Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive759

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

Noticeboard archives


Interaction ban between Flyer22 and me[edit]

User:Demiurge1000 has suggested on User:Flyer22's talk page that there be an interaction ban between Flyer22 and me because he feels I am bothering her. Should there be one, and what should the scope of it be, should there be exceptions to it, and would I be topic banned from articles she edits? --RJR3333 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, somewhat rude refusal to type someone's username aside, you can't figure that out without running to ANI? Is an administrator needed for this? You can't sort out a problem on your own? OohBunnies! (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Bunnies's comment makes a little less sense only because I cleaned up the original post and section header after she commented.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
(ec x 3) Hi, nice to see you.
I propose;
  1. That RJR3333 be barred from opening any new discussion about, or related to, Flyer22, on any page on which Flyer22 has not already commented.
  2. That Flyer22 be barred from opening any new discussion about, or related to, RJR3333, on any page on which RJR3333 has not already commented.
Slightly unfair to Flyer22, but I think this would be a step in the right direction and would avoid a lot of wasted typing.
I'm happy to add lots of context (diffs and such), if commenters feel that's needed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
(The username problem was basically my fault, since I used a similar formulation on a user talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC) )

Aha, thanks Bbb23. :) Maybe we should get some diffs, and maybe some opinions from RJR3333? RJR3333, do you feel that an interaction ban is needed? OohBunnies! (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into what's going on here once my Yankees finish beating the shit out of Boston, but a preliminary look doesn't really cast you in a good light. I think an interaction ban would be a good start, but I'm not sure something else shouldn't be done as well. Incidentally, for future reference Flyer22 has identified as a she, so anyone happening across this would do well to watch their pronouns. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. The last thing I wanted was to be dragged into yet another discussion with this disruptive user. I am tired of debating with him. As I just got through stating on my talk page, see here for what was stated at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to see what the deal is. I included diffs there. The To Catch a Predator talk page is full of diffs with User:RJR3333 acting inappropriately. His current contributions show him going from talk page to talk page to discuss me with other editors, usually with a twist on what I or others stated. He has been advised by others to stop posting about me on talk pages, but he continues to do so, spamming any and every talk he can about our disputes. This is sometimes partly in an attempt to get me to comment because I banned him from my talk page.
A little back story: RJR3333 first showed up to Wikipedia, I think, last year. He was a fairly new editor and, as such, made mistakes that new editors are prone to making. Eventually, I started correcting his mistakes, only dealing with the articles we both edit, and advising him on the appropriate ways to edit. After some time of having to continuously aid his editing, he became hostile, asserting that I was out to get him. At one point, this led to him stating how much he hates me on the "To Catch a Predator" article talk page before leaving Wikipedia for a few months. Since he's been back, he has reentered the same topic space that led to our unpleasant interactions last time -- that topic space has mostly concerned the To Catch a Predator article and Pedophilia article. I've mainly stopped editing the age of consent articles, which he also edits, but he has also edited inappropriately in those places.
Basically, RJR3333's editing and conduct on Wikipedia is generally problematic, even though he is well-meaning. He is often combative, deciding to repeatedly revert instead of taking matters to the talk page, and often adds POV-laced edits or WP:SYNTH. I believe that he has WP:COMPETENCE issues because he never seems to grasp Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:CONSENSUS and WP:TALK. Very recently, he continuously violated WP:TALK by posting to my talk page. And again by repeatedly removing a comment of his (the one where he stated that he hates me) from the To Catch a Predator talk page. This is a violation because I've already replied to it and his removing it takes it out of context. When I legitimately archived the talk page as a way of removing the comment, so that he doesn't have to worry about the text being out in the open anymore, and so the original text is left intact, he unarchived and removed the comment again, stating that it was inappropriate that I archived the old and settled discussions.
Like I stated, the editor is repeatedly focusing on me, commenting about me across various talk pages and often twisting my words (and I believe that part of that "twisting" is due to him not being able to properly digest what I've stated). I don't know whether to report him, pursue a topic ban for him while reporting him, or ask for some type of interaction ban. It will prove difficult not to interact with him since we edit a few of the same articles and I am often having to correct him/asking him to defer to any one particular guideline or policy (which he ignores until I inform him that I will be reporting his misconduct).
The problem with reporting him is that it will result in an extensive debate with him, with him twisting my or others' words. And I've been through that so much these last few days that it's horror to think about it happening again, like it is now happening here. He's additionally started another discussion concerning me at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I am not interested in interacting with him, but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. The editor needs a mentor more than anything, but there has been no one to properly mentor him. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me. She has made claims against me that were false and she has talked incessantly about the possibility of getting me topic banned, although never proceeding to nominate me for a topic ban. This interaction ban eliminates the possibility of her doing it, and it makes it easier for me to edit the articles. Also Flyer22 has claimed that I have a bias in favor of the age of consent being 18, that is false and anyone who sees my earlier editing would notice that I was biased in the opposite direction, of it being 16 or lower, and at least two editors criticized me for constantly putting that position in the articles. Also I have even reworded some of the articles that expressed a pov against adults having sex with adolescents, for example in the pedophilia article I changed the wording that pedophilia could mean "any sexual abuse of pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to "any sexual contact with pubescent or post-pubescent minors" to make the wording more npov. I believe that now I have been editing more neutrally but perhaps there is still bias in my edits. Some of the criticisms Flyer22 made of me also were not ones that were very valid. She says the vast majority of my editing is "sloppy" and "unsourced" although she admits I have rarely made good edits. However lately there has been no issue with unsourced editing. And I do believe that she had a focus on me and not on other users because, for example, in the age of consent and age of majority articles at least half of the statements in the first place were unsourced, but she only criticized me when I added unsourced content, but not other users who did. Also my editing has improved lately, and in some articles, particularly the marriageable age article, I have a lot of citations for previously unsourced statements, and removed uncited statements.--RJR3333 (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Flyer22, and RJR3333, do you support or oppose, the proposal that I made above? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
How about for six months, eh? What do you say to that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, read what I have stated on the matter. RJR3333's take on what has been happening is a spin game (for example, stating that I disliked him from the beginning, as if I dislike editors automatically for making mistakes, that I have talked "incessantly about the possibility of getting [him] topic banned," or that I never criticized any other users for making unsourced edits...especially as if I am supposed to remove already-existing unsourced material before reverting his), and I am not going to debate that spin game with him any longer. All of my criticisms of RJR3333's editing have been valid and have been echoed by others. Demiurge1000, I oppose the interaction ban you proposed because there is no way that I cannot open a discussion about, or related to, RJR3333...seeing as we edit a few of the same articles and it is always a matter of time before he makes an edit that needs reverting or violates a policy or guideline. The only thing I support is that he stop inappropriately posting about me across various talk pages and stays off my talk page. I am not posting about him everywhere, and have no problem staying away from his talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I could settle for a compromise where we are only allowed to criticize each other on talk pages and revert each others edits where an edit or incident has taken place which was so bad that it has to be commented, i.e., a case where no reasonable person could possibly disagree. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The only articles where my editing caused real problems were the Chris Hansen article and the To Catch a Predator article. But in my edits to the age of consent and age of majority articles the articles were actually improved in many ways. So I think I should just be banned from the Chris Hansen and To Catch a Predator articles. --RJR3333 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
No need to see AN ... it's being discussed here, so I closed that one. Ridiculous for anyone to have split the discussion across multiple boards/threads (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • An interaction ban should only be necessary when two editors are incapable of playing nicely with each other. In this case, I don't see any disruptive behaviour whatsoever from User:Flyer22 (indeed, the major issue appears to be that RJR is disruptive across a number of articles), so I can't see that a two-way ban is fair or necessary. Any enforcement here should be focused on User:RJR3333. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Flyer22 has been uncivil to me. She made comments such as telling me to "go play". I also feel like she has been trying to WP:Own a lot of the articles. And she has constantly been attacking my editing and talking about getting me topic banned, without allowing me to even discuss the issue with her, I only started talking to other users about it because she banned me from communicating with her and I don't want to get a topic ban. She has also accused me of having biased views thinking that people have to be over 18 to have sex which I don't have, as my post to the Polanski talk page, and my previous editing from 2011, make obvious. --RJR3333 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I stated at Dennis Brown's talk page: Throughout our interactions, I was only rude to you when you repeatedly refused to listen to guideline or policy-based rationales, especially as far as WP:CONSENSUS was/is concerned, and/or when you were rude to me first. And I have repeatedly reverted and/or corrected your editing when not doing so meant that it was a detriment to Wikipedia. As for only having started talking about me to other editors after I barred you from my talk page... You started that before I barred you from there. I am not trying to WP:OWN any article and I was not consistently talking about topic banning you. I mentioned it once, and then you took that and ran with it...all over Wikipedia. Like I stated at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page, "You acted like I had already proposed a topic ban or that my belief that you should be topic banned should be debated between us or taken to the Wikipedia community. If I had proposed one at the appropriate venue -- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -- it would have been even more inappropriate for you to go around asking others about this. That type of WP:CANVASSING is a no-no, even with you not asking anyone to take your side. And as you were told at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, it is my right to believe what I want. I didn't have to debate this with you. And there was no issue of a topic ban because I had not proposed one. But, no, in the days before that, you just had to go berserk, pushing and pushing, and finally forcing my hand to discuss something that I quite obviously did not want to discuss at this time. If ever. And don't state that 'I didn't have to comment.' Yes, I did! Because it concerns me and our interactions." Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • While I view Flyer22 as more sinned against than sinning, I find the following, posted above, troubling: but I will revert him and criticize his edits when they need reverting and/or criticism. Those words reflect a choice on Flyer22's part that keep her in the line of fire. She goes on to make additional statements to the effect that she feels she must edit RJR3333 when edits are needed. I don't agree that she must (emphasis added); that can be left to other editors, and reduce Flyer's problem considerably. If you keep putting your head in the lion's mouth, the lion will eventually bite it off. I think that's part of the point RJR3333 is attempting to make. Consequently, I believe any solution to this issue should include at least a voluntary cessation of editing RJR3333's work by Flyer22. Otherwise, we're creating a situation where she has what is effectively license to continue to poke at him with a stick, even if that isn't her intention, without his having any reasonable recourse. --Drmargi (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you and others for weighing in, Drmargi. As has been made clear, RJR3333 and I only edit on a few of the same articles. And if his edits require reverting or need discussion, I shouldn't have to wait for another editor to revert him or bring the matter to the talk page, especially on such a contentious topic as pedophilia and topics related to it. For example, despite the fact that its log shows that it has 574 watchers, there are not a lot of people watching over the Pedophilia article these days or actively editing it. And even fewer people who understand the topic. Sometimes, I am the only person there to recognize what needs reverting or fixing because the other regular editor there who understands the topic as well as me -- Legitimus -- is absent at those times. He doesn't edit Wikipedia as much as I do. So leaving RJR3333's inaccurate/incorrect and/or badly-formatted edits to others does not "reduce [my] problem considerably." RJR3333 wants it so that his edits aren't likely to be reverted and/or corrected in these contentious areas, seeing as he knows that I am often the only one there to revert or correct him. To describe my reverting or correcting RJR3333's editing as "putting [my] head in the lion's mouth" or as "license to continue to poke at him with a stick" is inaccurate and is exactly RJR3333's skewed way of seeing things. That's not what's been going on. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Extended recommendations[edit]

  • This is ridiculous, and RJR's message above shows it clearly. RJR does not appear to have the maturity to edit Wikipedia. They do not show the maturity of self-reflection to see where they may have created issues, but then want someone else to "fix" them. What I see is the "that's not fair" attitude of a 7 year old. Recommend the following:
  • RJR3333 may not discuss Flyer22 on any talkpage or user talkpage anywhere on Wikipedia
  • RJR3333 should be immediately subjected to a 6 months topic ban on To Catch A Predator, Chris Hansen, and any related articles broadly construed
  • RJR3333 should be placed on a complete civility parole for 6 months
  • RJR3333 should obtain a mentor, to assist in learning how to interact with others in a mature manner on this project
  • RJR3333 may not edit any page that has previously been edited by Flyer22 without that edit being approved by their mentor for a period of 3 months
Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit severe - what do you mean by, and any related articles broadly construed ? - This user has been editing controversial issues/content for over six months and has never been blocked or reported to the edit warring noticeboard - Why a six month civility parole - have they been reported for civility? There are issues but only imo limited and any control of the user should also be limited - Youreallycan 13:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it was either the above or I was going to recommend a WP:OFFER-block ... I thought this would have been preferred to the block :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm , block if you feel it will protect the project - its tempting I admit - the users contributions have disruptive trolling aspects.Youreallycan 13:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - WP:OFFER-block - for disruptive trolling in an extremely contentious area - Youreallycan 13:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Partial Support: I support the restriction on discussing Flyer22 and the topic ban. Civility parole rarely works, I've heard, but if it worked it would be a good idea in this case, so I'm neutral on that. On the mentoring part, if you change the wording to say "RJR3333 is recommended to obtain a mentor," taking out the compulsion aspect, I'd be in favor. And on the last one, I'd set a time limit on time between Flyer22's edits and RJR3333's, for example "any page that has been edited in the past month by Flyer22." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, I'd support a modified WP:OFFER-block. I think the standard offer should be reduced to four months if we go that route. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I opppose anything this bureaucratic. Good intentions, but way too complicated, which means we will be back here every week debating whether or not he has violated the terms. Same reason I oppose ibans, as the odds of success are too low and the disruption of policing it is as bad as the disruption that led to it. (See DS and TG's iban for a demonstration...) And it isn't like we have people lining up to be mentors anyway. I think I would Support Jorgath's interpretation of the standard offer if we are forced to take strong action. This is a little more generous than the regular standard offer for good faith, and we can hope that this disruption break will lead to better behavior in the future. Dennis Brown - © 14:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
I accepted some responsibility I said I feel that there should be a temporary one, but not a permanent one. "I realize that I am at fault for being rude to Flyer22 and making hateful comments, but I think it is true that she has disliked me as an editor from the beginning and been very opinionated against me."--RJR3333 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The evidence doesn't support your allegations, although at least you understand one of your faults. The other one is that you just aren't dropping the stick with Flyer22, even though you've requested an interaction ban. Have you considered that you may be misinterpreting her actions towards you? To us, it looks like she's trying to be helpful, although she eventually got exasperated. Also, why do you even need an interaction ban with her? Just voluntarily stop interacting with her. If she then starts causing you problems, we'll have real evidence that she's part of the problem too. If she doesn't, then you have real evidence that you're wrong in your evaluation of her actions towards you. Simple, eh? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the end, it doesn't matter RJR. Wikipedians have to get along with each other, even those that they don't like. You don't get that, and the fact that you don't get that is why you need to not be here for a while to prevent more disruption. The fact that you will at least admit some culpability helps your chances at coming back eventually. Dennis Brown - © 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If anyone told me I had to go through the complete edit history of any article I sought to edit, just to make sure a particular editor hadn't edited it first, I'd tell him back to stick it in his ear, only I'd likely be a good deal more obscene. Whatever RJR's sins, that's a ridiculously onerous clause. Ravenswing 15:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not uncommon ... but as suggested above, it can be amended to "within 30 days" or whatever. Of course, you've only commented on one of the possible restrictions ... don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Bwilkins's proposal (and I've commented further above). I've stated before that RJR3333 truly does need a mentor. And if he got that, learning the ropes for several months, I'd be open to seeing him edit these contentious areas see how his editing has improved. With the exception of some age of consent issues, he doesn't understand the topic of pedophilia and its related topics extremely well. But that's no reason to bar him from editing the topics if he can work better with editors who understand those topics better than he does. And by that, I of course mean taking things that are likely to be contested to the talk page first...and not immediately reverting (especially when two or three editors have reverted him). Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Support I really regret ever editing wikipedia so I think this is a good thing. I now have to live with knowledge that I posted content a large portion of which I no longer agree with for the rest of my life. The biggest mistake I ever made was editing wikipedia. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment, and up front I will say I'm slightly partial to Flyer22 after helping her with some entirely unrelated issues. That being said, I largely agree with the comments of Bwilkins and Drmargi above, although I'll say that occasionally I can understand the perception that Flyer comes off as demanding two shrubberies of different heights for the terrace effect (I don't agree with the perception, but after it was explained I at least saw where it was coming from). I think RJR3333 is a particular kind of editor whose frustration can't be neatly packaged in diffs, so although I'm fine with RJR having a mentor I'll admit I'm expecting to see another thread here within a few months culminating in either an indef block or ban. I acknowledge that I'm generally very cynical about things both on-wiki and IRL, but I've seen this scenario play out many times before and I don't see any evidence this will turn out any different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I've had a look over this, and it's clear that RJR3333 needs some help here, and Flyer22 really does seem to be wanting to help steer them in the right direction. I'd strongly support the idea of mentorship for RJR3333 - I share some of the reservations voiced by Blade and others, but I do hope someone can offer mentorship, and I'd urge RJR3333 to take it if offered. (I can't myself, sorry, because my time here is too limited and erratic at the moment.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    PS: Just want to add that if Flyer22 lost her cool a little, it's entirely understandable after RJR3333's apparent obsession with her, repeated misrepresentation of her actions, forum shopping, and serious IDHT problem. After having re-thought some of the things I read last night, I've changed my comment to a support for BWilkins' proposal. It might seem over-harsh to some, but I think RJR3333's only chance of remaining a Wikipedia editor is the prevention of any further harassment of Flyer22, prevention from editing the problematic article, and mentorship - RJR3333 means well, but doesn't play well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Just one thought, Flyer22 as part of her proposal for topic banning me, has said I have a fanatical bias against underage sex, my editing history suggests the opposite. I can provide evidence for this. Would an editor more neutral than Flyer22 please review my editing history because it DOES NOT support her contention? --RJR3333 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
My editing history seems to disagree with Flyer22's contention, here have some --RJR3333 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I never said that a person should have to be 18 and not 16 to diagnosed with pedophilia, I said that the proposal that this be made the definition should be added to the wikipedia article, that is not the same thing as endorsing the proposal. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Like I stated at your sockpuppet investigation: No matter what you state, User:FDR (your original account) displayed the type of bias you claim that you don't have. And I've seen your RJR3333 account display the same bias. But this discussion is not about that anyway. Not to mention, your bias was the least of reasons I was considering proposing a topic ban on you. And now I have nothing more to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
And I have already said that my view on the marriage age, age of consent, and age of majority is that it should be 16 across the board, not 18. So Flyer22 is lying when she accuses me of this bias. I acknowledged my fault with the other account messing with the age of sexual majority in North America article and admitted it was a joke, I won't do it again. It was just vandalism, I should not have done it, but to read a bias into that would be like reading a bias into my vandalism of the 2004 election article where I said Freud ran against Bush, it was just a joke. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The only time FDR displayed the bias "you claim you don't have" was when I used that account to vandalize the age of sexual majority in North America article to say that the age of consent in most states was 17 not 16, I already admitted that was a joke. Can you find any serious edits I made there, that were not obvious vandalism, that suggest such a bias? And what about the debate I had with Malke where I insisted that the age of consent was in fact 16 in some states, if I am so biased in favor of the age of consent being 18, then why did I debate Malke so extensively? Not to mention the fact that I'm the person who originally edited the article the number sixteen to point out that sixteen was the age of consent in most jurisdictions at the beginning of my editing history, and at the end I'm the one who criticized the Polanski article for calling Polanksi's sexual affairs with girls under the age of sixteen "child sexual molestation" and changed it to "sexual relations" to make it more npov. And I changed the pedophilia article's definition of pedophilia from being "any sexual abuse of minors" to "any sexual contact with minors" to make it more npov. --RJR3333 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The content you changed in the Pedophilia article is about a misuse of the pedophilia term anyway. When referring to prepubescents, adult-child sexual contact is always termed child sexual abuse or child molestation (and our Wikipedia article on the topic is titled Child sexual abuse, not Child molestation or Adult-child sex, per Wikipedia:Article titles#Neutrality in article titles; besides, most scholars don't view calling an adult engaging in sexual activity with a prepubescent "child sexual abuse" to be non-neutral). And I stated nothing of a "fanatical bias against underage sex." Nor was that implied by anything I have stated, so don't even go on about what you think I meant. You might as well be quiet now. Everyone here can see that you are often dishonest and that you twist words so profoundly that even your reporting of things that transpired cannot be trusted. And now I'm done with you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you DID say that I had a bias in favor of the age of sexual consent and age of majority being 18, do you deny that, I can show you edits where you stated that. And my point is that the edits from my history that I have shown argue that your accusation is false. So that is not a good reason to block. Since you are trying to topic ban me I think I have a right to point out that some of your accusations against me are false. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
And I have already said that my viewpoint is that the age of consent and age of majority should both be 16 or lower, not as high as 18. So that disproves your accusation of bias, when combined with my earlier editing which was clearly biased in favor of a lower age of consent, if anything. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose on the ridiculous bureaucratic requirements this would impose. The requirement to check and see if someone previously edited an article is purely inane, especially given the long revision history of many articles. Mentorship is a nice thought, but to require it seems purely obstructionist in nature and, therefore, serves no beneficial purpose. The WP:OFFER suggestion is nothing more than unmerited grandstanding at this point unless there is a confirmed sockpuppetry case against the editor. If sockpuppetry is confirmed, then proceed as per status quo in any normal such case, which would not, ironically, require mentorship et all for reinstatement. (This is all purely my opinion and based upon my understanding. It is not meant to offend.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose I was joking when I said support. I also strongly oppose. Bwilkins says I am acting like an eight year old, but I did take full responsibility for my inapropriate actions. The ban bwilkins proposed would forbid me from criticizing her, but allow her to criticize me, what recourse would I have then if she "poked me with a stick". I also think Flyer22 should state the reasons she wants me topic banned, so that I can reply to them. I think that its only fair that I get to give my case for why I should be able to stay. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, since you so desperately want my attention all the time, I'll respond once again: Joking, were you? Another lie. Just like all your past promises to behave. And your interpretation of Bwilkins's proposal is, as stated, way off base. The reasons you should be topic banned, or simply blocked at this point (per the section below), have already been made clear. And by this, I mean that my reasons have already been included. Qwyrxian also gave you reasons, and advice to be quiet, as you well know. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I acknowledge that it was wrong of me to be rude to Flyer22. I have acknowledged the sockpuppetry was wrong and the jokes were wrong. What I do object to is that even when I made good, well sourced edits Flyer22 attacked me for them. She has been biased against me from the beginning and even before I started being rude to her she asked me to stop editing the site and threatened to report me if I didn't. If you are only banning me because of my interaction with her that is not a good reason to --RJR3333 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
More twisting and lies regarding my conduct. Sigh. Flyer22 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold your horses, probable sockpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJR3333 (renamed from SqueakBox) has been filed due to the likelihood that RJR3333 isn't a new editor at all. 2 lines of K303 08:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, SqueakBox was a good editor. One who, if talking about the same SqueakBox, was wrongly reported as being pro-pedophilia by Fox News (although that Fox News report was late about the pedophilia problem anyway, seeing as it was taken care of a couple of years before 2010 and hasn't been rampant since that time). See here. In fact, I just got through talking with him this past week (Wednesday) about his departure. But RJR3333 is indeed a sockpuppet. His original account is User:FDR. In addition to comparing these diffs,[1][2] and FDR's sudden reappearance in light of RJR3333's recent editing troubles, compare the bulk of their contributions and you'll see what I mean. I interacted with FDR last year as well. See here. And I feel stupid for not having seen his tampering with RJR3333's user page for what it was. But FDR was so unbelievably destructive that it didn't occur to me that he could be the relatively "new" and well-meaning editor RJR3333. And FDR's edits definitely show what I mean about RJR3333's belief that the age of consent should be 18 across the board and that a person should be 18 (and not 16) to be diagnosed with pedophilia -- beliefs he claims not to have under his RJR3333 account, although I have seen both accounts display such beliefs. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
YMMV on whether SqueakBox was a good editor or not. Even so, there are significant similarities in editing interests between the two account, and not just age of consent/pedophilia related articles. 2 lines of K303 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, SqueakBox has an extensive blocklog. But I am stating that I worked with SqueakBox for years on pedophilia and child sexual abuse articles, and that I therefore know the personalities of these two editors. They are very different, especially seeing that SqueakBox, unlike RJR3333, understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and how to appropriately edit Wikipedia. SqueakBox and RJR3333's editing and personalities are not similar. And there will be no match in that regard. There will be when comparing FDR and RJR3333. Flyer22 (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking over the history, is it just me, or did FDR have a relationship with SqueakBox that's a less-intense version of the one RJR3333 has been having with Flyer22? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I was completely wrong. I guess I'm tireder than I thought. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally Flyer22 acts like I pretending to be new, I actually said a couple of times before my sock puppet was out that I've been editing this site since I was sixteen, which was eight years ago. --RJR3333 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You were pretending to be a new editor, as in a registered account-editor. That's the very definition of sockpuppeting. Editing this site since you were 16 does not mean that you were editing under a registered account, which is why I questioned you about it. And did you answer? No. Stop pretending that you were open about your sockpuppeting. You weren't. Flyer22 (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Okay, the CU finding is that this is not Squeakbox, but RJR3333 did have 3 socks:

Currently these 3 are indef'd and RJR is not yet blocked. Looking at the contribution history, though, it looks like technically FDR is the master here, since FDR has been editing since 2005 and RJR only since 2011. The CU recommended also blocking RJR, but left the matter up to other admins, and since this is open here, I think it should come back to the community. The two questions are: should all of the accounts be indeff'd? And, if not, who should be considered the master, and what should be done with them? While at first I was inclined to accept the suggestion above for a 6 month block (like others, I think the more tailored suggestions will just lead to more drama), but seeing that this is not a particularly young user (i.e., this isn't just a maturity issue), I instead think this should be an indefinite block, overturnable once RJR starts to show a clue about how to behave on WP (recognizes what was wrong, and ideally does work on another project). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, revenues-expenses=netincome is one of my sockpuppets, so that was not me blaming it on someone else. --RJR3333 (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


per consensus, topic ban declared by MastCell
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.

Nenpog (talk · contribs)

This contributor has focussed exclusively on our X-ray computed tomography article, and on articles related to it, and is intent on adding material related to the risks that such techniques involve, particularly in regard to the medically-significant effects of ionising radiation. Though our article discuses such risks, Nenpog has been intent on using original research and synthesis to add further dubious material. Needless to say, such attempts have been met by repeated efforts to make Nenpog understand our policies - particularly WP:MEDRS, but to no avail. Having edit-warred and forum-shopped over the issue, and run out of other options, Nenpog started a thread on Jimbo's talk page: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 109#Alert !. Cutting through all the off-topic waffle about 'logic' and about selling poisons to children, we are seemingly faced with an utter inability from Nenpog to comprehend why he/she is wasting everyone's time through endless repetition of the same nonsensical blather. Given that Nenpog shows no interest whatsoever in even attempting to comprehend Wikipedia policy, and given his/her insistance on endless soapboxing over an issue which he/she seemingly has some rather strange views on - in complete disregard for any pretence at objectivity - I can see no logical course but to request a permanant block on this 'contributor', per Wikipedia:Competence is required, before we waste any more time on this matter. For those interested in further details, Nenpog's contribution history is of course available, but I think the thread on Jimbo's page (including the section collapsed by Jimbo, presumably in the vain hope that this might make Nenpog put and end to this nonsense) is sufficient in itself to demonstrate that Nenpog is suffering from what might best be described as Chronic Clue Difficiency Syndrome, and needs to be shown the door lest it proves to be infectious... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis but unless these problems are spread around I would recommend a topic ban as our first step. (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I completely support a topic ban of Nenpog, of infinite duration, from any article or discussion related to X-ray computed tomography. I can live with an editor who has a different interpretation of policy, but the lengths he has gone to to argue his position has become disruptive. I don't mind if someone on the wrong side of consensus takes the issue up at a second or maybe even third forum, but eighteen is just beyond the pale. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that Nenpog has only been involved with Wikipedia in regard to this issue, and give his/her demonstrable lack of basic competence, I can see no advantage in permitting a repetition of such behaviour in regard to other articles, should Nenpeg wish to continue on unrelated topics. Nothing in his/her behaviour suggests any hope of making any useful contributions elsewhere, and I think that we have wasted more than enough time on this already. Also, I have grave doubts that Nenpog is capable of understanding what we would mean by a 'topic ban' and anything less than a permanent block is likely to encourage even more tendentious behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Nenpog has shown a remarkable inability to understand and obey any of our policies no matter how many people have tried to explain them. He is completely ineducable. There is zero chance that he will obey a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump has made threats to ban me at Jimbo Wales talk page. Later Jimbo Wales saw these threats and commented due to that, that it seems that I am about to be banned on a completely unrelated topic.
Now AndyTheGrump want that I will be banned, because Jimbo Wales noticed AndyTheGrump's ban threats, and mentioned seeing these threats. That doesn't make sense.
I have searched the archive here for AndyTheGrump, and found this complaint against him, where someone complained that AndyTheGrump resorts to personal attacks instead of discussing on topic.
I didn't read the whole case, which didn't turned out well for the one who raised the complaint, but I do share the impression, which the complainer voiced in his complaint, as in my case too, instead of staying on topic in that discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page, AndyTheGrump chose to diverge into completely unrelated topics from my history, to make ban threats, and now this complaint.
I am new to Wikipedia, and I am learning the written rules, and the unwritten rules, and perhaps I have done some mistakes in the past month, which for practical purposes is my first month in Wikipedia's collaborative process. However, my interactions with AndyTheGrump were completely confined to Jimbo Wales talk page, and there the discussion was on a completely unrelated topic, and thus does not merit or warrent any action.
I would like you to review that discussion at Jimbo Wales talk page and share your opinion about people who have commented off topic negative comments about me, and people who tracked me and commented off topic negative comments about me. On one of them I have already complained because of that at the WQA see here and here. --Nenpog (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The above provides further evidence of why Nenpog is entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia contributor - but read the thread on Jimbo's page, and see for yourself what the 'other topic' was supposed to be: nonsense about poisoning children as some sort of 'proof by analogy' that Nenpeg's attempts to spin the CT article were 'logical'. A monumental waste of time... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
No it wasn't about that. It was about a much more fundamental problem in Wikipedia WP:NOR policy, which I used the example as an illustration of, and of the possible consequences of. Shame that you were too eager to diverge to other topics, that you couldn't notice the actual topic that was being discussed. --Nenpog (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Best response to apparent trolling. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This "New to Wikipedia" user first edited Wikipedia over four months ago on 7 March 2012 using IP (Same ISP: Bezeq International [], and same city: Tel Aviv Israel as the three IPs he lists on his user page.) By April 2012 he was actively editing X-ray computed tomography pushing the same agenda he is pushing now.[3][4][5] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I have encountered editors that challenged my edits only in the last month, before that happened, I wasn't aware of the rules and policies. --Nenpog (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind, Andy. Nenpog should be sitebanned indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Someguy1221, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talkcontribs) 00:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Because you don't know when to stop. You don't get your way on one article, so you try at another. You don't get your way there, so you take it up on one noticeboard after another. When that doesn't work, you take it up on the policy pages themselves to change them or their interpretation to suit your needs. That doesn't work so you pester the man himself. This is not how Wikipedia works. You don't get to just keep arguing and arguing until you get your way. The consensus is against you time after time. But as Andy suggested, I'm not sure you even realize that. And until you do, no one should be made to suffer your endless complaints. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't modify any policy page. I have just joined one discussion at the NPOV talk page, and asked a question at the NOR talk page about the general problem. From both of these interactions I have learned. At the NPOV, I learned that the other editors were wrong about the interpretation of the policy, and at the NOR I have learned that I was wrong about the interpretation of the policy.
Yes, I think that the consensus interpretation of the NOR policy is bad for the Wikipedia users. I received a suggestion to take it to an RfC at the NOR, but I don't know much about RfCs, because I am new, I know about talk pages, so I went and talked about it with Jimbo Wales. It is a new topic, at the NOR talk page I asked about the consensus interpretation of it, at Jimbo Wales talk page I requested to change the consensus interpretation, because I think that it is bad. You should consider the possibility that I might be correct, and that I might be bringing a good change to Wikipedia, that will contribute to it. Do you think that I would have been better of right now if I have opened an RfC? Because I am new, I really don't know.
About the DRN noticeboard, I was advised to go there by an experienced editor. Isn't going to the DRN a standard procedure?
About the other articles, I was told that some of the sources were rejected due to not mentioning CT, or not being on in vivo humans. Ionizing radiation is a general article, that can benefit from sources that don't mention CT or that are not only about in vivo humans. I think that contributing the material there was appropriate. The other editor there didn't want to include it because he wanted that section to be shorter. We agreed that we will attempt to make a shorter version that will include my contribution.
About arguing again and again about the same thing, I am not. I have raised different issues at every place, except the DRN, which is normal.
Please bear in mind that I am new, and learning, and that some of the editors at the CT page didn't explain their actions, and seemed to me biased against mentioning adverse effects to CT. One of them, after rejecting every addition, have even took the whole adverse effects section and moved it from the top to the bottom of the article. What should I think about that? I found out later, that the same editor rejected some things due to incorrect interpretation of the WP:WEIGHT. The correct interpretation btw I learned at the discussion I joined at the NPOV talk page. I think that I was correct to go to discuss there. --Nenpog (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Please do read the entry on Jimbo's talk page. This is a clear case of tendentious editing. Nenpog has taken his "complaints" to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, Talk:Ionizing radiation, Wikipedia talk:No original research (twice), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, At least one IRC channel, User talk:Elen of the Roads, User talk:S Marshall, User talk:Jaeljojo, User talk:Avanu, User talk:Paul Siebert, User talk:RexxS, and finally User talk:Jimbo Wales. In every one of those many forums he has been told that what he is trying to do is against Wikipedia's policies, and his only response has been personal attacks, wikilawyering, and more forum shopping. I received a private email (which I will be glad to forward to anyone who is an admin) from a medical doctor who has done a wonderful job of improving a large number of our medical articles. He told me that Nenpog's behavior has made him seriously consider quitting Wikipedia. Nenpog needs to be indefinitely blocked. You can try lesser remedies if you like wasting time and effort, but that will just mean the indefinite block comes later rather than sooner. Nenpog has never shown the slightest willingness to conform to our behavioral standards. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have talked in a lot of talk pages about different topics, that may be related, but are not the same. This is because I am new to Wikipedia, and what people said didn't make sense, and was not supported by what the policy page say, and no one provided me with quotes from the policy page for a very long time. During these discussions I have learned a lot, including that the due weight policy is misunderstood by some people (see NPOV talk page). Due to that some of the rejections I have got at CT were not justified. After learning that, have I tried to insert it back to the article, no, I have talked at the talk page, and have waited for a response, just to get an off topic reply from you that sounded like 'you are wrong because I am biased against you'. I also helped an other editor to insert matter that was rejected due to misunderstanding of the due weight policy, and a third editor came in and supported my interpretation of the due weight policy, and the new matter was accepted because of my assistance. Have I made personal attacks, I don't think I did. I have acted according to the guidelines that I read, and according to advices that I received from experienced editors. You on the other hand have even admitted that you posted one of your post against me without actual assessment of the situation here, I think that was the case in all of them. --Nenpog (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
If, as you claim, you did not engage in personal attacks, how do you account for arbcom member Elen of the Roads telling you that you did? (User_talk:Elen of the Roads#personal attacks and allegations) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not Elen of the Roads, so I don't know why she wrote that. But hey, everyone are humans, and sometimes make mistakes. Even Elen of the Roads e.g. she wrote about me that I demanded that people will discuss how much they are paid. I didn't make that demand. I asked her to specify what was the personal attack that she think I have done, she didn't explain. Maybe she couldn't find it. Maybe you couldn't find it, and because of that you now hang on Elen of the Roads word, instead of providing by yourself a link to what you think is my attack. --Nenpog (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You said it here and here. BTW, we can add editing other peoples comments to the list. (Nobody important; just an arbcom member...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
These are not personal attacks. First, that edit was done in good faith. I have just changed to bold the error she wrote, and then I have asked about that part "where did you come up with that?". If she wanted to, she could have changed it back. Second, in the first two links, I have only requested two things from everyone. A request is not an attack, and asking from everyone is not personal.
Do you know what a personal attack is?
A personal attack is what you did to me when you wikihounded me (here, here and elsewhere, see also) in every place I went, and posted there your FALSE off topic accusations against me, and brought in your friends, until some people believed your misleading information and got me in here. That is a personal attack.
Now you probably wonder what isn't a personal attack. That is when someone knows that you are a biased mediator, because the other party didn't show up at all at the DRN (here), and you have elected to argue in the role of the other side of the dispute. And that someone say nothing. And that is when someone knows that you work in the field that you pretend to unbiasedly mediate (here and here), and think that you have a COI, because damage to the field at any place would shrink the field, and damage you or your employer, or other companies in the field, thus making their employees compete with you on your job. And that someone say nothing. And that is when someone civilly ask people to disclose their COIs at an other discussion at the DRN, in accordance with the instructions at the WP:COI guideline, after thinking that the discussion is highly biased, and you get angry and refuse to declare having or not having a COI, and write hostile things (here), and yet all that someone write is that your outrage appear suspicious, as if you try to avoid declaring your COIs, and suggest you to declare them. And it does look suspicious, even without knowing anything about your work. And then that someone is told to discuss COIs at the COIN instead of at the DRN (here), and that someone goes to the COIN for a discussion, and doesn't accuse anyone of anything, but ask everyone to act in good faith and disclose their COIs in the matter, and you lash at that someone (here). And that someone still say nothing. And then the COIN case get closed because no specific accusation was made, and you talk with a friend in joy saying "Whew! That was a close one!!" (here). And that someone still not say anything. And then that someone ask at the COIN talk page, why was the discussion closed, and you get angry, and write off topic negative response at the COIN talk page (here). And that someone still say nothing. And then you wikihound that someone, and all that someone does is civilly take it to the WQA (here and here) in order that perhaps you would get some sense into your head, see that you are in err, that it has gone long enough, and change your way. That is how someone who wasn't making any personal attack against you looked like.
Are you able to see the difference? It might be a bit tricky for you to notice, but the someone who made personal attacks, was very active in making abusive comments against the subject of his attack. The someone who didn't make a personal attack, has tried to avoid making abusive comments against the aggressor, for as long as that someone could. That is the difference. --Nenpog (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Support site ban. Nobody Ent 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block. Even while trying to ignore this case, it keeps popping up on my watchlist, and even a quick look shows that Nenpog interprets anyone can edit to mean anyone can argue the point until they get their way. Not here to improve the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I was informed about this discussion by Guy Macon. In my opinion, the very fact that Nenpog acts against majority opinion is not a sine per se: sometimes, majority may be wrong, and Wikipedia is not democracy. Sadly, but majority happens to be wrong too frequently, and that leads to dramatic bias of some Wikipedia pages. Therefore, I do not support the idea to ban Nenpog for going against majority.
However, by writing that, I do not imply no actions are required. I do see a problem with Nenpog, and the problem in as follows. Nenpog seems to have a strong belief that CT is a dangerous technique, and that the WP readers must be informed about that. To do so he tries to add the following syllogism into the articles about CT:
  1. CT leads to formation of double strand breaks of DNA in human body;
  2. It is known that double strand breaks are very dangerous and may cause cancer;
  3. Therefore, CT is dangerous and may cause cancer.
The problem is, however, that the clause 3 is not a universally accepted mainstream viewpoint. No direct connection between CT and the onset of cancer have been demonstrated so far. The most probable explanation for that is as follows. Contrary to the belief of ordinary public, DNA damages are not something outstanding, and they happen very frequently in living cells. Therefore, small amount of damages are easily and efficiently repaired, and cause no harm to cells. Therefore, by writing about the damages and by omitting the fact that they are easily repaired we would mislead an ordinary reader. In other words, not only that will be SYNTH, it will be a misleading synthesis. I explained that to Nenpog on my talk page, and Jimbo seems to explain the same in much simpler words on his talk page. I do not understand how this explanations cannot satisfy a good faith user. In connection to that, I agree that we are dealing with a civil POV pusher here, so something should be done with that. In my opinion, Nenpog must concede his mistake, and never return to this behaviour again, otherwise the site ban is warranted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, no. We don't decide whether synthesis is 'misleading' or not before rejecting it. As for 'civil' POV-pushing, there is nothing remotely civil in accusing everyone who disagrees with you of having a COI, and then making this ridiculous sort of 'demand' [6]. The correct response to such offensive bollocks is a boot up the backside. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
To engage in synthesis and to engage in misleading synthesis are two quite different things. Whereas both the former and the latter can and should be rejected, the latter is a more severe violation. Regarding the diff provided by you, I didn't know about that. Obviously, that is ridiculous, and the only reasonable explanation for that may be Nenpog's unfamiliarity with our policy. However, if he hadn't retracted this statement after his mistake was explained to him, he should be sanctioned for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello Paul Siebert, thank you for your objection to a site ban on me.
Regarding technical matters about CT, I think that such matters can be discussed technically at the article talk page and can be decided according to the sources.
Currently I have many sources supporting clause 3 (stating directly that CT cause cancer), you can see them here like source no.1 and no.5. And that DNA DSB are misrepaired sometimes and lead to cancer. If you think that these are not a "universally accepted mainstream viewpoint" surely you can accept that they are an "accepted mainstream viewpoint" that should be voiced. If other "accepted mainstream viewpoints" exist, I accept that they should be voiced too. That is what NPOV is all about. --Nenpog (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Listen, you halfwit. We aren't the slightest bit interested in your POV-pushing drivel about CT scans - the only question is as to whether we topic-ban you from the subject (if you agree to stay away from it, as Paul Siebert is asking) or block you from editing Wikipedia entirely, as seems to be the developing consensus here. You aren't going to get your nonsense into the article either way - this isn't open to negotiation. Are you willing to accept a topic ban from the subject of CT scans, and their possible harmful effects (broadly construed - which means that trying to weasel-word around the ban isn't allowed, even if you think you are right), or not. Unless you can give an unequivocal 'yes' to a topic ban, there is only likely to be one possible outcome. Make your mind up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Nenpog, I objected not against your site ban, but against a reason for this ban. I respect your attempts to persuade others, however, when you put forward your arguments, you must be open to the arguments from others. In actuality, you reject explanations that cannot be questioned by any reasonable person. Please, stop that, otherwise you will be banned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place to try to 'persuade others' regarding questions as to the risks of CT scans. We leave scientific research to scientists, and then make use of their results - in particular, per WP:MEDRS, we don't engage in cherry-picking and synthesis to 'persuade' anyone about the merits or otherwise of medical procedures - that isn't what Wikipedia is for. It isn't a debating society - or at least, it isn't supposed to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Andy, Wikipedia is an appropriate place to try to persuade others in your vision of what reliable sources say. If you believe the sources A, B, and C say "X", and I believe the sources B, C, and D say "Y", we need to discuss together how to reconcile our vision of the subject, and which sources to use. However, both you and I must be prepared to a situation when opponent's arguments appear to be stronger. In that case, the only choice will be to accept other's point of view. That is what I meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)Andy, while I otherwise agree with your comment, may I suggest that you strike "halfwit" as a personal attack? Or possibly change it to "incompetent," since that's only an attack on Nenpong's ability to do anything useful. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. On reflection, the epithet applied was clearly an exaggeration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Stickler for detail here: it is a universally accepted mainstream viewpoint that CT scans cause cancer, and the editors at X-ray computed tomography have long been in agreement about that. Nenpog's problematic syntheses have to do with cataracts and cognitive decline, not cancer. Paul Siebert is making some technical claims here that would not be accepted in the articles. However, he is making sense about Wikipedia policy, which is more relevant to this discussion.--Yannick (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nenpog, I think you can avoid a topic ban or site ban if you agree to stop discussing anything on Wikipedia that is directly related to medical imaging, radiation, or those little logic puzzles that you use in lieu of the others, and if you can promise to avoid anything with any pretense of even coming close to those. If you can commit to do that at this time, for 3 months, you might be able to avoid your fellow editors taking action here. If after three months, you've kept your word and seem to be adjusting to a better understanding of the expectations, this could be revisited, and they might consider a topic ban then or just letting you go your way. I'm suggesting this as an alternative to you being required to be banned, and probably being blocked soon after. -- Avanu (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, naturally I will respect whatever decision that will be made in this subject. However, I think that I can contribute and play by the rules, and thus a decision of sanction would be counter productive to Wikipedia, and I speak against it. I hope that honest people will not fear to say the truth here. Otherwise, this will be the form that will dominate Wikipedia, and that is bad for everyone. --Nenpog (talk) 07:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope that honest people will not fear to say the truth here.
Please review WP:NOT and take your pick of which one of the must not items you would like to violate next. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Nenpog, I think your patience and willingness to try to contribute is why people have been willing to talk this out with you and give you a chance rather than immediately take action against you. I think you will find it easier if you look for the solution that is being offered to you by the other editors' words here, and volunteer to live by that 'sanction', before something goes to the point of it being forced upon you. I think it is admirable that you will respect the decision made here, and I believe that implies you would honor a ban placed on you. A ban is not a block, and so you would be honoring the ban by your own willingness to abide in it. I think you could find a better solution by offering one now, but I wish you well, and hope you can do what is best here. -- Avanu (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
It is the 'patience' as in WP:CRUSH that explains why Nenpog is here. There's a number of matters on which I have disagreed quite strongly with other editors here and have had to concede to the consensus against me. In most cases I still think what they are doing is harmful and cretinous, but the overall progress of Wikipedia does depend on having a halfway healthy and cooperative environment and forever pushing things and never giving up is not a route to that. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support an effective block/ban process (escalating if necessary) on ethical grounds. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support ban, preferably a full ban, at least a topic ban for anything related to CT scans in any form. Sorry, but this person is tirelessly POV pushing, twisting beyond recognition the valid complains made about his behaviour, and actively refusing to abide to basic content policies like WP:NOR. We shouldn't be letting this slide just because he is being civil about it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not refusing to abide by WP:NOR. I had a discussion in WP:NOR talk page, and questioned what exactly what the policy mean, and people refused to answer to the general question until very recently. Probably since the answer is flawed. Now I understand that the consensus is about a flawed interpretation of the WP:NOR, and thus I can abide by it. --Nenpog (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support site ban, topic ban as second choice. Civil POV pushing is one of the encyclopedia's worst problems, and I'm sure it has caused the burnout and departure of countless highly qualified contributors who have to waste their best efforts trying to counter it and keep up the quality of articles. (Far more than those who, according to one quaint theory, leave because they're shocked by seeing the word "fuck" language unsuited to the best drawing rooms.) In medical articles it's intolerable. Bishonen | talk 10:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC).

Support site ban. What has been asked was very simple. Use high quality sources that pertain to the subject matter at hand. After many weeks and thousands of words there is no indication that this has been understood. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 12:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Yes, Civil POV pushing is an issue, but there's no need to indef him or ban him from the site. If he vioates the ban and POV pushes again, than he should be indeffed, as it shows that he really doesn't care. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support site ban. This editor is a sterling example of the type of editor we don't want here. The inability to understand the basics of our policies, the personal attacks about COI, the tendentious refusal to concede they have done anything wrong are bad enough by themselves, but together the encyclopedia is better off with them somewhere else, where they are not damaging the encyclopedia and wasting the time of good editors. Yobol (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Support total ban. Does not seem to be able to parse the most basic explanations of consensus, NPOV, NOR and other basic content policies. Engages in forum-shopping. Unlikely to mend his ways with a temporary block or a topic ban. JFW | T@lk 13:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Stong Oppose Not to be uncivil, but this is using a jackhammer when a ball-peen hammer is needed. There is no indication (of which I am aware) that this editor has in any way misbehaved in any area of Wikipedia except on one article and in relation to that article (albeit in relation to that article on several boards, etc). Instead, let's consider the possibility of a defined-period topic ban, then reassess. At most, an indef topic ban is all that is called for. Jumping straight to the total-ban-sledgehammer is highly inappropriate and downright insulting at this stage in my personal opinion. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban implemented[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and implement what I see as a clear consensus for a topic ban. Nenpog (talk · contribs) is topic-banned indefinitely from posting any material anywhere on Wikipedia related to medical imaging or ionizing radiation, broadly construed. The ban may be appealed at the administrator's noticeboard or directly to the Arbitration Committee.

I appreciate the concerns, voiced above, that a siteban would be more appropriate than a topic ban. I agree that, in my experience, an editor so obviously and grossly unsuited to collaborative editing on a single topic is likely to cause similar problems on other topics. However, in recognition of the (relative) inexperience of this editor, I think a topic ban is a more charitable alternative. That said, if the pronounced inability to edit productively is repeated in other topic areas, I would have a very low threshold to implement a site ban. There has to be a limit somewhere to how much we ask productive editors to put up with. MastCell Talk 17:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And as is entirely to be expected, Nenpog has immediately violated the ban with another posting in the thread on Jimbo's talk page: [7]. Here we read that "... an unrelated discussion was used as an excuse to open an assault on me. I think that the decision is completely unjustified, and that people didn't review the evidences, because the evidences don't support their statements. People just followed the lead of one editor who wikihounded me, without checking the evidences". Not only a clear violation of the ban, but yet another personal attack. MastCell, over to you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
In lieu of the fact that Nenpog clearly isn't competent enough to abide by a topic ban, I support an indef block. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I see the problem: Nenpog has been pursuing this content dispute by trying to change policy pages and raising general complaints about WP:NOR. In light of that, I've expanded his topic ban to prohibit him from editing any policy or guideline pages, or associated talk pages. I'm rapidly losing patience, as I think everyone is, and this is really the last stop before an indefinite block and siteban. MastCell Talk 19:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Um...does this:[8] violate that modified topic ban? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's OK to ask questions about the scope of his topic ban on his own user talk page, although I'm not willing to extend much rope beyond that. MastCell Talk 21:39, 10 July 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.

Intolerable behaviour by new user:Hublolly[edit]

Bad Person and removal from the pending block list[edit]

Bad person's accounts' editing privileges revoked, for sockpuppetry and impersonation. You can probably guess who the bad person actually is, here. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vanburrena. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Addendum: Parts of this incident discussion have been blanked and refactored under the Biographies of living persons policy, as they provide fraudulent details of actual living people. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not sure if this is the correct area to report a problem or not. My name is XXXXXXXXX and today I received a message from Mer-C about Spamming on a domain name that I have never edited. I believe this individual got my name from an edit that I did on Medicina Mexico where I added some categories.

I was so shocked to receive this kind of message from someone at Wikipedia that I did my own investigation and learn the following:

In running a Google search for Medicina Mexico, I came across a website called WOT ( which had nasty things to say about Medicina Mexico and they also listed other websites owned by Medicina Mexico. They also claimed that Medicina Mexico was a group of rogue websites.

In doing further research, I read their forums and saw messages from XXXXXXXXX from XXXXXXXXX in Tijuana, Mexico. Baja Datacenter is a large datacenter in Tijuana and is well known. I called the datacenter at XXXXXXXXX and I spoke to XXXXXXXXX.

XXXXXXXXX stated that Medicina Mexico was a customer of XXXXXXXXX and that the owners only spoke Spanish and one of the owners was a personal friend of his. Xe also told me he tried to talk common sense with WOT and the conversations turned ugly when xe told them that Medicina Mexico was a legit company. XXXXXXXXX told me that xe had setup website DNS for traps to see if these sites were reported by WOT as being rogue pharmacies. The two sites xe setup DNS only were and

XXXXXXXXX also said that WOT was really being run by LegitScript who has declared all pharmacies located outside of the United States to be Rogue Pharmacies even if they were licensed and regulated in their own countries. Xe told me that the owner of LegitScript had several ex felons working for him to discredit all pharmacies outside of the United States. Xe also told me that all of Medicina Mexico's websites were rated bad by WOT and Legitscript.

In order to verify what XXXXXXXXX stated, I then ran my own Google’s check and found these websites:


I then called our Health Department in Mexico which regulates pharmacies (Secrtaria de Salud at +52 5063-8400) and learned that Medicina Mexico was in fact licensed and that they owned 48 pharmacies. I also learned that they have never received a citation for violating our laws.

I then checked the Wayback machine ( and discovered that and were never online as stated by XXXXXXXXX.

I then checked two other pharmacies from Mexico that are unrelated to Medicina Mexico and saw that they were also rated bad by WOT and Legitscript.

I then went back to Mer-C wilipedia page and found this webpage: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia Then I saw the websites and listed along with all of Medicina Mexico’s other websites. The bottom of the listing for Medicina Mexico was See WikiProject Spam Item MER-C 10:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I then went to: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Medicina Mexico spam on Wikipedia and found that this same person has listed Medicina Mexico to be blocked.

The fact that two of the sites have never been online and the fact that this individual has listed them makes me believe that he is a bad apple and should not be on Wikipedia in any capacity. Further, that he is acting in the interest of others and not in the best interest of Wikipedia.


I believe that Medicina Mexico should be removed from the spam list and the pending blocking list and that an Administrator or Steward decide what action should be taken about Mer-C

I hope I am not out line for reporting this as my interest is always what is best for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigail.gutierrez (talkcontribs) [[User: Abigail.gutierrez|Abigail.gutierrez 00:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

USER:MER-C notified. JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am unclear which of your edits MER-C was referring to as spam, however your statement above that you did a web search AFTER receiving the spam notice and in that search "discovered" a site named WOT does not add up. On July 1, you edited the WOT article - eight days before the spam notice. Please clarify, thank you. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)MER-C warned you for adding a link to (as seen here.) Here, we see you adding a link to to the Medicina Mexico page.
Your phone calls are not verifiable, and we cannot accept it as a source of information.
Last I heard, we do not use Web of Trust, we have our own list to define spam, which you saw and have linked to.
Wayback machine does not keep track of all sites, and would likely remove sites that are harmful to other users or dedicated only to scams and other criminal activities.
As for the links you provide:
  • is currently hosting several anti-Semitic articles, so I do not trust that site any more than a neo-Nazi site.
  • is a scam site that tries to teach people how to make money. I don't trust thieves' opinions about the police.
  • is user-generated, and filled with complaints by people who run the websites that WoT spoke against. There's a conflict of interest there.
  • is full of malware, which can only mean it's run by people who either don't know what they're doing or people who profit from screwing people over.
I don't see any reason to trust you at this point. If you are acting in good faith, you've been duped, and need to quit pressing this issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Also note that the account that Abigail.gutierrez contacted has been editting the Medicina Mexico article, which really doesn't pass muster, using edit summaries quite similar to Abigail.gutierrez ("Edited by name"). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
See also Special:Contributions/Mexicanreporter. I know that WP:SPI is that-a-way, but quack!. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
For actual SPI, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Vanburrena JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Abigail.gutierrez assures me that she is only herself and no one else and hopes I will read her complaint here because I apparently have not done so ...despite responding to it in detail. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If an administrator or a steward wants my telephone number they are welcome to call me. I am a XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX is XXXXXXXXX. I am not xem and xe is not me. I do not know a joesperraza and I do not know a Ian.thomason. I did receive a message in my sandbox from Merc claiming while I writting this complaint that I was spamming which I was not. I then received a message from Ian.Thomason saying my complaint was not in reality. I am not here to have a fight. I suspect that these are the same people that I have complained about. PLEASE HAVE A STEWARD or a Administrator review the information that I have given. I am also sending notice to a steward. Abigail.gutierrez 02:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it you called XXXXXXXXX working at a XXXXXXXXX when XXXXXXXXX hyperlink to real person's C.V. hasn't worked at XXXXXXXXX since XXXXXXXXX?
And to other editors, I don't consider that WP:OUTING, because, per WP:AGF, I don't know that user account A is user account M yet, and even if that was not the case, we have no proof that is XXXXXXXXX. Xe did not refer to user account M when xe mentioned speaking to XXXXXXXXX from XXXXXXXXX. It seems unlikely that someone trusted to be XXXXXXXXX would be involved in this kind of petty spamming. Given these two facts, I'm perfectly willing to believe XXXXXXXXX's name is being misused, or that they are two people with the same name (it does happen). I have no intention of asking if that resume is for this person, as I have no intention of outing anyone. Without that evidence, I can only assume that XXXXXXXXX (whose resume I found) is a different person from this account.
At any rate, it's all sockpuppet accounts for a spammer, who cares? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Read this, then try again. There are no excuses for edits like [70]. For the record, I have little doubt that you and your (likely imaginary) friends are professional spammer(s) pretending to be Wikipedia newbies. Stop wasting our time. MER-C 02:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I saw this message in my sandbox. Lots of reading. First, to XXXXXXXXX thank you for the phone call of today. Now to the other nuts here from WOT and LegitScript, you have my governmental issued ID and you know I am real not sure about you but from what I have read on the internet if 1/2 of it is true then you are a group of persons that have been convicted of crimes in the U.S. courts. In short, convicted criminals. For anyone that needs to reach me, call me. And to Merc go back to WOT where you belong. I know who you are. Samuelmeza 03:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Samuelmeza, you just violated WP:OUTING, please retract your statement and apologize to User:Merc. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

For the future reference of anyone coming across this, note that that telephone number is not the one that is in the aforelinked C.V., or the telephone number of XXXXXXXXX. It's actually the company fax number of the companies being spammed. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 10 July 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.

Quick question[edit]

If a WP:SPA claiming to be Jesus came onto the site only to distance the historical Jesus from the Jesus/Isa found in Christianity and Islam, to portray those religions as making objectively false claims about Jesus (and not making claims of faith)... That'd be a troll right? And if such a person were to show up on the site, I could point them out here so they could be blocked, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That or we set up the Holy Church of Wikipedia and accept User:Jesus as our savior.--v/r - TP 03:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
So if Jesus or someone claiming to be Jesus came on, we should block them and see if they come back after three days, right? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty funny response, to be honest, but I have to wonder why Ian.Thompson is 1. bring a content dispute to here rather than discussing on the talk page and 2. not notifying the user [me] that he's trying to have banned on the sly as required by the rules here. Good thing wikipedia is transparent in showing edits. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to get consensus on the 3 days thing. Generally folks around here like to see a full 7.--v/r - TP 04:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Escalating blocks from 3 days to indef is a bit harsh, particularly since the user seems to have been scared off from appealing his block. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Ecce Homo, Behold the Man. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
And the user has been notified since I have now finally mentioned him, though this was a formality as he decided to identify with the hypothetical I raised. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I have come to the conclusion that User:YourPalJesus has been trolling Talk:List of people claimed to be Jesus and User talk:Ian.thomson. I am prepared to block the account failing some remarkable demonstration that this should not occur. Tiderolls 04:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not the correct conclusion, since I've been presenting reasoned arguments while being called a troll and disparaged here. Why exactly do you think it's appropriate to threaten users over content disputes who don't get in line with your opinion? To me that seems like an obvious abuse of your admin flag and an attempt to silence me through intimidation. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Not really involved in this at all, or an administrator, but I couldn't help but notice that on YourPalJesus' userpage, it says, "Im not yet an admin but will accept nominations". Seeing as he has had an account for only a few hours, I believe this is more evidence pointing to him being a troll. Gold Standard 04:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Trolling and making an obvious joke on a new user page are not really the same thing, I'd wager. YourPalJesus (talk) 04:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You might be right, I'm just pointing it out for the people who make that call. Gold Standard 04:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that's quite enough of that. Blocked, and should he return you'll be able to view the scars on his block log in case you're not sure. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoa. I was just going to utter a call for peace, full of yet more puns. FWIW, I don't think this is just a troll. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to e-mail your puns, Professor, I'm sure I would find them amusing. Tiderolls 05:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It's not a troll, but maybe POV pushing a bit. See m: Troll `Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jesus was blocked on July 24, 2006. Forgive Wikipedia for they not know what they do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Looked like a classic troll to me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Need help here![edit]

I seriously need some help here in article Upendra. In last few days I have reverted his edits at least 20 times. Yes, I know three revert rules, but he doesn't care. Everytime I or someone else warn(s) him, he simply creates a new accounts (I doubt WP:SOCK) and again starts vandalizing. See this article history.
--Tito Dutta 04:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • NO. You stop reverting immediately or you will be blocked for edit-warring. This is a simple content dispute--I see no reason to believe that you're right and they're wrong. You are free to put edit-war notices on their talk pages, and I would suggest you start an SPI. But this is not a matter for ANI, and since there is no BLP issue here at stake that I can see, you would do well to stop immediately. Might I add that the article is in terrible shape (I just removed a couple of unacceptable sections) and that your revert restores or still includes phrasing like "Decent Hit, Completed 50 days." which is far, far from OK. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd also add that you shouldn't be using rollback in a content dispute, and perhaps using the talk page to discuss might help as well? - SudoGhost 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I have no doubt that filing an SPI would give our editor a more level playing field, but they're just going about it the wrong way, a way that might get them blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I looked at the history of the article and saw Tito using rollback in this content dispute at least 4 times. This is not an acceptable use of the rollback tool and I have therefore removed the rollback flag from his account. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What is happening here? You are warning me? You are removing my rollback features? There are multiple notices in their talk! I tried to talk to this editor multiple times, see User_talk:Abhijit_puranik#July_2012, also see here User_talk:Subhash_Chandra_Gandhi#WP:RS, here User_talk:Subhash_Chandra_Gandhi#July_2012 also see my frustration here: User_talk:Callanecc#Three_revert_rule.21, there might be one two more! --Tito Dutta 04:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Your frustration may be understandable, but it doesn't excuse what we see in that history. You are, first of all, obviously edit-warring. Second, after so many warnings you should have considered passing the buck to AIV or filing an SPI, and you wouldn't have been in hot water. Third, the best argument in there for disruptive editing is the removal of the template, but it is worth noting that in this edit you actually remove a bunch of references, some of which appear to be reliable. The "vandalism" case is so weak here that rollback is really not an acceptable tool. Besides, the article talk page is where we would have loved to see your good faith (which I don't doubt) displayed. Here's the thing: edit-warring is edit-warring even if you're right, and you should have stopped and used other means a while ago. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Oh god, another mess in that topic area? As with many articles there, it'd probably be a good idea to indefinitely semiprotect it; I'm realy not seeing many useful edits from anons or new users. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Tito, I have no doubt that you are trying to improve the project. However, edits like this one where you used rollback to remove content (cited even, although possibly poorly) is an example of using tools in a content dispute. Please keep WP:COOL, explain your position clearly, and demonstrate that you understand the correct application of tools. It will all work out.
With regard to warnings and the like, be sure to take the time to explain why content should (or should not) be included on the article talk page, and point other editors there. In the long run, it will always go better.
Lastly, where you're sure you're right... Go ask someone else. Don't get caught up in an edit war, they only leave victims. Above all, Happy Editing! --Tgeairn (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
See here too User_talk:Titodutta#Please_do_not_put_any_maintenance_templates_to_the_Upendra_Page_as_the_problem_is_resolved_.21. I requested them to talk at least (you may find my tone "funny" or "desperate" there "please reply" "post below" etc), but did not get any reply. Everytime you say anything they just create a new account. This is a reliable source? Either that is a mirror of Wikipedia or Wikipedia article is that article's copyvio. I ignored it. You are warning me? --Tito Dutta 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm semiprotecting it. Hopefully that'll help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
They have registered accounts! --Tito Dutta