Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive771

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Copyright violations by User:Uriahdan[edit]

BLOCKED
indef'd for Copyright violations
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:51, 4 October 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 few days ago, I opened a WP:CCI on this user (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Uriahdan) and issued a final warning for copyright violations. The user's latest major addition is almost certainly a copyvio. The user is completely unresponsive to talk page messages. MER-C 00:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely—at least until he requests unblocking and demonstrates that he understands why he was blocked and won't do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Beat me to the punch here, good call. – Connormah (talk) 00:35, 4 October 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.

Delete broken archives in my userspace[edit]

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.

[1], first page. I would tag for U1 (all relevant revisions are on main talk page, text is in archives), but it's a total of 8 pages, a fair bit of tagging. ⁓ Hello71 01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 DoneDianna (talk) 03:11, 4 October 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.

Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures[edit]

After he recently closed an RfD in which he was involved, I have a few doubts about some of this editors other closes and wondered if an uninvolved admin could look his closures over for other problems. Snottywong's Admin AfD counter seems to show a few debates where the consensus is not clearly with his close, and checking a few others individually seems to show cases where he ignores stronger arguments for one position, instead opting for a headcount siding with the opposing position (particularly worrying since the margins in many cases are low). I don't intend to start listing specific concerns with specific closes unless asked to do so (or I would be as well taking all the many cases to deletion review) but a few pairs of eyes looking over his closes would be advantageous. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at his AFD participation with scottywong's tool and see the last afd he closed was on the 27th...he closed it as no consensus which seemed to be the right decision. I suppose he could've relisted or let an administrator do it, but I don't see any glaring issue here. Note: I'm not an admin, just an interested editor. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
If you look back further you can find some more questionable ones, but they are pretty old to bring up at AN/I now, and certainly too stale to reopen. The ones in the last month or so are certainly within the range of acceptable discretion in closing) If anyone wants to, the simple thing to do would be to renominate articles if they disagree with the close (depending on the closer a note explaining why the old discussion shouldn't prejudice the new one may or may not influence them). Monty845 02:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The ones in the last month are still marginal Advance Romance for instance has two deletes that it doesn't meet the GNG and one keep that it's "well known" - The only two Policy based arguments form a consensus that it doesn't meet GNG and whilst No Consensus is a valid close, it flies n the face of the fact that a month previously he closed Island province with a similar voting ratio though numerically oppositely weighted with a keep rather than no consensus (and the delete argument there was stronger than the keep for Advance Romance). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would say the difference there is fine, its substantially different circumstance when not a single editor but the nominator supports deletion then it is when there is a 2:1 split in favor of deletion. Regarding Advance Romance, The nominator makes a good WP:MUSIC deletion argument. The delete !voter makes a generic deletion argument that does not address whether or not this particular song meets the notability guidelines, if it were agreed the article did pass, the argument made would probably not carry much if any weight. The keep !voter makes a general notability argument without clearly labeling it as such and points to the fact the article is well cited, and it does in fact have 2 citations that support general notability, though the first is questionably reliable, the second one clearly is. So we have one good delete argument, one very weak delete, and one moderately good keep argument. Could it have been relisted? Yes, but after a week with no comments, to close it seems reasonable, and it would be a big stretch to argue it should have been deleted on the close. Monty845 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I would say not really, in a 3 person vote 1 voter is often the article creator or a prominent editor of the article, 1 voter is the nominator and we would hope that third would be impartial. Giving the nominators argument less weight in a 2:1 split implies a bias to the article creator no matter what their argument, it's exactly the kind of bias that consensus should eliminate during the discussion process. On Advance Romance if the second source made more than a passing mention of "Advance Romance" the point might have been valid, but as it is the mention was only passing so does not constitute "Significant coverage" per the GNG and as the first source is self published then the GNG was not met and the keep voter's claim fails to answer the deletion reasoning and should be considered accordingly. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Advance Romance was open two weeks, not a single person participated after it was relisted. Apathy itself demonstrates a lack of consensus, since most votes at AfD are to delete, by a 2 to 1 margin. In a case like this, defaulting to a no consensus conclusion (which means you can renominate it tomorrow) is less destructive than deleting it with a questionable consensus. So as far as this one AfD, it was a reasonable judgment call that many would have made. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:NONADMINCLOSURE "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." When the difference is 1 !vote, that would seem to be a "close call". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't mean the close itself is procedurally defective. It is prudential advice to avoid controversy such as this. While we should all aspire to follow best practices, failing to do so is not in and of itself a reason to revert. Monty845 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that most closes should be left to an admin but since we do allow them I can't help but to ignore the bit and not look at it as a "non-admin" closure, but just as a closure. As such, my impression is that most people would have closed it this way, so I don't see this as particularly contentious, nor a cause of alarm. This doesn't mean that everyone will agree with the close, but that most would or at least see the logic and utility in it. In general, I believe "no consensus" closes are less contentious to begin with, as it amounts to a punt to a state that existed before the AFD, not a declaration that the community has spoken to keep or delete. For an AfD that fails to draw a crowd that cares enough one way or another, that is probably the best solution. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I haven't actually said the close on "Advance Romance" was bad - in fact I said that it was perfectly valid, though I questioned why "No Consensus" wasn't being equally in the Island Province when the nominator was strongly challenging the keep rationale and the voting was equally marginal. Dennis' points about apathy and Advance Romance being a reasonable judgement actually question the whole process of deletion in the case of low profile subjects as the AfD that fails to generate enough discussion becomes only as useful as a PROD - even if strongly valid rationales for deleting are made and weakly challenged.though the latter is a question for the village pump rather than here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Although this is a report of RCS actions in a series of issues concerning a single feature of Wikipedia processes, I feel that in the light of his editing history, we need to look at the bigger picture. While obviously acting in GF, in spite of some more serious issues and the advice in a recently failed RfA, he is still constantly having brushes with policies.
I think it would be a very good idea if RCS were to agree to stay away for a while (6 months?) from anywhere that needs a !vote or a carefully considered judgement or opinion. While the technical side of Wikipedia can be learned, maturity is something particular to the individual that only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
ANI is not very well suited for bigger picture discussions -- I'd suggest RFC/U if you feel such an action is appropriate. Nobody Ent 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree this would be a good idea, and fair, but with the exception of RfAs, please. Stating my opinion on a candidate oughtn't to be restricted. Six months. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 22:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
As Dennis said, the only time a NAC is appropriate is when the consensus is clear and when the closure does not require an action that requires certain user rights that the user does not have (Admins closing XFDs, Bureaucrats closing RFAs, etc.). An exception to this might be WP: AN/RFC, an area where I help out and Dennis helps run, where non-admins help close many of the RFCs that don't require the admin tools. I'd like to draw some attention to this closure of an RFA. You won't see it because RCS never listed it at WP: RFAU. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Additionally, it would be best if RCS didn't make any NACs for the next 6 months, but he should be allowed to vote in RFXs, XFDs, RFCs, etc. He's a member of the community, just as we all are, and he should be allowed to have a say in the community processes, despite his inappropriate closures. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I disagree. While there have been lapses in judgment, there has not been a pattern of disruption or unwillingness / inability to improve--not to mention the fact that he has been less disruptive than many editors who are (rightfully) under no restriction. While Rcsprinter should exercise more caution in closing things (and indeed, consider leaving it to others), and more eyes on his work would help, saying he shouldn't take part in discussions seems more humiliating than anything. I am willing to trust that he'll learn from this, as he has from other incidents, and be able to make better considered decisions for himself in the future. wctaiwan (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alice in Chains - Possible intervention needed[edit]

First off, I sincerely hope this is the right place to bring this up. If not, I apologize and hope a kind admin can move it to where it needs to go. There is a long discussion (almost like an informal RfC) going at Talk: Alice in Chains - Proposal regarding changes made to this article, which is a featured article. In further review it almost looks like it could be 3-4 people going in circles over changes to the article. But I am having a hard time trying to figure out if there is any violations or anything of important to the administrator's community here, and am thinking this is something that needs to be looked at by an admin or two, as it seems to be going around in circles, and going nowhere fast. Thank you for your time. (Because this matter involves an article's talk page, I didn't place the ANI-notice template there, as it doesn't apply to any one specific person.) NECRATPlates On 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see some mild incivility, but nothing requiring admin intervention. Sounds like a job for WP:DRN. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi[edit]

AGREED TO BREAK
Editor has agreed to take a break until December Nobody Ent 20:13, 4 October 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.

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, I am not the best Wikipedia user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.
This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (tc) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Wikipedia merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

  • Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions: [2]
  • IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO: [3]

Eric talk 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Wikipedia, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
    Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Wikipedia. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, I think that. With this, EEng will likely come to sanctions. It is this irresponsive flamewar which caused him to lift any control of his own conduct. Who will account for his imminent block and/or sanctions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Here, in this thread? No one.. it's about you.. no one willaccept a shift of blame from you to him. You could open a new thread, but I'll lay odds that it will WP:BOOMERANG because everyone will see it for exactly what it is.. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────With 4 or 5 editors having expressed a similar concern here, is there a willing admin looking into the matter further? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... Yes, but I'm starting into a much more ugly and complicated one further up on the page. Another uninvolved admin is encouraged to try and take a look, I will probably not have time sooner than tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Don't worry, this one isn't particularly "ugly" just a little spread-out, might take a bit of looking into, I've only been a little involved in the recent developments, personally, so I can't say how much deeper it goes or the best way to resolve it, because said editor does not seem to care about resolving anything due to not accepting being at fault to begin with. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing what I would consider personal attacks or even incivility so much as odd and disruptive comments regarding other editors. For example, saying X is a waste maker is literally true -- both human and bot editors generate waste heat and of course humans generate biological waste -- so one has to try to infer meaning.
  • The removal of such comments is problematic. Although there was no blowback in this case, such removal of comments by higher status editors would typically cause a fracas.
  • Incnis Mrsi seems to be generally right on content but needs to improve their interaction with other editors. Quite simply, comment on edits not on the other editors.
  • Note: This is a quintessential WP:WQA issue -- no admin action is needed here -- and illustrates the folly of closing that forum without first establishing a realistic replacement. But hey, the tribe has spoken. Nobody Ent 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Somehow, I don't think someone is going to call a person a "waste maker" because their body generates waste heat or dumps shit... that's cutting it a bit thin and taking AGF too far... Regardless, fortunately the precise meaning can be found in his own words: User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary#W - a "botcher" (User:Incnis_Mrsi/Glossary#B) even describes it as "may be fairly harmful", this being true, why does he use it so much? One can't admit that a term is harmful, then claim not to be uncivil.. that would be hypocrisy. And calling someone a botcher or a waste-maker is essential contrary to AGF.. it's virtually accusing them of vandalism. Not civil terms. In fact, I find it disturbing that a guy who edits calculus/physics articles sees fit to maintain a list of negative words to use in summaries and comments.. add "imbecile", "twat" and "retard" into the list and he'd have the ultimate glossary of anti-AGF words. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:WQA has been terminated, and WP:DR is for resolving disputes. The problem here is that the editor is uncivil, and when asked to control his attitude even by uninvolved editors, he basically tells them to "fuck off and mind their own business".. so yes, admin intervention is needed here to look into this editor's behaviour - not his editing, his overall conduct with regards to rude edit summaries, antagonising comments to other editors such as ownership-like remarks, pretentious comments, and total disregard for other editors opinions. When an editor is allowed to be uncivil, without warning, or ignoring all concerns, they think they can get away with anything. That is the "potential blowback".. he even admits above that trying to force him to be uncivil is impractical use of ANI time, which is essentially admitting that he does not want to be civil and does not feel anyone is good enough to tell him otherwise. If that isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. The more eyes there are on this guy's interactions, the better. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks to MarcusBritish he posted the link to my glossary, although I did not advertise it anywhere, even on my user: page ;) First, a "waste-maker" (sorry, I did not find a better English expression) does not necessary produce only waste and never a product of acceptable quality. Though, if a construction worker improperly installs, say, "only" 2 beams out of 40, then he can be not only fired out, but fined and even imprisoned. Happily, Wiki is not a building construction, but monitoring for low visible waste such as invalid redirects and improper characters, and, in some cases, even arguing with persons (accidentally) making such a waste, consume valuable resources of (other) users. Second, waste-making is perfectly compatible with a good faith, under such conditions as "ignorance" and "negligence". It is another thing which is not compatible with good faith: a harassment towards a specific user because he argued with another user(s) about quality issues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • It sounds as if you're attempting to try us under the Law of Spikelets for the destruction of collective property. Are we all to be shot, or sent to the gulags? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Advertise, no, edit, yes.. thus it's plain to see on your contribs list.. no secret really, anyone might have noticed it. And we all have a Special:PrefixIndex/User:Incnis_Mrsi/ page.. so again, no secrets here on Wiki, son. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • 11:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+428)‎ . . User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary ‎ (+waste) (top) [rollback 3 edits]
Per WP:5P:
Fifth pillar Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.
So once again, I repeat that your Wikihounding list, condoning mistakes by User:Jarble is a direct attack, contrary to "do not worry about making mistakes". The list and manner in which you delivered it was uncivil. The only time that might be appropriate is if the edits were vandalism or controversial.. but in this case they were all trivial errors, typos, and you simply bullied him by making him out to be a useless (ie "waste-maker") editor. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, less try this for a tack. Incnis Mrsi, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia, so if you are looking for a view from an editor given some kind of status by the community, that's me. I have three pieces of advice, which may make your editing experience less confrontational.
  • First - On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
  • Second - if you are trying to use a Russian expression and are uncertain of it's translation, don't use it - say something simpler. For example, the expression "waster" in English is terribly rude when applied to someone, and that's how everyone has been reading your 'waste-maker' (and getting angry with you because it sounded like you are being terribly rude). What you are referring to is a situation in which an editor appears to make a significant number of mistakes such as misplaced dashes or erroneous characters.
  • Third - it may be considered unreasonable to pick on editors for making minor errors in spelling, punctuation etc, unless it is a really massive problem (they have just run a script that accidentally replaced every n-dash with an underscore or something like that). Normally, to assist everyone in rubbing along together, it's better to ignore minor mistakes in talkpage edits, and fix them without fuss in articles, and see if you can find a tactful way to say "are you having problems with....." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Not minor mistakes is human edits is a problem. Scripts which allow to make multiple errors, which are hard to detect, is a problem. And this becomes a very problem (yes, my English is funny) when automated users are unwilling to fix their scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
One can only wonder, AGF aside, if his lack of response, despite actively editing since Elen commented, is further indication of Incnis' disregard for others opinions, as he was evidently willing to argue with everyone else of less "authority" – not sure if there's anything more can really be done at this stage, but I hope there are a few more eyes on his questionable interactions as a result, rather than let this matter be swept under the proverbial rug. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Disruptive sockpuppet comments not related to topic – SPI/CU confirmed as blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have encountered Marcus here before but indirectly as an anonymous IP, he was involved in a dispute almost a year ago that spiraled out of control, having trawled through the OP's history of contributions I can safely say that he is not innocent of incivility, as he is also guilty of battleground and bullish behavior that conveniently has been buried under a mass of recent edits.

An example is an editor review submitted by said OP, when asked for an opinion. an editor then provided Marcus with some constructive criticism, Marcus than unbelievably personally berates and is very incivil towards the editor, but a more extreme example of the OP's incivility issues was when he threatened an editor in real life after a long and lengthy dispute over something stupid, this editor appears to have then be driven over the edge.

With all due respect to you Marcus, you appear to have some good contributions despite everything else but you are the last person who should be submitting an AN/I report for incivility as you appear to love the drama so I suggest you stay away from AN/I for your own sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisiterottingcorpse (talkcontribs) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The above is this brand-new editor's first and only edit. Hmmmmm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry.. that'll undoubtedly be my favourite Irish stalker, User:Sheodred – I'm sure he fancies me. Feed him some WP:ROPE then I'll pass it to WP:SPI, again.. Reported to WP:SPI. He has more blocked accounts than braincells now. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's a good one fresh out of the oven [4]. EEng (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Funny how editors who lecture others about English mechanics so often are the same ones whose contribution histories are littered with "(reduced an overlinking and cleansed a lame typography)" [5] and similar examples of unintentional self-parody.
So ironic that he tells someone that their skills are insufficient to copyedit an article, yet follows up with a very poorly worded question. Perhaps showing that they should refrain from offering advice when they've got similar issues? Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Given that Incnis is now obviously ignoring this thread in the hope that given time others will grow bored and it will self archive with nothing actioned, what.s the way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talkcontribs)
The way forward is to go forward. A legit concern was raised, and multiple editors, capped by Really High Status Elen have addressed Incnis. Either their future behavior will be appropriate or it won't. If the former, nothing more needs to be done, if the latter, another ANI or RFCU can be opened. Nobody Ent 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Whose Really High Status? Give a link or diff to "a very respectable editor who already addressed Incnis Mrsi", please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Read Elen of Roads' reply above.. having stated they're a member of Arbcom, what more do you expect.. Jimbo Wales to reply personally? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
This is sort of typical behavior for Incnis Mrsi -- check out the discussion here for example, which Incnis Mrsi begins with typical massive incivility and personal insults. When Incnis Mrsi discovers that s/he has been wrong about several factual points in the discussion (e.g., whether a merge template was used) s/he simply ignores the new information. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a typical behavior of a good Wikipedia user. Incnis Mrsi and D.Lazard (talk · contribs) in 2½ days wrote the article square (algebra), something that JBL was unable, or unwilling, to do in 3 weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
What does the time it takes to write an article have to do with anything? That's just another typical uncivil remark where you compare yourself to other editors and claim to be somehow better. Doesn't the whole block of remarks above indicate how your persistence in that manner is unwelcome, because it's rude and not collaborative language? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
The Square (algebra) article predates the filing of this ANI -- Incnis has already been encouraged to improve their collaboration moving forward; finding additional examples of past behavior isn't useful. Nobody Ent 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────Oh, the irony of it all! — Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[6] Nobody Ent 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I did not find it in this  for some reason. Thanks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────Now this really takes the cake. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does seem somewhat hypocritical.. not that it matters, Arbcom wouldn't take the case unless it had unsuccessfully passed through other channels first.. for all his mathematical and scientific editing ability, can't understand why he didn't grasp that. I think it's more important we try to resolve this now though.. six days is more than enough preliminary discussion time for such a straight-forward matter, hence why I proposed some kind of resolution below, before this gets too tedious and appears as WP:BAITING, as Incnis has clearly frayed a few nerves lately. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Incnis Mrsi does not abide uncivil remarks towards himself, despite his own behaviour towards others. He has opened an ironic RFC against EEng. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EEng Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained here I stand by my interactions with I.M. EEng (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice to get some administrator involvement so we can wrap this up. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been a distinct lack of admin interest on this, apart from Elen – Incnis tried giving her one of his typical brow beatings yesterday without success, as he seems to becoming despondent due to lack of support for his RFC and behaviour. I'm not sure where this is even going to end up, myself... he seems keen to stand his futile ground. Though from where I'm standing, he might as well be facing a firing squad, the amount of opinion he has drawn against him, standing solo. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

Let me get something out of the way first: he's still not getting the message, as seen in an exchange today on an article's Talk [7]:

Incorrect Molar Mass The reported molar mass of the "hydron" is 1.00794 g/mol. Isn't that the molar mass of the hydrogen atom? The molar masses are based on the mass of a proton, so the molar mass of the hydrogen cation should be exactly one. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Just Learn Physics Better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in all seriousness I'm beginning to wonder if the reason he's not getting the message is that he quite literally can't understand it. Consider this recent post by I.M. to another editor's Talk [8]:

I reverted your edit except its only part which was substantiated: removal of {{pi}}. I know that this was rude, but discarding a legitimate improvement, namely 2, by your edit, was silly. If you want to know, why I behave rude and do attack (you), then ask on my user_talk, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I submit there are two possibilities. Either

hypothesis (a) (the uncharitable interpretation) I.M. revels in the practice of what might be called "open and gross rudeness", or
hypothesis (b) (the charitable interpretation) he does not comprehend basic English words such as rude, attack, and silly.

If the answer is (b) then perhaps the controlling principle needed here is WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty:

If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.

EEng (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

He won't per this:
"The stranglehold of double standards was the main reason why I ceased to contribute to Russian Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"
I suspect that means he pulled the same stunts there as here and became outcast for not being civil or cooperative. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Of course, English Wikipedia has its double standards too ☺ although these are quite different. My comment "user:… makes waste" was immediately obstructed, but most of blatantly disruptive and flame-provoking comments were not. And you all know, why these disruptive comments were not obstructed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
────────── I.M.'s response gives further weight to my hypothesis (b) above. In addition to, perhaps, trying again at the Russian WP (do they have WP:CLEANSTART?), I suggest in all seriousness that perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia might be a great place for his contributions -- they seem in dire need of help in the mathematics and sciences. I don't know what that idea means in terms of a proposal for what should happen here at en, but he certainly can't be allowed to continue the way he's going, and since he can tread water in an ocean of criticism for weeks on end yet emerge absolutely unwetted, it seems like mentoring is a nonstarter. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that would work. Simple Wiki is designed to present information in Basic English and suggests that there are only 2,000 common English words. You probably have to be good at English in order to determine how to select the right words for a non-English speaker to understand.. people like Incnis use broken English, with common and comples words, but quite muddled.. that's not Simple English Wiki's aim, and he would easily become more frustrated there than here, because a non-native speaker is less likely to be a walking thesaurus and know Simple English alternatives. I expect the maths and physics aren't up to his level either. He may be Russian, but he's not Aleksandr Orlov ("Simples!").Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
And an advice to users who are upset with me, such as Andy Dingley, JBL and StringTheory11: try to give me a positive view of the etiquette, instead of participating in flamewars. Of course, I know that I should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate my point, myself, but with this bashing campaign I am already not sure, what I may do and what I must not do. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Good advice. But you'd do better to take it, before you give it. In fact, that would be the best place for to start.. by taking advice and stop knocking those who offer it. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Marcus! I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source. I am sure in the good faith of e.g. Andy Dingley despite his hectic attitude and direct breaches of AGF towards me. Sorry that I see here so few users experienced in content creation and a topical (damn!) interaction. My impression about users depends first on their own conduct, and only after that on my prejudices. I do not discard an other guy's opinion only because I do not like it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but "I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source." is also not AGF.. surely you see that? When people give advice you are supposed to either acknowledge it (mean you neither accept not refuse it), or respond positively.. "thanks for the advice.." you don't attack the advisor out of paranoia, distrust, or for any reason, it's uncivil, rude, not AGF, and not likely to make other people offer you good advice, because you turn them off giving it. You don't have to accept anyone's advice.. but when you don't, you don't have to tell them that. Better to say nothing, than give a seemingly "nasty" response. Understand? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The trouble that people are having with you, I.M, is that all that people have been telling you is that your interaction style (or lack of) is exactly the problem. Your "paranoia" causes you to refuse "advices from every source" even from those of us who have never interacted with you. Experience in content creation does not give you a blank check to insult, attack or dismiss others. Unfortunately, you even acknowledge that you are rude and attack others that was posted above. It looks like what you need isn't a sanction or anything, but a mentor on the expected culture here, and maybe the western world in general, and how to get your point across without being insulting. Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
That's virtually what I've proposed below.. a short period of mentoring in interaction. I though you opposed it though, or were not in full agreement with the idea that he might be mentor-able? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that was me that said that ( I may be wrong, I say or write a lot of things that I subsequently forget) Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, just below you suggested a 1RR and block if this returns to ANI, and no need for mentoring. Not sure what would be best, though. He's got a new message put up on his userpage. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Struck the last part of my post else I'd be contradicting myself. Blackmane (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, the message is something. Will be interesting to see what comes of it. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

This thread has dragged on for a very long time, multiple editors have commented confirming User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility across a number of article talk and user talk pages, in addition to my concern over his blunt edit summaries. So far, despite all these remarks, and an Arbcom admin commenting because Incis only expects to be rebuked by an "authority figure", he has failed to acknowledge the comments, has not voluntarily agreed that there is a problem that he should be taking steps to deal with, instead he continues to argue with editors across a number of talk pages and WP:BATTLEGROUND is becoming the case, including the initial signs of war editing, as reverts begin to show. Let's not have this spiral out of control. Given that this issue does not relate to content disruptions, no topic ban should be required. An interaction ban might be appropriate, if this was very serious, but I'm not sure that it would be worth enforcing.. Incnis might be prudent to offer himself to a voluntary interaction ban, staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months, and keeping edit summaries to an absolute minimum by only stating edits effected, without commenting on other editors, or the state of the article, and no words from his "glossary". This would need monitoring, however. I propose, the best thing might be to see that Incnis receive the necessary mentoring, from an experienced mentor/adopt-a-user editor, who can focus specifically on his interaction skills, and help him understand the distinct differences between relevant and potentially "rude" remarks to other editors, and with respect to his non-native English, it is clear that he needs to be more careful and far less bullish, pride isn't required to be a good editor, as much as patience. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Support a mandatory interaction ban with the conditions MarcusBritish suggested, with the agreement that any violation of the restrictions would result in a block. StringTheory11 (tc) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering the continuing aggressiveness, unpleasantness and lack of good faith (see for example the latest posts here in which Incnis Mrsi repeatedly misconstrues constructive comments and is borderline rude and aggressive) I support the proposal (in either the weaker or stronger form). --JBL (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should allow time to pass to see if Elen's suggestion is followed or not. Nobody Ent 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Elen's comments were made on the 25 Sept. He was still being abrupt after that. e.g. 28 Sept, 29 Sept. Given that he didn't even offer a courtesy response to Elen, do you expect people monitor him once this topic is archived.. unlike ex-WQA 24-hours and zap! archived and we have to start afresh, pain in the arse it is... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
How could you have overlooked this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talkcontribs)
Thought I'd mention that he did reply, only 3 days later. It's indented under her reply so it's not easily seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The reply is completely non-responsive to any of the concerns raised here. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So he does... and all he does is comment further on what he sees as problematic, as though trying to justify his behaviour, but either completely ignores or fails to respond directly to the concerns Elen took the trouble to highlight about his behaviour which have been raised by several editors this week. Just seems like another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Only meant to say he responded, as opposed to responded in a meaningful way Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose interaction ban. I support some sanction, but why an interaction ban between just two editors when the issue of User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility has affected other editors too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • No one proposed an interaction ban with one editor, it says "staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months" — so all editors, all article discussion pages, not including things like requesting admin help/ANI or a mentor's talk page, of course.. just none of his usual "nasty" messaging to IPs/other editors telling them what they've done wrong, no article talk posts as he also tends to upset people on those too. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That would be a talk space ban, not an interaction ban in the usual sense of the term, which I don't think is the way to go. If he's edit warring, then slap an indefinite 1RR and a civility parole that the next ANI he's brought to is a 1 week block and it escalates from there. Simple and no need for monitoring. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
      • There were only early-signs of war editing, I don't think a 1RR need be set unless it escalates. 3RR applies to everyone anyway. "interaction ban".. "talk space ban".. it's all interaction to me, I see no need to worry about semantics as long as it does the job. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This issue has dogged you for a week now. The nature of the ban doesn't matter half as much as the fact of it. Please stop User:Incnis Mrsi from driving away more editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrap this up?[edit]

Given that Incnis Mrsi has voluntarily chosen to enact an interaction ban between himself and, well, pretty much everyone (with an exception) for the next 2 months, I'd say that more or less closes out the above proposal as enacted. I guess it's wait and see what happens in 2 months time. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes – if there's repeat uncivil behaviour over the next few months, give him a block and then he'll have to expect greater sanctions; I'm not too sure anyone can enforce his non-interaction, given that it's voluntary, and the lack of bold admin-interest or support over this sizeable week+ long discussion disgusts me. He'll be known and closer watched now though. Thanks to Elen for trying, however. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

user: Tifjo089 and irrational deletion[edit]

NO ACTION REQUIRED
User talk page protocols have been explained to 199.101.61.190 and they've ceased posting to Tifjo089's page Nobody Ent 20:37, 4 October 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.

Hello, i am an ip user in Manitoba who is attempting to speak with Tifjo but every time i attempt to do so, my edits keep getting undone, by someone. I had a message on my talkpage presumably poasted by mdan052 saying that he's the one doing this, yet on Tifjo's page, Tifjo states that they are the one doing this,. I am askng him for clairification on a statement he made above in the section regarding Zaiger in which he says "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." I do not know if he means that he believes me to be Jared Milton, who is a well known youtube user who has made controvercial and just lane dumb statements. I've asked him once about an hour ago, the edit got deleted. i tried again, edit got deleted, message from Mdan052 on my ip talk page. Asked Mdan052 to quit undoing my edits and told him why i'm making them, repoasted my clairification request to tifjo's talk page, only for it to pull a Houdini again. I then see a section in tifjo's page about me falsly accusing Mdan052 of undoing my edits, then i post a message saying why i believed him/her to have done it. it disappears again. I repeated the message on Mdann052's talkpage and so far it is still there. I do not think that it is right for Tifjo to avoic me the way he is when i'm trying to get him to explain a statement he's saying to me. is it a threat? does he think i'm a troll? i am completely clueless as to what is going on here, and would ask that someone gets him to stop his behavior twards me. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I can't speculate on Tijfo's reasons, but the edit history of their talk page makes clear (esp. this summary) that your comments are not welcome there, and they have a perfect right to remove them. It would be nice if that had been made clear in an actual response, but that doesn't alter the fact: please refrain from posting on Tijfo's talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • So what do they do? Post on the talk page again.[9]. Not a competent editor here to contribute positively. Doc talk 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Eh, plain talking doesn't seem to work with him: [10]. And by the way, he misquoted me in his ANI statement above. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
      • "I have a feeling" isn't plain talking. Nobody Ent 19:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You tell me that you have a feeling that my "stay-tuhs will change" soon enough here, ("i have a feeling that your stay-tuhs here may change here soon enough") i want to know what you mean by that. and where else am i going to ask you, and in future, please let me know that you don't want to disguss it there, and tell me where i can ask you if not on your user talk page. and sorry for the misquote, i stand slightly corrected. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I fess up: I think you'll be made admin pretty soon. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey, sarcasm is my gig, lol. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) a friend of mine for some reason told me to "leave wikipedia alone" for some reason, so this is my last message for a long while untill he flies home. I am not a troll, i do not promote trolling, and i wanted to only see fareness. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • How about this; Tijfo098, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK, hinting/insinuating/quasi-threatening that another editor will be blocked when you lack any sort of admin ability to actually carry such a thing out. Mr. 199.101.61.190, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK and repeatedly posting on someone's talk page when they have made it clear that they do not wish to talk to you. There, my daily let's-make-peace duties are done. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 4 October 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.

Move of draft into mainspace[edit]

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 has moved a sandbox rewriting of French Valley Airport into the mainspace as French Valley Airport/draft and then had the sandbox deleted by an admin. I don't want to CSD this article as duplicating an existing article topic (since valuable information might be lost), I can't merge the content into the existing article and have the page deleted (since the attribution of the merged content would be lost), and to the best of my knowledge such "subpages" are not permitted in mainspace. Whatever the right way to handle this is, it will surely involve admin tools, so I'll leave the matter to you folks. Deor (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, as Wikipedia:Subpages states, "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace is disallowed" but an option is to move the article in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. The redirect would need to be deleted though of course. The reason subpages in the article mainspace are disallowed is because the subpages could be found using Special:Random and can appear as the main article. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:19, 4 October 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.

Copyedit help[edit]

Resolved: no admin needed. De728631 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 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 a question for the administators.I have placed a copy of my fathers 2 presidential unit citations in the air corps/air force page as there was no listing for the 320th Bomb Group which recieved 2 citations during world war II. I have typed the exact citations as they are written froma copy of my fathers orders for both citations into the edit page. My question is how do I get this information into the catagoriy which it should be posted? There is a 330th BG listing but none for the 320th? So what I am asking is how do I get this article to show up on the page like the others so when someone looks at the air corps/air force presidential unit citations they will see the listing for the 320th Bomb Group just like the others on the page? I am very new to wikipedia and I looked at the help pages but did not see a how to place the article into the correct listing page where it should go?

Please let me know how to insert the 2 orders atricles in to the page wher it should be or can you do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitrdone1957 (talkcontribs) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This would need to be filled into the existing wikitable at the article Presidential Unit Citation (United States). I'm going to have a look at it, but next time please ask such questions on the talk page of the relevant article or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. This noticeboard is for administrative topics only. I'll drop you a note on user talk page when I'm done with editing the article so you can have a look at it. Oh, and please sign your contributions to talk pages and discussion boards like this by typing four tilde characters, ~~~~. This will add your username and a timestamp for reference. (N.B. please don't sign your edits to articles). De728631 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 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.

IP section blanking header; long term pattern[edit]

24.147.80.78 (talk · contribs) has been continuously removing level 1 headers in articles if there are level 2 headers below them. This has been going on since September of this year. There are broader issues and warnings, none of which have been responded to, from this IP from June of this year. There appears to be good edits within the IP's history, and the subject matter suggests the same individual has been using the same IP since at least June. Yet as far as I can tell they have not responded to any inquiries about this behavior. In fact, before the section blanking started the IP had been contacted by editors about other issues, and blocked for them August 31. Not long after that block expired the editor started again, and that included removing section headers. The header blanking picked up about a month ago.

I, among others, have warned the IP multiple times, and been explicit about the reason. Yet just now the trend has continued again. I would post a list of diffs but a quick look at the history and the diffs with "section blanking" tags are pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The IP has already been blocked for vandalism only a month ago. I've now blocked again for one week. It's a dynamic IP so if this type of disruption resumes we may consider longer blocks. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • The IP was removing level 2 headings if there were level three headings below them, not level 1 headers. A level 1 header is just generated by "=" rather than "==" and should never be used in articles. Graham87 05:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Stillstanding discussion of contributer against policy[edit]

Per Adjwilley, it appears the back and forth is starting up, so closing this. Section removed, user warned, sock allegations should go to SPI, as casual unsupported accusations are not on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:11, 4 October 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.

Stillstanding has posted information about another user not of any use to improving the article Homosexuality[11], and seems to be waging another personal war against an editor. I collapased the post and added the policy about discussing the content and not the contributer but he just uncollapsed it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (e/c)

First, I'll note that Amadscientist did not bother notifying me. In any case, everything they said turns out not to be the case. The purpose of the note I dropped was to let people know what LGR chose to do, particularly so that they knew not to make things worse for LGR by roping them back in during the two-week break; I referred to it as "teasing". My comment said nothing about whether LGR was improving the article, contained nothing insulting, and was not part of any sort of personal war. In fact, it's the result of my withdrawing an edit-warring report that looked likely to get them blocked. There's nothing here more than Amadscientist's misunderstanding, compounded by their violation of WP:AGF. I tried to discuss it with them about on their talk page, but instead of replying, they went to this drama factory. Likewise, I independently asked an admin involved with the edit-warring report for an opinion.[12] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Section removed, and I will block him if he restores it. I've had just about enough bullshit involving this editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
You are way out of line. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
StillStanding, please please please just drop this and move on to something else. Zad68 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The comment has been removed and the editor has been warned. I recommend closing before the back-and-forth starts up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll fully admit to being out of the loop on this one, but I don't see gloating here. There _could_ be gloating, but I really don't see it without a pretty strong squint. I agree SS should just drop this though--nothing to be gained here. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247...had another account previously I suppose?--MONGO 22:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • I think we should drop this and close it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    I was wondering if anyone was curious about his choice of username?--MONGO 23:08, 4 October 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.

Class project needs attention[edit]

Over the past few days there has been some activity from what appears to be a class project. The problem is that at least one student signed another student's post on a talkpage while another student under the name of Gingerkd (talk · contribs) added an unsourced BLP violation on Iran-Israel relations about Netanyahu. I gave out a few warnings to Gingerkd and User:Nmisgot but the group is large and there seems to be little supervision, so some admin attention may be required. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Check to see if you can identify the teacher by their account. Ask one of the students, and approach the teacher directly; and then send them to Wikipedia:School and university projects. From my experience in working with these situations, the teacher does do everything on the up-and-up, and is trying to do it the best they can, but clueless teenagers remain stubbornly clueless every time. --Jayron32 03:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For convenience, the students are part of the group User:Nmisgot/sandbox/Lib100 Students. Guessing from this, I'd assume the teacher is Nmisgot, and should be contacted as such, unless someone has some other indication regarding who the teacher is. --Jethro B 04:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - I left a comment on their talk page. There are a bunch of editors making posts on Nmisgot's talk page, referring to Nmisgot as "professor," so Nmisgot probably is the teacher. I asked just to make sure though. I'll see what happens. --Jethro B 04:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Good job. Thank you Jethro B. I'll also keep an eye to see where this goes and help point them to Jayron's links. I wouldn't want to see any more unsourced edits from that group, especially BLP vios. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it really does look like they are the teacher, I went and expanded my post to include the points of concern. I'll see what he/she responds. --Jethro B 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll keep an eye also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I've gone through each student's contributions to see if there were any violations still in articles. Most of the students have only edited talk pages, so I ignored those. The few students that added to articles have been reverted, by different editors, for various reasons, so as of now, we're good in terms of violations not being on these articles. --Jethro B 04:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also drop a note at the Education Noticeboard. It appears that this class isn't working within the education project framework, but editors there may be of help. The Interior (Talk) 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 Done --Jethro B 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Simple admin request to fix a ShadowCommons issue[edit]

Resolved: done. Graham87 05:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutshell: Could an admin please move File:Blank.svg to File:Fond blanc.svg (the same file, on Commons), and leave the redirect? Non-admins cannot make this type of move, and I will clean up inbound links once the move is completed.

Details: File:Blank.svg was uploaded in February 2006. Commons:File:Blank.svg was a completely different file uploaded in April 2006. Both are being used heavily. In 2007, the ENWP image was copied to Commons as Commons:File:Fond blanc.svg, but it was requested that the ENWP copy not be deleted. So now Commons:File:Blank.svg, which is a very useful file, cannot be used on ENWP because of File:Blank.svg, and the file history is a little confusing. This move would solve several problems at once, enabling a clearer file history, ensuring that both images can be used properly, and avoiding the Commons file-move bug (bugzilla:28299) for these heavily used files. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the unusual nature of this request, I'd rather not try to ask for this move with a template, and I don't really want to solicit individual admins on their talk pages if that can be avoided. The only other way to do this would be to delete the Commons image temporarily, but it would risk further complication. This is a fairly simple fix with a one-time action by an admin, any admin... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Graham87 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes at New_contributors'_help_page[edit]

Resolved

An administrator's help is required for changes at the fully protected page Wikipedia_talk:New_contributors'_help_page#Changes --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} serves very well to get assistance for these situations. :) However, I've tried reducing the protection level. I'm thinking this is likely to be uncontroversial, since it's an easy fix if issues arrive. I've watchlisted the page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zaiger and baseless claims of homophobia[edit]

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa, User:Zaiger has repeatedly accused User:Cupco of homophobia ("Cupco is obviously homophobic", "This is anti-gay witch hunt is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia.", "message to known wikipedia homophobe cupco" (edit summary)). Now that's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. But in this particular case it's especially absurd: Zaiger is one of the main admins of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site not exactly known for its lack of homophobia (even Zaiger himself is happy to use the term "faggot" over there. Can't link due to the spam filter, but I'm happy to provide diffs if requested).

Still, just in case there might be something to it I asked Zaiger to back up his allegations on his talk page (User talk:Zaiger#"Homophobia"?). Unsurprisingly, he did/could not do so. I told him to retract the allegations or back them up, after which he threatened to contact Jimbo Wales and the media(!) and have my sysop-bit removed should I block him, before he simply declared me involved and having a conflict of interest (Not sure why. I used to be active at Encyclopedia Dramatica (the article, not the site), but I don't think I ever interacted with him over there). Despite the silly allegations of having a COI, I figured that having a few more eyes on this couldn't hurt, so here I am. By now, Zaiger has agreed not to call Cupco a homophobe again, though he also said that he would not retract the allegations. (For what it's worth, the origin of the homophobia claims seems to be this edit. At least that's the best I could find.)

That's a bit besides the point, though. Frankly, Zaiger is a troll. He's a main admin on ED (where he calls other people "faggot" regularly), he knows the art of trolling in and out, and he knows exactly how much he can get away with on Wikipedia. His act of being horribly offended by (supposedly) anti-gay comments is blatantly fake, and the only reason he might be doing this is, as they call it, "for the lulz". He's here to have fun, and not to contribute to the encyclopedia. As such, I propose a ban on this user. --Conti| 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in the discussion at this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Still, since Zaiger got the SPI spotlight deflected, we can look forward to Zaiger resuming productive article-space edits like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That edit is multiple years old, and Jewbuntu is an actual Linux Distribution. I am sorry but I felt that I was being attacked because of my sexual preference and got defensive. I have promised not to call him it again, yet he continues to make baseless accusations about me being User:LiteralKa when it has been proven otherwise. I feel as if I am the one being trolled. I apologize for making a couple of edits that could be taken as humorous, multiple years apart. Please assume good faith. I am not an active user on Wikipedia, but I do prefer to keep an account so that I may join into discussion concerning pages that interest me. Blocking me is going to do no good and you know it. I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do. I am not trolling, I was just defending myself from what I felt was persecution based on my sexual orientation. The language I use off Wikipedia should have no bearing on anything. I no longer plan on "feeding the trolls" so to speak, so I will not be responding to this anymore. I have promised not to say what I said to him anymore, and I would like to continue to keep this account, but I can't then so be it. There is obviously a back-door agreement to block everyone who edits the GNAA or Encyclopedia Dramatica articles on a non-POV manner. By the way I said I felt that Conti has a conflict of interest because he has an unflattering biography about him Encyclopedia Dramatica (which as far as I can remember I have never edited) and in my opinion seems to have formed an opinion about me based on emotions rather than rational thinking. I am not a bad person, I just react harshly when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize for that and promise to keep it in check. Thanks for reading. --Zaiger (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
An edit from late last year is not "multiple years old", and this appears to be the only constructive article-space edit you've made since that edit. Being an actual Linux Distribution doesn't make that factually accurate (a dead project that never gained any traction is not popular anywhere for starters) nor is it a productive edit (piping Richard Stallman to Jews). You also appear to have a history of Jewish-related "jokes". - SudoGhost 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not just indef this editor as a troll, regardless of the SPI results? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any. The SPI results came back negative, by the way, though I'm not surprised by that. There's multiple ED trolls editing Wikipedia at a time, after all. --Conti| 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Naive question for Zaiger: If you "react harshly when you feel [you are] being attacked," and presumably understand that other people have the same feelings you do and have the same reactions when they are attacked, then why do you spend so much time on a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it appears that Zaiger is actually a pretty standard example of a COI editor frustrated by misrepresentation on Wikipedia. His largest recent contributions recently have been talk page debate in which he (correctly) emphasizes that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not defunct, but has continued at a new site. Opposition to this viewpoint is predicated on the erroneous philosophy that ED is narrowly classified as a "web site", and a web site is defined solely by the holder of the original DNS record; but in fact it is a publication and a community foremost. It is not unusual for frustrated COIs to start lashing out more and more, and indeed not unusual for admins to single them out for extraordinarily harsh and unreasonable penalties, but Zaiger and the admins here, respectively, still have the power to do better.
I should emphasize very clearly - whether a user chooses the same name, or another name, to edit resources elsewhere on the web or in print, he should not be subject to any persecution based on ad hominem evaluations of his overall character by people who have read a line or two. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one in which editors are "vetted" for political reliability. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Even assuming all of this is correct, this could not possibly be an excuse for blatant trolling, surely? Not to mention that Encyclopedia Dramatica now shows Zaiger's preferred version, anyhow, and still the trolling ensued. Personally, I very much doubt one had to do with the other, but it really doesn't matter in the end. Trolling like that gets you blocked, simple as that.
As for your second paragraph, I'm honestly not sure I understand your point. I shouldn't use Zaiger's contributions on other sites to show that his comments here are just an act/trolling? Huh? Why not? --Conti| 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
the current version is the result of a lot of talk page discussion and consensus, not "Zaiger's preferred version". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that Zaiger's preferred version was the wrong one. I fully agree with you that his preferred one is the one that has consensus currently, and as such is the one the article is based on. --Conti| 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Interesting contributions from this IP address [13] [14]. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Based on those links, it appears this whole "homophobia" charade was a "clever" imitation of the User:Fæ affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indef[edit]

  • I agree with Salvio. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not okay with the way this went. Zaiger has made good edits, and some bad edits. Now, he's been blocked indef on a first block, with vague allusions to 'trolling', even though a SPI case was returned as negative. Last I checked BADSITES was not in effect, and editors here on WP should not be blocked based on their alleged actions elsewhere. Furthermore, I'm really not seeing consensus to block here. The big issue here, of course, is that both LiteralKa and Zaiger have been editing the GNAA article in a manner that is disagreeable to User:Cupco, hence the SPI case that fell through, and the subsequent block - Alison 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (and as CU who ran the aforementioned case, I fully welcome any other CU to review my analysis and act accordingly)

I didn't block him because he's involved with ED. I blocked him because his on-wiki show is entirely inconsistent with his off-wiki behavior, and strongly suggests that his on-wiki conduct is intended to disrupt rather than out of a good-faith concern. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
That isn't right. An editor should not be compelled to be one thing or another on a third-party site - nor should he be compelled to always be the same way on that site as here. The fact is, Wikipedia is a serious endeavor and ED is a humorous one. There's a difference between using a word in the context of a humorous sketch and using it in some other discussion. Mind you, I haven't even looked at Zaiger's case in any real detail - what bothers me here is the logic being used by others in considering it. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
After you get elected to ArbCom we'll talk about that. In the meantime, perusing the talk pages of badmnachine (what hasn't been revdeleted, that is) I see that User:Michaeldsuarez has also been given an indefinite vacation. WP:BADSITES may be a failed policy on Wikipedia, but WP:NOTHERE is applied pretty often. And it was correctly applied in this case to Zaiger, who vandalized a few articles and screamed bloody murder about perceived insults that he regularly tosses at people elsewhere. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Obvious troll is obvious. May I suggest that Alison spends too much time in such company, such as User:badmachine—another blocked troll, for whom she also vouched personally at one point? She may have lost sense of what level of trolling is acceptable on enwp. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Obvious troll is *not* obvious, to quote a well-worn meme. I've no problem with indefblocking persistent trolls and have done so many times myself, but I'm not seeing the justification here. I do see Zaiger making an effort to modify his behaviour on request, yet that was rebuffed. And I see a unilateral indef block being handed down for the flimsiest of reasons. It's more of that ED/GNAA/Trolling//b/ third rail effect; associate an adversary 'opposing editor' with any of these groups, file a somewhat unwarranted SPI case, then run to ANI to have them banhammered. The point I'm making here is that not all people are being treated the same here, and that's simply not okay. Then when someone (as I am) questions it, you go on to smear them with the same accusations. I don't care who keeps company with who; what matters is solely their behaviour here, and that they be given fair opportunity to address that properly before they are sanctioned. This hasn't happened here, and it smacks of vendetta - Alison 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Riiiight. Look how well badmachine turned out as a Wikipedia editor. WP:AGF and all that while Zaiger pulls off bad-taste jokes about Jews in article space. No thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, his edits were mentioned here, so you might do well to assume good faith. 66.87.70.46 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
In my observation Alison treats other Wikipedians with respect and dignity and good faith and refrains from demonizing other human beings because of one or more actions that aren't Wiki-correct. I don't think any of that is ever a bad thing. Nobody Ent 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I try to be fair with everyone - Alison 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I support the indef. Wikipedia can do with fewer trolls, and this case is rather obvious. Rklawton (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good block; I have just logged in and I intended to block Zaiger myself, but I see I was beaten to it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Alison, the SPI case was not the reason for the indef block. It was Zaiger's behavior during that case, not the allegations made in that case, that led to the block. As such, the results of the case are irrelevant here (And I have no doubts about the results you posted on the SPI, by the way). You write that "what matters is solely their behaviour here", and I fully agree with that. And, no matter how I look at it, Zaiger's behavior here was blatant trolling for the sake of causing disruption. Either that, or he really is genuinely offended by the most vague allusions that could possibly be interpreted as homophobic (while at the same time having words like "faggot" in his everyday vocabulary). I'm sure you know much better than me which of the two is more likely. I find it interesting that neither you nor anyone else defending him has actually tried to defend the very edits that led to his block. All you offer are platitudes and allegations that he is being singled out. It's hard to respond to vague statements like that, but I can assure you that my motivation for all this was solely his trolling that led to the block, and nothing else. I did not even know that he was an ED bigwig until I looked a bit closer at the issue. --Conti| 21:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
to quote from above: "Riiiight". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
It's not that those edits are totally right, but they're not that wrong. The ad hominem argument used against him was indeed where things started going off the rails. Crying "homophobe" was not great, no, but right now, today, we have on Jimbo Wales' page a defense of editors calling people "arsehole" and "dishonest idiot" [15] so why not 'homophobe' too? Or if this is the one sole solitary Bad Word a person can use on Wikipedia, does it have to lead to an indef block? Wnt (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem here wasn't the use of the word "homophobe", the problem was that the outrage over the perceived (and non-existent) homophobia was a blatant fake. --Conti| 09:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
You're drawing that conclusion based solely on activity on another site, which means that you're blocking him solely based on his participation in that site. This is the reason why Wikipedia ends up being composed of "anonymous cowards" - because any information you give can and will be used against you. In addition, this deduction is not even correct - for example, just because someone freely uses "faggot" in a humor site doesn't mean he would think it is right to call people that, or want to be called that in a dispute about article content or here at AN/I, because it's a totally different context. I would consider that it is actually because ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue, where gay editors feel comfortable that they are not going to have their work deleted or their accounts blocked by those with the so-called conservative agenda, that the use of such words over there is not seen as disruptive. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just cannot take someone seriously who writes that "ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue". The "conservative agenda" bit was particularly amusing, though. --Conti| 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have relates to the double-standards I'm seeing here. One editor files a largely unsubstantiated SPI case (which I rejected), and it gets erased surreptitiously and the filer gets a week-long block. The second SPI case is also largely unsubstantiated. I run that to the best of my ability and, though it comes back clear, the accused gets indef'd and the filer pretty-much gets a pat on the back.

By all means, ban all the trolls or whatever (for whichever definition of 'trolls' you determine) but please do so in an even-handed manner across the board. I don't see that happening here. And because there are ED and GNAA connections, it should be demonstrably fair, and done 'by the book'. Because it will be questioned - Alison 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that someone who is part of a trolling organization is trolling when their behavior can reasonably be interpreted as trolling seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. If a KKK member makes statements that appear to be racist I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just really like the robes and hoods. It is unreasonable to not consider intentional membership in a group dedicated to committing the same transgression of which one is accused, especially when said transgression is literally the raison d'etre of the organization. I'm sorry Allison, I think you're a fine administrator but you seem to have much too high a threshold for trolling. Sædontalk 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Well no, frankly. Because that's taking off-wiki behaviour into account and that's just not fair. That's without even getting into the whole impersonation/cross-linking business. And if we applied that rule across the board, there would be a whole lot less editors here. Also, making KKK comparisons is grossly unfair - seriously. Look I've been an ED sysop myself at one time. And a WP sysop. Concurrently, even. I'm somehow still here. Yet these days, I'm seeing editors with any sort of remote connection to ED being indef blocked, largely so someone else can have their way with whatever article is in dispute (usually ED/GNAA or MLP stuff). Seriously - that's just not okay - Alison 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:BADSITES links to a failed proposal, and one that doesn't address this situation at that. You're asserting that it's not fair but you're not giving an argument as to why it wouldn't be fair. If someone is known to be part of organization X, the purpose of which is to engage in behavior Y, and then that person engages in what can be reasonably interpreted to be behavior Y, we would be foolish to pretend that this linkage is outside of the bounds of consideration. In murder trials of gang members, for instance, gang affiliation can be presented as evidence - even though it is prejudicial - because gangs are organizations known for engaging in murder.
Your other two arguments are either strawmen or tangential: (i) I did not make that claim that all editors who are also ED editors are trolling WP, only that when someone appears to be trolling and is part of a trolling organization it is reasonable to take said affiliation into account and (ii) this isn't an editor with a "remote" connection to ED randomly getting indeffed - it's an editor who appeared to be trolling to uninvolved, [presumably] reasonable editors, and who is more than a "remote" player at ED. Lastly, you make the assertion that a KKK comparison is grossly unfair but have not offered an argument demonstrating that the fundamentals of the analogy are false(namely that both groups can be seen to exist for the purpose of deviance and that if it were reasonable to consider the affiliation of a member of one group the same argument stands for a member of the other group. In no way does the analogy carry the insinuation that ED members are like the KKK in regards to their morality, nor that ED members are racist. It is a common mistake for people to focus on non-fundamental aspects of an analogy as a means to dismiss the analogy as a whole, but I think you will find after consideration that the fundamentals are congruent). Sædontalk 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Since you are concerned about doing it 'by the book' and are concerned that things will be questioned, should you have been the one to have done the SPI both times since you personally know the individuals named in the SPI?. - SudoGhost 00:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say I personally know them, I pointed out that I know who they are IRL (in real life). That's very different - Alison 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you see a huge distinction there, but I'm not seeing it. That's still very questionable, you being the one to handle both SPIs when you know and have had previous extensive off-wiki involvement with the individuals in the SPI. If you're going to claim "by the book" wasn't happening, next time perhaps you should take a look at your own actions, because you aren't exactly in any position to be claiming things weren't handled correctly. Perhaps there is no WP:INVOLVED-equivalent for CUs, but either way you shouldn't be handling the SPI for your former associates. - SudoGhost 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Good grief - I have not had "previous extensive off-wiki involvement" with anyone mentioned in either of those cases. Please point out evidence to support this assertion, or withdraw it. In fact, I've run plenty of cases here over the years involving Wikipedians with whom I've had involvement; it's an inevitability here. As it happens, this is now being handled by AUSC so they can decide accordingly. But statements like this are utterly unfair - Alison 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's any more unfair than you accusing others of being unfair and of not going "by the book" if you're going to put yourself in a position where you actions are just as questionable. Someone who says "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets" shouldn't be the one to run the SPI on "those guys", especially if you were concerned about the appearance of being fair and avoid questionable actions. - SudoGhost 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Putting words into my mouth that I did not utter is unfair. I did not say "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets". I suggested that two of them are unrelated based on my knowledge of who they both were IRL. I did not say that nobody was socking; that had yet to be determined. At this point, I'm not going to comment any further - Alison 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for paraphrasing, your exact words were "I can say that I know who both {{user|LiteralKa}} and {{User:Zaiger}} are IRL and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated." If you're going to vouch for two editors in an SPI, you shouldn't then be the one that runs the CU and then ask others to take your word on the results. Is this something actionable? Probably not. However it is very questionable activity, especially when you then complain that others might be doing questionable things regarding the same situation. - SudoGhost 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this line of discussion is productive. I suspect that many of our veteran checkusers could say something like "I can say that I know who both Grawp and who Bambifan101 are IRL, and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated". That doesn't mean that they'd be vouching for either Grawp or Bambifan. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a situation where some checkuser gained knowledge of the editors due to their experience as a checkuser/admin, as Zaiger's talk page indicates. I'm not suggesting that something inappropriate happened here, but when an editor points out that something should be done carefully since it would be questioned, their own actions in that situation shouldn't be just as questionable. - SudoGhost 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I have a related concern: Zaiger's location is identical to that of the IP which made a (now revision-deleted) edit to the SPI case against me which Basedircrory (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) quickly blanked and then replaced with identical text and his signature instead of the IP signature after he logged in. So how can they "geolocate to very different places"? —Cupco 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I have seen all their IP addresses and you have not. As I've already stated, I welcome any other CU to recheck my result, and I see one has already - Alison 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is a witch-hunt --Polmas (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. COI trolls are needed here so badly for their "excruciating anal devastation" line of comments. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

trolling? you forget about Comet Egypt who was obviously a troll, and you want trolling? "Is it my fault, that i'm better than you? even though i'm a jew.

everybody just loves me. 

they just come to see,

how hot and amazing i am,
they just need to stay calm.
i just wanna be left be,
but everyone wants to touch me, inappropriately.

I'm hot really hot and you're just super not. i'm cool you're fat so i treat you like a household mat. everybody wants to be me, i think it's cuz they can see, that i'm just so super cool..."(jared milton, who is a real troll)- that is trolling, it is made clear to me that this person Zaiger has said that he will not repeat his actions of calling the user in question a homophobe, so i see no point to the indef block. I support alison fully. instead of blocking somebody who has stated that they will sease and desist, you should be looking for people who post worthless shit like the quote i gave. and to me, it appears that you're basing this on his account on encyclopedia Dramatica, that's how things look anyway. I'm not attempting to accuse anyone here, but put it this way, you're flimzy reason for blocking this user after he has clearly stated that he will not do it again, is as dumb as the song i quoted above. maybe try that on for size. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where did he say he won't do what again? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
here: "I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do." Previously he said he would not retract his statements, however, nor did he ever even attempt to substantiate his claims. --Conti| 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Subsequently. Since Alison says Zaiger's address doesn't geolocate to the same place as Basedircrory, but the IP address which Basedircrory tried to hide in their deleted contributions geolocates to where Zaiger says he is located on his blog (in multiple and his most recent posts, I should add) then I suggest (1) Basedircrory was probably using a proxy until they slipped up by making a non-logged in edit, and (2) another checkuser should look at whether the sources are from proxies or consumer IPs. —Cupco 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If he wants to put up an unblock request he should explain what he plans to contribute to Wikipedia, not just give assurances that he won't behave like a troll. Insofar he turned out to be the prototypical WP:COI editor we don't want here. His main focus here was the article of the website (ED) he is associated with. His style of argumentation on Wikipedia was a mirror of the style that ED promotes and not just in that last incident (see the unrelated "excruciating anal devastation" comment linked above.) Besides that, he vandalized a couple of other articles here with his ED-style "jokes" about Jews and made inconsequential minor edits to a few more. [16] [17] That was essentially his four-year career here. It's hard to escape the conclusion that his participation to Wikiepdia was a net negative up to now. Yes, we do coddle other potty mouthed editors (cf. latest ArbCom request on "Professionalism and civility"), but at least they contribute something besides trivial edits and bad jokes. The indef block imposed on Zaiger is not at all unusual. See the case of 7mike5000 for comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems like some low-level and mild issues over a period of time being built up into a massive troll conspiracy based on who he is and what website he is primarily associated with. Not a good block at all, certainly not an indef. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support block Having reviewed the information here, I think this is a clear case of someone with an axe to grind and not someone with a serious commitment to the growth and betterment of Wikipedia as a project. This appears to be someone who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia as their primary motivation for contributing, so I'm not sure we need to keep their distractions around for much longer. I'm afraid of all of the collateral choking should we grant someone like this too much WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just because someone refuses to retract their statement doesn't mean that they are going to continue harassing people over it. I agree that we should kdeep wikipedia free of trolls, but even with the sources you gave, it still looks like you're blocking him based on his connection with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why don't you tell me that i can't edit here because of my bulbapedia account (Christian woods), that would not be fair, would it? in any case, i do acknowledge that he stated that he will not retract what he said before, but you refuse to acknowledge that he has stated clear as day that he will not repeat his actions regarding fear of homosexual people. Again, worry about those people who repeat their disruptive actions, and not those who dispite their refusal to retract the statement, has made it clear that there will be no repeats of such things in the future. I don't have an account here nor do i wish to create one, but i can say this. maybe i can talk to him a little bit, i am jewish after all and i have actually made jew jokes before on a couple websites. maybe if you allow him to use his talk page i can speak with him and find out what's going on, i have a thing with trolls, how do you think i got Jared Milton to stop making videos on youtube, at least for the present time anyway? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Question: Has Zaiger made any actual good article contributions? That's the main thing I want to know. SilverserenC 04:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I see a grand total of 20 edits to mainspace, the majority of which apparently deal with Encyclopedia Dramatica. In short: it would seem not. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with encyclopedia dramatica? i don't remember there being anything oh so bad about comedy, ooh! heavin forbid someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica dare help edit an article on this site about it, because that's the biggest crime ever commited! ooh, why don't you do a spi to find out where he lives again, arrest him and launch the jail cell with him/her into space so he/she will either burn up in the thurmosphere or die due to lack of oxygin. note the sarcasm. what exactly is wrong with being from encyclopedia dramatica anyway, i mean you shouldn't give people from that site the status of troll automaticly, allison, help me. I'm not saying that he can do jew jokes, i stated above that i'm jewish, but i'm saying that using encyclopedia dramatica as part of your basis to block zaiger is not only asanine and shit headed, but it's also unjust and unreasonable. What's next, you gonna block me now because i have a bulbapedia account? look up Christian Woods, i'm also on bulbagarden and Serebii, gonna block me for being from there? the way you guies act, i could just as easily be a troll because i have an account on a site related to pokemon, i mean really. understand? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • OPPOSE BLOCK STRONGLY. - i made that all caps to show my sincerity. reason: The basis of the block as i can see has shit to do with the contribution for the encyclopedia, and everything to do with his status on encyclopedia dramatica. I'm not promoting the website or anything, i just wish to see a little bit of fairness here, this block is not justified, and Encyclopedia Dramatica should never have been brought into this. i'm sensing something that appears suspiciously like an attack campaign, and it is the reason why i didn't make that edit i wanted to make in the article about Zoroark master of elusions. You guys are making it look like you're automaticly a troll and it's the biggest crime on earth as i said above to have a minor minor connection with something or someone. So, i oppose and curse this block, and its basis, in the name of fairness and in the name of wikipedia! (throws out chest bairing wikipedia's logo on the front of shirt. then proclaims loudly:) No Attack campaigns.

You make this look like an unfair battle from super smash brothers in which link, samas and Pikachu are ganging up on a level 2 luigi, and luigi can't attack or defend himself. that's my analogy of most of you guies here. sorry, that's how i'm seeing it, i'm sure i'm not the only one who notices tha attack campaign format of this, not only against zaiger, but against encyclopedia dramatica, which is a COMEDY website, "for the lols" (meaning it's supposed to make one laugh.) thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You've made your point in this thread amply enough already. Now please drop the WP:STICK. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sticks have two ends, and I've found it's often hard for a single editor to carry one by themselves from very long. Nobody Ent 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not untill i see some fairness here, and besides, you're doing the attacking anyway. you oppose my views, so i will don't think i've made my point clear to all people here yet. you don't even acknowledge what i'm saying. and again, i don't support trolling, but i believe that the block should have been for a better reason than encyclopedia dramatica, and leave my contribs out of this. you've all proven to me that i am not welcome here, but i shall sease when i see some fairness here. this isn't about tijfo or myself anyway, it's about zaiger as you can clearly see. i don't see the fairness, andand also leave my status out of this please tijfo, i don't take to such things that well. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    • Can we have more poems then? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Not that it matters much (being eponymously a nobody) but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome here. However, if you need or expect fairness from Wikipedia I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed -- not because of maliciousness but a host of reasons too long to iterate here. Nobody Ent 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just think that things should be handled different, and i'm shitty at poetry, ask my english teacher. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Also if you're refering to the quote i gave tifjo, it's super super cool by jared milton. please youtube if you like, but warning, it's a little strange to say the least. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose block - Although he clearly did not display the civil behavior required to be a productive Wikipedian, I feel that an indef block is far too much for his comments on a superfluous SPI case that he was only named in for editing an article in a NPOV manner that someone didn't find productive. I feel a short-term block would benefit more, as well as possible wiki-mentorship or whatever it's called. Maractus (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

possible idea[edit]

Now here's a suggestion that should seem fair to all parties concirned: yes it does involve unblocking him.

  • step 1: unblock him but monitor his edits (but don't be all creepy stalky about it)
  • step 2: rather than punnishing him for editing ED articles, you can maybe encourage him to do civil disgussions on the ED article's talk page on how he can word his contributions so they don't seem like promos.
  • step 3: someone have a conversation either via e-mail or on his talk page on how some ideas of things to help contribute to. it worked for me on bulbapedia, which is similar to this but about pokemon. nevertheless, that idea should be considered.

If he persists then maybe a week or month long block would be ideal, an indef should never be a first time block, it gives a bad impression on people, not just Zaiger him/herself. also, it's not right to make assumtions that because of his status on encyclopedia dramatica, he's a troll. as stated in the previous section here, ED is humorous while this is serious. I know i don't have status on Wikipedia here, but i don't care, i just think that maybe my suggestion should be considered before you finalize this disgussion. and no, i don't support him making jew jokes on serious websites, i am jewish after all. thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, so why is everyone saying ED instead of just saying erectile dysfunction like adults? Also, I think it was very insensitive for the previous poster to refer to ED as "humorous" when sufferers often find themselves feeling powerless -- even impotent (though admittedly the neurological signs are often soft). EEng (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's an alternate suggestion: go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
For the love of Kirsty Hawkshaw i'm trying to help out here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly do you want to help? What connection do you have to Zaiger? SilverserenC 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i have a connection to him. I think that the block is unfair because of what it's based off of. quite a few of these people are letting this ED shit get to them, and i'm trying to the best of my ability to see this as a reasonable block, but i'm at the point where it will litteraly take this spaciffic someone to help me out, because i don't see it as a reasonable basis at all.

  • even though he refuses to retract his homophobe acusations, he has clearly stated that he will not repeat the statement in the future.
  • His status (pronounced stay-tuhs, the propper way) on encyclopedia dramatica is being brought into this when it has as much to do with this as the way i pronounce status does.
  • and finally, assumtions of trolling because of said status on Encyclopedia Dramatica being used as arguments to rationalize his block

are not ways that a block should be imposed on someone. we can't read minds, and i'm sure some good faith has been assumed, but let's not show that we make those kinds of assumtions please, it brings Wikipedia a bad immage. This is coming from someone who wishes every once in a while to find things to edit on this encyclopedia. I'm uninvolved, and though i oppose the block, i don't promote trolling at all. But i also know not to assume he's trolling or not. i'm trying to put this nutrally but it's hard when i get told to go away by Andy the Grump, and when Tifjo tries to status push here. Again, let's leave my status out of this, we're not here to talk about my status, we're here on this notice board to help make a rational decision based on a good reason and not based on views on a sertain websight that makes attempts at humour. so let's just stick to trying to keep things as reasonable as possible here. mkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling your stay-tuhs here may change soon enough [18]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please define what you maen by saing my status will change, and Hopefully he did stop making videos. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, i'm much moe concerned about the fact that he doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. A complete and almost utter lack of mainspace edits shows that he's really not making any constructive worthwhile edits. Combine that with past and present negative actions and I see no reason for him to be unblocked. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you're not here for that purpose, then you shouldn't be here. SilverserenC 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh i do have a few article edits i wish to make, i'm just currently attempting to find sources for them, such as the fact that Kirsty Hawkshaw was active in 1989. i just don't have a completely reliable source yet, so i'm not putting that untill i do. and i take it my suggestion won't be considered at all? my Status better not be the reason, and i ask again, what does tifjo mean by saying my status here will change soon enough? clairify that please and thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean you as in you, I was just speaking in general. And it seems to me that he's being "punished" because he really doesn't seem to be a constructive editor. Combine that with the unconstructive things he's done and I don't see why he should be allowed to stay here. And, yeah, it might be better if you make an actual account. SilverserenC 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What's done is done, but i won't create an account, odds are it'll be inactive for long periods of time, i spend most of my time on bulbapedia. but i'd still like clairification on Tifjo's statement on "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." what exactly is that supposed to mean? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you "quoting" this guy on your talk page? Someone you know or wish to emulate? Doc talk 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Catch me if you can? For someone "not trolling" he is surely well acquainted with plenty of trolls. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i was acquainted with trolls, i said i got a spaciffic troll to stop on a different website for the time being. again, i do not support trolling at all, and rather wish that it never began at all. But alass, there's nothing i can do about that. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic[edit]

I do not agree with the indef block, yet I see a rationale for a short-term ban and other measures to be taken. Thus I propose:

  1. The block shortened to one month
  2. Possible wiki-mentorship or other source of guidance

Zaiger has been somewhat productive from what I can collect, so there's no use in driving him off completely when he has potential to help the project and cut out the disruption. Maractus (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We are here to build an encyclopedia. When a person only puts forward 20 edits to that goal I feel that this is not a good use of time if we look at [Bobrayner's Law. The units of potental positive work done by Zaiger != the work to keep them within community policies --Guerillero | My Talk 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Slow edit war[edit]

Can someone please look into this slow edit war on 1911. Some reverts seem to be done using Rollback tool. There are some more articles with the same edit war going on: