Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive724

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives



Shii (talk · contribs) This user continually is making personal attacks against me.

Comment attack

Talk page personal attacks, NPA warnings Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's important to remember to notify a user when you make an ANI report against them; I've done it for you. Basalisk inspect damageberate 14:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've already started a discussion of this content dispute and edit war at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (Ctrl+F and look for my name), and Me-123567-Me is talking with me there. I think having to maintain the discussion on three (!) separate pages at once is a little overwhelming. Shii (tock) 14:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You reported yourself for edit warring and are complaining about the need to maintain discussion on 3 seperate pages? Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, the self report at AN/Ew combined with [1] makes it seem like you're just fooling around. I suggest you stop it now if you don't want to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I did as the user themself asked - and they have a block for a whole range of improper behaviours; the length according to the level of disruption overall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Shii has been an editor here since 2002. Has this strange behavior ever been a problem before in the past 9 years? Because I find it odd for that to start after such a long time of productive editing.--Atlan (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's a compromised account? It's truly odd behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What did Me-123567-Me do to provoke this, anyways? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The self-filed 3RR report by Shii had to be caused by something, but having been able to interact reasonably well for so long ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it's both: an enemy of Shii could have hacked or compromised his account. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 22:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There is no technical indication that anyone else is using Shii's account. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's odd nonetheless, but we'll see where they go from here.--Atlan (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Shii has a strange sense of humor. He contacted me off-wiki to assure me his account wasn't hacked; I'm not sure if I should unblock, though, since Bwilkins' block rationale was for the incivility on the article itself. humblefool® 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think the possibility of hacking arrived until after the block for other purposes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
<-- Shii has now requested to be unblocked, characterizing the request at WP:AN/EW as a request for help with the dispute, and his "turning myself in" as humor (rather than trolling). This is where I'd post one of those "Not sure if serious..." image macros... UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
An admin "turned himself in" as a cry for help on dealing with a situation? *blink* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that was my thought. Thus, why I brought it here instead of declining outright. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Admin status[edit]

Shii is an admin. Such behavior is entirely inappropriate for any editor - especially an admin. Perhaps. While no admin privs appear to have been used, I think a review of administrator status is in order whenever an admin is blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Shii is just having mental health issues. Maybe we should wait until the block ends. I am thinking on this situation: "Why would I block myself". Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, even if that's the case is it a good idea to have admin rights with these kinds of mental health issues? Noformation Talk 03:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't overstate this guys. Maybe he was inebriated or something like that. A bit of trolling is not proof of serious mental health problems. Talking to himself [2] did sound a little weird, but maybe he did it for the theatrical effect. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as someone intimately familiar with the mentally ill, and the capabilities of an admin: don't worry about it. Unless you have specific reason (examples not included because of WP:BEANS) to suspect immanent harm, contact ArbCom and/or a steward. Otherwise, please avoid speculating on the mental health of others based on sparse information and exaggerating the danger of it. Administrators are not cops. We don't carry guns. --Tznkai (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Concur ... leave mental issues out of it. That said, I look forward to hearing from Shii when possible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
And it's not like we can delete the mainpage anymore. Alexandria (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that Toddst1 is likely correct. If they "don't know" where to go for help, so turning themselves in as "humour" is what they considered the best way forward, something is wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
As a non-admin observation, I have interacted with Shii for a long time in editing Religion, and I've long noticed periodic incidents of Shii being needlessly battleground-inclined when other editors question some very esoteric academic theories about the subject. It's made me wonder about them being an administrator, I have to admit, so I'm sympathetic to the thinking behind Toddst1's opening post. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Block not in line with current policy and normal practice[edit]

As someone who has been watching this thing unfold from the outside, the current 72 hour block appears to be much more punitive than preventative and goes directly against the Purpose and goals of our blocking policy. Shii hadn't even edited in nearly 7 hours before the block was placed so there is simply no way to claim the block to be preventative. His last edit prior to the block was at 14:33, 17 October 2011 [3] and the block was placed at 21:12, 17 October 2011. [4] Further, this bit of poking (and elsewhere) by User:Me-123567-Me would eventually begin to irritate even the most veteran of editors.

Shii has been an active community member since 27 April 2002 [5] and an administrator since 6 February 2006 [6] (RFA). Those of us who have interacted with Shii in the past can certainly speak to his unusual sense of humor (which actually tends to be an asset while dealing with troublesome individuals), but that was also no reason to block him. Considering that Shii had an otherwise clean block log, and has been an active community member and administrator for a very long time, a 72 hour block as a very first block seems highly unusual. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Shii has apologised. Block pulled as a result.©Geni 12:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Tothwolf, thank you for the spirited defense. However, I do think I have "done wrong". Most of the communities I participate in on the Internet encourage creative and sometimes unusual repartee between members-- for example, Reddit. Wikipedia is different, I already know it is different and I expect different behavior from the community at large, so I'm afraid I have not been living up to those common standards. If I was disruptive to anyone, I apologize. It was absolutely not my intention to disturb the encyclopedia (and see my talk page for a much longer and detailed apology). I will go back to editing now with a humbled spirit, and I will look at disputes differently in the future. Finally, this block was really weird, and was a jumble of acronyms like WP:OR and WP:TROLL, which do not appear to be policy. Like Tothwolf, I don't really understand the point of it. I'm always ready to talk with people, and I've never proven unreasonable! Shii (tock) 12:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:OR is a policy. Kind of an important one, too. Good luck, Shii! Doc talk 12:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quite right! I meant that it's not usually used as a block reason ("Somebody stop me before I original research again!") Shii (tock) 12:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
My main point was the block did not seem to be preventative and hence not justifiable under current policy or standard practice. I too found out the hard way that not everyone understands sarcasm and less obvious forms of humor. Last year I found myself indef blocked (ultimately lasting 18 days) when I made some ill-advised sarcastic remarks off-wiki via email while frustrated with a long term problem I had been dealing with since 26 May 2009. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As the blocking admin, here's what I saw: 3RR, significant NPA's, sarcastic responses when the "victim" asked him to stop, and the muddling around creating self-reporting EW entries showed me someone fucking around, and not caring when asked to stop. I combined the individual issues to a slightly longer block - yes, based on these, the block was preventative.
To be honest, I did not check that he was an admin before blocking - it wasn't until afterwards that the concerns around the behaviour unbefitting an admin came forward. I have no issues with the unblock, based on the apparent sincerity of the apology. I continue - based on a chain of e-mails between Shii and I this morning - to be concerned about the skillset of an admin. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sigh. Even though I've not seen any of the private communications between you and Shii, given the public back and forth, there is little doubt some of it has been heated. Based on my own email situation with the admin who blocked me that I briefly described above, the advice I'd offer here given my own experience is for both of you to simply back away from it and let it go. Nothing beneficial is going to come from more heated discussion at this point. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No need to mention sticks to me ... I've made recommendations to the editor. It's up to them if they follow. Calling it an unjustifiable block without even reading any of the background seemed ... bizarre to say the least. Hopefully you have a better understanding (although seeing as your original subheading title remains, I doubt it) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

purely promotional userpage[edit]

Not sure whether I am at the right place, but the page NIKHIL MAHARAJ (talk · contribs), which is so far the only edit[7] of the associated user account, seems to have purely promotional purposes. In addition, NIKHIL MAHARAJ (talk · contribs) is an alternate account of Nikster115 (talk · contribs), as suggested by his own statements[8],[9] on his own userpage. Some attention might also go to Nikster115 (talk · contribs), as all of his edits since opening the account deal with himself, even his only 2 edits[10],[11] outside his username space at Nigahiga. --Túrelio (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The userpage has been deleted (next time you can add {{db-promo}} to the top of it). I'll look into the other aspects in a sec ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice that popups tells me that Nikster115 has 85 edits but his contributions log contains only five. I guess that means the other 80 involved edits to now-deleted pages. His only two edits to article space are acts of vandalism. Two more are to add to and delete from his own talk page personal information about Nikhal Maharaj. The fifth was a personal message to himself at User talk:NIKHIL MAHARAJ. I think an admin should try to determine whether he's here to edit an encyclopedia and act accordingly. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Disrupting Albanian [12], possible owner of: [13], and [14]. Majuru (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. TNXMan 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rapid-fire spam[edit]

See (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) I think this is a bunch of spam for a telecommunications firm... —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

When opening an ANI discussion about another editor you should inform them of the discussion. I've done it for you. Regards Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The IP is now blocked. Keep an eye on those articles in case he starts socking. Basalisk inspect damageberate 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I just saw the notice about this on anon's talk page. In addition to being promotional, the information is untrue in most (if not all) cases; I've removed it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Articles for Creation severely backlogged[edit]

There are currently 315 pending Articles for Creation submissions waiting to be reviewed. Over the past week, the backlog has increased by about 20 submissions a day. The number of submissions submitted per day has gone up from about 83 to about 170. There are still a number of reviewers reviewing the submissions, but even then, we can't keep up with the numbers. Yes, I know this doesn't require administrative assistance. However, this is one of the most watched noticeboards, and this is an incident. Articles for Creation needs more reviewers to get the backlog back to the normal levels (45 submissions at most). Please help us sort the issue out. For those new to Articles for Creation, I would be happy to explain the process Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. If you have any questions, ask AQ or myself on our talkpages, or in #wikipedia-en-afc connect. Thanks!!! AndrewN talk 19:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Inspite of my repeated warnings, User:DBigXray is continuously wiki-stalking & wiki-hounding me just because he couldn't resolve the matter on the talk pages as early as he wanted. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].

On the relevant articles, commenting is one thing (yes he might be right on some occasions, but trivially that's why a discussion on talk page is taking place), but starting sections like "edits by 'so n so user'" and then posting a copy paste of that everywhere has pushed my patience over. Yet I have not made any inflamatory remarks on any talk page against him.

You can see him continuously campaigning on the talkpage (and editing) each and every article I have edited (regardless of the fact that his comments have no relation to pages) like [20]. The 'non-reliable' sources he's mentioning aren't even being used here and in so many other pages of which I have now lost count.

Edited my talk page [21] [22] [23] to put up with the harassment campaign and spammed it with the same issue about's reliablilty which I was readily discussing on the articles to which it was cited. Infact I even let them be making no more edits since at least two days. Yet there's no way that I can stop him of pursuing wp:canvassing.

And then after I got tired of his repeated comments, I told him politely not to edit my talk page again soon after which he posted the same spam on my page [24]. He also disrupted the article in question [25] and added unattributed content even though a clear consensus was just established with other editors on the talk page [26].

Also, I'll like to add his hostile attitude in his initial interaction with me [27] assuming vandalism instead of good faith. At another point in the same initial interaction he warned me about removing content from my own talk page, when it is trivial that diffs are always there and I'm not hiding something [28].

The issue is not of the current sources and their reliability he has mentioned because I'm open to discussion and have even stopped reverting (without violating 3rr) on the pages in question. I've exhausted all ways of explanations and warnings, and I'm sure he will continue to keep this campaign going since he goes for an edit war as soon as I revert & talk on page (see the references provided). I'm sure he simply stalks my contributions.

  • Saw an allegation of sock-puppetry from him [31]. Even though I don't have huge edit counts, but I've been registered since 5 years and I'm open to all verifications. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be to see a response by DBigXRay first. My intial thoughts, after reading the diffs and your arguments above is that neither of you really have much standing here. DBigXRay has been taking WP:CIVIL to a bit past its limits with all the caps usage, you've been threatening him with sanctions (so has he). I'd like to see his argument in this situation. It seems like the best course of action would be to just stay away from each other at the moment. Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 13:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read through all this yet, but after looking at a little bit I can make a helpful suggestion straight away – a lot of this would be much easier to clear up if you included edit summaries, particularly when making edits which could be seen as contentious. It would give him less of a leg to stand on if he starts reverting. Basalisk inspect damageberate 14:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is that he's pasting the same content (about a given source and my 'vandalism') all over, even to the pages that are not related to those links. I haven't threatened him anything above warnings to be reported on edit warring and warnings in response to him blaming me with vandalism and repeatedly editing my talk page with spam. Its the canvassing that's the problem.
I do put in edit summaries (mostly) to which he simply reverts with vandalism tags. I've seen him doing stuff like masking his edits and removing previously established reliable and neutral sources under the cover of wiki-linking some text in another paragraph (and mentioning only that in edit summary). [33] --lTopGunl (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have repeated it on a number of occasions on talk pages that i dont have any personal grudge against any user. If the edits on a page i see are not in accordance with the reliable sources, i raise the issue on the talk pages. About wiki-stalking & wiki-hounding The admins can see that i have a number pages in my watch list (about military history(my interest)) that have been edited. I dont need to stalk any user to see if new Changes have been done in these pages, i get the notification on my watchlist page itself. after this while verifying the edit on the page in my watchlist ,often i need to see (related/main article of that incident) if i come across a related page that has also been edited by the (same or different) user. i raise the topic on the talk page and/or revert the change if it is in clear violation of the entry as cited. I always give enough discussion on the talkpages of the articles i edit. Whereas lTopGunl (talk) Seldom disusses the issue on the talk pages. recently he has done a number of edits with the title removing POV on Edit Summary, he does not even care to explain what led to his conclusion that he is removing POV (while in fact he is inserting one).2.i have raised the issue of non reliable source on talk pages, as i felt it is necessary to point out this mistake. 3 an EDIT WAR always occurs when both users keep reverting without discussing.Whats more surprising is user lTopGunl reverts the edits and warns other user of EDIT WAR (without considering that the very last revert that he has done (while warning other guy) also falls in the Category of EDIT WAR and he is equally responsible for EDIT WAR by reverting (without even discussing on talk page about reverts)) The Time stamps of talk pages and reverts can be observed. This disagreement of opinions would have never arised if user lTopGunl had spent time in voicing his opinion on respective talk pages of articles that he edits, like me rather than Warning others and FRAMING CASES & false REPORTING. About the allegation of Canvassing i would like to clarify that i have told about the edits on articles to an experienced wikipedians and on Noticeboard of India related Pages to verify the change since i am a newbie, is it bad to get opinion of other editors who are interested in these articles on the recent edits to for the the sake of neutrality ? --dBigXray (talk) 20:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • also it can be checked that lTopGunl (talk)( in his edits) neither bothers to give an edit summary nor a comment on the talk pages of the Controversial modifications that he makes by inserting POV. (or removing POV acc to him), what shall the other editors make out from this behaviour ?--dBigXray (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC). For example [| his recent edits ] and [[34]] without any explanation as of now. the citations are not in coherence with his edits and probably thats why the user is adamant on removing them so that his wrong edits cannot be verified--dBigXray (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Still editing my talk page with allegations!! When he fails on one page he starts on another. And I expected him not to edit my talk after so many warnings, but here we go again. He just disregarded Mitchazenia's suggestion. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Adding: [35] & [36]. I have given sufficient explanations but he seems to have no regard of WP:BURDEN or WP:HEAR. In context to the given scenario doesn't this seem to be wikihounding when I'm being followed, challenged on every talk and not being heard even when I give satisfactory replies? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I would again repeat that i dont have any interest in a particular user but i am interested in sanctity of wiki articles. The admins can please check that the article Sinking of PNS Ghazi is also in my watchlist and if a disruptive editing takes place on that article, i have the rights to raise question. i have noticed and [raised a number of issues on the talk page of ] article Sinking of PNS Ghazi.the above user had done [| multiple edits ] , without any explanation on the talk page until i raised questions. the time stamps can be checked if the admins wanna have a look at this it is upto the admins to decide if the explanations are sufficient or not. The explanations present as of now is not sufficient for me at least. --dBigXray (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Achem. First off, XRay, we don't need the constant capitals to get your point across. Second, Hassanhn, you clearly misinterpreted what I meant. When I mean both of you should stay away from each other, I don't think coming back here and complaining is really helpful. It is just going to inflame the situation. XRay, I thank you for posting your opinion and it seems like right now that the easiest solution is to stay away from each other. Take each other off your watchlists/searches/whatever. If it continues I highly suggest Mediation or other forms of WP:Dispute resolution. Until then, solving this easiest is to ignore each other and focus your heads somewhere else.Mitch32(Never support those who think in the box) 01:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Philip Zlotorynski[edit]

I have reverted several apparent vandal edits by user:Maladoope to Philip Zlotorynski after noticing this complaint on a critic site. We need a block for the account and a long-term semi-protection on the article. Thank you, --cc 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) First, I don't see any indication that you notified Maladoope of this discussion, as is required. Once I complete my comments, I'll take that liberty myself. Second, reviewing that user's Contribution history and the article's edit history, the changes to Philip Zlotorynski are what I'd call "plausible but unsourced", and since Zlotorynski is undoubtedly a living person, WP:BLP applies, so IMO reverting those edits is the correct action, although I also don't see any indication that the user was warned regarding their actions. Third, what I'm seeing from the editor in question, especially on their User and User Talk pages, isn't what I'd expect to see from an editor who intends to be constructive...but that's a very subjective opinion. Finally, and as a sidenote, I'd suggest such reports in future be made at WP:AIV, which is specifically geared to responding to vandalism. Regards, --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Why it is necessary to notify an obvious sockpuppet (see User:Lloydkaufmantroma, User:Moehoeheehaw, User:Indiefilmrules, and counting), who has not edited in over two months is beyond me. This is a BLP issue, and the subject has already threatened legal action over this. This is no time for process wonkery. --cc 17:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Whoa, easy there. You never said anything about any WP:SOCKPUPPETry until now. Even if you had, WP:AGF still applies, even in the case of a WP:BLP. I already pointed out that since it IS a BLP issue, you were correct in reverting the edits. Now, let's take a look and see if there's already a WP:SPI that includes Maladoope, or if that name needs to be added to an existing one so the admins can tell how big the sock drawer really is. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
ETA: I do not see any SPI cases involving any of the usernames you've mentioned. Since you've been doing the digging regarding this, I'd suggest your next step to be opening the SPI yourself. No sense in too many middlemen getting involved, and for once I'm too far separated from the incident to produce a meaningful report on the matter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

A significant portion of the above is off topic here. Unfortunately, a quick look does not show an edit that is clearly vandalism. Per WP:BLP it is entirely appropriate to remove strong claims ("person X is person Y") that have no strong source. If no easily digestible statement of the problem can be made, this should be raised at WP:BLPN. Meanwhile, watching Philip Zlotorynski and Chris Gore would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema[edit]

Ring Cinema - talk page revocation - done; thanks.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
02:13, 20 October 2011 Swarm changed block settings for Ring Cinema with an expiry time of Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:00:06 GMT (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)

Assistance needed in off-and-ongoing revert/edit war[edit]

This hasn't garnered hardly any uninvolved discussion and really has spiraled into bickering among the folks already involved. The discussion is too broken up to follow sequentially. It's just pointless to keep this thread open in it's current form. I will get involved on the article's talk page.--v/r - TP 13:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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.

Hello all, I would like to ask for assistance in dealing with an on-and-off-and-on again edit war taking place here.[39] The participants are:

I have been trying to mediate some form of collaborative editing once Penom requested my assistance on my talk page.[40] What I found was an edit/revert war, which I managed to temporarily stop.

One of the first things I did on entering the fray was ask both editors to stop and come discuss things before continuing the edit war. I made the request more than once[41][42][43][44] and indicated it should be considered a polite warning. When the edit/revert war did not stop[45], I templated both editors for both infractions.[46][47][48][49]

Last night till a few minutes ago, I've been busy with work and not been able to try to mediate and moderate things there. During that short time, another edit/revert war has taken place.[50] - I've got two more pretty busy days ahead...

At this time, I suspect I (the three of us) definitely need some outside assistance. In an effort to try to get and keep things on track, I've let slide (without a 3rr noticeboard posting) two edit wars/3rr violations. Thus, I'm hoping either someone more convincing on how important it is not to engage in constant edit and revert wars can step in, or perhaps (as I suggested on the article's talk page[51]), the two of them need a 2-3 day break? Looking forward to whatever assistance any of you can provide or deem necessary.

(Notification diffs on next edit)

Thanks for any assistance, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Penom notified here[52]
  • Wiqi55 notified here[53]
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Additional Note 01: Wiqi55 was reported for edit warring here[54] on the 16th, but it does not seem the report was reviewed or acted upon. Additionally, by the time I got involved both Wiqi55 and Penom had exceeded 3RR.
  • Additional Note 02: WP:SYNTH complaints, POV complaints, OWN complaints and similar have been flying around on the article's talkpage discussion (part of what I have been trying to mediate, with, in my opinion, some legitimacy to the complaints on both sides, more largely Wiqi55, as [User:Wayiran] (notified[55]) noted in his 3RR report.
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Penom's statement[edit]

ِ Dear admins, I am really embarrassed for my yesterday edit warring But I want to have some explanations for incident--Penom (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have tried all ways that I knew to stop the editor from edit warring. Trying to discuss the issue[56],[57],[58]

, reporting 2 times for 3rr, asking a third person to comment. I really apologize for yesterday. I have been editing wikipedia in other projects and languages for 2 years. Yesterday was my worst day and the most frustrating nigh of editingPenom (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain the incident:
  • On October 11th he reverted 5 times on the article. (1) I reported him for 3rr but no serious action from admins
  • Again he broke 3rr and reported by user:Wauiran ([59]) But again no answer by admins
  • These incident make me really disappointed. I asked Robert to mediate and help me to resolve the issue. Both agreed not to start edit warring and making major changes on article without discussion and before asking Robert's opinion.
  • Yesterday, again he started edit warring. Without any discussion, without asking Robert's opinion. He reverts in a very disruptive way. To mislead admins he put amessage and in a second he reverts.
If my edits were inappropriate is because of my frustration. When 2times he broke 3rr and noboday cared, I did not find anyother way to stop the user from making the article Islamic POV.
I really feels lonely and frustrated on that article. Two times report of 3rr for that user, without any serious reactions of admins. Several cases that I tried to open discussion without any participation from the user[60],[61],[62] really frustrated me. He insisted to push his Islamic POV on article. He did not let me and others to edit on that article. Penom (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Regardless of action or lack thereof by an administrator, this,[63] which I posted on 03:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC) should have been heeded. By both of you. That wasn't an opinion on my part. It was an explanation of Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines. Also, as I noted multiple times (starting with my very first post on this matter) other alternatives to resolving things were available -including both of you simply waiting a half day or day for me to have the time to jump back in to things, or getting someone else to help out while I was busy. If I hadn't explained all of this multiple times... Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have had this page on my watch-list for a while. In my humble opinion, the main source of friction is User:Wiqi55's sense of entitlement and ownership when it comes to this topic and other similar topics dealing with Islamic history. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I believe there were other such instances on other articles as well. Sadly, it doesn't absolve either of them of violating 3RR and WAR. What made it worse was that it was explained multiple times, and I'd decided not to request preventative action to stop it - and it began again anyway. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@Robert. As I said, I am embarrassed about what happen, I really felt helpless. Regardless of my case, Islamic articles in English Wikipedia need serious attention of admins. They are systematically biased. Majority of editors are apologist Muslims. There is no problem in that. But, these majority systematically make Islamic articles biased. They try to push traditional Islamic view, They are cherry picking from sources to push their POV, undermine secular views, several cases of pushing anti-Judaism views are the result of this majority apologist editors. No admin intervene in Islamic articles and users like me who tries to add academic and historical views to articles. People like me get frustrated and feel helpless when every day has to deal with these majority editors who usually feel ownership to Islamic articles. --Penom (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bias and POV in an article get dealt with by editors (admin or otherwise). Repeated bias insertions by an editor gets dealt with by administrators - usually through raising the issue at AN/I. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Wiqi55 statement[edit]

I have only watched this article recently while cleaning another article (ghulat). I have decided to clean and improve the content of this article (mostly introducing a less POVish lead, a "Further reading" section, verifying sources, etc). I've been doing this for many articles on Islamic history figures. I noticed that penom (talk · contribs), who appears to be a single purpose account, has been making edits to the article. I noticed also that he was deleting whole paragraphs using misleading edit summaries, for example.[64] I consider blanking complete paragraphs using misleading edit summaries to be one form of vandalism. Thus I reverted user Penom until the page was protected. I later asked him to slow down a bit, not delete well-cited paragraphs, and use descriptive edit summaries. He accused me of WP:OWN and threatened that "one more edit I bring the attention of admins to article". RobertMfromLI then showed up. I had honestly thought user RobertMfromLI was an admin (only now I have checked and he doesn't seem to be one). Thus I have explained the situation to him as soon as he showed up.[65] I would have definitely reported user Penom to admins had I known that RobertMfromLI wasn't one. User Penom continued to remove and to make significant number of changes to the article using misleading edit summaries (mostly claiming that nothing has changed, "I did not remove any claims etc"). He does not participate in a discussion unless he was reverted. Penom also introduced a set of headers that misrepresented the content of sections of the article. My understanding is that a single-purpose account using misleading edit summaries, blanking whole paragraphs, refusing to come to talk, etc, should have been sanctioned and reverted immediately. I wish that RobertMfromLI would have explained that he was not an admin. I have reverted user Penom edits (the ones that used misleading edit summaries or misrepresented the content of sources). I did not revert any of his other changes. Wiqi(55) 01:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Quick tip 1: Mouse over a name. You'll see that person's user rights.
  • Quick tip 2: Any editor can mediate in almost any dispute - especially content disputes.
  • Quick tip 3: Admins do not contribute and mediate content disputes as administrators - they mediate as contributors/editors. And once doing so, they are forbidden from acting as an admin except in the case of the most egregious rule and policy violations (and even then, most will seek an uninvolved admin to assist instead of them acting). Or, unless such mediation is a part of an AN/I "verdict" or ArbCom sanction. Otherwise an admin is forbidden from acting as an admin once involved in an issue. So, even if I was an admin, as I have edited the article to help you two along, and I have helped with content contribution on the article's talk page, I still could not do anything administrative.
To summarize, one does not seek an admin to help with content issues. One seeks an editor (regardless of whether they are an admin or not). Perhaps I am wrong in this part, but I think you both lucked out that Penom chose me to be that person. I suspect many an admin would have stopped the ongoing edit war I walked into by giving both of you a vacation.
Now, to the point at hand. You have not explained why edit warring and revert wars is ok - and I already have explained (admin or not) why none of your previous justifications is valid. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You may wish to read my comment to Penom here[66]. It applies to both of you. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick Tip 1 didn't work for me (Firefox 7 on Gnu/Linux). Didn't know about 2 and 3. Thanks. As I have explained to you, my knowledge in dispute resolution is very limited since I have hardly been in one. However, I did not consider most of my reverts to be part of a content dispute for two reasons. First, deleting/changing well-cited paragraphs using misleading edit summaries is inline with Wikipedia:Vandalism#Blanking.2C_illegitimate. Second, I had thought you were an admin (this is indeed my fault and I'm terribly sorry for that), and during my reverts I was in a discussion with you and you did not object to my reverts. I thought that there was nothing wrong with what I did (policy-wise). I even wondered in the talk page many times why you didn't interfere while Penom was blanking/changing content using misleading edit summaries. Wiqi(55) 02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
On Tip #1, it might be a setting, but it's a long time since I set up my profile.
As for me not interfering when either of you did such, you might remember, I actually made quite a few comments about such. I could have requested admin action then, but wanted to give you two a chance to work it out. As for the times I didn't jump in, it's probably because I was offline. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Tip #1 is provided by navigation popups, which can be enabled via the gadgets page in user preferences. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Let's be honest about the blanking. Both of you have removed each other's content (ie: "blanking"). BOTH of you have discussed and argued the reasons on the talk page, even if BOTH of you weren't using the bst of edit summaries in your edits. Thus, BOTH of your actions fit the criteria for content disputes - but NOT vandalism. Read the whole page on vandalism to understand it better. Because of that, the nine revert (ooops, THREE revert) rule cannot be broken. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 03:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's hardly a fair comparison. I didn't blank whole paragraphs using misleading edit summaries. I didn't sneakily re-word sentences while claiming that nothing has changed, just moving stuff etc. I merely reverted such edits. The issue here is the use of misleading edit summaries. My only fault is that I didn't bring this to the attention of admins earlier because I thought you were the admin. I also refrained from edit warring on his non-suspicious edits, despite that I find their content objectionable (like the Lewis quote, for instance). In any case, I happen to not have any strong views about the subject, so if using misleading edit summaries is now becoming OK on Wikipedia, I'd be willing to un-watch this article, and get back to my largely gnomic activities. Wiqi(55) 04:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You have as well, but that does not matter. His actions were not vandalism. 3RR applies. Also, silly threats of "fine, I'll stop working on articles" doesn't work here either. If he uses incorrect edit summaries, deal with it properly, which does not include violating 3RR. You've been blocked for edit warring before. None of this is new to you. Do not play the injured party here. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not entirely true. I was blocked once before by a heavily involved admin. You were also involved in that incident so your assessment here is not objective. Now considering that you seem eager to bring past incidents into this, I'd suggest that your assessment of this situation should be disregarded. And I'm not threatening to not edit articles. I have no strong views on the subject of this specific article, and if my presence was deemed disruptive, I'd be willing to un-watch. However, I can't help but think that users who constantly use misleading edit summaries are not here to build an encyclopedia. I will also find better ways to identify admins instead of reading, or rather misreading, their user boxes. Wiqi(55) 16:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
By "involved in that incident", do you mean, as a previously uninvolved editor, I offered my opinion? That aside, you still have not addressed a single issue with your actions. Nor have you addressed your failings in understanding policies and guidelines and how you violated them. Additionally, you have, above, disparaged Penom and his actions with no basis. I would strongly suggest that you stick to addressing your mistakes.
Blocks are preventative and not punitive. You are repeatedly indicating (IMO) an unwillingness to follow or learn the policies and guidelines you've been ignoring. In my opinion, until you do so, that is creating a situation requiring preventative actions. You have been repeatedly told you had other options to deal with what you falsely (IMO) perceived as vandalism by Penom - including reporting him here at AN/I. You did not - you chose to start TWO more edit/revert wars since. There is no excuse. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually Robert from Li, removing entire paragraphs of sourced content with misleading edit summaries is normally vandalism, and if the editor doing it does not start communicating, then the usual course is for them to be blocked. In this case, the other editor has now started talking and appears to understand the problem he was causing, and did intend his edits to be productive, so I do not believe there is any need for administrator action. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Elen, except, as I indicated above, that was not the case. The edit summaries were not misleading and were followed with and preceded by lengthy discussion on the talk page, as well as Penom involving me to try to mediate such. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, as you know, when the content is sourced, when those sources are used incorrectly (does not say what the content does, and instead pushes a POV), removal of such is also not vandalism. If anything, that supports Penom's actions. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 16:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@robert: I have already accepted and understood that next time I will bring the issue of using misleading edit summaries to an admin. Even in this case, I did bring the issue to you when you first showed up thinking you were an admin. I have already admitted this mistake 3 times or so, and I will definitely try to identify admins more carefully in the future. So I'm definitely hearing your concerns. I have also asked user Penom to not remove any cited information unless he actually examined the sources. He ignored my direct questions about this and gave no indication that he actually did check the sources. Wiqi(55) 16:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

To Both Penom and Wiqi55[edit]

  • Can both of you truly decide to stop the revert wars then?
  • Can you (Wiqi55) come to the conclusion that Penom's edit summaries, in conjunction with the lengthy talk page discussions and explanation is not simply content removal, but instead, a dipsute over the content which should be resolved on the article's talk page before continually (both of you) inserting and reverting the content?
  • Can you both (a) be a bit more accurate in your edit summaries and (b) accept the fact that an immediate follow up comment on the talk page to more thoroughly explain edits absolves issues with short edit summaries that may not be as detailed as either of you would like?
  • Can you both agree to utilize WP:DR and/or accept my opinion on each and/or involve other editors to help review, without once again reverting to edit/revert wars?

If so, then I think we can close this AN/I without further actions and get back to what we should be doing - editing Wikipedia. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the above. Note that I have already stopped editing the article (even before you started this incident). But I have no real interest in the subject to sustain further involvement, at least not while biased editors keep blanking paragraphs using misleading edit summaries and modifying content while claiming nothing has changed, etc. I also saw attempts to censor certain facts or important claims by citing random policies (a typical case of trying to game the system). I'd really appreciate if your efforts and perhaps more admin involvement would help assure that this wouldn't happen in the future. Wiqi(55) 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My Assessment (ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC))[edit]


  • Penom has indicated both remorse and understanding above about why edit warring and violating 3RR is not appropriate.
  • Penom is a less experienced editor
  • Penom did seek outside assistance in this matter
  • While Penom55 is the one who seeked outside assistance, and agreed to follow such steps, Penom55 still jumped into another edit war even after it was made clear that if the article wasn't perfect for a day or two, the world wouldn't blow up

ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Wiqi55 has previously been blocked for edit warring - and thus should know better.
  • Wigi55 is demonstrating (still) an attitude of IDHT
  • Wiqi55 is (in my opinion) mischaracterizing the reasons for his reverts. This is indicated by the massive talk page discussions where it has been indicated that Penom has perceived biases and POV in Wiqi55's postings/changes. Wiqi55 has been involved in those discussions, and is thus aware that there were legitimate reasons for Penom's reverts, regardless of how Wiqi55 wishes to perceive Penom's edit summaries.
  • Wiqi55 has shown, currently and in the past, some level of assuming WP:OWN on such articles. This seems to coincide with actions indicated on the point directly above this.

ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

My Suggestions and Opinions on this[edit]


  • Penom seems to have indicated during this AN/I (a) an understanding of policies against edit warring and 3RR
  • Penom seems to have indicated remorse and an understanding his reasons did not justify his actions
  • Penom seems to have reached a point where he understands alternate methods of dealing with such issues is required.

ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


  • Wiqi55 seems to be using IDHT as continued justification for his actions, even though reviewing the situation further indicates that his rationale doesnt even apply
  • Wiqi55 already has experience with edit warring and the consequences involved in stopping such
  • Wiqi55 has in no way indicated any willingness to stop reverting and edit warring over what essentially are content disputes

ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


  • I'd suggest Penom be advised on the next instance of engaging in or participating in an edit/revert war, that Penom will be given 2-3 days to further acquiant himself with the appropriate policies and guidelines - especially in light of Penom, above, indicating an understanding of why his 0actions were not correct.
  • I'd suggest that Wiqi55 be given 2-3 days, either on this article or on all of Wikipedia, to re-acquiant himself with policies and guidelines concerning such that he should have properly learned the first time he was blocked for edit warring.

ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor/Admin comments[edit]

Support Proposals[edit]

  1. Support - As proposer. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    Retracting support pending possible alternative resolution as proposed here[67]. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 17:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I was asked to comment here in my talk-page. I think Penom is right, because what I saw in that article was desruptive editing from Waqi55 by constant POV pushing. In fact if admins had paid attention to two recent 3rr reports, Penom wouldn't get frustrated like this. --Wayiran (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Proposals[edit]

How to deal with it.[edit]

AN/I is not usually the place to hold a RfC/User in the above fashion. I've (perhaps rashly) made some comments on the article talk p. DGG ( talk ) 21:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've (perhaps boldly) asked for your further assistance and deeper review (via your talkpage). ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternate Proposals[edit]

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.

Help with numerous new pages being created by copy/paste from another[edit]

Hello all, User:TZ_master is creating numerous "pages" by copying and pasting the section info from Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world (one for each country). Not just is that an obvious copy/paste violation, but it's A10. I've started tagging, but perhaps assistance in stopping TZ_Master before things get even worse would be helpful. Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Any admin can see that the content at Time in Portugal was not a duplication of content from Time zones as RobertMfromLI claimed. Please revoke TW access for this user. And there is no "copy/paste violation". This user lacks proper judgement. TZ master (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Correct, it was duplicate material and deleted as such, but that isn't why I am here... see my later comment below on the articles I CSD tagged since. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course some content was duplicate, that is the nature of all articles, e.g. it contain the string "Portugal." But it contained several information that is not in time zones as you claimed. You lack proper judgement and it would be nice if you would have not TW access anymore.
And I quote from your user history:
  • "2011-10-19T20:28:59 (diff | hist) N Daylight saving time in Russia ‎ (copy from Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world)"
There are a number of others that are copy/paste. Bulgaria (exact, word for word other than DST to "Daylight Savings Time"), Denmark (same), Slovenia (changed start of first sentence, copy/paste the rest), and so on. Should I continue? Regardless, it's duplication of existing content, CSD A10. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes copy/paste can be starting point for creating new articles. In fact most articles are created by copy/pasting information around and rewording it, WP is not fiction! All information in WP did exist somewhere already, but in WP it is re-arranged. TZ master (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And duplicates at a rate of 95-100%, the content already existing on the DST article. That makes them all CSD A10 tagging eligible, meaning speedy deletion for material that virtually exactly duplicates existing content. Thus, my third attempt at requesting you to stop and learn what it is you are doing and why it is not correct. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And are you copying and pasting the original attributions too, ie the editor's names who wrote those original words in the first place? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No. That would require requesting the page to be properly split (but that would also require discussing such massive splits with the community first as well). ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, such a thing can be done simply with an edit summary that says "Content moved/merged/split/hairball-hacked from Fooian Foofighters", along with an edit summary on the original article along the lines of "Content moved/merged/split/hadoken'd to Fooian Barfighters". It's that simple - but if even that isn't done, it's a violation of copyright. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And thanks for the alternate attribution method explanation - if TZM will slow down enough, I can help clean it up in such a fashion, but I don't see any real expansion work, which just leaves 1-3 sentence dupes as articles. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Insufficient attribution can be repaired after the fact, but doing it correctly to start is preferred. Flatscan (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Ah yes, but sadly, only half done on one (the example above). All the original content still remains, hence the A10 tagging as the "new" content is copy/paste duplication - not just mis-attributed. Anyway, does that mean the others (sans the one example above) coulda (or shoulda) been db-mult with G12 added to the mix? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Tz master is now cleaning up Daylight_saving_time_around_the_world which resolves the issue of A10. Perhaps this will be moot if he continues. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 01:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was cleaning up all the time. @Bushranger / attribution - that's what I did, and if anyone (Pink Oboe?) likes to do per user attribution for each character sourced from a 40+kB page he is free to do so. TZ master (talk) 02:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not noticing that (the cleanup). It might have to do with about a dozen dupes you hadn't gotten to. May I suggest you use the underconstruction tag or expansion tag on such - as well as doing less at a time? Perhaps one... or even two or three? Otherwise, what happens is it looks like you've created a dozen word-for-word duplicates with maybe a few word change to the first sentence. I'll even help you underconstruction tag the recent ones if you like. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is backlogged[edit]

Would uninvolved admins review

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wiqi55 reported by User:Wayiran (Result: )
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Thom100 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: )
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:EraNavigator reported by User:Daizus (Result: )
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kakazai Pashtun reported by User:Jorge Koli (Result: )
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Epeefleche reported by User:Obotlig (Result: )
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dualus reported by User:The_Artist_AKA_Mr_Anonymous (Result: )

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Epeefleche reported by User:Obotlig (Result: )[edit]

There is an ongoing contentious discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Epeefleche reported by User:Obotlig (Result: ). Would some uninvolved admins review the discussion and see whether a block is warranted? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on it ... it was contentious from the start. I'm the one who advised Epeefleche to comment there. Yeah, this kind of discussion should have taken place before an EW report (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


I suspect this may well be an attack name and quite possibly a sock puppet of a banned editor. Mincer being a Scottish pejorative for homosexual, I rather suspect I'm the target. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Possible, but WP:UAA seems like the place to report this. HurricaneFan25 13:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ta, tis done. Thanks for the hint. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
A technical investigation into this account was  Inconclusive and showed no results, but another administrator has {{Usernamehardblocked}}. AGK [] 15:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Possibly Betakittymolly (talk · contribs), who was involved in a dispute with Wee Curry Monster recently. Contributions from both accounts are similar to edits by blocked user Msa1701 (talk · contribs). Peter E. James (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh that editor, never crossed my mind that it might Betakittymolly (talk · contribs). There was no dispute by the way, more a case of simply bizarre behaviour. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Should I submit an SPI check on Betakittymolly (talk · contribs)? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
As AGK mentioned above, nothing obvious popped out on a check of Weecurrymincer. TNXMan 15:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Trolling/refusal of policy acceptance[edit]

This guy TheKingsMaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - allegedy related to this one - Caiyad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (see here) is trolling here, allegedy refusing the facts shown by users in the MFD page. (What I meant with "refused to accept the fact" is that his sources for evidence is unreliable by others, but he denied it). Twice he had said "why delete" towards another user - User:Cunard - which looks like a trolling and refusal of the aforementioned fact. I decided to bring this case here, so that others will know this. J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 09:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TheKingsMaker also, earlier this week, attempted to canvass #wikipedia-en-help users. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 16:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted the page. I'm reluctant to block the editor, though - while they've canvassed and those socks are quacking pretty loudly, the two accounts haven't been used together. This isn't a star pupil, but I'm willing to put out a little good faith and see if there's a peaceful solution. m.o.p 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Blocked as a sock of User:Caiyad.--v/r - TP 18:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't see m.o.p. had declined to block, but I think the user has tried to use the account to subvert a community decision and that qualifies for a block in my opinion. I left the User:Caiyad account alone for the reasons m.o.p. pointed out above.--v/r - TP 18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'll keep an eye on the talk page for a bit to see if they have anything to say. m.o.p 18:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Marinapeaches disruptive edits on Gavin Newsom[edit]

Marinapeaches (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account seeking to smear the BLP of Gavin Newsom. This is not a content dispute, as Newsom's affair is covered appropriately on the page. This editor is seeking to add undue weight to the affair by creating a separate section for it, while not bothering to remove the existing mention. At WP:AIV, I was told to go to dispute resolution, but this is not a content dispute as the affair is covered appropriately now, as I've said. This user needs to be prevented from editing Newsom's page at a minimum. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have a rather limited view of what a "content dispute" is. If editors disagree as to whether or not particular content should be included in an article, then that is a content dispute, irrespectively of whether one party to the dispute thinks the content is redundant because the issue is adequately covered elsewhere in the article. I have warned both of you about edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
My view of a "content dispute" is that it is a dispute on content. I am not disputing content. The Tourk affair is notable content, which is already in the article. The other unsourced info regarding WiFi might be relevant, but it's not sourced. Hence, this is not a content dispute. This is an SPA trying to give undue weight to information in a BLP. I'm here trying to keep the GA from becoming an attack page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be quite a few different topics under a controversy section, the affair only being one. There are others also that can be added. I would be willing to streamline the other sections, eliminating the redundacies. But to not say there isn't a need to have a controversy section is no argument, and I dont think this is a Point of View issue as these incidents are well referenced. Seems like only one editor repeatedly has issue with this, to the point to complain to the incident page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinapeaches (talkcontribs) 17:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I think we do have a content dispute here, and while (in my opinion) Muboshgu could validly complain of undue weight in a BLP, that's not really for this noticeboard. Asking Marinapeaches to be blocked or topic-banned is pushing the point, as is accusing Muboshgu of plugging the subject. Muboshgu, why didn't you post this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Marinapeaches, how is it that you have not discovered Talk:Gavin Newsom? (Gavin Newsom, why are you so damn good-looking?) Again, Muboshgu, if you're trying to get your opponent blocked or topic-banned, you're not going to be successful. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


Can an uninvolved admin close this merge discussion? The discussion appears to have stopped for about 2 weeks already. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, the merge is nessesary. Two articles for the same topic is a definite merge. Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is well above my pay grade, but I see that User:Materialscientist droppped a comment in that discussion (without, as far as I can tell, actually voting one way or another). They're a material scientist, besides an admin adhering to pretty high standards--perhaps one of you can drop them a line. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding by user Baxter9[edit]

User:Baxter9 usually edit once in the month and all his edits aim to undone or change of the my edits. This situation is longterm and Iam despairing. He doeasnt assume a good faith, he just undone my edits, writes reports and warning and usually doesnt discuss it at talkpage. I think his behavior broken rules in this cases: [68] - he removed publication as unreliable without discussion, but in this publication are cited historians so its reliable scholar secondary source

[69] - nationalistic edit and source was changed - Hungarian nationality is the question of 19th century, he was from 17-18th century. proper citation was Hungarus - citizen of hungary of slavic origin and german erudition.

[70] my edit was undone without discussion, it was from a cited reliable source written by neutral experts. After that I was warned [71] - but the text was a little changed and there was a cited source: But I will cite from the rules: "Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC-BY-SA or open-source content." Its just a harassment.

[72] - he rewrited ethnic term Magyar to term related with citizenship - Hungarian, but in the source was term Magyar. Its also nationalistic edit and harassment.

[73] - he removed encyclopedia as unreliable. But: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." This encyclopedia is one from the largest on the world: Its again the case of harassment.

[74] - he often oppose but without arguments, or he ironically comment my edits.

This situation started a long time ago, but last two months Iam disgusted from editing of Wikipedia because of this user. He behave like a owner of articles. He thinks he makes a good thing probably but its clear example of "ownership behaviour": . Its much more cases of such harassment, here: [75]. If he would assume a good faith and discuss his edits at talkpages it would be okay, but this is clear harassment. Wikipedia is not a sopabox so I hope this user will comment only his editing. --Samofi (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your statements and accusations are fictitious. I ahve edited these articles before, and they are in my watchlist. Please prove, show me your evidences which prove that "all his edits aim to undone or change of the my edits" and "He doeasnt assume a good faith, he just undone my edits". I only corrected informations, and as i remember I explained you why.
No, its not correction its harassment. Deleteing a sources without discussion is correction? I think no. --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 1) Please assume good faith. What is "nationalistic" in this edit? [76] The fact that I translated the latin text to English? "Slavus to Slav", "Hungarus to Hungarian", and "Germanus to German"? Even the source says Hungarian not "Hungarus" [sic!].I already explained this in the edit summary.
Slavus (in the connection with Hungary) is also translated like a Slovak, but you change it to Slav. Hungarus is citizenship it has nothing to do with Hungarian people. Ethnic Hungarians (Magyars) were called "nativus Hungarus" in latin sources. Please NOTE that user:baxter9 tries to deny the existence of Slovaks in Hungary and he is adding a Hungarian ethnicity to multiethnic or Slovak people. --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Source says "Hungarus": - to connect historical Nationality with present day Magyars is Nationalism. Its same case like Bohemian - Bohemians were Czechs and Germans from Bohemia. Its nationalistic edit and your anti-slovakian sentiment is possible to see at your talkpage, admins can use the translator because its written in Hungarian language. --Samofi (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 2) Nothing to explain here. You de facto copy pasted the hole section from that source, which is copy violation. Even the defective characters from the .pdf are apparent...
No I did not broke a rule. You should familiarize with copyrighted and not to take only smart part and argument with this. Section was a little changed and it was a sourced. Almost all Wikipedia based on sources with copyright and its linked to this sources. Its clear harras from your side. --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 3) Again: a "nationalistic edit", according to user:Samofi... I do not understand this "theory" of user: Samofi's: "ethnic term Magyar to term related with citizenship - Hungarian, but in the source was term Magyar" Just check article Hungarian people: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars (pronounced mad-jar or mad-yar, from Hungarian: magyarok), are a nation and an ethnic group native to and primarily associated with Hungary. " So Magyars=Hungarians in English. Ethnic Magyar=Ethnic Hungarian. Your source says: "Magyar roots, which means he was ethnic Hungarian, he had Hungarian ancestors, hence I linked the word "Magyar" to article Hungarian people. BTW as I told you at the edit summary: we do not link to disambiguation pages. Read WP:INTDABLINK.
User:Baxter9 not only changed redirection (its OKAY), but he changed ethnic term to national term. Its nationalism. He agains try to manipulate with my contribution. My statement was supported by dictionary. Hungarian: and Magyar: Its two different groups of people Hungarians and Magyars. Magyar is ethnic term and Hungarian is political name. Same like in Netherlands - Netherlander is citizen (Dutch, Frisian, Saxon) and dominant group in Netherlands are Dutchs. In Hungary - Hungarian is citizen (Magyar, Slovak, Serb) and dominat group is Hungary are Magyars. Hard to understand? --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 4)The Great Soviet Encyclopedia is outdated and not an expert publication, that is why I removed it. As I told this to you before, and i did not remove the information nor the other references added by you.
Its not outdated. Say me a rule wich says that publication from the 80-ties and reedited in 2002 is outdated. Its only harass.. --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 5) Where did I oppose??? I did not even vote! And yes, my comment is a fact. That is all.
you were irronical. and you just changed my adding to relation with Slovaks, but page is about Hungarians and Magyars. In slovak constitution is written: "we are a slovak nation" and not we are a slovak citizens. Hungarian means citizenschip and Magyar ethnicity. --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I first met this user when I removed his "reliable source" (a nationalist Slovak site, according to Human Rights Report an extreme right group) per WP policies... since then he accused me and other Hungarian users being "nationalist" many times. Please note that user:Samofi was indef blocked months ago for 3RR and battleground mentality, and anti-Hungarian sentiment which continues. I do not behave like "I own articles", this is only user Samofi's imagination. My last edit on the English wikipedia was months ago (user:Samofi admited this, so i do not know "how can i block him from editing".... I do not have to request permission from user:Samofi to edit BE BOLD! I only corrected the inproper informations at Joseph Petzval (requested page number, removed unreferenced OR tagged since March and added dubious tag, since even Petzval confirmed that he was ethnic German and not Slovak... See: Eder, Josef Maria; Epstean, Edward; Cramer, Hinricus Lüppo (1945). History of photography. Columbia University Press. p. 761. ...Petzval himself who, emphasizing the fact that he was the son of German parents...)--B@xter9 21:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soap box. Please talk about your edits and not about User:Samofi. User:Baxter9 speaks about things 1,5 year ago and I was blocked because of this (I accepted a punishment), after that I never used a vulgarism. I was a new I was harrased by him and currently blocked User:Namate - he wrote a planty of reports about my sockpuppets and it was unjustified because it was a user Iaaasi. Its clear personal attack, content is your harassment but you comment User:Samofi, you should know this: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia." What can be considered as personal attack? "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor" my vulgarisms as a newcomer 1,5 year ago are irrelevant and external in this case. I need to time to familirize with the rules and to calm my temperament. At talkpage of User:Baxter9 is also vilification of Slovak wikipedian and with slovakia, its written in Magyar language: This conversation had also a marks of canvassing and creation of ideological group of 6-7 people editing Slovak and Hungarian related articles only from the one point of view. After reading this text the next users contacted User:Baxter9 and asking him for a help. He has a mail there and other users can contact him. Its coordinated nationalist related edits of variouse users, older report was here: --Samofi (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

I've imposed a topic ban on the original poster, Samofi (talk · contribs). I'm not entirely certain on how to deal with other users mentioned in this thread. The overall editing atmosphere on Slovak-Hungarian nationality issues (including naming questions, ethnic attributes etc.) has been generally poisonous for a while, to an extent that it's unlikely to be all one party's fault; yet, wherever I look, it seems to me that Samofi's role has been persistently among the most unconstructive. So I'm tending towards the view that before we proceed to more sanctions all round, other users in the area might deserve a chance to demonstrate they can work more constructively when he is away. Fut.Perf. 08:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Have to say I agree. All the diffs he's posted are impeccably boomerang-shaped. He seems to have a major POV to push. Basalisk inspect damageberate 09:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban endorsed. It seems like every time the words "slav" or "Hungarian" appear on AN/I, so does Samofi. I've been paying attention to the case for the last few months and I think your reasoning is spot on. Noformation Talk 19:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose of topic ban[edit]

1) It will no different opinion - only Hungarian nationalistic view. Users will not works more constructive, because they are all from the same ideological group connected with canvassing - try to check the similary of their edits and topics (it looks like a meatpuppetry). If it would be 40 Slovak users as one ideological group and 10 Hungarian users with different opinion than 40 Slovak users could work more constructively without Hungarian users? Its against the NEUTRALITY of Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

2) "He seems to have a major POV to push" wrote User:Basalisk. Which POV he means? I used term "Magyar" reffering to ethnicity and it was linked with Hungarians connected to nationality? And my edit is POV? Or is it POV that I cited matherial from experts and this matherial was in .pdf format? Which major POV I have used? Iam significant minority view, one from the last active Slovak wikipedians - I represent the opinion of 5 mil of Slovaks. Please note that only Magyar wikipedians had problems with my edits and all of them are of the same opinion - one ideological group. --Samofi (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Its classic. Some users can make a nationalistic edits, they can edit warring, thay can call other users nationalists and neofascist and nothing happen (I mean users in my older report). It was not a single admin who warned them or told them about WP:DIGWUREN.. They continued with wikistalking, all my edits were changed or deleten, even I used a exact citation. Whats the difference between my edits and edits for example of User:Fakirbakir? I was 3 times blocked and now again bumerang. Iam one from the last Slovak users who has a different opinion than "Magyar ideological group". A lot of Romanian, Slovakian or Serb users had editwars with these users. How is it possible that a horde of editors from one ideological block can make a liquidation of other editors. Last month were almost all my edits at talkpages, i tried to edit more pages about slovak history and I was harassed. 5-6 users monitor all my edits and they destroy all my work. For example here: was it assumed a good faith from users CoolKoon and user Fakirbakir? How is it possible that somebody can create an article based on 2 unscholar encyclopedies and book from 1905 ("Principality of Hungary") and article supported by 1000 english sources is called "nonsense" ("Slovak lands")? Its double measure, maybe my language is more raw and my behaviour can be considered as abrasive but which my edits are more nationalistic than edits of these 5-6 users? What about canvassing and ethnical abuse at talkpage of User:Baxter written in hungarian? They make a fun from Slovakia and Slovaks. Ban me and all Slovak wikipedians and you will have 6 "good" editors from one ideological block, they can canvass, change their emails at talkpages, bite a newcomers (as me a long time ago) and they will wait for their mistakes and than write a reports. After 3 years of problemtic editing was user:nmate banned for a month, wow.. What about users which says that Slovakia and Slovaks are product of the break of Czechoslovakia in 1993, or calling Slovakia and Slovak people a neofascist state? They will edit, because they are in one ideological group, they supports all edits together, if is any problem they can write a mail.. This is precedens, I knew that mi history in Wikipedia was not clean and I knew that it can be a boomerang but I wanted to point what is the problem of Slovak-Hungarian relations. I created a cooperation board (, but no one from Magyar users did not start to participate. They has not interest to cooperate, they are numerouse and their aim is a liquidation of opponents. Next problems is, that no neutral editors are involved in this topics and if somebody tries to edit these topics, soon will be disgusted. A lot of my edits seems to be a nationalistic, for example the change an nationality from Hungarian to Slovak or from Hungarian to Magyar. But its not a same, Hungarians are a political nation (also a Slovaks, Magyars, Croats) and Magyars are a ethnic group. Terminologicaly are "Hungarians (Hungarian people)" and "Magyars" are not a same. I started terminological discussion between terms Magar( and Hungarian( Is it nationalistic? Is this an open encyclopedia? All nationalistic problems are that ethnic Magyar editors wants to connect political history of Hungarians (Slovaks, Magyars, Ruthenians..) exclusively with Magyar history. Its like Netherlander - political concept (Dutch, Frisians, saxons) and Dutch people are dominant group. But I understand admins, Iam disruptive coz I have a lot of conflicts with a lot of users (from one ideological block - but admins dont care about it). Slovakia is small country and its only a few Slovak wikipedians (espetialy about history), so its better to let Magyars to edit Hungarian and Slovak related articles. Bravo Wiki, open NEUTRAL encyclopedia. I know Iam not innocent and I never presented myself as "good" I admited all my mistakes and always changed. It was also a User:Dbachmann who tried to edit a Hungarian related topics and he noticed a "hungarian nationalistic crankery". Its hard to show a different opinion at wikipedia if exists a big ideological group here which specialized to Slovak-Hungarian related articles. --Samofi (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Ban on User:Ryulong from making ban nominations and using any XFD process[edit]

This is not administrator actionable, as no specific violations are asserted. The complaining party can (with appropriate evidence) file a user conduct RFC if they wish to pursue this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
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.

I propose that User:Ryulong be banned from making ban nominations until he/she can demonstrate an understanding of the value of the community's time and resources. Bans should not be used for no other reason than to make a WP:POINT like hey look you are losing a WP:XFD. When one makes a ban nomination as he did earlier this month and it is clear that the person being nominated has not done anything other than create content that you have wrongfully nominated at an XFD, you should not be allowed to waste the communities resources. Bans should be used as more of a last resort than a first impulse. Although he tried to feign being confused on whether I had repeatedly done something wrong, he did not fool anyone with his nomination. It was quite clear he used a ban nomination without any history of repeated offensive behavior and no warnings of bad conduct.

By the end of the XFD, he admitted that he was just nominating things tainted by my touch and throughout the nomination could not make sense of what things should have been included in the nomination and what should have been excluded. During the XFD, he repeatedly pointed out that he could not really figure out what should be included in the nomination and felt tricked into nominating certain certain. Before all was said and done, he added several things to the nomination and then removed from the nomination claiming that he could not even determine what things belonged in the nomination. We should also consider banning him from wasting the community's resources at all XFD processes until he learns how to use the process and determine valuable content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? Just because I had one batch TFD from the too many templates you created that were determined by previous precedent to not be suitable for this project that, it means that I have to be banned from proposing bans and the deletion process? What have you been smoking, and may I have some of it? This is unnecessarily retaliatory. I have done nothing wrong and wasted nobody's time by proposing one (well two with the Noxiousnews request above) person be banned and done one TFD that was perfectly fine until you unnecessarily pointed out the other templates.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
do I smell a WP:BOOMERANG? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Bans are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. You have not established a pattern of frivolous block requests, so banning him from making them seems less like preventing him from making these blocks and more like punishing him for making one(or two?) bad ones. Since there is really nothing actionable here it seems you have inconsequentially created a block request which wastes the communities time as well(don't worry, we won't ban you from them though ;)).AerobicFox (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Ryulong, consider my arguments. You should not be making ban nominations regarding XFDs that are not close calls (this one in fact ended as no consensus and was at no consensus when you nominated it). This is not retaliation. Clearly, you wasted the community's time with your XFD and once it became clear that you were just nominating things because they were "Tainted by my touch", the responses came back accordingly. Then you nominated me for a ban without cause or prior offense. This was again a waste of the community's time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I did not waste anyone's time by creating one batch TFD that ended as no consensus (however you have reminded me that it is probably time to seek a new consensus). And you have several topic bans. I would say that that qualifies as a prior offense. And that ban request wasted no one's time. If you are so focused on not wanting to waste the community's time, why did you make this ban proposal for two sets of processes that have nothing to do with each other, other than the fact that you and I both were involved in them regarding your edits?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Apologies from myself - I am grateful to Floquenbeam for reinstating the above comment / correcting my accidental revert - finger trouble is my only excuse. Sorry again, Ian Cairns (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Not sure exactly whats going on here but this seems to be continuing in project space and Ryulong has gone off nominating a load of templates for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that Tony is possibly being accused of improperly templating stuff, while Ryulong is being accused of reacting poorly in his responses/actions at XfD. That being the case, if accusations against Tony are correct, though Ryu's initial actions may have been overboard, some sort of review of Tony's templating is in order - perhaps the discussion that has started? ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I pointed to the discussion in this nomination. However, if you need to assess what I have created recently, here are this month's contributions to wikipedia (mostly templates and almost all inarguably value adding to the project). Some page move cleanup is included in the diff of my page of contributions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Tony reminded me to reseek consensus.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there grounds for closing his nomination as retaliatory. He refuses to follow proper nomination procedure and is just making the nomination to annoy me.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you 110% prove it's retaliatory? If you're so sure everything will pass, let it pass. If you're worried, then ... well ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
BWilkens: In response to your (small) above, on a quick look, I don't just smell it... I think I see it getting closer. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 21:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgetting to notify the three other people who made the templates is not "refusing to follow proper nomination procedure". The previous TFD closed as no consensus because of the confusion set forth. And now I am seeking a renewed consensus.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support on XFD - After looking at several XFD nominations done by Ryulong, it's clear that he is indeed misusing the time and patience of the community. I am neutral on the other matter involving ban nominations. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The time and patience of the community is volunteered. So tell me, what *actual* disruption is caused by someone making an XFD nomination?--Tznkai (