response to give the second their answer. The second saw the previous closer return and continue to dismiss my concerns despite an abundance of evidence, despite four other editors either agreeing with me or requesting that user to at least listen to me. It ended by getting archived with no result. I decided to take some of Rjanag's flawed advice and take one of my issues with Enkyo to RSN. In this case my concern was his misrepresentation of very old, primary sources, some of which are in neither English nor Japanese and can't easily be checked by other users. Enkyo then came along and posted a 700-word rant that had almost no relation to the topic of my post, was largely composed in incoherent moon-speak, and made numerous assumptions of bad faith against me. The thread immediately went into TLDR territory, so I can't see it getting resolved there now, but this most recent post proves my earlier complaint that Enkyo needs to start discussing things in plain English (i.e., discussing things coherently). Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

When I read AN/I threads that start "I've raised two threads here in recent weeks..." my heart sinks, because the inference I draw is that having failed to get the desired result twice over, a third equally unproductive thread is going to result. Hijiri, you plead for administrative help: what admin tools or action would you like to see deployed here? Kim Dent-Brown 12:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This topic isn't sexy, and so while all but one participant agreed with me the threads got archived before anything was done. That one participant mistakenly assumed this was about content and sourcing rather than user behaviour. I decided to let ANI go for a while, and took one of the issues (which by itself was not a user issue) to RSN. Enkyo immediately proved that one participant wrong, by posting a very long, incomprehensible and completely off-topic rant. My first thread was closed because I had used bad wording: I wanted Enkyo to speak coherently on talk pages (i.e., use plain English) and some other users misinterpreted me as complaining that he was speaking a language other than English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I want an admin (i.e., someone Enkyo can't just dismiss as a troll or a POV-pusher) to tell Enkyo the same thing I (and numerous others before me) have: discuss issues like this coherently and stop misrepresenting sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This new thread is a pretext in a pattern which is not easy to parse neatly -- see here and here. At the same time, Hijiri88 continues "framing" a difficult-to-understand conflict, e.g.,

• revenge? -- see here? and here?
• grudge? -- see here?

This needs to stop.

Perhaps the fact that this is a pretext needs to be made explicit? I only hope that the mere act of naming it may diminish its power to cause harm. This targeting pattern does not help our wiki-project. --Enkyo2 (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I had been really hoping this wouldn't happen again, and I know that Enkyo2 has useful things they could contribute...but this is the exact same behavior that has lead to this editor being sanction in the past. In 2009, Enkyo2 (then editing under the name User: Tenmei) was topic banned and mandated to edit under guidance of a mentor, a process which was never very successful (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Tenmei and dispute resolution, and the first four Remedies). In 2011, as a result of Tenmei's editing in Senkaku Islands and related articles, Tenmei was topic banned from the subject indefinitely, banned for one year, and "advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Misplaced Pages editors." (see the first three remedies for the case). The statement above, which Enkyo2 also put on his talk page in a response to the OP, is the exact same style that has been a problem for Enkyo2, seemingly throughout his entire Misplaced Pages career. Perhaps one of the most irritating aspects (at least for more), is the attempt to "illustrate" disputes with graphics, as you can see in User Talk:Enkyo2#Enkyo PLEASE be coherent and stop making unrelated rants on talk pages. I honestly cannot figure out why Enkyo2 writes this way, and I do believe he is sincerely trying to communicate...but the result is invariably the opposite. Sadly...I'm simply not sure that there is a place for Enkyo2 in Misplaced Pages, which simply requires the ability to collaborate with other editors. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for like a topic ban on "Off-topic or difficult to understand talk page comments"? I have been saying throughout the same thing as you -- Enkyo is a good-faith user who makes a lot of decent edits. But even if all of his content edits were flawless, he needs to be able to communicate with other editors, because some of us have been editing the same area longer than him, and Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. I still think he can improve, but he needs motivation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since Enkyo2 started this little campaign against me he's barely gone more that 30 hours without editing Misplaced Pages, but following Qwyrxian's above post he's been out of action for 2 days. This seems very odd given that Qwyrxian appears to be advocating some kind of indefinite block or otherwise much harsher than what I'm asking for. I'd be willing to guess he's waiting for this ANI thread to get archived with no action again. Honestly what I want is a topic ban on "use of translations of pre-modern Japanese works as sources for factual statements". It's a bit of a silly TBAN, because in reality all Wikipedians are supposed to be banned from this kind of activity (misuse of primary sources essentially qualifies as OR), but since Enkyo doesn't seem to know it's not allowed, and since he has been getting away with it for so long and in so many articles (it's probably in the hundreds), it seems appropriate. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Enkyo, you've pasted the same reply above as appears in at least two other places. Copypasting makes it look as if you can't be bothered to address the actual question being asked. Would you leave the question of Hijiri's motivation aside for one moment and consider whether your communication style is optimal? Several editors seem to agree that it isn't. Can you see why this might be? Would you be able to change anything about it? Kim Dent-Brown 14:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

So...is this silence an indication that editors have to go back to Arbcom and have Enkyo2 banned there a third time in order to get anything done? I don't understand why a user who's twice been admonished and/or banned for the same behavior deserves any more chances, and I don't understand why the community wouldn't act on this.

I have to say, I'm really sorry about this because, deep down, in all honesty, I strongly suspect that Enkyo2 is probably a genius. Enkyo2 shows a scholarly commitment to deep research, a wide range of knowledge, at least some amount of ability to speak/read multiple languages, a penchant for deep analysis. Unfortunately, Enkyo2 is simply unable to present her/his (I recall it's his, but I'm not entirely certain) put his thoughts into a form that others can understand. Please understand that I mean the following with respect, but Enkyo2's writing reminds me of when the super-advanced alien race (or supercomputer) tries to talk to mere humans, and has concepts and perceptions that humans simply can't understand, so the end result is something between a philsophical treatise and a machine translation. I just don't see how such an individual, who has shown for many years an inability or unwillingness to communicate "on our level", can engage in a collaborative project. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. But I also suspect that we don't need a genius to tell us what a 19th-century French translation of a 17th-century Japanese work says, when we have English-language sources from top-class scholarly publishing houses that say the same thing (or that don't). As I pointed out on Rjanag's talk page, I'm perfectly willing to help Enkyo, and I'm not arguing for any kind of indefinite block. The question is whether he is willing to accept this. (Or perhaps whether it's my choice to make, given everything that happened while I was away.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Bump. Enkyo, you've chosen not to edit Misplaced Pages since your last post in this thread although I assume that you are continuing to read it and check your watchlist. It would be very helpful if you would reply here with any thoughts about your communication style and whether it might be improved to get your messages across more clearly. Kim Dent-Brown 21:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Nurhusien rangeblock

This user has been adding nonsense like this for a long time. It's easy to see that all the contributions come from a simple IP range 213.55.73.0/25 - see Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Nurhusien. Ginsuloft (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support: nothing but disruption of the project and sock puppetry. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that this editor appears to have been active at non-English Wikipedias and Commons too: see , , , , , , , and . Toccata quarta (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Rschen7754 18:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have just one small request: could someone please revert Nurhusien's vandalism at ? The edit filter there won't let me do so. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not autoconfirmed on Commons either. I removed it in 2 edits, since apparently the filter is triggered if more than 150 characters are removed: . Ginsuloft (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

IP disruption

Howdy. Graham87 and I, sleuths that we are, recently blocked two IPs, 109.154.83.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.154.90.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's irritating little stuff--dates and sometimes factoids are changed or added, with an edit summary funnily derived from the article title. They were quite prolific in their edits. Here's two questions for you all.

Does this look familiar to you? Have you run into this joker before?

Should we, or at what point should we consider a range block?

The latter especially is for the smart ones among you; Graham and I declare ourselves not knowledgeable enough and wash our hands of any collateral damage. Anyway, it seems likely that they did this before and are likely to do it again, so any previous experiences may be worth bringing up here. Thank you all, and have a GREAT Saturday, Drmies (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is an ELNEVER, right? Will I get in trouble for linking to ? :P

Seriously, though, interesting conundrum...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is a "depends". If it's uploaded to an official channel, it can be used. If it's "ripped" it's WP:COPYLINK. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Legobot is (was) malfunctioning

It appears that for a short period of time this morning, User:Legobot was editing logged out. User:Crazycomputers has blocked the IP, so there may be no further action needed. There is a corresponding gap in the bot's contributions as well. I'm notifying here in case anyone has additional insight into the issue. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

And I've unblocked. I've already stated that I fixed the issue when it occurred. Blocking internal IPs like 10.4.1.125 can cause issues for users who are using an internal proxy that passes XFF headers, so it probably wasn't a good idea to do so. Legoktm (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I somehow knew you'd already be on top of it. Thanks for the note. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to be running an unapproved bot, either. It was a great idea to block the IP until the problem could be fixed. NE Ent 12:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The bot was fully approved under harej/Chris, and I don't think anyone was complaining that RFC bot/GA bot were back. Furthermore, blocking any internal IP is a horrible idea because we now have XFF blocking, which means that anyone who's internet setup may be using internal proxies that send XFF headers, can get blocked. Legoktm (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions from User:VP44444

Hi, this is my first report at WP:AN/I, so if I make any foolish errors, or if I'm in the wrong place, I apologize.

VP44444 has been editing regularly at various articles related to SpongeBob Squarepants, which is a heavily-vandalized series of articles. While the user does often contribute what are technically "constructive" edits, their constructive edits usually appear after a spate of indecisive test edits, resulting in edit histories (and Watchlists) being flooded with their edits. The user has previously warned for edit-warring with themselves. User is unresponsive to warnings or discussions related to their edits., even though they have been specifically invited.

User toned down their indecisive edits slightly after receiving a final warning about their disruptive edit style, but their disruptions picked up again. If the editor is not capable of understanding why their flip-flopping test edits are disruptive, that should be addressed. If they are creating intentional disruptions, and attempting to mask vandalism behind constructive edits, that should be addressed. I notice that the user has twice previously been fingered as a possible sockpuppet/master. And though they have protested their innocence in the past, I do not see that this editor's contributions (while at times constructive) are typical of an earnest editor who makes a few mistakes here and there. Rather, it seems, there is either a fundamental incompetence, or a pernicious motivation.

The following are some examples of their disruptive edits over the last month or so. I focused more on patterns instead of recent edits:

Thanks for your time. I almost want to apologize for all the information, but I wanted to properly document the issues. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would support this ANI thread for this user. User has been reverting changes leaving no explanation. The one that really got onto my nerves was his revisions in the season nine article changing the directing credits to writing credits. I know he was just adding the "Storyboard" credits but not thinking that he would affect other columns, that's just nonsense. I have reverted that edit manually but he reverted me again without explaining why. He had also been disambiguating unnecessary pages to another pages like this which was then reverted by another user for being "unnecessary." Like what was mentioned above, user is not responding to warnings but persists on disrupting pages. I don't want to be the "bad" guy here or something and I don't want to say something that's bad but I have no choice. This user in question is helpful yet undesired in the project. I would suggest to have this user blocked (temporarily or indefinitely if the case have been so worse now) because of being so disruptive to the project. Thanks. Mediran (t • c) 01:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

My block of Dede12341

Dede12341 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously warned for BLP violations; I blocked it for decade/century vandalism, for which the editor had been reverted, but not warned. I have no objection to the block being changed to a 4-imm warning, but I don't see evidence that the editor is here for a constructive reason. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Good block looks like there was a final warning on aug 30th. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  My concern is that the final warning (and, in fact, all warnings then present on his talk page) were for BLP violations, and my block is for decade/century "vandalism". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but I would expect an account under final warning not to vandalise at all. Besides, it isn't like there's a lot of constructive edits to balance any of this out. Switching one's method of disruption doesn't wipe the slate clean. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Concept (Rapper)

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.

Johnhoward217 has removed 3 CSD tags from the article Concept (Rapper), one of which after being warned. The article shows absolutely no importance, and would have already been deleted by now if he didn't remove the tags. Hope this helps! buffbills7701 01:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

In my not-so-adminny opinion, this may assert notability enough to pass A7, "His type of music has influenced many of the people", "started his own label named Global Music Group". Granted I don't think this person is notable, but I'm not sure it meets the "no assertion of notability" required for A7. ~Charmlet 02:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If I created my own music label today, I still wouldn't be notable. "His type of music has influenced many of the people" is very weaselish, and also sounds a bit like a promotion. I hope this clears things up for you. buffbills7701 02:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not whether they are notable, it's whether they assert importance or notability in any way. In my opinion, it barely got by saying some things that look to be claims of importance. ~Charmlet 02:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)