Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive753

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

24.185.205.143[edit]

Resolved

24.185.205.143 (talk · contribs)

What's to be done, if anything, about this odd one? The IP user began by posing a near-gibberish question on Talk:Mary Poppins (film). What we've seen since looks like classing trolling behavior. Not exactly on the order of ItsLassieTime or somebody like that. But just weirdness, and possibly starting to branch into other disruption. Any ideas? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a job for the Teahouse. Penyulap 03:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Bugs, per [[WP:Watchtower]], you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. If it's a new user, we should help them. If it's a troll, we should ignore them.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it's hard to ignore escalating (though childish) disruption. An admin has now lowered the Admiral Boom on the IP for 2 weeks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
See, I told you there was no reason to get excited. The low-key approach is always the... erm. Gnome-face-embarrassed.svg I'll just shut up now... if that's OK with everyone... --Shirt58 (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
If you don't want to say anything more, I can't stop you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation from user: EmJhay Sowkie[edit]

EmJhay Sowkie (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple Phillipines-X bilateral articles all with some form of copyright violation. at least one I got speedy deleted.

At least 4 notifications/warnings have been made with no change in behaviour [1].

number of the articles are lifted from foreign ministry websites or news articles including:


LibStar (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

user now indefinitely blocked. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I stumbled across this mess while working the CSD queue. I've indef blocked the editor, but would appreciate some help in cleaning up the remaining copyvios. It looks like just about everything he's written is a copy/paste from a news source. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad someone else caught these I kept seeing them in the queue but was busy elsewhere. Ridernyc (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A nuke caught most of the "relations" articles, and I deleted the rest. All I looked at were copyvios. The closest to non-copyvio was one copied from the New Zealand government, but that one was still under a "no derivatives" license. The rest were either unspecified or explicitly marked as "all rights reserved." The "Philippines-Foo relations" seemed to be the problem, I didn't find any issue with the templates he's made, or edits to existing articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a sock, though I can't recall whom. There was a big to-do over an editor creating an insane number of "relations" articles, but it's been so long ago I can't remember the user. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

There is clear consensus against restoring the questioned content, with opposition only from one IP user with no edits anywhere else (and a degree of aggression suggesting a likely personal interest in the case). There likewise seems to be no significant support for unblocking. Several participants have expressed doubt about Alison's wisdom in acting as she did, but there is no significant support for the view that it was a serious breach, and there seems to be no basis for any taking action over that. There does not seem to be any administrative action to be taken. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 22 May 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 have just blocked User: Badmachine indefinitely. I'm not the first admin to do or propose this--see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743#Badmachine Blocked and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#my user page. I gave Badmachine a clear final warning for disruptive behavior in this edit; this was in response to him suggesting that a stained glass of Jesus be used as the main picture for rapper Lil B, because, in his words, "thats lil b isnt it? ". This user, while sometimes making good edits to mainspace, is nothing but a bloody drama magnet outside of it, particularly in reference to his userpage. The specific behavior that prompted the indefinite block was the most recent incarnation of his userpage, which I deleted.

Now, why did I delete a userpage out of process, and block an editor who I know has been unblocked for? Because the most recent version of the user page made specific claims that a specific, living human being (or, possibly a fictional construct of Badmachine, but WP:BLP does not allow me to guess) was the perpetrator of child pornography, molestation, etc. Of course, no references were provided (yes, userspace is not article space, but nothing is exempt from WP:BLP). There is absolutely no conceivable way in my mind, given the vast amount of attention that has been paid to Badmachine's userpage before, that he could have possibly thought that this was acceptable under Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, the userpage admitted two particularly relevant points: " Badmachine took up his current view that trolling is a necessary part of the evolution of Internet users into thicker-skinned people" and "Badmachine remains particularly amused by the hypocrisy stemming from the fact that Wikmedia hosts every sort of porn imaginable, yet prevents images of penises on his user page, despite Wikipedia's claim of being uncensored." This was WP:POINTy, to say the least. This user is only here to push our buttons, for the lulz, shall we say. The mainspace edits simply cannot make up for this disruption.

Could I conceive of a path for Badmachine to return to active editing? At a bare minimum, it would involve the permanent deletion of his user page, the removal of anything from his user talk page not added by another user or put there as a response to another user, and an understanding that any disruption anywhere would mean a return to a blocked status. Do I think it's worth the effort? Certainly not.

Finally, please note that I am now walking away from the computer (because I have to go home). I strongly suggest that no one undo this block without a clear community consensus. Should a community consensus arise at a later point, fine. Also, another admin should take a look at the deleted content, and determine if the specific claims about child pornography require WMF involvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Please see User_talk:Badmachine#May_2012 - I've posted my own comments there. I've also restored the 'offending' userpage, which I can attest is Badmachine's own biography, and have redacted and suppressed material that may be required by policy. Feel free to judge accordingly. However, I strongly believe that whether Badmachine should be blocked for 'trolling' or whatev, he should not be blocked for posting his own brief life-story to his user page. This is just seriously wrong. Please read my own comments on his talk page. I cannot unblock myself, as he's an RL friend so that would be just wrong, but please take what I'm saying into consideration. I can't sit by and see him blocked indef for posting his life story - Alison 08:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • And I have deleted it again, because it still was a blatant BLP violation. Furthermore, you shouldn't have used the tools in this case Alison, since your COI clerly makes you involved (albeit with the best intentions). Voicing your opinion, like you did here, is perfect, but you should have left the rest to others. Fram (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Badmachine has been quite successful; we still get drama-threads like this one which absorb other editors' time. Giving extra attention is not the solution. Can't we get back to working on the encyclopædia's other problems? bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse block As I noted at User talk:Badmachine on May 13, "No individual action warrants an indef block, but in totality it is clear that WP:HERE applies—Badmachine is just testing the limits of Wikipedia." It does not matter whether the user is a troll or not, the issue is whether what they are doing is significantly different from what a clever and patient troll would do (it's not). Prior to the current issue, the user's page has been deleted by user request four times (log). That should not be necessary. It is not reasonable to apply WP:AGF when a user displays a GNAA logo on their talk page and posts "More amusing to Badmachine is that the prevention of penises is at least somewhat justifiable, but that the addition of the GNAA logo to his userpage makes Wikipedians shit their collective panties" (that was on the now-deleted user page)—what the user fails to appreciate is that we are (mostly) adult, and we don't care about porn/GNAA/whatever, so long as it happens somewhere else because this is an encylopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse block; nothing much against trolls in general. But their actions should not be welcomed here. --Errant (chat!) 09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block - the user is clearly here to troll & disrupt. GiantSnowman 09:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, what exactly is wrong with all of you? I imagine it must be some sort of mental disorder. It's pathetic really. Allison comes and reverts a deletion, because she apparently knows the guy (hence the involvement I assume) and as such vouches for the veracity of the user page bio, which was termed offending and as such the obvious problem, so her involvement actually increases her weight of opinion in this particular matter. But that isn't what this is about, is it, no no. This is about the inabilities of many wikipedians to see past their own self-righteous ideals. Ideals that make wikipedia the crap that it is today...it was once a wonderful place, now it has devolved into a bunch of man-childs arguing over jokes made on TALK pages for god's sake and factual user bio's confirmed by someone who apparently knows the guy. Grow up. You people seem like something from a kids in the hall episode about a wayward mental facility in French Quebec. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hello, mysterious IP whose first edit is to AN/I! Thanks for making my point for me. bobrayner (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Badmachine has posted a link to a pastebin copy which is supposedly (I'm not doubting the veracity, just that, well, it is pastebin, so I can't confirm it) of an article from the Ohio Dispatch that confirms key portions of the original story--the perpetrator, the conviction, some details about the crime. It doesn't of course identify the victim. This may change some people's views of the block and/or deletion, so I wanted others to be aware of it. Also, the user had posted an unblock request, which User:Boing! said Zebedee declined. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Note that the deleted user page also contained negative unsourced statements about other (possibly) living people, e.g. a member of his family. Fram (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can confirm that the first few paragraphs of the Columbus Dispatch article dumped in the pastebin link are a verbatim transcription of the actual article published on the indicated date, page number, & etc, as can anyone who creates a free account at the newspaper's website, which is required to search its archives. The rest of the text is behind a $3 per article paywall. The article accessed directly via the newspaper's doesn't mention the "Jr." appendix to the given name of the perpetrator, btw, but that's only included in the file name or heading on pastebin, not in the body of the text provided there.
Not that I think any of this is relevant, unless we were to allow an article in mainspace about it. --OhioStandard (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)  late edit - note timestamp
  • Regardless of the content of the user page, surely this is a case of WP:NOTWEBHOST - "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." GiantSnowman 10:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In practice that is rarely enforced for active editors -- for example, how is your atheism relevant to the encyclopedia? Nobody Ent 10:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I know you're playing devil's advocate, but there's a massive difference between a small userbox and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm saying focus on the actual issue at hand, which is the blp, not an archaic widely disregarded policy. Nobody Ent 10:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition, it's not only the user page that's the problem here - that is merely one issue, among many. GiantSnowman 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • While WP:NOTWEBHOST does make some very broad suggestions about what is / isn't allowed, none of it is distinct. Looking back at Wikipedia:User_page it clearly states: "There is no fixed use for user pages, except that usually one's user page has something about oneself" Now I would consider a biographical page about the author fully about oneself as suggested here. While the other page (something that is hidden away and even refers back to User_page as the primary source of information on namespace content) clearly says it is not a social networking site and should have some relevancy to the encyclopedia. If you take this to mean he should not have his bio on there, then please, from your own, User:GiantSnowman I request that you remove "Hello, my name is GiantSnowman, and I live in North Yorkshire. I am an English Literature graduate who works in finance, and I occassionally blog for the Huffington Post. I am interested in politics, literature, film, and music; strangely, my edits on Wikipedia do not reflect this at all – instead I concentrate mainly on the beautiful game." as it too is fully irrelevant to the encyclopedia. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, there's a massive difference between briefly explaining a bit about me and listing what areas interest me, both on & off Wikipedia, and a massive autobiography full of criminal accusations about BLPs. GiantSnowman 10:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Except it is a completely arbitrary (and nothing shown in either WP:NOTWEBHOST nor Wikipedia:User_page suggests that there is a limit on how much one may commit to their biographical data within their talk page. So the idea that his is massive and your's brief, is really of little relevance. Now the content of unsupported criminal accusations, would be an issue, except that isn't what this is. It is a statement, in his bio, that the man was subsequently convicted of said crimes and as such are not accusations, but a statement that a man was convicted for crimes prefaced in the bio. These are two extremely different cases. One is a risk of libel as no proof or lack thereof can be ascertained to meet legal requirements outside of a court, which would have to convict to give veracity to said accusations. So yes, ensuring that such accusations are not made is extremely good policy. However, to say one was convicted of said crimes, is not the same as it can be proven based on a plethora of documentation available to the general public. While his ability to keep it or not isn't as much a concern to me as how arbitrary the ideology of what rules he's violated disturbs me greatly. If there are rules that state definitively something he's done in that bio (without arbitrary definition as it has thus been) then I can fully see value in that. I've just not yet seen it. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I endorse the block, as it is not appropriate to use Wikipedia user space to make unsupported criminal allegations (whether true or not). I declined the unblock request largely because the request itself included a link to a screenshot of the user page containing the unsupported allegations. Badmachine has responded by saying he can go and get proof of his allegations and hopes that that will allow him to restore them to his user page. But I think that is largely missing the point - user pages are not meant as web hosts for this kind of thing, and editors' time should not be wasted checking the veracity of allegations made on user pages. But having said all that, I place great store on Alison's words, and I'm happy to accept her assurance that Badmachine is not intentionally trolling here - he has clearly suffered some events in his life that could cause serious damage, and I think we should take that into account. However, Wikipedia is not therapy, and I don't think Badmachine's detailed life events should be posted here. I've suggested that he posts a brief bio with no names named, and I would support an unblock if he agrees to post no more than that on his user page (and I think his giving us some idea of what he wants to do towards improving the encyclopedia would help). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I still find the ban unacceptable and the fact you keep calling them "allegations" of any sort shows a lack of understanding of what the term even means. There are no allegations in his bio, as the suggestion was that the man was convicted of the crimes and as such they aren't a suggestion of criminal allegations, ie. they're not a statement revolving around the act of the crime and it's assertion of it happening rather around the conviction and the preface of what for and not at all surrounding a plead for action based upon what you incorrectly label "allegations". Please see Allegation for further information. That aside, the suggestion of "brief" bio is a rather arbitrary term. For myself who can write novels about whatever subject I happen to be writing on, brief may find itself several pages. Which obviously many other wikipedians would too, considering the length of some of the talk page bio's I've come across. What I actually see here is a wikipedian who many have a problem with because he doesn't necessarily fall into their self-imposed clonal mold, he's from different circumstances, from a different mode of thought, but a wikipedian, a competent editor, and an otherwise decent person. This whole thing is ridiculous and I find the fact any of this happening a black mark on wikipedia's open and non-discriminating nature. Sad, very sad. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Honestly I think the user page is a sideshow and not really a major concern (i.e. could easily be fixed). The elephant in the room is the ongoing trolling as evidenced by the blocking admin. Badmachine exhibits the traditional usenet toll behaviour, as Alison noted, and can't seem to restrain himself. That is disruptive IMO. At the very least, for an unblock he needs to agree not to engage in that again. --Errant (chat!) 10:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • so it is okay for an admin to use a non-issue for the reason to pursue a ban to get people riled up so that his case that normally failed to reach a ban consensus would be easier to push through? That isn't very good behavior in and of itself. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Nobody is pursuing a ban - this is a block review. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • BTW, concerning the word "allegation": If a person claims that someone else has been convicted of a crime, but does not provide proof of that conviction, then in that context it is an allegation - whether proof of the allegation actually exists does not change that. Calling it an allegation implies no ill-will towards the person making the allegation and does not in any way suggest falsehood. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Note AGK has made a statement vis-a-vis checkuser. Nobody Ent 10:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment: I am typically quite sympathetic towards these types of things, but I also understand the poorly considered postings on the userpage in regards to trollish, legal allegations of pedophilia or child porn, and concerns regarding possible BLP issues. I'd also have to think a bit of research into the AGK post in regards to it now being a CU block as well would be needed; along with the great advice offered by Boing. Great respect to Alison, and sincere sympathy to BM - but a blog would likely be a better outlet for much of what was deleted. — Ched :  ?  10:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • So now that's settled, there's the issue of an admin using tools to undo a deletion (admittedly one done out of process) on the grounds of personal friendship with the party in question. That certainly shouldn't be waved away. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    I don't see it as Alison "undoing" the required deletion, just implementing it in a different way - she did, after all, remove the actual offending parts. Perhaps she shouldn't have done so, but I don't see it as a big deal. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
What Boing! said. And there are few users, I think, who are as inclined as I am to object to genuine abuse of the tools. I'm not an admin, btw. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Alison probably shouldn't have done it - given her open COI - but there was certainly no admin 'abuse of tools' or anything of that nature, and it has since been quickly & cleanly rectified. GiantSnowman 11:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thumperwad is not correctly seeing the case here. What Allison did was restore that which she, herself, knows to be true and factual, which is due to the very fact she is friends with BM. Namespace in no way is required to meet the standards of the encyclopedic information, the original deletion itself was excessive and could have been handled with much lighter hands, removing, and perhaps locking his userpage until a discussion on the content allowable was made. A block / deletion was well in excess. Allison did nothing wrong here, this is a case where it is assumed that a friendship is a COI, where in reality the friendship provides inside knowledge of the veracity and thus non-disruptive in intent reasoning behind the bio. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
My suggestion would be, IP 24.x, that you refrain from posting here, to avoid having this IP address blocked for evasion, and to avoid having the notion that you're unwilling to abide by community norms confirmed. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The IP is obviously a sock of the user in question. I'm surprised it's not blocked already. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That was indeed my immediate thought as well - both use double spacing, and these arew the IPs first contribs on Wikipedia - but the Geolocate doesn't match... GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • considering the userpage was previously a wall of penises, I'm finding it difficult to take the biography at face value. Don't feed the trolls. bobrayner (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • whether you take it in any way, is really of little consequence imho. As long as it doesn't violate explicitly any rules, namespace doesn't need to be cited. Not in most cases, nor in cases where you have doubts about it's veracity. However, Alison, who apparently is an IRL friend of BM, stated that it is all true, and personally I find that enough to take it at its word. That being said, I don't see how this is really a troll even if it were false, the wall of penises appeared to be a (though not sure it applies to namespace) a case of WP:POINT, but really neither does much to actually disrupt anything, except for some reason people allow it to take up there time by creating an issue where one really doesn't exist. That's like blaming little Debbie for being fat, because those little cakes are just so tasty. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, you are not allowed to make unsourced negative comments about living (or possibly living) people in user space, and even reliably sourced ones should be used with utmost caution, as the purpose of a userpage is not to post negative information about other people. Fram (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • and I've not argued against WP:BLP being a valid consideration in this case. In fact I agreed with that above. Although I think the block and deletion of the userpage was excessive and simply removing the offending material (which was only a small portion of the bio) would have been sufficient. from WP:BLP - "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", however later it is stated, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Now, in the case of this block, it seems it defaulted to the latter, without consideration of the first step action appearing in the rule's heading. There was no removal of the offending sections of the bio, rather the entire bio was removed and a block instated. While yes, it is possibly a violation of WP:BLP, and as being even a possible violation removal is priority without considering of discussion on the matter, blocking is not the intended first response for a violation, nor even subsequent violations unless as stated the violation fo WP:BLP is persistent. 24.42.221.147 (talk) 11:42, 22 May 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.

Bullying tactics from User:Seb az86556[edit]

Handled on both user's talk pages as no one else seems interested (justifiably) in digging through this. Closing due to POV canvassing by the IP, which is arguably block worthy, but I'm feeling particularly generous today. Dennis Brown - © 14:40, 22 May 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.

Constantly reverting edits and data links on my user page that I have inserted to record another editor's project investigating the suspected dozen or more IPsockets of my IP address. I have a personal interest in this project, of course, as it implicates me, as an editor. To understand how this system of reporting works I am watching closely to observe how another editor, attempting another WP:Bullying tactic to suppress my edits, alledges I can post from various cities hundred of km. away from each other. I have attempted to give notices and discuss this perceived harrassment with this user with several attempts on my and his talk page. He just ignores any comments, refuses discussion, deletes any discussion I make on my, or his, talk page and posts more threatening or belittling text. If this is the way editors, attempting to help out, are treated something needs to be done about the constant wiki-spam injected into readers pages about being able to edit articles. From the few dozen IP addresses I have observed, this is not the case and an Internet propagated lie to the public. It doesn't take a genius to see that IP editors are targetted in Wikipedia by a certain group of seasoned editors that will bully IP editors until they give up. User:Seb az86556 certainly fits this description. I have spent more of my latest edit time defending allegations inserted in to my IP talk page than I have editing. I have attempted to get assistance but constant "look at me" notices, from some, distract from this process time. From my past experiences in these matters the user in question will be the major deciding factor in this matter and therefore I have lost any faith in the system. I would like it to go on record and perhaps after hundred of complaints, about this WP:Bully, somebody will wake up and rescue the WP methods before it crashes as a useful tool. Thanks 99.251.114.120 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding links only. Dennis Brown - © 00:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please notify Seb az86556 of this? I understand I am supposed to notify the editor involved. I do not know understand how to use templates and he will only inject more warnings on my talk page for vandalism. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You just copy the template from the instructions, paste it onto his Talk page, and sign it. I find it helpful to put it in its own section, but it's not strictly necessary. Anyway, I've done it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that anyone has done anything to you that was unwarranted. At least some of your editing pattern appears to be disruptive. You were blocked by User:The Blade of the Northern Lights on May 9 for edit warring. That block was extended for personal attacks on the same day, and again extended on May 10 for a week because of inappropriate use of your Talk page during your block. Other than your global criticism of how IPs are treated generally - this is not the place for that - I don't see why you're here except perhaps to draw further attention to yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves, although I have looked through the IPs contribs somewhat. All I can recommend to the IP is "duck!". I'm pretty sure one of my famous heart to heart talks wouldn't do the trick here as I think the IP lacks the clue factor to benefit from it. As such, I will leave it to someone else to apply the proper inspection and remedy. Dennis Brown - © 01:58, 22 May 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.

Adal Sultanate[edit]

Nothing actionable, we need better tutorials and guides to editing. non admin close, I've opened discussion on the complainants talkpage myself. Penyulap 17:00, 22 May 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.

a user in the article Adal Sultanate keeps removing my input and reinstating it with his own bias revision and misrepresenting the reliable sources i have listed in the articles language section. i am requesting that admins add this page to the watchlist and do something about the users revision of my work Baboon43 (talk) 11:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This is a content dispute. Continue the discussion on the talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, take it to WP:DRN. ANI is for "incidents" requiring immediate attention of admins only. Since all the edits by both parties appear to be in good faith, interfering would be beyond the scope of ANI and thus improper. Dennis Brown - © 12:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You might also follow the links at the top of the talkpage to wp:WikiProject Ethiopia and wp:WikiProject Somalia they might be able to give a second or third opinion on their discussion pages. Penyulap 13:54, 22 May 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.

Personal attack by User: Historiographer[edit]

Discussion moved to WP:AN. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 22 May 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: Historiographer wrote a personal attack using a racial slur Jjokbari: "Japanese users, who diminished to Korea-related articles like Kusunose, are kept always annoying deeds that. In those days, I'm also used to do that like you against these troublesome Jjokbaries".[2]] ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So please leave a {{uw-npa1}} template or a personalised warning; a single statement is not grounds for blocking or other administrative attention. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The user has been blocked for three month by an admin Future Perfect at Sunrise for "nationalist battleground attitude, chauvinistic attacks, edit-warring; also disrupting discussions with poor English". ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You have significantly changed the meaning of the users comment by taking it out of context, the remainder of the diff you point to paints a different picture. Penyulap 14:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a common thing to say "oh I used to get concerned about something, and now it doesn't bother me" For example, "I used to get concerned about people coming to my talkpage trying to troll me, but now I don't let it bother me"
The exact expression used, same diff, is "Please, Don't mind too." I don't see this as a personal attack using a racial slur, I see it as giving wise advice not to be upset, using the racial slur as an example of how upset you should not become, as in don't mind being upset (or engaging in racism), be like me and "Don't mind too." Penyulap 14:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I've asked for further information, and the admin who blocked may be busy as it's taking a while to respond. I went ahead and asked for the block to be reviewed, however, as it's the first time I've done so, I probably used the wrong tp, lol. Penyulap 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This is getting rather amusing as the help pages, policy, guidelines only give advice on how to appeal your own block, not how to appeal someone elses, there is like, zero mention of it at all. Have to look into that one.
Meantime I am blatantly admin shopping, as the first one I got, I never even left the checkout with it before I noticed it was broken. I wouldn't mind a response on this one that I can at least leave the store with. Penyulap 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The awkwardness is due to the fact that you can edit when you're appealing someone else's block, while blocked people appealing their own blocks have to go about it all on their own talk pages or through email. Please take it up with the blocking admin; if you disagree with his reasoning, please bring up the issue (calmly/peacefully/etc.) at WP:AN, using a header of something along the lines of "Block review requested". Nyttend (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I had asked for clarification first from the admin, on their talkpage and on the users talkpage, I got a response to the second unblock request which was better than the first, I think it would be helpful here if I was to add your advice into the block pages, because maybe I am a complete idiot (or maybe there a few bits missing before I'm complete) but I couldn't see anywhere on any of the block appeals pages how to request further information or review of someone else's block. Penyulap 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Moving response to parallel thread at WP:AN. Fut.Perf. 19:05, 22 May 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.

RfA disruption[edit]

Requests for arbitration enforcement should go to WP:AE, and there's already an open thread there, so closing as there's nothing more AN/I can "help" with. 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 22 May 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 think it's time for someone to tell Malleus that he's said enough on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Avicennasis. I dare not tell him myself since he's currently edit warring with multiple users on my user talk page, which probably makes me involved.

At the RfA, he's belligerently badgering various support voters (1, 2, 3, 4), asking baiting questions of the candidate, and even badgering the nominator below his nomination statement.

See all of his edits to the page here. Looking for an uninvolved admin to ask Malleus to stop contributing to that specific RfA, per this Arbcom remedy. Thanks. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the term you are looking for is bludgeoning. That it was you that brought it here is surely to be a topic of discussion, which I don't look forward to. This might have been better handled on the talk page of a neutral admin. Dennis Brown - © 14:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I can assure that I'm not trying to simply get Malleus "in trouble". Yes, we've been having a bit of a run-in lately, but this complaint is unrelated. I stopped by Avic's RfA this morning to see how it was going, saw Malleus' abuse there, and decided that enough was enough. The RfA process is stressful enough as it is, Avic doesn't need a classic Malleus temper flare-up to add to the stress. -Scottywong| communicate _ 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your conclusions, hence my link. I just don't think bringing it here was the best solution, all things considered. I would have perhaps dropped a note on an admin's talk page that Malleus is friendly with, for their opinions on the matter, as he would be more likely to consider their opinions in the matter. But then again, I'm always singularly focused on getting the desired results with the least amount of possible side effects, so I tend to think differently than some. I doubt Malleus would consider my opinion in the matter or I would have already made a polite request on his talk page. Dennis Brown - © 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should have tried discussing it with him instead of running straight here, this is the 2nd time in two days you've brought Malleus to ANI.--SKATER Is Back 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
[ec]Personally I didn't find Malleus' comments any more disruptive than the snotty remarks directed at some who opposed Dipankan001's RfA. Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, the regular Scottywong vs. MF ANI thread. I'm not really interested in the ArbCom ruling, sorry. It probably would be good if Malleus stay away from the RfA (on second thought, I'm not so sure about that), but I don't see how his comments are over the line. There's edit summaries in that history that are probably instantly blockable for some and they're not his. Dennis, the talk page of an uninvolved admin--it's better to not pick a fight in the first place, IMO. If one disapproves of Malleus's tone, switch the channel. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Seriously Scottywong? You're bringing Malleus to ANI twice in 24 hours? Did you spend a lot of time trying to sort these problems out away from ANI? Did you consider that Arbcom Enforcement might be the best place to ask for Arbcom enforcement? Or are you just trying to stir the pot? WormTT · (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • And the drama continues. Drmies, Scotty should have dropped a line on YOUR talk page and got your opinion in the matter and allowed you (or someone similar) to decide if mentioning it to Malleus is appropriate. I have no problem with SW taking exception with MW's bludgeoning, but I question his judgement in bringing it here *knowing* that others would look unfavorably at it, thus undermining his case. Dennis Brown - © 15:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No one would accuse me of being neutral in this matter, Dennis! ;) Battle lines are drawn anyway, and this thread also will continue and end predictably: after some comments back and forth someone will decide that the comments are not actionable and that this stirring of the pot serves no purpose. Mind you, I think I voted for Scotty's admin t-shirt, and I have no problems with them as far as I know, but adminship should come with a warning--that it's even more important to stay away from such unfruitful enterprises and from editors with whom one has had conflicts in the past. If he had asked me I would have said "don't do it." Scotty should realize that in this case there is no need to defend the defenseless, and that another such thread only stirs the shitpot and maybe even calls his judgment into question, as you suggested. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • And actually, you and I agree for the most part. They both voted against me at RfA, so I have no dog in this hunt. I like them both and just accept them as they are, even if they don't share the same feelings. My point (ie: solution) is that Scotty should be wise enough to let his concerns filter through a neutral party, since there is bad blood here. I do the same with you and others all the time. It is a reality check, so I know I'm not overracting. Let me be clear, nothing Malleus has done is actionable, even if he has been rather active. Scotty should have sought a second opinion before coming here, which likely would have resulted in his not coming here at all. Dennis Brown - © 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I tried] old chap Egg Centric 15:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no problems with Malleus's comments. He has questioned one or two supporters, in an environment in which opposers have been seriously badgered and abused for years with nobody even batting an eyelid. Malleus's comments have been civil too, and only got perhaps a little snarky in response to snarking from others. And I see one case in which he is responding to a personal attack from Shadowjams on Hipocrite. That RfA is not perfect, but singling out Malleus when there are examples of more objectionable behaviour there seems pointy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I don't particularly like this supporter badgering but it isn't any worse than the oppose badgering that happens all the time either. I have basically come to the conclusion that it is best to let Malleus be Malleus. He's an excellent content contributor and I believe dragging him here every other week (or two days in this instance) isn't exactly beneficial to the project. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I do see a problem with Malleus' comments, but I also see that others have poked him sufficiently so that he can justifiably claim only to have been reacting. I find MF's worst contributions to be little worse than those of his accusers. If we drowned him in honey, rather than sousing him in vinegar, might he not sweeten up? Wouldn't it be a turn for the better even if we tried and failed, rather than assuming the worst and having ourselves proved right? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why this noticeboard is broken. "I find MF's worst contributions to be little worse than those of his accusers." Wikipedia civility and NPA policies don't mention that you're supposed to judge someone's actions relative to the actions of the person who is reporting them. If you have a problem with my behavior, then by all means, start up a thread about it and let's discuss it. Otherwise, let's discuss whether Malleus is being disruptive at this RfA, particularly considering his long history of disruption at this venue (as evidenced by his topic ban). I fully expected the predictable backlash from Malleus' considerable cadre of wikibuddies. Despite all of your assumptions of bad faith about me, I'm simply looking out for Avicennasis. This isn't about me, so please don't make it about me. If I had someone badgering multiple supporters as well as the nominator under his nomination statement at my RfA, I certainly would appreciate someone looking out for me, since clearly any attempt by Avic to stick up for himself at his own RfA is likely to generate a few opposes from Malleus' harem. Apparently no one else has the balls to stand up against Malleus, so if I have to take one for the team, so be it. Can we all just think about Avic for a moment rather than your allegiance to Malleus or whatever preconceived notions you have about me? Thanks. -Scottywong| talk _ 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • [ec] Come on Scotty--that RfA is far, far from being derailed. I make no assumption of bad faith, though I am saying that bringing yet another ANI thread was not a wise decision. FYI, I have a HUGE set of balls, a bunch of sets of balls actually, and this bit about "Malleus' harem" is, pardon my French, a load of bullshit--thanks for your good faith in my judgment and that of others, including those who are not on Malleus's dick (like Dennis Brown), as far as I can tell. I think this is getting the better of you and I urge you to go get some coffee in a place without WiFi before you make more insulting comments at those who don't agree with you. Seriously. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    I suggest we focus on Scottywong's erratic behavior in recent weeks, including yesterday's dig at Malleus followed by today's dig and his insult of "Hippocrite", which was redacted with a misleading edit summary.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC) insult of "Hippocrite", which was redacted with a misleading edit summary.
    How was the edit summary misleading? He removed a part of a comment which he felt unnecessary, which is basically what he said in his edit summary. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    Blade, please stop enabling Scotty's abuse of non-administrators. He removed his insult of Hipocrite, without apology. An unecessary part of a a comment would be the duplication "a a". But you knew that.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    "unnecessary" as in ""Ann, that was unnecessary!" is one colloquial way of saying "uncalled for", "gratuitous". I'm pretty sure I've amended my own posts with the comment "removing unnecessary sarcasm" too. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's how I read it, I'd never thought of it otherwise. Noted for the future how other people might perceive that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • ANI is not the first place you go to find resolution, you know this Scotty, it would be 2nd or likely 3rd. I expect this from new users, but not admins. I don't assume bad faith in you at all, I find that anyone replying multiple times is troublesome, even when it is not actionable. That isn't the point. Surely you are smart enough to know that since you two are "involved", that people are going to consider the messenger, which is why I suggested you filter through a 3rd party first, to make sure that your interpretation of "incivil" isn't colored by your own bias. Even if you are right, you have to realize people are going to question you, so it would be better served to allow someone else to bring it up if they agree with you in cases where there is obvious bad blood. If your goal is to find a solution to a problem, then these extra steps actually save you time and problems. Scotty, once you realize that you are continually shooting yourself in the foot, it is time to take your finger off the trigger. Dennis Brown - © 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Look Scottywong, if I had to choose a side of the fence in this issue, I'd certainly choose yours. I've had my share of flareups with Malleus in the past. It just seems that bringing the issue here causes more problems than it solves. What would you like to occur? Should we ban Malleus? Then we lose his content contributions. We could create a topic ban from RfA but I believe that would be more trouble than it is worth. Malleus cannot drag an RfA down on his own. Let him have his comments, supporters do not need to respond to any badgering. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Since I mentioned ban, I would like to add that it was purely hypothetical and that I wouldn't only oppose it on the basis of the loss of content contributions. I don't see anything here that warrants a ban or a block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No one is asking for an outright ban of Malleus. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
But that's your only choice, as Monty very wisely observes below. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
As Malleus and Monty have noted, that is the reason I mentioned it. Upon review of the two incidents I saw those as being the only two related outcomes and both have no merit. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • First, it has become standard practice for editors to call out opposes at RFA that are poorly reasoned or wrong. It seems entirely fair that the same standards should be applied to support !votes, and RFA may be improved if supporters start providing more detailed rationales for support. Second, more generally, returning to AN/I for every little perceived misconduct of MF is just not a productive use of time. The overriding concern should be how do we best improve the encyclopedia, at this point it should be clear to anyone that MF is not likely to change his conduct as the result of reports to AN/I or short term blocks. Short term blocks that are unlikely to change behavior are inconsistent with the blocking policy. That leaves the community two realistic options, decide that MF as a major content contributor, minor bouts of incivility included, is a net positive to Wikipedia, or that the problems with MF outweigh his positive contributions and pursue a long term block. I personally think we are better off having him around. Monty845 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I just want to get this straight so that I understand it next time. It's ok for Malleus to refer to me as a "pretentious prig", because I made some comments to another completely unrelated editor earlier that day. And it's ok for Malleus to badger the nominator and various supporters at RfA (despite a recent arbcom resolution which clearly shows he has a history of disruption at RfA), because I was the one who reported it. And it's ok for Malleus to edit war on my talk page to restore obvious trolling comments, after I asked him twice to refrain from posting on my talk page, because hell, he's Malleus and that's what he does. I just want to make sure that this is the logic we're now using here at ANI, so that I hopefully can restrain myself from making such frivolous complaints here again. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    You keep claiming that there's some ArbCom restriction on my participating in RfAs, or some decision that I've disrupted RfAs; where have you got that idea from? Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Potstir.gif Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • If someone were to be referring one of the people we have an article on as a pretentious prig, how many people would descend on the person and claim horrible policy violations (c.f. the Andy Hawkins fiasco, where people claimed we were being too insulting by referring to his comments as infantile and trolling). How do we get from that to this when it comes to the people actually in the community, to whom at least in my opinion we have a greater need to show some decency? I'm of the view that neither approach is right on the matter, but clearly this is too polarized for a lot of people to take a rational look at what's going on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit in my watchlist, which related to this arbcom decision. The page did not begin with "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship" and the reverting editor was not an administrator so I reverted. That being said, I feel it relevant and I thought I would mention it here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Scotty linked to this, but therein lies the rub, Scotty is "involved" with Malleus, thus why I said he needs to filter through the neutral 3rd party admin and let them determine and take appropriate action. Coming here to do so was the mistake, as so publicly asking for a 3rd party, well, might be seen as pointy and hoping that one of the many will agree with him. Had he chosen to be more discrete, he might have found a more receptive audience, or been properly informed it doesn't apply. Again, he shoots himself in the foot. Dennis Brown - © 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My primary purpose wasn't actually to call attention to the arbcom case. I wanted to confirm that my restoration of the comments was correct in light of the decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I missed that obvious point. Yes, I think what you did was both bold and proper, as no uninvolved admin has chosen to exercise their rights to ban Malleus from participation, and even if they now did, this question was not disruptive and already existed. Dennis Brown - © 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes all that's needed for a lie to take root is that it's repeated often enough. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Completely uninvolved comment: I don't see MF's comments as disrupting the RfA in any way. An RfA is, after all, a place where opinions are actively solicited. So, whether they're being given in a !vote or as a response to one should all be one and the same thing. --regentspark (comment) 19:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Scottywong and Malleus Fatuorum[edit]

I am proposing this at risk of drawing this incident out further than it already has, but I feel the best way to solve this problem and prevent future issues is an interaction ban between the two. Scottwyong does have a legitimate concern (i.e. Malleus calling him a "pretentious pig") but repeatedly bringing up the issue causes many more problems than it solves. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose I suggest we force them to wed and share a 1 bedroom flat instead. Dennis Brown - © 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Completely unacceptable. If Sc ottywong as an administrator can't be trusted to behave with a degree of decorum then he should be desysoped, not pandered to. Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unnecessary. I've asked Malleus to not contribute to my user talk page, and as long as he can control himself and respect that request, I don't think we'll have too many problems once he gets over this temporary episode of admin envy. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My proposal wasn't only directed towards Malleus. Was the comment "temporary episode of admin envy" even remotely necessary? Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • How much of this civility for thee, but not for me from our admin corps will we need to watch before one of you insists on accountability? Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Amin envy? - get over yourself - a worthless shiny badge - get yourself off the noticeboards and go do some mopping work with it in the Admin backlogs before we take it off you. - Youreallycan 18:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have historically opposed the very notion of interaction bans on this project. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Re: "temporary episode of admin envy": Scotty, get a grip of yourself, man - you are not behaving the way an admin should. Go switch off, calm down, switch off the computer, have a week off - or whatever it takes to calm your anger. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Point: I believe the phrase was "pretentious prig" rather than "pig" - a huge difference I think. (noted at the risk of jumping headfirst into the former category myself.) — Ched :  ?  18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ban on Scottywong commenting on Malleus[edit]

I would prefer desysopping, but let us start with the obvious.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose I see your point here, but I can't imagine anything being worse than a one-sided interaction ban (which is basically what this would be). Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Ryan.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support desysopping - I support desysopping - the user has issues recently that were not resolved sufficiently imo and he is continuing along on a similar pattern of drama - not required in an admin - its easy to remove his additional privileges and then he will not need to adhere to such high standards of contributing. I support liberal desysopping give it, take it , why not - its just a website. Admins are just faceless users who have said the right things to get the shiny badge, if they stop saying/doing the right things once they have the shiny badge, simply take it back..Its no big deal, its not like he would be blocked or anything as severe as that, he would just loose his shiny badge. Youreallycan 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Again, completely unacceptable. You need to get a grip on the behaviour of your administrators, not continually be desperately trying to find excuses for their poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community acceptance that these two will never get along and should simply try to avoid each other[edit]

Not trying to be absurd here, truly, but nothing in this ANI is actionable, and at the end of the day, what we do here is try to find solutions. Fix problems. Sometimes there is no solution and you just accept it and move on. No one is getting blocked for any actions, an interaction ban might look good on paper but isn't going to be effective and will just become the basis for yet more actions in the future. Both parties would be doing us all (and themselves) a favor by trying to avoid each other and by filtering their concerns through a neutral third party before coming to the boards. I find them both equally rude to each other and other editors often enough, so we are left with a draw. If anyone wants to consider actions against another editor in the future, I highly recommend that they remain so civil in their dealings with them that the one-sided nature of the event is more obvious.

  • Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown - © 17:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable. I've found in dealing with MF that if you treat him like a jerk, he'll treat you like a jerk right back. And if you communicate in a mature adult way, you get along fine. Most of the questions he raised at the RfA were fair questions that need to be asked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    That's a fair summary. I treat you the way you treat me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll accept this As I mentioned when I came up with the idea of the interaction ban, I was aware of issues that could cause. That being said, I still wouldn't oppose my ban proposal if other members of the community felt it necessary and it may be a necessary step to take in the future. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, my absurd oppose wasn't a comment on your idea, it was a comment on the absurdity of the situation. If I wasn't clear, I would apologize. Dennis Brown - © 17:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem, I found it quite humorous, I intended to reply, but I seem to have run out of wit for the day. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Per Bugs. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and furthermore, I command everyone to go write or review an article instead of posting here any more. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    So I'm just supposed to grin and bear it am I? Not bloody likely! Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    No, you are supposed to do what you do so very well, write articles. Dennis Brown - © 18:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    I understand that grinning and bearing it isn't very appealing to you, but FAC is getting pretty backlogged and some of the articles have real problems with the prose. It would probably be like shooting fish in a barrel for you. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    Then find an admin to help. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I was tempted to support the underlying point, but the narrative "I find them both equally rude to each other" in the context of the referenced RfA leaves the implication that MF was rude to Snottywong. I didn't see it, so cannot support a finding that suggests he has. Did I miss it?)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My comment was more general in nature, based on my own observations over a long period of time, and not necessarily related to any diffs provided or this one "event". The point was similar to my closing the previous ANI that Scotty had opened, found above. Dennis Brown - © 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    So basically you were talking shit. Nice. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mainly because the same can be said of nearly anyone who calls Malleus' behavior into question. He responds to those with pointed insults, the other party brings a complaint, and then it becomes "these two just can't get along". When one user has so many such relationships, one has to wonder if the problem is still always equally mutual. Equazcion (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fortunately, we only have to consider if the problem with Scotty is equally mutual for the purpose of this exercise. Dennis Brown - © 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think regarding it that way is a problem. It seems that no matter how many times this happens, we consider only the present two parties; and if taken that way, yes, it seems like an equally mutual issue. I'm not sure why we keep choosing to disregard the history, which paints a different picture. Equazcion (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • PS, who exactly is allowed to comment on Malleus' behavior and not end up being sent to a corner opposite him? The people who support him and would never bring a complaint like that, or the achingly neutral people like Sandstein and DGG who probably wouldn't comment on a behavioral issue if you punched them in the face? We're running out of people here. Equazcion (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    And not before time. Malleus Fatuorum 19:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support/Oppose I support for the sake of stopping drama and I oppose for the sake of stopping drama. I rather wish someone would just delete this entire discussion, save us all a lot of trouble. Though, admittedly, this discussion is a perfect example of how Wikipedia, especially ANI, is organized into cliques that fight with each other. Many of the usual suspects are here in this discussion and, in my opinion, I wish they would just shut up and go away from ANI, forever, dear god. SilverserenC 18:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Kind of meaningless. Both SW as well as MF are grown up (in terms of Wikipedia edits anyway) and can figure things out for themselves. Someone should just close the entire thread and throw it away. --regentspark (comment) 19:14, 22 May 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.

Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal[edit]

We have a bit of trouble at Talk:Kosovo about an old move/merge proposal that has been sitting around for over three months and has gone stale with a "no consensus" situation. Some participants have tried to formally close it [3][4][5][6][7], in a non-admin, involved closure, which in a case like this I understand can be legitimate (there is no clear requirement move closures have to be done by admins, and in this case the "no consensus" outcome seems obvious). One newly arrived editor, Ottomanist (talk · contribs) has strenuously opposed the closure, reverting it several times [8][9][10][11][12]. The article is under Arbcom sanctions and a general 1RR, although it seems not quite clear whether the 1RR applies to the talkpage too.

Personally, I can somehow sympathize with Ottomanist, who argues that the process was hijacked by national interest factions and doesn't represent a legitimate consensus the way it is now. This is indeed the case (it's one of those cases that will never be solved properly unless editors with preconceived opinions determined by collective national interests are decisively sidelined; a whiff of Macedonia is in the air). I'm involved, as I !voted on the same side as Ottomanist earlier, but I agree with the editors on the other side that at this point it makes no sense to force the process open again. Fut.Perf. 05:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I agree, but I do not sympathize with Ottomanist. He's not a neutral party over there, and every single major discussion on Talk:Kosovo is bound to be "hijacked by national interest factions" to some degree - from both sides. I have seen ample evidence of "solidarity" within both the Serbian and the Albanian "factions", on that talkpage specifically and in general.
Imo Ottomanist's actions are, in fact, a good example of the type of behavior that makes-up a big part of the problem on that talkpage. The discussion was effectively over in early March, but because he disagrees with the result of the RM, he has kept it open for several months through talkpage edit-warring. I was rather amazed when he reverted Future's closure of the thread, and I'm reasonably certain he's actually hoping this report will help his cause as well - every vote counts, you know. That kind of fanaticism and WP:HORSE is just disruptive (although I think the WP:HORSE would actually have decomposed long ago in this case :)). -- Director (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't generally disagree with your assessment; just a factual correction: Ottomanist didn't "keep it open for several months". He only started editing last week. The move process was just sitting around stale for so long, but formally it was still legitimately open when he first tried to comment on it. (Actually, I remember somebody had tried to close it some time ago, and back then it was me who reverted the closure (once) because at that time I felt it was inappropriate to have a closure by an involved party.) Fut.Perf. 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Its really besides the point. Will someone just close that thing? Its been up since January. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As the thread has been closed by an admin (Future) [13], I've now re-instated the closure. User:Ottomanist is clearly opposed to closing the thread for POV reasons, and imo really ought to be warned and/or sanctioned for reverting an admin closure and edit-warring [14][15][16][17][18] against everybody else on the talkpage of a sensitive article under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting quite banal now - everybody knows that Serbian editors act as a bloc. I don't see why impartial editors don't get on to this- the whole free, English-speaking world recognises that the Republic of Kosovo has the same borders as Kosovo. The issue is summed up best by one editor:
"We had lots of polls on whether to split Kosovo. Despite certain editors repeatedly gaming the system, polls kept on returning the same consensus; "no". Then somebody went ahead and split the article anyway, there was an editwar, the wrong version got protected, and now we're here; a fait accompli. I would support a merge so that we're back in line with both consensus and with neutrality."
Ottomanist (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "everybody knows" Serbian editors oppose the move, pro-Albanian editors (like yourself) support it, and there are uninvolved editors on both sides. There is no consensus for the move. Not only was the thread closed by an admin, it was closed by an admin that actually supported the move. The RM has been up since January, there's been no debate for two months - and it is over. Nobody is "gaming the system", except you - by keeping the RM open until you have your way. Keep content disputes on the talkpage please. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
We'll let the admins decide if there are two Kosovos or one. Ottomanist (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know, "there can be only one Kosovo!!", right? Please tell me you're not here trying to canvass admins? Perchance you are unaware that this is not the place where people "decide" on content disputes? Frankly I can not believe you are actually hoping to use a report on your behavior to close an RM in your favor. -- Director (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea if there are one or two but I do know a lack of consensus. Closed it again. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that Ottomanist is in fact not a new user, but rather a sock of Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), as this [19] makes obvious (that and the unique combination of pro-Albanian and pro-Ottoman POV, which made Interestedinfairness stand out from other users in this area). He owns up to being a returning user [20], but won't say what was the name of his old account. The bit about being a casual user is malarkey, as Interestedinfairness was anything but a "casual user". As Interestedinfairness, he had racked up a block log, and also gotten a formal ARBMAC warning and a one-month topic ban from Kosovo, for disruptive behavior. Thus, starting a new account is problematic per WP:SCRUTINY. At a minimum, he should be compelled to disclose his former account on his userpage. Athenean (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah. Now it makes complete sense. After I attempted to close the thread, the user actually followed my contribs and reverted my edits on a completely unrelated article (Government of National Salvation) [21]. Sort of like "get away from my article or I'll oppose you on that one". "Casual user" my foot. Athenean, just post an SPI report. -- Director (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, he did disclose the previous account, on being asked ([22]), so there's nothing much an SPI would be useful for. But of course I agree he's been disruptive, and I'm slightly curious why no admin has got the banhammer out yet. Fut.Perf. 08:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Update: the user is now edit-warring on the Republic of Kosovo article. To be precise, he's revert-warring to push his deletion of large chunks of data without consensus. He's also accused me on my talkpage [23] of working as a group with WhiteWriter of all people, my best friend [24]. -- Director (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

also I would like to remind parties involved that Republic of Kosovo is a 1RR protected article, any violation of that rule is instantly blockable that includes both parties--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I remember why I left. Judging by Greece's current financial crises, I'm surprised user:Athenenean is still here. User:Fut, I'm rather saddened that you're wiki lawyering here and trying to go by principle rather than accepting that anything Albanian related is hijacked. Moreover, Athenean - im not 'pro ottoman', just going by what the recent scholarship says, and off course this rejects nationalist historiographies as the only true interpretation. Ottomanist (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Am I reading this right? "Judging by Greece's current financial crises, I'm surprised User:Athenenean is still here." And this looks like the tip of the iceberg ("Don't worry user:E4024, with Greece's current crises, I don't think they'll have money to keep presenting nationalist claims everywhere. P.S. There are loads of 'Greek' users on here colluding with other nationalists, so be warned. It's a real shame they've managed to hijack wikipedia like this." [25]). Can you write things like that on ANI? The guy is currently blocked for 1 week for breaching 1RR on the Republic of Kosovo, but I think he deserves an extension. -- Director (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

1RR per week violation on Republic of Kosovo[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for 1RR violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ottomanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Ottomanist violated 1RR per week on Republic of Kosovo article. Article was placed on probation per WP:ARBMAC, in order to stop this kind of questionable edits. this was first revert, where i reverted his edit, and moved to talk. This is second revert by DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), and third, again by Ottomanist. User was warned on talk page about ARBMAC, but he insulted me. See see talk for more of that behavioral, and several other warning, after which he reverted again. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is whether users with a degree (such as my self) should bother spending time editing on here? I clearly posted on the talk page about editing the lead, which looked like a law essay about Kosovo's status. I edited the lead to follow wikipedia standards, keeping the information about its contested status, whilst adding a history section (properly sourced) and also something about the recent conflict in the 1990s.

Judge for your selves which lead better conforms to wikipedia standards.

We can't keep the RoK page in a state of confusion for ever. Ottomanist (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is basically a content dispute, but I'm verging on fully protecting the article for a little while. I'll give it some more thought later this evening if someone hasn't already done something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This was already reported above (Trouble with stale Kosovo move proposal). The issue, as you might notice, is really one disruptive user, who shifted from one POV-pushing campaign to the next one. Imo it would be a mistake to have his non-consensus changes protected (keeping WP:BRD in mind). As regards the 1RR: practically all edit-wars can be classified as content disputes. The point is that the article was under WP:ARBCOM probation. -- Director (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Almost all editors here have at least one degree I should think. The school kids tend to stick to NPP, vandalism reversion, and so on. Egg Centric 19:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
And that Ottomanist is a returning sock! I have just find out in the section Direktor presented above! --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
He also told me to go away which was quite rude--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
This is more WhiteWriter pushing their POV agenda and then attacking anyone who disagrees. WP:BOOMERANG is way past due for this editor. VєсrumЬаTALK 20:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? This looks like you are trying to denigrate me here on wiki. I would prefer if you stop commenting on contributor, but on content, as that is WP:PA. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Commenting on your behaviour as evidenced by your edits is, indeed, permitted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it looks like here are, despite me, several users who agree that Ottomanist is obvious sock and vandal. Are they also pushing their POV? I even tried to inform the user about wiki guidelines regarding this article, but in vain... If you, Vecrumba, have any observation about my edits, talk to me, i would be glad to sort any possible problem. I never saw you, despite participation's on similar public noticeboards, talking against me, unrelated to reported person. Again, this is not place for this, if you have any objection, talk to me first. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) My point is that editors should work matters out on article talk.
No one involved at the Kosovo article should be allowed to file ANY administrative action against another editor involved there. I suggest that article restrictions such as 1RR (per week, isn't it?) also prohibit the filing of these actions by involved editors against each other. That will take the heat out of the system regardless who is, or isn't, "right." VєсrumЬаTALK 21:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, that is actually, quite logical, and sometimes i agree that AN/I can be avoided. But this is just plain, obvious vandalism. And Ottomanist is already blocked, so this will only do good for wiki articles, for now. Lets hope that he will edit with more care after the block. Anyway, i am gone from here, if you have any other objection or proposition, i would gladly listen, so dont be shy to write me at home. :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────


One more thing is relevant here I think. The user's personal attacks and ethnic insults.

  • "Don't worry user:E4024, with Greece's current crises, I don't think they'll have money to keep presenting nationalist claims everywhere. P.S. There are loads of 'Greek' users on here colluding with other nationalists, so be warned. It's a real shame they've managed to hijack wikipedia like this." [26]

And then this on ANI:

  • "Judging by Greece's current financial crises, I'm surprised user:Athenenean is still here." [27]

The last one was actually posted here - on ANI. He's making fun of a user for because his country is in economic and political turmoil. On ANI. The guy is currently blocked for 1 week for the 1RR thing, but frankly I think he deserves an extension. -- Director (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

User Typebotmaster[edit]

Resolved: indef'd by Bwilkins Nobody Ent 23:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Typebotmaster (talk · contribs) is it an authorized bot?who is running it ?Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See this edit [28] - it is not a bot. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The way I see it this account is either:
  1. A human user impersonating a bot and therefore a violation of WP:UAA because the use of "bot" in the username makes it easily mistaken for a bot, or
  2. An unapproved bot as there is no indication that this account went through WP:BRFA.
Either way I see grounds for an indef block. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, let's get this indef block. I'd leave a message at WP:UAA but hopefully an admin here will see it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking of reporting it to UAA, but after seeing that "FagTown" edit, I figured AIV would serve just as well. Whether it's automated or not is kinda academic at this point; looks like it's pretty ovbiously a vandal-only account posing as a legimate bot to evade scrutiny. Writ Keeper 22:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accountToothpaste Town? FagTown? Are you seriously kidding me? This was a no-brainer for a block in any case. It should have been blocked back in March. --MuZemike 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Won't you take me to; Toothpaste Town! Won't you take me to; Toothpaste town! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit though, I'm a sucker for a good pun. Writ Keeper 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationalist-motivated vandalism by the user:星光下的人.[edit]

There's a consensus that the user being discussed has done nothing wrong, and that the complainant needs to engage with the person he's in dispute with. Non-admin closure as there's nothing else to see. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:11, 22 May 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.

星光下的人 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Nationalist-motivated vandalism, of List of titles and honours of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and of List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales, at [29] and at [30], respectively. Cannot write English properly, and many of his edits in the English Wikipedia were unhelpful, or even downright disruptive. Edit-summaries were often left blank, if they were not rants, and in Chinese, instead. Fairly nationalistic Userpage at the Chinese Wikipedia, at [31]. The user appears to be pursuing some fringe theories (possibly over the use of surnames) over Chinese historical articles, across the different language-versions of Wikipedia, or that he is in fact simply trolling. The User was indefinitely blocked, according to these, at [32] and at [33], in the Japanese Wikipedia, at [34], by the User:Vigorous action, at [35], for "Move-Vandalism" (ブロック設定を無期限に変更しました。ブロックの詳細(アカウント作成のブロック、自分のトークページの編集禁止) (ブロック破りを認めたため。荒らし: 移動荒らし。)) ([36]; [37]), and later also for suspected sock-puppetry [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]. I had reported this to the wikipedia:AIV, but was recommended, as it is too complex, to bring this matter up to here instead. I thank you. — KC9TV 08:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Blank edit-summaries and poor English are things we help editors with, not typically block them over. You have a rather bizarre definition of vandalism that does not match ours - and your massive overuse of vandalism templates is rather WP:BITEY. You've even been removing comments from your talkpage calling them vandalism when they're not. Have you attempted to resolve this issue with the editor themself yet in a polite, non-template-laden manner? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, I don't know what you mean by a fairly nationalistic user page at the Chinese Wikipedia, there are userboxen about being against independent Tibet and Taiwan, and being pro PRC, but it certainly isn't over the top, nor would it have much bearing on changes to British royalty articles on English Wikipedia. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
For a Chinese, probably not. For a non-Chinese, probably a bit. I see. Well, it is always a little strange indeed when some one who is struggling with English suddenly goes on to edit the articles for BOTH the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales, and enclosed ALL of the Duke's titles, even down to the title of H.R.H., as being "citation needed". Was he seriously attempting to seriously challenge the Duke's right to hold and use even the H.R.H. title? And why did he not do the same thing on the Chinese Wikipedia? And he is anything but a new user; old enough to get himself a block on the Japanese site for moving pages without consultation. — KC9TV 13:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
If someone is cn-ing the article in it's defining language rather than the local server language they may be looking for a definitive reference. The obvious solution here is to give them several, which they may very well copy onto the local server. Penyulap 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do hope that all this is in fact nothing sinister, and I might apologise if it is. Well, anyway, but the edit to the entry of the Prince of Wales's titles was a little too skilful. Instead of tagging, he skilfully re-arranged the Prince's titles, so as to give the readers a possibly misleading impression that "the Prince of Wales" were not (or might not had been) the same person as "the Duke of Cornwall". [42] The Prince, Duke of Edinburgh, for example, probably DID say something rude about the Chinese. There were even some talk over the Internet, by some Chinese, of "boycotting" the Royal Wedding, back in the year 2011, because of that remark, but that was probably just simply Internet Trolling. I am not actually sure how all this play into this. If only he could just come out and say something in writing, even in Chinese. If he just doesn't like the two men, well, fair enough. — KC9TV 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you perform further experimentation on the editor by feeding him/her a few references ? and if so what happened ? Penyulap 15:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
He only tagged ONCE, and it was reverted, reversed or undone, and there are NO further edits in either of the two articles. I am not sure as to what his intentions on the Chinese Wikipedia, his home Wiki, are. — KC9TV 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, but according to you he's a vandal that needed level 4 vandalism templates at least twice! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, but he DID ALSO mess up Prince Charles's (the Prince of Wales's) titles. Is my original statement "T.L., D.R."? Still, an edit-summary would be "nice", but there was none. Well is he, anyway? — KC9TV 15:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've come across 星光下的人 several times in articles relating to ancient Chinese states etc. Although he can be tricky to deal with and somewhat intransigent, I would not say that he's a vandal or up to anything "sinister". The major issue is that he doesn't speak English so it's hard to explain policy to him. ► Philg88 ◄ Star.pngtalk 15:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@Penyulap, User:99801155KC9TV did not engage 星光下的人 in discussion, even though it is clearly written on top of this page that one should "discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". User:99801155KC9TV simply slapped on 2 vandalism templates at User_talk:星光下的人 and then came here. Hanfresco (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Look the way I see this is not a matter of counting how many more languages 星光下的人 can speak than the complainant, the issue here is coming to ANI because "Citation needed" is too hard to understand as a request for a citation. Give him a citation as requested. Coming to ANI saying 'oh he has been blocked before and this is some kind of reason for blocking him again' is nothing but despicable. READ ENGLISH -> CITATION NEEDED. END OF DISCUSSION right there. Penyulap 15:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
We so need to put up little fences here, IP filters to keep out asia, a little great wall for china, and a blasted big 100 mile (200km) high steel and stone monolithic division you can see from mars between the British and the Americans and their ENG:VAR, because I swear sharing this little English language is too hard for the lot of you. Penyulap 16:01, 22 May 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.


Just for the record, I have never "actually" requested for a block, not as such, not in words, and not by implication either, that is the sole prerogative and province of the administrator; although, as a mere and a most informal request, I shall be most grateful indeed if he, and perhaps his other friends as well, would think twice about "certain" articles. I, clearly not being a speaker of the Japanese language, would e.g. had been slaughtered if I were to go and make uninformed and unexplained changes to the article about the Japanese Emperor, especially upon the Japanese Wikipedia. He probably should also be mindful about the words of one of his own Userboxes that he had put up himself, "這個用戶希望有一個女朋友", which is perhaps best left untranslated. — KC9TV 08:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Blood on the Saddle[edit]

Cardiffmermaid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) We have this self-confessed publicist for the group Blood on the Saddle trying to dictate what the article should say, cluelessly destroying the formatting of the article in the process, and replacing it with a copyvio wall of text - as apparently instructed by a member of the band. See the article history, and User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Blood on the Saddle. I've blocked now, but they're getting very strident. I'm off to bed shortly, so I'd be grateful if a few admin eyes could be kept on it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A frackload of warnings, and not a single attempt to communicate on ANY talkpage. Unfortunately good temporary block - hopefully we'll hear from them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the page should be protected for a while so they can't edit it beyond the block. If they see their attempts futile they'll walk away. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
While there is only one editor doing it, I think a block is the appropriate tool to use - but if other editors, or IPs, join in, then that might be the time to protect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The underlying problem, of course, is that the band's MySpace page, from which all of that copyrighted non-free content was ganked, appears to be the only place where the band's history doesn't stop in 1995, and no-one apart from whoever wrote that MySpace page acknowledges that the band has done anything in the 21st century. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Another consideration: for all purposes, the only source in that article that suggests notability is the LA Times one (the other two are primary sources to track their discography), and even then, judging by context where its used, the band would appear to be named in passing (given it was the same year that the band broke up) - but I have not seen the article to actually confirm. Irregardless, one mention that specifically talks about the band being local tells me this really isn't a notable group to start with. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false vandalism accusations by User:Nick Cooper[edit]

Not so interesting anymore. Nick Cooper is STRONGLY urged to acquaint himself with WP:NOTVAND and to edit accordingly, at the risk of a block. The IP is urged to stop telling editors to go fuck themselves. Both editors are urged to handle content disputes blah blah etc. The usual. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 23 May 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:Nick Cooper will not stop leaving vandalism warnings on my page. I have repeatedly explained to him that disagreeing with him in a content dispute is not vandalism, and have asked him to read WP:NOTVAND at least seven times. He continues to leave false warnings on my page, and is now reporting me for vandalism [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Both are well past 3RR. May be somewhat counterproductive, but not obviously trolling. Strong candidate for WP:LAME. a13ean (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Page protected for 3 days, either editor will face a short block if they post to each others' talk pages again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The inherent problem is that 89.100.207.51 did not understand the remit of the page, deleted content, and then ignored all explanations as to why they were wrong. Since then, they have attempted to turn the page into what they mistakenly thought it was - and now claim it should be - rather than what it has been for over five years, and indeed from the day it was created. Apart from being downright abusive, 89.100.207.51 has consistently failed to offer any rational justification on the Talk page as to why the page should be changed, and has ignored all the explanations as to why it was created in the form it was, and what its remit is. It is also notable that the page is question is based on another one, but 89.100.207.51 has made no attempt to make similar changes there. I've explained all this numerous times, but 89.100.207.51 refuses to acknowledge or discuss any of it. I'm not sure what difference three days is going to make. It is also unfortunate that the page has been locked in the form 89.100.207.51 wants it to be, rather than the long-standing version that existed up until the point this dispute started. Nick Cooper (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
It is clear that there was an editing dispute going on, instead of continuing discussion, you starting issuing vandalism warnings to the IP, the IP started issuing you warnings for issuing inappropriate warnings. Without weighing in on what the outcome of the underlying content dispute, it seems the IP editor was discussing in good faith, and even when other editors suggested you may be wrong, you disregarded that and kept on going at it the the IP and failed to adhere to WP:AGF. Step away from the conflict for a few days while the page is protected and then take a look at your own conduct. Monty845 21:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Which "other editors" are you referring to? The three who replied to 89.100.207.51's slanted RFC before anyone had had a chance to explain the actual background and remit of the page? Nick Cooper (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Specifically Murry1975's comments. More generally, what I don't think your getting is that there is no definite remit of an article, it is by its nature determined by consensus. Also, regardless of the remit of the article, you need to understand that WP:Vandalism is editing with the intent to disrup Wikipedia, and I haven't seen anything to justify your classification of the edits that lead to the edit war as being vandalism. Monty845 21:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Murry1975 said that the article should have remained in its original state pending the 30 days of the RFC. 89.100.207.51 ignored that, and kept changing it back to the version they wanted, while claiming consensus long before the 30 days were up (and which aren't yet). 89.100.207.51 originally claimed that the content did not match the page name, but rather than propose or discuss a change of name, they insisted that long-standing content should be deleted. How is this constructive? Nick Cooper (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
In any case, what about the de facto consensus evidenced by an article being in an essentially stable form for many years, generally only edited as appropriate by editors interested or knowledgable in the field? Does that count for nothing, just because an editor unfamiliar with the subject stumbles across it, and manages to gain some short-term support amongst other previously uninvolved editors to change it? This dispute started because 89.100.207.51 removed content from the page twice ([54], [55]), which was reverted by