Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive747

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

Noticeboard archives



Signature war averted. Both editors are advised to disengage, take a breather, and find more momentous things to care strongly about than signature placement. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2012 (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.

User:Youreallycan (long blocklog), formerly known as User:Off2riorob (extra long blocklog), is repeatedly editing my signatures and comments. This user is unaware of the fact p.s. stands for post scriptum which is Latin and means: "written after" (according to our article that may be interpreted in the sense of "that which comes after the writing"). I informed him that he should stop (Warning 1 & Warning 2). In this edit he adds the unsigned template to a signed comment. I removed the second signature. He reverted me. I undid his version, removing the second signature again.

He is also breaking WP:NPA. On my talkpage he wrote: "stop actink a disruptive troll then - stay off my talkpage with your capital crap". He is also accussing another editor, Nomoskedasticity, of bullying and stalking. He is also misusing 3RR templates. Von Restorff (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly no reason to add {{unsigned}} to someone's PS after their signature, and there's especially no reason to edit-war {{unsigned}} back in after it's been removed. So YRC, please don't do that anymore. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
What a strange, strange hill to die on, for either of you. It's a signature. It's signing something Von Restorff wrote, in a situation where it's not strictly necessary but not strictly prohibited, either. Why Von Restorff cares so much about it not being there, and Youreallycan cares so much about it being there are both unclear to me. Leave it be, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it would have been nice if the user had simply signed his post at the end - I have given up attempting to have that happen. I added an unsigned termplate to the unsigned bit and left him a nice comment - but it just went downhill from there. Youreallycan 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The threat of a block was enough to make you obey the rules? Great! I learned Latin in school (a long time ago). People who are not named Von Restorff are not allowed to change my comments and/or signature. Are you going to apologize for your personal attacks and/or strike them? Von Restorff (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
My comment, of , stop acting like a disruptive troll after you had posted in capitals on my talkpage is/was no worse than your edit summary in reference to me of, "no need to feed him" If you are so attached to your comments then be proud and sign them at the end please -The issues with User talk:Nomoskedasticity and my post on his User_talk:Nomoskedasticity#Still_stalking_my_contributions are an onging and separate issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talkcontribs) 19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
WTF...?!?? What happened here? Are you applying your own rules to yourself? Are you serious? Von Restorff (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC
  • I think what 28bytes and fluffernutter are trying to say is: "will you two (Personal attack removed) stop wasting our time with this bullshit?" However, they were being polite, so the message may not have gotten through. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling to think of a reason I shouldn't block you for making this pointy edit. 28bytes (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

AIV issue[edit]

IP blocked, any further discussion can proceed on user talk pages if needed. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2012 (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 requested a block on an IP that has received three final warnings (one today), and has almost 50 vandalism-only edits over the course of two years. ItsZippy, who has been on WP since Aug. 2011 and has been an admin for less than a week, declined this request on AIV based on "insufficient or inappropriate warning." I obviously disagree with the action, and on broaching a discussion, here on Zippy's talk, where he feels that the block might impact beneficial users because "it might not be the same person for each warning." We are at an impasse and could use some input, and another legitimate concern I have here is WP:COMPETENCY given both the user's term of service and lack of time in as an admin. MSJapan (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

IP {{anonblock}}ed for 3 months; I'll look at the user talk page and comment on that in a minute. But my first impression is that referring to WP:COMPETENCE (have you read what you're linking to) is kind of a dick move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Not entirely. It may not be "uber-nice", but I see a lack of technical understanding and inability to use tools by a new admin with very little experience who likely should not have been made an admin after a second request and eight months of service, considering there was a CSD caveat in his approval. Those sorts of things are covered in COMPETENCE. MSJapan (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You're correct on the vandal issue, but dead wrong on the admin issue. No one is expected to be perfect, and new admins are allowed to ease into the role of helping out at AIV without having that link thrown in their face. This was a judgement call, he used his judgement, politely, and suggested you ask someone else if you disagreed, proactively saying any other admin could block if they felt it reasonable. He essentially did everything the right way here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there's no need to discuss this further here. I've also given some feedback over at Zippy's page (in agreement with Floquenbeam), and I think we could leave it at that. Fut.Perf. 20:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

User:New questions[edit]

I am bringing this up here as I believe it needs to be noted. I recently brought it up on the user's talk page about the notability of an article he created, Gensokyo, which describes a fictional setting. This incited him to nominate the article for deletion, and after a few days of being up against several editors expressing concern about the topic's notability, said user began nominating other setting articles in what I believe is to prove a point regarding the notability of such articles on Wikipedia. Specifically, I believe this user is doing exactly what is written at the top of the examples. So far the user has nominated these AFDs:

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Atlas Shrugged
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in the Firebird series
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of A Series of Unfortunate Events locations
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Places of Dragon Prince

And has proded several others: List of Dragonlance locations, List of Record of Lodoss War locations, List of Doctors locations.

The user gave a comment on one of the AFDs which echos my, and others', comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gensokyo, and the rationales of the four current AFDs are given roughly the same rationale, doing to exact opposite of what it says not to do at the top of the examples. I, and another editor, User:Narutolovehinata5, asked the editor not to do this several times during the discussion: [1], [2], [3], and I believe the user will continue based on this comment. I also suggested to the user that merging in lieu of deletion reduces the number of AFD nominations. When another user contested the prod of Places of Dragon Prince with the comment "room here for a merge if nothing else", New questions nominated it for deletion, and in doing so, completely discounted the possibility for a merge into Dragon Prince and Dragon Star trilogies in order to further prove his point.-- 11:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Those AfDs should all be merged together into a single group nomination, possibly along with future such nominations. You could note to the user WP:Summary style, which describes the way non-notable topics can become articles for logistical reasons -- they were split from articles that grew too large -- "List of locations in Atlas Shrugged" isn't notable alone, but it should be considered at part of Atlas Shrugged, the notable topic that, if merged with its sub-articles, would just be too long. Equazcion (talk) 11:17, 15 Apr 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this could be my fault. I was the first one to suggest nominating articles for deletion. However, I did warn him that he should not do so to prove a point, and later told him not to nominate any further articles until the AfD is closed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that when I compared the article to other articles, concerns about notability of those other articles were expressed, and there was an opinion expressed that they would not survive AfD. I myself examined them thoroughly, and found them to be less notable than the Gensokyo article, and found them to have more problems in my own opinion, but since Juhachi did contribute to my reasoning, I duly noted that. Regarding Equazcion's suggestion that they be grouped together into a single AfD, I am not exactly sure what is the correct procedure for merging AfD nominations, although it should be noted that those AfD nominations were done on different days, so merging them will have to shift the days of some of those AfDs. In any case, I do not quite know why Juhachi is complaining about those AfD nominations since I think I already explained why those AfD nominations were done based on my own judgment rather than simply echoing what Juhachi has said.--New questions? 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • If you weren't trying to make a point, then you wouldn't be arguing for Gensokyo's inclusion so vehemently while also arguing for the deletion of similar articles using arguments I and others posed to you.-- 22:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • They were not "similar articles." They were articles I have found to have even more problems with and for which my arguments for the inclusion of Gensokyo did not apply.--New questions? 23:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • New Questions wrote in response to Narutolovehinata5 request to stop making new AfD nominations til the Gensokyo nom closes, "I shall do that if someone outside of this AfD actually complains about it, but I have heard no complaints so far. I shall stop if someone actually does complain."[4] Accordingly, I made such a request at User talk:New questions. New Questions' response was to ask for further opinions, so if anyone has some, they might want to weigh in. That response does seem a little bit like the No true Scotsman fallacy to me, but whatever. (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is terrible. A travesty, woe on us, a pestilence on Wikipedia. You may consider the foregoing a second complaint. Not that I disagree with Equazcion necessarily, it's possible that all such articles ought to be merged or deleted for similar reasons. Surely, there are a few "list of places in [fictional work X]" subjects that are notable, and many that are not. But going off on a tear nominating a bunch of individual articles for deletion is not the most orderly way to resolve that. Nor is it likely to get a reasoned result, as editors with some involvement in each of these various individual articles will likely react by defending them all. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I do admit that perhaps I should have exercised more caution with respect to Places of Dragon Prince and talk about it more on the talk page and its editors before going off to AfD since it was a contested PROD. That is why I am engaging in a discussion in one of the talk pages with respect to one of the contested PRODs to see what claim there is to notability before actually nominating it for deletion.--New questions? 23:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Coallty and Muhammad[edit]

User is edit-warring to remove images at Muhammad. Before someone can says "WP:AIV is thataway", I will ask that the users (brief) history be considered. I'll omit the specific details so as to not get too WP:BEANS-ish, but one easily sees that it is the formula to bypass semi-protection. Indef for a vandalism-only account, not for simple 3RR please. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • What he is doing isn't vandalism. It is disruptive and appears to be a problem under NPOV and against consensus, however. I think his "other edits" can be discounted to zero easily, as well. Likely a sockpuppet, but I don't work in that space, so I'm not sure who the master would be. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I left a notice and warning for Coallty, and notified them of this discussion. There's a chance that they're a legitimate editor who just feels strongly about the issue, and who stopped editing once they were reverted (about 30 minutes ago). I pointed them to the RFC and told them that any further removals would result in an immediate block. Now, none of that stops us from blocking by consensus here, and I do find the rush to autoconfirmation troubling, but I also don't block editors with redlinked talk pages - not without at least a token nod to AGF. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
No legitimate, new editor knows how to bypass semi-protection in this exacting manner; it is a tactic used by disruption-only accounts to get their way in articles they have a vested interest in. e.g. There was a years-long campaign against the Virgin Killer article where this same tactics was used to sub in the Mosaic logo for the album cover. Grundle2600 also used it to edit his pet conspiracy theories into Obama-related articles. I can't AGF on this one, have seen the act too many times before, but its upto y'all. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Tempted to agree, but for the amount of time it took them to accomplish the task - one would expect someone with experience to just plow through. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
UltraExactZZ think Coallty sock slow? Coallty sock get autoconfirm fast, only take 58 minutes for 11 edits. Monster take 5 months. Coallty sock master probably smarter than Floquenbeam, that why so fast.

Also, if Coallty not sock of troublemaker, monster eat villager's hat. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... only one of the user's first 10 edits seem to have made any changes. The rest look like they're just adding or removing spaces as far as I can tell from the diffs. The intent certainly seems to be editing the semi-protected article. That said, I wouldn't know how to tell whether or not he/she is a new user or a sock-puppet. I don't remember it being that hard to find out what Autoconfirmed was and how to get that status when I was a new user. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, it looks like the user didn't actually participate in edit warring or breach 3RR. They simply went through the article section by section and removed the images, quite possibly unaware that the changes were reverted. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Deah zoger / User:Kibush / User:Lubavicher / User: / User: / User: etc.[edit]

User:Deah zoger / User:Kibush / User:Lubavicher / User: / User: / User: (and various other dynamic IPs) has been editing Chabad Lubavitch related articles in an inappropriate way. He started his career as Deah zoger (talk · contribs), removing any negative references to the Chabad movement or its deceased leader Menachem Mendel Schneerson. In addition, he would

  1. add the word "Rabbi" in front of every occurrence of the movement's deceased leader Schneerson (e.g. [5])
  2. add the word transliteration "Moshiach" after occurrences of the word "Messiah" (e.g. [6]), and
  3. remove the word "late" from in front of Schneerson's name, as Schneerson's more fervent followers insist he never died (see previous link).

He continues to do these last three. The first is prohibited by WP:CREDENTIAL/WP:HONORIFIC, the second by MOS:FOREIGN, and the last by WP:V/WP:NPOV, but I've not had any success in explaining to him this to him, in part because of his constantly changing userids and IPs. Does anyone have any better ideas? Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Fully protect the articles for a few months - When WP:Pending changes is switched back on - reduce to WP:PC - Youreallycan 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Full protection is unnecessary IMO; semi-protection should do the trick. Very few of these edits have been from auto-confirmed users. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Lecen, again[edit]

I need to report a problem with User:Lecen. A pair of days ago he began a massive replacement of internal links to an article, which may be inappropiate for reasons explained at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#War of the Triple Alliance / Paraguayan War. I'm mentioning it only for context, not to duplicate it, and discussions about that issue should be discussed there, not here. The problem is Lecen's reaction to it. As I mentioned here, I noticed him and the other user I mentioned directly, and other people that may be interested at the article talk page (meaning, no canvassing of potential supporters). He replied with this message, just personal puns. He also calls me "MBelgrano", a former username I had, although he had been told not to do so (if it needs clarification, yes, I once used that username, and then requested a rename for a global account, it is not a secret at all, and I mention it at the top of my user page). Here, he accuses me of working in a tag team with MarshalN20, even when I did not canvass him into action. Even more, here he stayed neutral in a proposal I made, which proves we do not work toguether as Lecen suggests. He also said that we were "defeated", as if we were in a battleground. Here, he attacks Argentina in general, even mentioning the defeat in the Falkland War as "having their asses kicked". I'm from Argentina.

MarshalN20 suggests me to report Lecen, and (while I was offline and had not replied anything yet) Lecen goads me into doing it. Here, he opposes a proposal of Marshal with the edit summary "it seems that the Argentine editors are eager to ignore anyone else except for themselves". Needless to say, Marshal is not Argentine but Peruvian, and I had not commented on his proposal yet.

I should point as well that Lecen has already been blocked by "battleground mentality" a pair of months ago, according to this discussion, where other editors made similar complaints about his behavior. As it can be seen, I'm not involved with that case, and never said anything during it. Cambalachero (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have informed Lecen and MarshalN20 of this discussion Cambalachero (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What I find most bothersome in this whole matter, aside from Lecen's bad reactions to any criticism whatsoever on articles he works in (IMO a clear sign of ownership problems), is his indication that part of the reason he wants to revive "Wikiproject Brazil" is to use it as a tool for "edit wars" ([7]). I think this is a clear abuse of the purpose of WikiProjects (per WP:PJ), which is simply to have like-minded individuals work to improve articles (not to be a guild of edit warriors).
That being said, perhaps WP:PJ needs a list of what is "not" appropriate usage of Wikiprojects. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you are mischaracterizing his stated reasons for wanting to bring the WikiProject together. It seems legitimate that if you are involved in a dispute about a Brazilian topic, you'd want easy access to other editors interested in those topics to offer second opinions, etc. I don't think it's right to imply his motivations are canvassing or meatpuppetry. --Laser brain (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Whenever more opinions are needed on a topic, we use that tool called WP:RfC (right?). That way you get the opinion of tentatively neutral editors (at least based on WP:AGF). The purpose of WikiProjects are for like-minded editors to help each other improve articles; not to serve as a tag-team in edit disputes (which breaks WP:GAMING). That is my understanding of what WP:PJ presents. If WikiProjects are going to turn into bases from which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen), then the whole purpose of them will be shifted towards a Shogunate where the strong WikiProjects impose themselves over the weaker ones (thereby breaking the whole purpose of WikiProjects).
The interesting thing is that Lecen keeps doing it right in front of our noses (although now using terms like "conflict resolutions" or "dispute resolutions"): (1) [8], (2) [9], (3) [10], etc.
Then there is also this disturbing discussion he held (or is holding) with another editor, all because he doesn't want other uninvolved editors to get into the discussion: [11]. You add all of this together, and his seemingly sarcastic comment ([12]) is no longer as funny as one might originally think.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. I agree that we should make clear that WikiProjects should not be used for gathering soldiers. --Laser brain (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
MarshalN20, you said "...which people can gather their members for "edit wars" (the exact term used by Lecen)". Nowhere I ever said that I wished to gather editors to make edit wars. In the link you provided I said that that's "felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles" and to deal with it "you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content". Laser brain was capable of understanding quite well what I meant, that is, the need for noninvolved third-parties' opinion. I wonder why you insist on fabricating things I never said or misundertanding on purpose what I said. --Lecen (talk) 04:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Reading your complete message (and other messages) provides a clear picture of what you are planning to do with the WikiProject. Let's highlight those interesting bits found in your first statement ([13]),
  • "Being alive it's enough. Jokes aside, he and I are going to create a place for us to help each other. Let's say you want comments on an article you wrote, or in a dispute over a content, or you want us to review something you wrote, things like that. Unfortunately, despite our country's growth in the last 15 years, there are few foreign editors who seem intersted on Brazilian articles. That's more felt when we are stuck in a ridiculous edit war/content dispute with another editor, or when we need reviewers for our articles. We're utterly alone and that's what we want to change."
The message here is obvious. On the good end, you are mentioning that you want WikiProject Brazil to help with reviews, article improvements, and form a good community of productive editors (nothing wrong with any of that). On the bad end, you are also advocating the usage of WikiProject Brazil as a way for Brazilians (note: "few foreign editors") to collaborate (note: "help each other") on disputes (or what you also call "edit war") against non-member editors (note: "another editor"). Seeing discussions such as Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War, and your recent dispute with a neutral bystander ([14]), places it all into context. You are promoting an erroneous foundation for WikiProject Brazil, where Brazilians will work together in "edit wars" in order to prevent non-Brazilian editors from prevailing (note: "we're utterly alone and that's what we want to change").
If we let your precedent stand, it shall set into motion more serious problems in other WikiProjects. I can already picture the formation of a counter "revival" for WikiProject Argentina (and other WikiProjects) which will turn a system meant for article improvements into a system for "edit warring". Hence, this really needs to be stopped right at the root.
Of course, that does not mean I think a revival of WikiProject Brazil would be bad (in fact, the good intentions are there); however, the bad intentions are also clearly present in your messages. Whether this means you should be warned, blocked, or clearer policies need to written at WP:PJ; I do not know for sure (that is up for the administrators to decide). That something must be done and said at this time is, nonetheless, undeniable (before a negative chain of events unfolds).--MarshalN20 | Talk 05:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but no one complained about my behavior on the move request at Cisplatine War. On the other hand, two different editors complained about your and Cambalacheiro's behavior [15][16] ("Also, with calling my comment an outright lie, you are again assuming the worst in those who disagree with you. Judicatus just called you out for the same."). And your assumption that I'm planning a mass edit war backed by countless Brazilians who behave as mindless ants makes no sense and it's quite ridiculous. Who I am? Somekind of Messiah? Lastly, Cambalachero opened this ANI as a retaliation for my oppose the move and to his FAC.[[17]] How grown up. --Lecen (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
The Talk:Cisplatine War and Talk:Platine War discussions are mentioned to show that you are currently involved in disputes with editors, thereby showing that your messages of "edit war" collaborations are not abstract ideas (but rather concrete and current). No one has complained about my behavior in either of the links you present (why are you trying to mislead others?). What you try to mask off as "ridiculous" is in fact a truth that your behavior and comments validate.
The actions taken by your friend User:Alarbus may also seem "ridiculous" to anyone (who would be wild enough to create several puppet accounts? It sounds quite silly), but they were true. I am sure the administrators have also seen several "ridiculous" cases which, as it turned out, were realities. In the world of Wikipedia, anything is possible and nothing is ridiculous. In any case, my objective here is to stop the bad intentions associated with your revival of "WikiProject Brazil", and have provided evidence to justify my position. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 06:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you were advised to report him to the Wikiquette board, which for all intents and purposes seems to be about as useful as a screen door on a submarine, but I felt it should be pointed out. This is where you come to get admin action, not for dispute resolution. Are you suggesting that Lecen needs to be blocked? --Laser brain (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
So, given that he was previously blocked for "battleground" mentality, and given that he continues to personally attack users, if I were an administrator then I would block him again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I came here to request a block. Lecen has been requested several times, by several users (not just me, and not just now) to be more civil with users that say something he does not agree with. All such requests were received with puns and mockery. In fact, he was blocked by this very same reason just a pair of months ago. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
So, is it just a coincidence that you opened a thread requesting that Lecen be blocked four hours after he cast an Oppose !vote on an article you nominated at FAC? Mark Arsten (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Whether coincidence or not, that in no way justifies Lecen's behavior. In fact, if Cambalachero simply posted this here in retaliation, it would hold no ground if no evidence existed to justify a block request (and plenty of evidence is there, regardless of how Lecen now tries to mask it). Would Cambalachero answering your question (either yes or no) in any way affect the outcome of this situation? I'd love to hear your response. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 23:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, as someone who has contributed a bit at FAC, I do know how vexing it is when someone criticizes an article you've put a lot of work into. So I can sympathize with Cambalachero here. But, requesting a block of an oppose voter won't really help his article get promoted--so I'd advise him to try to work with oppose voters instead. Try to fix what you can in the article and discuss with the opposition why you think their criticisms are unfounded. (Assuming it's not a coincidence). Coincidences do happen though. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Great, but wouldn't such a well-intentioned question best be asked directly on Cambalachero's talk page? Right now we're at a point in this discussion where the focus is Lecen's behavior, and (in that context) the question does not fit. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the FAC. Just see the hours and dates: Lecen insults at some place, at some other place, etc, and amid all that (and not as a start), he opposes a FAC. Seems like a clear case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Notice as well that he made that review after I reported his massive changes at the NPOV noticeboard (see link at the begining), so if someone did something in "retaliation", it was him. Cambalachero (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to use a modified version of Mark's question: So, is it just a coincidence that Lecen cast an Oppose !vote on an article nominated by Cambalachero at FAC after he opened a thread about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard? Note: This question has no recommendation purposes for Lecen and, regardless of his answer, is suspicious enough to demonstrate a misuse of the FAC process.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Recap of Lecen's Actions[edit]

Considering this seems to have gotten lost in the discussion, and that Lecen continues his aggressive behavior:

  1. Here Lecen personally attacks Cambalachero: "No wonder you have no friends"
  2. Here Lecen personally attacks me: Calls me "Anti-Brazilian".
  3. Here Lecen goes into an offensive rant insulting Argentina: "having their asses kicked a few decades later because of a ridiculous small archipelago that no one cares about it"
  4. Here Lecen resorts to belittle another user's self-confessed lack of knowledge ([19]), which would be an outlying incident was it not a trend for him to assault editors who disagree with him as ignorant (which I noted two months ago: "This little trend of 'you're ignorant if you don't agree with me' is a bully tactic used by Lecen throughout these discussions").
  5. At FAC, Lecen voted against Cambalachero's nomination after Cambalachero posted a topic about Lecen in the NPOV noticeboard. Coincidence?
  6. Lecen constantly uses the "MBelgrano" mentions, which can also be considered personal attacks (albeit minor) on Cambalachero.
  7. Here Lecen manages to insult three users at the same time (MarshalN20, Cambalachero, and Wee Curry Monster); ([20]): "As far as I know, you and your friends, Cambalachero and WeeMonstersomething, have turned War of the Pacific and Falklands War into a complete chaos."

As supported by the list of actions, Lecen continues to exhibit battleground behavior and disregard for the policy of WP:NPA. As a warning to the administrators, last time Lecen was blocked, he went through a long WP:DIVA process that may repeat itself again. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Seems like a lot of heat with very little light from my perspective. Deep breath everyone. Find peace within yourself, and you shall find peace in all you do. I'm honestly not seeing anything "admin. actionable" here. — Ched :  ?  01:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The more space that is provided to Lecen to take a "deep breath", the more he continues to insult other editors. One of his more recent comments continues to make wild accusations to Wee Curry Monster, Cambalachero, and myself: "Take a look at War of the Pacific and Falklands War: they ruined both articles". In that same link you can read his boast. The least he could do at this time is stop with the personal attacks, but that is apparently not a part of his plan. Are you to tell me that Lecen's behavior is acceptable?--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I really don't get involved in the "Nationalistic" areas. To volatile and hostile for my tastes. At this point I'm just not seeing anything that Lecan did that was zOMG BAN HIM actionable. You point me to a link where he's talking to a friend saying to "ignore" folks. Sure - he could have been more diplomatic, but I'm sorry - I'm just not seeing the smoking gun. He created a patriotic project around a country he loves? So? I'm sure you have people who share your views too. I'm just saying that right now this isn't actionable; but if it continues along these lines then it's likely to end up being a royal mess that could end up with bunches of folks getting their knickers in a twist. I wish you all the very best of luck, but I have no desire to stick my neck out at this point. — Ched :  ?  00:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not from Argentina, and therefore I cannot exhibit "nationalism" for a country which I have no linkage to. Here's yet another "funny one" pulled by Lecen: [21]. Are you going to tell me, again, that his actions are perfectly fine? Not only are they going against WP:NOTAFORUM (irrelevant to a serious article's talk page discussion), but they are plain un-funny and insulting (calling Maradona a "bastard ugly son", among other things).
I am 100% sure that if any other editor was making the same obnoxious and insulting actions, he would have already been blocked. What makes Lecen special? Is he everyone's favorite friend, a valuable a-hole everybody needs, or what exactly goes on? I'd love to know how a Wikipedian can get immunity. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Have you tried ignoring him? He might stop if you try that. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Right...because I'm the one that's misbehaving? Just because I disagree with him on certain topics concerning his dear "Empire of Brazil", he has a right to insult and mock me? What's worse, while these discussions have been going on about his behavior, he continues to exhibit even worse attitudes, and yet he still has not done anything wrong? By you telling me to "ignore him" and that "he might stop," you're basically agreeing that his behavior is wrong, but you can't do anything about it. I wasn't aware that Jimbo had a son. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I had been pretty much content in having stated my views; however, upon further review I am starting to understand how another editor might be driven to post a less dispassionate, perhaps even snarky post in situations such as these. Comments such as "his dear "Empire of Brazil"" and "I wasn't aware that Jimbo had a son" do indeed fan the flames of discord. Perhaps a little more stick dropping and a little less entrenchment would lessen the tensions here. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ched, right, right, I must be the reason the user accuses me of being Argentine, calls Diego Maradona a "bastard" in a discussion concerning regional powers, and loves to constantly mock Argentina's role in the Falklands War (and Argentine culture in general). Yeah, I tend to cause that effect on people, I call it "Marshal's Syndrome". How can I sleep at night knowing that I am the cause for such a mind?--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)A few things: A. I don't recall saying that "he has a right to insult and mock" you or that you're "the one that's misbehaving". My thinking here is that it appears that no admins are going to take action, so you're better off trying to avoid him. (There are several editors around here that I try to avoid, if possible.) B. I am not an administrator, so regardless of my views I really can't do anything to stop him, or anyone else, from saying whatever he wants. C. According to his wikipedia entry, Jimbo has two daughters, but no sons. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Mark, my prior statements were mostly done for the general audience (assuming someone who cares is actually reading them), and not really directed at you (making your point "A" largely irrelevant). Yes, I know that Jimbo has two daughters, but I've never heard of a son (hence the statement). It would be great to avoid him, but considering I enjoy working in Latin American articles, it's not an easy task. In fact, I only focus on the Spanish-side of Latin America, and the only topics we've ever engaged on happen to be those that connect the Portugese and Spanish worlds. I won't let a bully scare me away from an article. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate administrator conduct[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours for personal attacks and outing. --Laser brain (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2012 (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 am writing with regards to User:Jakew who maintains autocratic control over the Circumcision article as well as a few others. He is violating the Wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest by the following activities:

It is difficult to justify that Jake can remain unbiased in his editorship of the Circumcision article.

Many Wikipedia editors share my concern regarding Jake. My own talk page gives one editor's point of view:

"Hello Erik, thank you for your concern regarding the circumcision article. There are many editors who share your concerns that the ethics section of the article is under weighted violating wp:undue. Even so, there are a few long term editors who do not share this view and attempt to stop additions by means of attrition. A great deal of new editors such as yourself give up after a few tussles and the minority long term editors dictate the article. We encourage you to stick around for a while and voice your opinion as we build consensus towards fixing undue NPOV issues on various topics. Gsonnenf (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)"

I found Gsonnenf's advice impossible to follow as Jake and his supporters (Yobol, Jayg, and Coppertwig) reject any and all changes that would improve the article towards an unbiased view. Even with well-documented sources directly refuting the current article, Jake and his friends reject all changes out-of-hand that do not conform to their pre-conceived point of view.

I am well aware that Jake has received lots of medals from his supporter friends. I am also aware that in my attempt to draw attention to this issue, I have brought attention publicly to these editors. At Wikipedia, this is called a personal attack. In truth, this was a last resort. We are dealing with irrational, unreasonable people who exert iron-fisted control over this article (a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus) and are convinced to see it remain with a pro-circumcision bias. You may choose to dismiss my comments here on the basis of my "personal attacks". This would not be prudent, however. Sometimes attention needs to be drawn to those doing harm -- even if it means breaking the rules.

What we have here is an editor of a critical topic who self-admittedly becomes aroused by the topic at hand. Parents look to Wikipedia as a reliable source and they deserve accurate information. They do not deserve information that might result in the critical decision of removing part of their child's genitals to be incorrect. Furthermore, does Wikipedia want to be associated with someone who associates with the sick twisted perversions of those who inhabit circlist and Gilgal? Erikvcl (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jakew is not an administrator. Please could you inform him of this report? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I placed the ANI notice on his talk page as per policy. Erikvcl (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
These personal attacks on Jakew by Erikvcl had to be removed from Talk:Circumcision [22] and he was given an official warning by Jayjg.[23] He has also made personal attacks here, despite the warning. Mathsci (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand. I am reporting a violation of conflict of interest and consensus. This is not a personal attack. This is a violation of policy. Erikvcl (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me? In that removed personal attack, you admitted to stalking a fellow editor, as well as posting personal information such as his Twitter feed. That is outing an editor, and I hope and trust you learn from the block you're about to receive. In that time, perhaps you'll go back and review Wikipedia policies and guidelines, none of which prohibit editors from belonging to advocacy groups, holding strong opinions or having sexual preferences. Ravenswing 03:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Ravenswing 03:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Please read WP:BOOMERANG. You were warned explicitly about making personal attacks. Above you have written amongst other things, "does Wikipedia want to be associated with someone who associates with the sick twisted perversions of those who inhabit circlist and Gilgal?" That is a very serious personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Since when is a Google search considered OUTING? Since when is reporting publicly available information a "personal attack"? How does one possibly report conflict of interest without calling that person into question? You folks have a very strange definition of personal attacks. As I already stated, I've made what you call "personal attacks" to draw attention to this issue. If you continue to allow Jakew to edit, you are allowing a very sick individual to edit the Circumcision page. If that is the kind of person you want to protect and defend, it reflects on you, not me. Erikvcl (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
You cannot call somebody "a very sick individual" on WP. That is a personal attack. Mathsci (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
So it's alright with you when someone admits to being aroused by genital cutting? Do you think that's healthy or appropriate for Wikipedia? Do you think that's good for Wikipedia's reputation? Erikvcl (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
What he's aroused by is of no concern to us, only his edits matter here. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
And you think he can be impartial given his circumsexual nature? Do you honestly believe that the Circumcision article is unbiased? Erikvcl (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
What you think is scarcely pertinent. You are in violation of WP:OUTING, you are in violation of WP:NPA, and I hope your block is not too much longer delayed. Ravenswing 04:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Please delete my whole account. I don't want to be associated with the cesspool of sycophantism. Erikvcl (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
A user was once blocked for calling admins sycophants, but I'm not sure if they're still blocking over that. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I rather hope not. In the meantime, Erikvcl, don't let the boomerang hit you in the backside on the way out. Somehow we'll just have to manage to do without the massive total of eight articlespace edits you've achieved in three years. Ravenswing 04:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ouch! -Blake Burba (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Note, the ANI notification was placed on User:Jakew, I have now moved it to User Talk:Jakew where it belongs. Monty845 04:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No, we will not. A user cannot revoke their contributions as per our free content licenses, so "deleting" an account is not possible. --MuZemike 05:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Highstakes00 and Darkness Shines[edit]

Blocked. Bmusician 09:08, 17 April 2012 (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.

Resolved: Highstakes00 blocked as harassment only account by Floquenbeam

User:Highstakes00 I do not know whose sock this is, I no longer care. But I will not have a sock which was created for the sole purpose of reverting and opposing my edits to stalk me. Highstakes00 first contribution to Wikipedia was to revert me on an article rarely edited[24][25][26] He has not touched that article since being unblocked for sock puppetry. He then followed me to [ here an article I had created and was bringing up to GA class. His sock User:Repitile1 First edit was to revert me[27] on an article which since being unblocked he has not touched. As Highstakes00 the majority of his edits are in areas were I edit, not really an issue except all he does on these intersecting articles is revert me [28][29][30][31] or just cast his votes against me in any RFC I may have started[32][33][34] obviously for no reason other than to just oppose me. He also stalks my contributions, turning up at articles I have created.[35][36][37][38] and most recently being a subpage he has tried to speedy[39] and has now nominated for deletion[40] I should like something done about this fellow. I forgot, the reason I suspect him of being a sock is his very first edit ws an unblock request as he had created the account using a proxy[41] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

He editwar with me when I started wikipedia still I agree to stay away from this fellow and follow procedure. My sock case is complete I am not sock of any one I was unblocked because I will not create other account. He still blame me telling future to admin [42]. Then he accuse me to edit his article as if he own the article evn when I edit single article he edit before and then he follow me to article I edit before [43] [44] and then he blame meee that I follow him. He also used bad language on my talk page and be rude when I inform him that his user list is attack page. I have follow admin advice to take it to WP:MFD. I edit in Pakistan topic also and he thinks only he can comment in rfc I went to rfc from request board and I noted it because this fellow was there to prevent fight. He need to be ban from topic because he has only made pov edit and then he makes lame excuse to other edit that they follow him or calling them sock and not discuss edit. He has list with my name on it with other sock I do not wish to be on his user list because he is monitoring me and then blame me that I follow him. --Highstakes00 (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure if this helps but they have this feature that shows which articles have been edited by both editors. [45] Dream Focus 21:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • God knows what led me to look into this, as I am not one of Darkness Shines' biggest fans, and I hate delving into contentious topic areas. But I did, and it appears that more than 90% of Highstakes00's edits are related to DS. HS does indeed continually follow DS to article and talk pages to disagree, and did so long before DS added HS's name to the page at MFD, and continued to do so after being unblocked. In the other direction, I can only find one time where it appears DS followed HS to a page (mentioned above). Rather than issue a final warning, or impose an interaction ban of some kind, I'm about to block Highstakes indefinitely as an account created only to harass DS. Any last-minute objections? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated personal attacks and fringe theory pushing at talk:Rajah Lakan Dula and Lakandula related pages[edit]

A number of Anons who claim to be descendants of Lakandula (the most recent ones were,, and have been pushing a number of fringe theories on that page and in the process have repeatedly attacked me personally, even citing me by real name (although of course, my real name is openly displayed on my user page, so that's not really an issue, I guess). The most recent example, a mild one at, insists that the name be ordered "Lakan Bunao Dula", contrary to orthodox Philippine history and first hand accounts (which all say "Bunao Lacandola" or some other spelling variation). That fringe theory pushing has been accompanied by a series of attacks. This one accuses anyone who differs from their POV "Any deviations from this normal way is a suspect of being a paid hack for a family that has for so long been attempting to change the name so that it will be nearer to their surname and therefore easier for them to claim lineage to Lakan Bunao Dula." (That last part was a reference to the family of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who also claims descent to Lakandula.) An admin recently decided to archive the older edits, but if you look at the page as of, you'll be able to see that they've singled me out and accused me of being a "paid hack" by the Macapagal family. It's insulting enough to be called a paid hack, but it's made worse by the fact that I happen to dislike the people I'm being accused of working for.

Do note that I have thus far only confronted them on the Rajah Lakan Dula page (which is currently in discussion for a move). I've recently also discovered them pushing their POV at Magat Salamat (most recent edit and Dulay (most recent edit, but if I confront them there, I'll leave myself open to even more attacks. As an editor, I specialize in editing Precolonial Philippine History articles, which is not a particularly popular specialization, so patrolling has been difficult. These attacks make editing on certain any article directly related to Lakandula almost impossible.

I'm uncertain what to ask for. But this has just got to stop. It would also be good if these edits, which I consider defamatory, could somehow be removed or at least marked as unacceptable attacks.

Seeking guidance, Alternativity (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User Bertrand101[edit]

There is more than enough consensus for a ban on a long-term abuser. Therefore, User:Bertrand101 is hereby banned by the community. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2012 (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.

Fellow Wikipedians, It is with pleasure to announce that I am proposing a ban for Bertrand101 (talk · contribs), as he is nothing more than a sock-puppeting troll who's main intention isn't to contribute well to Wikipedia, but to destroy it to smithereens. Ever since his indefinite block, he's been doing nothing but restorting to Sockpuppetry, adding hoaxes, major disruptive editing and nothing more than pure troll-business. In my opinion, this is nothing more than a problematic editor and it's disappointing that such a disruptive editor was never banned in the first place. Hence I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him, and stop him from being such a troll and shouting trolololol. Soviet King In Soviet Russia, page edit you! 12:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment The ban won't stop him from sockpuppeting.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
    • So what? Most bans don't stop truly problematic users outright, they just make dealing with them quicker and easier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Due to proposer of this ban and I appreciate any effort to shut this troll up. Soviet King In Soviet Russia, page edit you! 04:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. User shows no desire to be a productive member of the community, and so the community should show him the door. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. User is only here to sock and vandalize.  --Lambiam 21:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Many, many socks and a history that clearly indicates they have no desire to be a productive member of the community. Banning won't change much, but still should be done as a matter of principle. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Quite obviously. Calabe1992 01:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: High freaking time. Throw the troll back under the bridge. Ravenswing 04:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

RFC Close[edit]

Can an uninvolved admin close the discussion here: Talk:Tau_(2π)#Request_for_comment. It's been open for about 3 weeks or so and the comments have dried up. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Niabot block review[edit]

Since the block has expired, this conversation is rendered moot at ANI. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2012 (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.

Let's keep this short and easy to read. Earlier today, Niabot made this comment, a joking remark that is or is not a crude/inappropriate joke based on your viewpoint. In pretty much every case I can think of, everyone would ignore the joke and move on with the conversation. Instead, Salvio giuliano, the user that the comment was in response to, went and blocked Niabot for a week, a completely overdone block that also conceivably breaks WP:INVOLVED, since he considers it a personal attack against himself, meaning it was likely an emotional block.

Two long discussions, of which I have been involved in, took place on Niabot's talk page, which any of you can read if you'd like. There were some other things that came up and some other parties, who don't wish to be involved in this ANI discussion, so I will not name them. But, it all boils down to that this was a reactionary, overdone, out of process block for a comment that, at most, deserved a verbal rebuke to avoid crude jokes like that, especially considering Niabot's previously clean block log.

I should also add that when I brought up INVOLVED, Bwilkins stepped in and unblocked/reblocked for 31 hours instead, so as to avoid Salvio being considering involved in the situation. I don't think this really changes the fact that an emotional involved block took place, nor that the block in the first place is ridiculous and should have never happened for such a throwaway comment. Thus, I am requesting a discussion on the unblock of Niabot. SilverserenC 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

...that ended up being longer than I wanted. Oh well. I'll go notify the three of them now, though we'll have to copy over any comments Niabot wishes to make, since he's blocked. SilverserenC 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
All three notified. SilverserenC 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I was a reviewing admin of the block prior to Bwilkins re-block and upheld it as being disruptive. The user was also told by Jimbo after the block that the edit was disruptive. Also, it remains unclear that the comment was targeted at Salvio and that doesn't void the unacceptable nature of it. MBisanz talk 23:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment was a troll type baiting comment of a PedoBear meme - he is lucky its not longer - Youreallycan 23:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I suppose I should add for a everyone a link to Niabot's explanation of the comment, which is here. He was not relating the comment to the meme at all, likely not beyond another meme that just goes with Do Not Want, which you can read about here, if you haven't heard of the meme. SilverserenC 23:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As I have seen - that is often a reason for publishing such a comment in a high profile location - to promote it. - they want to talk about it - they want to talk about how the pedos deserve respect for not acting on their desires , bla bla - block - ignore - is the way to go here - Youreallycan 23:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Your comment is rather offensive and has little relation to this discussion. SilverserenC 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a chan phrase / joke called "Too old; do not want":;_DO_NOT_WANT!

During a heated discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Salvio_giuliano stated (diff's: [46], [47]):

"Now, probably I am too old to understand how such an image can be deemed educational […]."

The stress on "too old" is mine. As a result, Niabot decided to lighten up the mode by bringing up the chan joke that I've mentioned earlier: "Too Old: Do Not Want!". Niabot also unwisely made a statement that gave readers the impression that he or she was trolling ([48]):

Let's say i wanted exactly this reaction to happen, or lets say it was just coincidence. You should be well aware what i mean and intended to do.

Nioabot later explained what he or she meant by the statement ([49]):

Look at the comment from User:Delicious carbuncle. Thats exactly what i expected. You say something. Some innocent words and someone will start to dig and dig until he can knit a rogue out of it to blame a user, a group of users or an entire project like Commons for things that they never intended to do. Thats what i wanted to illustrate in the light of this discussions: [50], [51], [52], ...

Maybe not the best way, but if it was throwing out a baited hook, than i must say, that i should go fishing with it after ordering a truck to transport the haul.

The stress belongs to me. Niabot was involved in a previously incident where someone mistaken his or her signature, which is actually innocent in nature, with a pair of breast: commons:User:Niabot/Signature. That's where Niabot was coming from; he wasn't seriously trolling.

I believe that Niabot's block should be overturned. This was a misunderstanding. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally think that the block of Niabot was absurd. His joke doesn't look more disruptive than some of the other comments in that very heated discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Niabot was the only editor that posted a Pedo-bear meme - There is nothing joking about posting Pedobear meme's. - He has had his block reduced and should be happy he is not indefinitely blocked via WP:Office action - Youreallycan 23:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
It's rather amusing how determined you are to completely ignore what everyone else is saying. SilverserenC 23:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If consensus is against me I will happily stand down - personally - I support indefinitely restricting this User:Niabot - and User:Saibo and anyone else/the others that supported that User:B.... at commons that required an WP:Office action to indefinitely block him - Youreallycan 00:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Niabot was being intentionally disruptive i na discussion about Commons problems of which he is a participant. He should take the 48h reduction as a generous gesture and be happy. Tarc (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I strongly believe this block should be overturned, in absence of any evidence that the remarks were anything but joking, aside from unsubstantiated arguments that he is trolling or being intentionally disruptive. Possibly inappropriate, yes. Blockable under WP:CIVIL, no. However I recognize that two admins have already declined to unblock, so I will hold off until consensus is reached.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Overturn and desysop Salvio giuliano. Clearly improper block. Salvio should read WP:INVOLVED. He is always here to unblock his friends and block those who disagree with him. The worst administrator on the English Wikipedia.

Youreallycan, Salvio twice saved you from long blocks, so your motivation to defend him is understandable. And for the record, I supported block of that pedophile Beta M on Commons, but this block is absurd.--В и к и T 00:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no position regarding Salvio - and your claim is false , / unsupported , no individual has saved me from long blocks - no single user has that weight here, - many admins have blocked me and many have unblocked me - most of them were decent npov actions - if you look on their userpage you will see me recently complaining about their removal from admins for recall - an issue we disagreed about - I support stronger restrictions on this User:Niabot - if I was an admin he would be indefinitely blocked - I support a WP:Office against him on all projects. Youreallycan 00:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Awkward block that's hard to solidly support or oppose. On the one hand, I (heavily steeped in meme culture, for what that's worth) read Niabot's comment as a lame, joking reiteration of a meme that the conversation reminded him of, not as a personal attack or harassment. On the other hand, Niabot seems to be here on en.wp to push - hard - a rather unattractive POV involving sexual images, Commons's right to be unregulated by the WMF, and expanding WP:NOTCENSORED to included the very most alarming edge cases. In his last few hundred edits here, I see few edits that don't involve one or more of those three things, and that combination makes it rather difficult to perceive his presence here as something other than pointy and borderline disruptive in a potentially very ugly direction. In short, while blocking for this particular comment looks weak to me, I think it might be a good thing, on balance, for Niabot to be given a timeout from this community unless/until he can refocus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • considering the past history and stance of Wikipedia on this topic, I have to admit that I'm very surprised that the block was reduced. I've seen some indef. blocks over this type of thing, but perhaps those days are no longer in touch with today's wiki. IDK. — Ched :  ?  00:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A lesson I've learned is that people of varying backgrounds and native languages often do not get humor when it is conveyed through the Internet. It would be wise for intentional jokes to be marked as such (such as :) immediately proceeding the comment or in the edit summary). Needless to say, it would be prudent to avoid making comments that could be misconstrued as inappropriate and/or remotely blockworthy. As an aside, I remind Wikiwind to refrain from jumping on the administrator lynch mob. If he/she considers Salvio giuliano a poor administrator, he/she should file an RfC or RfAC, depending on the circumstances. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Typical MBisanz stirring up drama. (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Silver Seren, I went out of my way to explain on Niabot's talk page, politely and pointlessly, that I am not responsible for Niabot's comment, for the thousands of links that Google returns for that phrase, or for Niabot being blocked. I asked you not to mention my name if you started a thread here and you agreed. I made clear on your talk page that I didn't want to be involved in your nonsense, even by allusion. Yet here you are, doing exactly what I asked you not to do. You really are an odious little weasel. You and Michaeldsuarez are getting Niabot worked up by misrepresenting the situation, just like he did on Commons. Niabot's innocent act isn't fooling anyone, but I don't think a block was warranted. There's no need for any of this drama, except for the fact that you thrive on it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I "alluded" to you in that manner as an explanation of why no one should bring up that part of the discussion on the talk page. That way, nothing would be focused on you and everyone would be focused on the subject at hand. Which was working just fine. If you hadn't commented here, no one would have even brought you up whatsoever. SilverserenC 04:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any mention above of the fact that Niabot's pedobear comment was in the context of a discussion about misuse of Commons by people promoting extreme free speech (one of whom has been locked by office action, that is, globally banned). If someone made a joke with a pederast meme in some other discussion it might be overlooked as merely bad taste, but in the discussion in question the pedobear comment is indistinguishable from provocative trolling. Support block, but believe more may be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    I assume you didn't read any of the above comments or the fact that the reply was not meant to have anything to do with the pedobear meme whatsoever. SilverserenC 04:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    Of course I read the comments here and elsewhere, and of course Niabot knew what they were saying. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock massive drama-mongering overreaction to a jibe on Jimbo's user talk page in the context that Niabot has taken time to explain his actions, which they would have done if asked. Many times Jimbo has stated he does not want interference in free speech on his user talk page, so this block is not needed to protect Jimbo. Let this discussion also provide a clear marker for future problems, Salvio inappropriately used the mop as he was involved, he knows better and this does not appear to be a mistake. -- (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Then why did Jimbo tell him it was inappropriate and not to do it on his page again? If it was so bad that Jimbo departed from his usual opinion, that would be good evidence to me that it was a severe violation. MBisanz talk 14:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Most likely because Niabot holds an opposing opinion to Jimbo. If you look at the history of his talk page, he restores outrageous comments that support his opinion, but removes even relatively innocuous ones that oppose his opinion. SilverserenC 17:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block Let me clarify the OP statement: having read the situation, the original comments, and the context they were in, it appeared that the use of the meme at that time had a purpose that was either derogatory towards an editor and/or disruptive - espcially considering the comments afterwards. I upheld that the block was valid, took ownership of the block, and reduced it to what would have been approximately 48 hours - this block is the first of its kind for the editor, and I personally felt it to be a bit too long in that situation. Again, I felt the block was warranted - as I actually DECLINED an unblock request. Having understood the mem better now, I probably would have left the length as it was. As Niabot's argument since has simply that they were misunderstood, there's no valid reason to unblock: WP:GAB states that such action requires understanding that the actions that led to the block were perhaps inappropriate, and that future similar actions will not recur. As these are not coming, the block remains preventative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Two things and then I'll refrain from commenting on this block further. The first is that the fact I was the apparent target of a personal attack or trolling remark does not make me involved; I was not discussing with Niabot, he merely popped up and delivered his line. Now, it's been a common rule that when a person attacks another, the latter can still block the former (otherwise it would be exceedingly simple for a vandal to insult the admins who are online ata given moment and then move on to vandalise the site, arguing they're involved, when they block him). So, no, I was not involved. That said, even assuming for the sake of the argument, that I could be considered involved, those comments were most clearly trolling, meaning that they were nothing but disruption, which is an exception to the involved rule. By the way, I wish to stress the main reason I blocked him for was disruption, not the personal attack (which I called possible). Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Could you point to a consensus for this common rule, I am unfamiliar with it as a valid exception to the Wikipedia:Administrators policy? I have never blocked anyone who was personally attacking me (as far as I can remember), I find there are plenty of other helpful admins available to take a look without making myself appear compromised in this way. -- (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Review WP:INVOLVED at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Perhaps everyone here should. It states it is still best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards, this seems to apply in this case. Best practice has not been followed, this is not a reason for Salvio to be proud of his actions. -- (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • "The thing is, few outside of Niabot's Commons cohorts see Salvio as "involved", though. Tarc (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
              • Calling everyone who has an opinion that does not support Salvio's action as a cohort of Niabot is derogatory and lame. Perhaps you should take your own advice and review WP:INVOLVED at your leisure, alternatively you could do something more useful rather than lurking on ANI, it must be a little dull not for a non-admin. -- (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If you want an admin who's not open to recall to lose their bits, you have three options: one, open an RfC/U with an eye to establishing a pattern of misuse of the tools; two, open an arbcom case; or three, convince the admin to turn in their own bits. For better or for worse, ANI has no power to desysop anyone, no matter how strongly people may advocate for a desysop here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Having never done so, I'm not eager to personally start one of these heavy-duty processes; but doing justice in this case by unblocking Niabot by community consensus, with our apologies, would be a vital first step. Wnt (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't support desysoping Salvio, who is a good admin, but this is a poorly-judged block. He seems to have a malfunction when it comes to dealing with editors who don't share his outlook on how WP should be done. There may also be a bit of ambulance-chasing going on here. Salvio should seriously consider leaving his tools in the van when it comes to anything to do with censorship/notcensorship. Formerip (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I almost forgot the important part: Overturn. Formerip (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone on one side of the whole commons-drama discussion really, really, really should not block someone on the other side of the whole commons-drama discussion. Shouldn't that be kind of blatantly obvious? --Conti| 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Were the acts reasonably construable as warranting a block "within process?" Yes. Was one week the "right" amount? Not being discussed - the "31 hours" is clearly reasonable. Per MBisanz, BWilkins, Salvio and Tarc - the block is rational. Collect (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support unblock Looks like an over reaction to a harmless joke. Perhaps I'm just desensitized to it because I've read that meme hundreds of times on the intertubes but I simply can't imagine it was said in bad faith (maybe bad taste, but that's not a blockable offense). SÆdontalk 16:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • note - this block appears to expire in thirty minutes , warranting any unblock issue irrelevant - Youreallycan 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The block should still be overturned in order to remove the stain from Niabot's record. If this discussion is allowed to continue and if the discussion is closed as "block overturned" instead of "block expired; discussion closed", then Niabot could link to this discussion every time someone mentions the block in order to defend himself or herself. It's important to continue the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Needs a clear reversal of the block So, person "B" blocks person "A" at least partially for something that person "A" said about /towards person "B". Clearly this is INVOLVED. And clearly an overreaction. A clear reversal of the block (for the record, even if otherwise moot) (and expungement of their record, if possible) is the minimum that should be done. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Admin reverting a good faith edit as vandalism and edit warring uncited personal detail into as BLP[edit]

This can be settled on the talk page, and should have been before coming here. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (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.

diff - User:Nikkimaria has been edit warring uncited date of birth and has reverted a good faith edit as vandalism - Youreallycan 02:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like she's reverting wholesale blanking. Am I missing something? Keilana|Parlez ici 02:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to know why YRC's linke takes me to "Staccato, Marcel Worms". You click on "history" or "talk", and it takes you to "Staccato". What nifty trick am I unaware of? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Keilana, and BB: YRC's diff had a typo (since fixed), so it was comparing the version of the page Marcel Worms that Nikkimaria edited to the version of the page Staccato from 4 February 2002. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Weird. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The vandal revert was a misclick, as I acknowledged immediately after making it. The other reverts involved restoration of sourced information. Youreallycan undid edits wholesale multiple times before pointing out that the DOB was unsourced; had he said so earlier, I would have omitted it. However, DOBs generally don't need to be cited unless they're controversial, and given that it was originally added by someone sharing the same last name as the subject, I see no reason to interpret it as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The user has just removed an addition I made that exposed two citations were cited to the subjects website - why is that? - Date of births are controversial if uncited - for an admin to edit war an uncited date of birth into a BLP is completely unsupportable within policy - her comments that the date was added by an account with a similar name as the subject and that makes her revert warring it back ok in are incredulous.Youreallycan 02:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Because URLs aren't publishers, and your edit presented them as such. If you'd like to present them properly, you're free to do so. Why do you say DOBs are "controversial if uncited"? Furthermore, had you actually explained what, specifically, you objected to rather than removing large swathes of cited content, this discussion would be a lot more productive. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The admin is continuing to edit war on the article and revert my good faith edits - The user has over 3 reverts ands should be blocked. Youreallycan 02:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just cleaning up after you. Care to answer the question above? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think Nikki's got it wrong on both counts. For one, dates of birth require citations. For another, the URL is where the info is located, no matter who wrote it. If a newspaper prints a column, was that column "published" by the columnist? No, it was published by the newspaper. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The publisher is the name of the publisher, not the URL of the publisher. For example, "New Bay Media", not "". At least that one looks like mindless reverting on the part of Youreallycan. --Laser brain (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
How do you know who the publisher is in this particular case? Just because it has the guy's name in it, Worm-something, doesn't necessarily mean anything. I could have a website called That doesn't mean some actual guy or company named B. B. Blog is the actual publisher. The best info you have is that the publisher is the URL name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
BB, had he actually said that it was the DOB that concerned him, we could have discussed that. But edits like this remove large sections of cited content for no apparent reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
He advised you in the edit summary that the DOB requires a citation. And you should know that anyway.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Eventually, and once he said that I removed it. However, his reverts removed large swathes of cited content and undid helpful edits for no apparent reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, most of the Dutch article appears to have been written by Marcel Worms himself in 2009> He included his year of birth.[54][55]Mathsci (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The original version here, including the full DOB, was written by someone who is most likely the subject's son. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
In effect, self-published. Totally reliable. Ha. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
He is a well-known pianist and the website is perfectly acceptable for these details. Here's another place where he's mentioned at length.[56] Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, there's an article talk page for a reason. Any particular reason you two can't talk to each other? Edit summaries don't count. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Frankly the both of them should be blocked for edit warring. Both know better and this never should have been brought here without some actual attempt at communicating. AniMate 02:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd think long and hard before blocking Nikki, unless you have 10 volunteers handy who will cover her workload while she's away. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not really planning on blocking Nikkimaria. I'd consider blocking YRC for general disruption. The amount of conflicts he's getting into these days is ridiculous. AniMate 03:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • True dat. To how many ANI threads has he been a party in the last month or so? Ravenswing 04:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've spent a while reviewing Youreallycan's history, block log, and so on. Here is a highly relevant bit of history: [57] Back in December, an administrator suggested after the latest round of trouble-making that Youreallycan had a penchant for "absolutism", "faulty judgement", "excessive personalization", "excessive willingness to escalate", and "insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions". At that time, Prioryman suggested mentoring, to which Youreallycan seemed to partially agree, while writing "[I] do not expect to be contributing more than occasionally and with a degree of irregularity". Not only did the mentoring arrangement not seem to materialize, but Youreallycan seems intent on diving headfirst into conflicts left and right and displaying most if not all of the behaviors noted above. This pattern shows an unwillingness to accept community feedback and an inability to engage in behavioral introspection and control. A lengthy block is probably needed. --Laser brain (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope - this shows no use of incivil language - which was YRCs primary problem in the past, and trying to inject his block log here is woefully irrelevant. DoBs are routinely considered controversial if anyone considers them so. And suggesting that the messenger should be blocked because of the "number of AN/I threads" is neatly Becketian. Cheers - I think this one is "done." Collect (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't think this is really about the content dispute itself—it's about the way YRC conducts himself, as in the thread I linked from December. The individual problems are only peripheral if he is engaging in one or more of them at all times. I don't see where in my statement I am "injecting his block log"; I only said I reviewed it, which is quite normal for an admin reviewing an AN/I report. Additionally, where did I say he should be blocked because of the number of AN/I threads in which he is involved? Just because someone above me wrote that doesn't mean I'm advocating that position. I suppose AN/I thread involvement is a useful indicator of how conflict-prone someone is, but only as a guide. If someone is either making constant AN/I reports or constantly the subject of them, don't you think that indicates something? I've noticed your m.o. tends to be taking contrarian positions even when the community discusses disciplining a user; may I ask what your reasoning is? Should Wikipedia be akin to Thunderdome? --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I think Laser's got it about right here. OfftoRioRob is passionate about BLPs-- sometimes to the point of missing the forest for the trees. When he's taking on a hard-working widely respected admin over a birthdate and with an issue where he didn't communicate well initially, and then misrepresenting Nikkimaria's vandal revert, which was a mistake she retracted, at ANI, we need to remind him to reign in his passionate stance on BLPs. It's an uncontroversial birthdate, and I'm sorry to see good folks discussing such a minor issue at ANI. Use the talk page, move on. Suggestions of blocking either-- both experienced users-- are over the top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
          • ↑ This, exactly. I'm going to close this. 28bytes (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Help with user Cyber17/ThunderBolt17[edit]

WP:DUCK served with orange sauce, master blocked for a week. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:19, 17 April 2012 (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.

Cyber17 (talk · contribs) now socking as ThunderBolt17 (talk · contribs)

Neymar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need some help, this user is not getting it, I copyedited about half of the article yesterday, before and after.

This user has been changing reffed info back to unsourced, adding non-NPOV peacocky stuff, messing up grammar and so on. I have reached my three revert limit and despite leaving edit summaries asking them to stop, appealing to them on the talk page they just continue putting their version back. diff 1 diff 2 diff 3

Each time the edit summaries seem to imply that they're just adding to the article but they seem to be copy-pasting their text back in, removing the stuff I cited above (for example the bracketed explanation that Peixe is the club's nickname). Proof of this is apparent where this IP's vandalism, which Cyber17 removed in his next edit now appears pasted back in his last edit to the page, see diff 3 above.

I left a level 2 warning about unsourced stuff on his talk page to no effect as well and the user has been notified. I'm off for now but would appreciate some input/action on this. Thanks. CaptainScreebo Parley! 23:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • There's not much here for an admin to do. I've left a note on their talk page. Competence (linguistic and otherwise) is an issue here; let's see if they revert. If they do, drop me a line. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Sure, saw your tp messages, I was going to bring up competence, seems like you've nailed it. I will keep you posted. CaptainScreebo Parley! 00:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Bringing this back in case Drmies is not around and before the editor in question copypastes his grammatically incorrect, peacocky version back in. Please see this at my talk and this at Drmies talk for more info/further developments, plus these diffs, proving it's exactly the same user. [58] [59] You need to scroll down a bit to see the peacocky stuff, but you'll also notice the exact same (grammatically incorrect etc.) edits that he keeps putting back in, despite being nformed by both myself and Drmies that this is incorrect. Cheers! CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A competence block is probably needed here. If nothing else, a sock block is already required. Blackmane (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll take care of it. ThunderBolt will be blocked permanently (obvious socking is obvious), the other 17 for a week for avoiding (well, attempting to avoid) scrutiny. Thanks Captain. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
No worries, wow, interesting tool. Thanks for your rapid intervention. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

user:CosmicLifeform reported by user:Whenaxis on behalf of user:SkepticalRaptor[edit]

Notified ArbCom due to personal information being involved. Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:49, 17 April 2012 (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.

As a mediator, I am reporting this about a dispute between two editors. Urgent action needs to be taken. CosmicLifeform is edit warring, sending threats through e-mail and personal attacks to SkepticalRaptor for questioning the reliability of a source. Sufficient warnings have been given on CosmicLifeform's talk page. The current DRN discussion has been placed on immediate hiatus. For more information, please see:

  1. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Younger_Dryas_discussion
  2. [60]
  3. User_talk:CosmicLifeform

Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 01:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I was notified about all this business, but I was only involved in that I reverted an edit by CosmicLifeform, thinking that it was a misguided edit meant for the talk page. I had no idea there was an extensive edit war, for what it's worth. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The claims that I am threatening SkepticalRaptor are patently false as an IP analysis will indicate. Also a quick review of my editing history will reveal that the nature of my edits on the pages in question were demonstrably minor and well founded by the depth and bulk of the scientific literature available on the subject matter and my intimate familiarity with it. Furthermore, my criticism of his familiarity with the established scientific literature were extremely mild and certainly do not constitute an attack on his person, and those criticisms can easily be verified by consulting an unbiased expert in the field. 02:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicLifeform (talkcontribs)
I believe that the alleged threats are off-Wiki. I had to rev/del the edits of another editor (CometHunter (talk · contribs)) for possible outing of SkepticalRaptor. This was hot on the heels of a rev/del I did on CosmicLifeform's talk page for possible outing, and it looked like a sock and I blocked CometHunter. CometHunter got in touch with me using their real name, agreed to my terms about not revealing possibly identifying information and I unblocked. Another Admin blocked SteveGinIL (talk · contribs) for possible outing of SkepticalRaptor (I didn't know of this until after the fact as I hadn't seen the edits). Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
CosmicLifeform has requested (by email) that I block him. I don't think this is necessary at the moment and am trying to persuade him to change his mind, but am willing to if he doesn't. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"Hi there, this is indeed CosmicLifeform, I have discussed this extensively with the Administrator via email and I have formally recused myself from any further editing of Wikipedia pages until I have thoroughly familiarized myself with the software and the Wikipedia philosophy and its rules and regulations. I am totally new to Wikipedia editing and its obvious to me at least that I should not be doing this until I have properly researched it. I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused Wikipedia administrators and editors."—email from CosmicLifeform. He`s going under a voluntary editing cessation. Don`t block unless he continues his disruptive edting. Best regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 16:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Use of offensive language[edit]

No admin intervention required. Warned JosephLoegering for NPA. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (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.

During a discussion with user user:JosephLoegering over WP:NOR issues on the page of Talk:Samaritans#Samaritans as a Jewish subdivision, the user used highly offesive remarks, accusing me of racism and religious persecution, directed to me without any provocation on my behalf. I notified the user that his behaviour would be reported on Wikipedia Administrators' noticeboard and asked him to avoid such approach in the future.Greyshark09 (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe you meant to link to Talk:Samaritan#Samaritans as a Jewish_subdivision, you have it pluralized above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 08:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you K--I should have read your note before browsing. I have warned the offender; the case is closed. The plaintiff is urged not to run to this or any other drama board immediately but to pursue other avenues first, like, talking. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Sri Lanka[edit]

Article cleaned up and two editors blocked. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:16, 17 April 2012 (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.

The Sri Lanka article has been locked for editing but the version that has been locked has a lot of malicious vandalism in the infobox that was re-added with this edit e.g. Motto: All hail Distributor108; King: Distributor108; Legislature: Distributor108; Currency: Distributor108. I have brought this to ANI rather than use {{editprotected}} as this is urgent.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the "Motto: All hail Distributor108", but there appear to be no further occurrences of "Distributor108" in the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have indef blocked Distributor108, as this recent outburst, coupled with that block log, does not indicate a constructive or collegial approach to Wikipedia. Any other admin is welcome to adjust the block without needing to consult me, but I would recommend that we should need to see a convincing commitment to work collegially before unblocking. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    Support the block. Clear issues either of competency or plain disruptiveness. --regentspark (comment) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    And the proposal of an arbcom case ... Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    Oddly, Distributor108 recently filed an arbcom case over a specific content question on Sri Lanka. Several people there commented that perhaps editor behavior at the article should be the question instead. Distributor108 has a very, very strong POV towards the article. For example, he rejected using the Sri Lankan Constitution as evidence that there are two official languages at one point saying that the government site wasn't updated, suggested that the Constitution was changed without anyone knowing. Not even 24 hours later he's using the same Constitution to prove something about the official religion. Can he be a good editor? I'm not sure. He's got a very narrow definition of good sources, quickly rejected out of hand anything he disagrees with. He asks a lot of other editors, but won't do his own basic research. He's forced some tags on the article and I doubt he'll ever willingly allow them to be removed unless the dispute is resolved exactly as he wants. If they are unblocked, I'd suggest a topic ban from SR articles, maybe allowing only advisory comments on the talk page (ie, propose edits and sources, but not participate in discussion and is not included for determining consensus) for a while and see what happens. Ravensfire (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    The editors unusual behavior (including the RfA asking specifically so they could monitor the is such that I don't think they are capable of understanding now to participate here in a proper way. I would agree that the block was appropriate. Dennis Brown (talk)