Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive790

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Talk page interaction ban[edit]

I dont think this is going anywhere. Pass a Method talk 15:53, 21 March 2013 (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 would like to propose a 6 month interaction ban between myself and User:Adjwilley on article talk pages. Although our dialogues are not uncivil, there is currently a repetitive pattern where we repeat the same arguments over various talk pages on religion and its getting tiring. An interaction ban would be perfect. The first one was on Talk:God last year and the latest has been on Talk:Joseph (son of Jacob). Can i get a few supports to end this time-wasting please? Thank you. Pass a Method talk 13:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • comment 6 months. Also i prefer incivility over time-consuming talk-page discussions. Editing different articles is difficult since we have similar interests. Since i met him i spend half of my time on wikipedia speaking to him on article talk pages, which i would prefer to spend on AfD's or logs or something. Pass a Method talk 13:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is true that Pass a Method and I have had a fairly long disagreement, but in my opinion cutting off talk page communication is not going to help resolve it. If anything, better communication is needed, since we still seem to misunderstand one another. I would prefer time-consuming discussions to incivility, as long as the discussions stay focused on the problem at hand.

    Also, I don't really understand why this is coming now, since there is currently an RfC running at WT:WikiProject Religion that, if resolved, could solve our problem. (If anybody wants to comment, by the way, any and all views are welcome!) ~Adjwilley (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • reply Almost all discussions boil down to "those religions are not as notable as Christianity" from my viewpoint. I have even seen such comments indirectly made against Islam and Sikhism. Thats not a discussion but a WP:CHRISTIANPOV. Pass a Method talk 14:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. Sometimes Christianity is more notable, sometimes it's not. It depends on the topic of the article. In the Joseph (son of Jacob) article you referenced above, it's Judaism that's most notable. In the God article, Christianity and Islam should receive equal weight (but still not very much IMO, and less than is currently in the article). Trust me, I'm all for eliminating Christian POV from articles, but going around linkspamming articles with links to Raelism, Eckankar, and Druidism isn't the way to do it. Anyway, this isn't the venue for discussions like this, so I suggest that we close this thread and focus future discussion at the RfC mentioned above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
What you said in the above comment and what i see on actualy alk pages are two different things. Pass a Method talk 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Extremely strong oppose A ban on positive discussion that can help lead to consensus? No. Not today; not tomorrow; not someday next week. Maybe topic-ban the both of you so that you can only use the talkpages across a wide swath of articles, and ban you from each other's talkpages, but no way is there any need to ban you from article talkpages as of this point as it will achieve nothing (literally and figuratively) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 21 March 2013 (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 talk:Til Eulenspiegel[edit]

User:Til Eulenspiegel is using his talk page to advocate a boycott of Wikipedia and to attack editors User:Dougweller and user:Dbachmann. Til has a long history of making hyperbolic accusations of racism and of plots to conceal The Truth by defenders of "male white" conceptions of mainstream history. I think the time has come to discuss sanctions given the frequently threatening and abusive approach he adopts. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I frankly don't care too much about his sign-off on his talk page, as long as he doesn't come back. This excruciatingly wrong-headed FT/N thread was about to drive me, if nobody else, to call for action against him (synopsis for the TL;DR crowd: he's demanding inclusion of claims by Ward Churchill, who was fired from his university post when it was found that the very claims in question were based on fraudulent "research"). And practically everything that comes up there these days attracted nuisance claims about our bias. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that Til (and his previous incarnation User:Codex Sinaiticus) has stormed out vowing never to return several times already. He always manages to return. The departures are often linked to debates in which he paints himself into a corner, but then cannot admit to having made a mistake. His solution is to throw around accusations and then leave for a bit. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty clear violation of WP:POLEMIC and WP:NPA. I've had a couple of unpleasant encounters with Til Eulenspiegel, but this is shockingly inappropriate. - MrX 19:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the names of two people from his statement. Calling for a boycott and criticizing Wikipedia's coverage is Ok, calling specific people racists is not. As long as he doesn't edit war to keep the names there I don't see any need for immediate admin action. Perhaps a topic ban could be explored if there's a specific topic area where there are conduct issues or maybe an WP:RFC/U, I haven't looked through his contribs in much detail though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm in a bad mood due to the other editor who is trying to word-bludgeon me into submission, so I'll be quite happy to start the RFC/U assuming that it isn't simply going to be dismissed because he goes underground for a while. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Would a topic ban on Native American articles make sense here? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it has to be a ban on all articles about race, broadly construed. He has shown a lot of interest in articles related to Judaism, and not in a good way. ---Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Too small in scope. Really pretty much anything with the possibility of fringe material is a problem: the last few rounds before this that I recall involved the Bat Creek inscription, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, various Iolo Morganwg-related texts, and I see a new problem with a Korean text. And I see that this other account that Paul B mentions is in fact still somewhat active, and all the ares it's active in are ones where I would be dubious about his contributions. Any time we come to an issue of rejecting questionable scholarship, he puts us through this whole "you're trying to suppress the TRUTH in favor of orthodoxy" attack. I sort of get Guy's boundaries, but I'm not utterly sure that his fringe-loving is constrained within them. Mangoe (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No comment on whether a topic ban is warranted, but posts such as this at a pseudoarcheology article, in addition to the incident above, suggests that Til Eulenspiegel may have a long running issue with Doug Weller. That it manifests in personal attacks is obviously undesirable. - MrX 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Someone want to propose a community ban or a topic ban on fringe issues broadly construed at WP:AN perhaps? Accusing all admins of being "RACIST BIGOTED ADMINS WHO THINK THEIR RACIST BIGOTED OPINION IS MADE OUT OF GOLD" is a bit much. If I recall correctly I frequently saw the now indefed Paul Bedson and Til involved in pushing the same fringe work (though it's possible I'm misremembering separate incidents, the interaction tool isn't working correctly for me at the moment). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Did he delete the ANI notification? Ditch 21:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I just added one. He's presumably called him a racist because I called him out for personal attacks at FTN[1] although I haven't partaken in that conversation. The main difference between Til and me on American Indians is that he thinks that a lot of non-Native Americans visited America before the Vikings, presumably influencing Native Americans, and I don't. Ironic eh? As for Codex Sinaiticus, that account isn't a former incarnation, it's just an earlier account of Til's and is still actively editing which I guess makes Til the sock. I agree that some sort of ban is in order. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
How do you know the two accounts are related? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Til makes no secret of it. He has stated it's him on several occasions. I'm afraid I don't know how to find those. One was in an edit summary. Til/Codex is a Biblical literalist with a special interest in Ethiopian Coptic Christianity. He appears to believe in some sort of narrative involving ancient Hebrew peoples colonising the world. Opponents of this view are routinely labelled "racist" for reasons that are often very unclear, though he does appear to believe that these people were 'non-white' or 'black' (his edits on Curse of Ham are often related to this). These beliefs mean that there is a wide range to his activity in articles about ancient history and human migration. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think this is the dif you are looking for. Yes? Stalwart111 23:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Does one of those accounts fit as a sock and need blocking, or is this a WP:SOCK#LEGIT case? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I had a look at that while going through his contributions for that dif. My impression was that the original was a normal editing account, abandoned in favour of the later account. But the original account was subsequently "revived" for use as a interwiki-link-adding account. At one point he tried to use it to run an interwiki-adding bot but it was shut down because the bot function had not been approved. I think it was a fairly good-faith attempt at a legit alternate account. I couldn't see any evidence of GH/BH or vote-stacking, but then I didn't look that hard. Stalwart111 10:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Alrighty then, thanks for looking that up. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, I strongly disagree with the community over using cool-down blocks. This situation is a perfect example of when cool-down blocks should be used to protect the encyclopedia and the user. The batshit crazy message should have been removed in its entirety and the user should have been blocked for a week with talk page access removed. This would have given the user time to think about his temper tantrum and it would have prevented any further discussions about indefinitely blocking someone while they are angry, only serving to make them more angry as they are backed into a corner. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but that's how I see it. Viriditas (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Update: Til Eulenspiegel has removed the outburst from his user page.[2] I would ask at this time that we consider closing this report and allow him to calm down. I think the removal of this statement on his talk page shows good faith and a desire to improve his behavior in the future. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree with the above. There are very few situations where going to indef instead of applying longer and longer blocks makes sense, and the escalating blocks are far less likely to result in unblocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Guy here, but I'm not as optimistic as Viriditas. My experience is that he's ignored the warnings I've given him = sure, he doesn't like me, but that doesn't excuse his ignoring warnings about personal attacks. He's one of those aggressive angry editors that makes (some) others just want to avoid whatever he's being angry about. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I know that Wikipedia isn't therapy, but it sounds like he's having personal problems that are interfering with his ability to edit. Perhaps he is in need of some kind of structured ultimatum and final warning indicating that if he crosses the line one more time, he can be blocked by any uninvolved admin, etc. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The one immediately apparent personal problem I am seeing is simply that he has come into conflict over several of his hobbyhorse issues here at once, so that he is getting a lot of pushback at once as well. In the case of the FT/N thread he was in essence insisting on the use of a notoriously discredited activist source which people could see was faulty from many different directions, including one person who knew the whole story from beginning to end. His ability to bring himself to edit is simply a question of calming down enough to regret stomping off, but he's not going to change the way he edits, because (like Paul Bedson below) he is never going to abandon his defective way of looking at his subjects of interest. His crusade is going to bring him back, the various fringe-watchers will eventually notice, and we'll go through one of these fights again. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Boston College[edit]

Activity has stopped and various editors have made attempts at contact to find the instructor or class in which these articles were being created. Mkdwtalk 19:56, 21 March 2013 (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.

Requesting a 24 1 hour block for users rapidly creating articles about Boston College students and services. It appears to be a class assignment to create a Wikipedia article about yourself. In the last 30 minutes I have seen about a dozen articles created by Boston College students about themselves and student services. I have posted on each talk page to please put me in touch with their instructor but the accounts are still rapidly creating articles. Please see the following users and their deleted contributions:

Thanks, Mkdwtalk 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be unwise to block them, university and school classes frequently use editing Wikipedia as part of their assignments, and 99 times out of 100, the professor in charge knows what he's doing, though sometimes the students are a bit clueless. The best way to handle this is to contact the professor, treat him or her with courtesy and make sure they are staying on top of their students, direct the professor to Wikipedia:Ambassadors or Wikipedia:School and university projects to make sure they have the proper support, and also ask the professor and students to use the WP:AFC process or user sandboxes to keep the chaff out of the mainspace. As long as you do that, there's no need to block anyone. Indeed, there's still no need to block anyone, per WP:BITE. Feel free to edit, eviscerate, or nominate for deletion any of the substandard articles which have been so far created, but we should work to educate these new users, not block them and ask them to leave. --Jayron32 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have made every effort to contact them prior to your recommendation with out any success. I'm aware of the Ambassadors and WikiProject program having both been in and used them while in university. No one has suggested asking them to leave, and the block is merely preventative to allow discussion to continue with out a disruption to Wikipedia. Even a 30 minute one so they can respond to my talk page inquiries would be better than then wasting their class time editing articles that will be deleted -- as well as the time of the patrollers. Often professors know what they're doing, but in the case of MauriceJackson24 who may be their professor, has written several "how to" articles as well such as the one about How to perm which seems to suggest the other wise. Mkdwtalk 00:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the articles:

to name a few.

Mkdw theorized it was a college professor's assignment. I think it may all be one vandal. If it continues, I'll request a checkuser. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why Ann Burgess was tagged as there was an assertion of notability as a "pioneering expert". Also found this within seconds: "Dr. Ann Wolbert Burgess is an internationally recognized pioneer in the assessment and treatment of victims of trauma and abuse."[3] That one, at least, didn't appear to be vandalism. Location (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a dead point now since the activity has subsided. It was more pressing when 16 of the last 20 pages were all articles about Boston College students and were being continuously re-created. Mkdwtalk 01:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance on this, Mkdw. Situations like this can be difficult - although the creators were probably just following instructions and meant no harm, almost all of the articles were clearly inappropriate and it can be a challenge to offer meaningful guidance to several accounts all at once. You done good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Campus Ambassador for another Boston College class (Education Program:Boston College/History of the American West (2013 Q1)). Is there something I can do to help? GabrielF (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can figure out who the professor is who is running this class, and contact them directly (especially if you have access to BC phone directories) and maybe figure out if he needs help, that would be most awesome. --Jayron32 04:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be the place to start: http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/english/faculty/full-adj-fac/George_O_Har.html as displayed on User:MauriceJackson24's userpage. Mkdwtalk 20:01, 21 March 2013 (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.

Ongoing battle over Derwick Associates[edit]

Background[edit]

The page in question is Derwick Associates. According to multiple reliable sources, it is effectively a money laundering organization for the Chavez government. I do not say that lightly. Please look at the sources in this[4] version of the page for confirmation, and see this [5] and this [6] for a discussion of the reliability of the sources involved.

This page has been actively edited by sockpuppets[7] who were eventually blocked.

The page has been nominated for deletion twice[8] [9] and failed both times. During the course of the second nomination, a number of additional sockpuppets appeared and were blocked.

Do you have an RS that says it's effectively a money-laundering organization, or is that OR? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

After it became apparent that FinanceReferee was being operated by the lawyers of Derwick Associates (see the bottom of [10]), and after Philippe Beaudette contacted me on my talk page[11] informing me via email that Derwick Associates is suing me, I decided to take a step back and bring the content to RfC[12]. The result of the RfC was that the sources present in the page were legitimate, however, none of the users commenting appeared to have a great deal of knowledge on the subject of Venezuelan media.

I think it is worth mentioning at this point that many (if not most) dictatorship-backed companies like Derwick Associates will use the legal system to silence those who speak out against them—usually including journalists. In fact, the $300 million defamation lawsuit [13] they filed was for exactly this purpose.

After questions were raised about the sources in the page, I posted a message on the Reliable Sources noticeboard[14]. Unfortunately, I did not receive any responses. I assumed this was because most people on English Wikipedia either do not speak Spanish or do not know very much about the Venezuelan media.

To resolve this, I sent a message to every member of Wikiproject Venezuela with the hopes of shedding some light on this issue.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

I received only a few responses, the most helpful of which was from SandyGeorgia, where she re-posted my RSN posting and responded to it here[22]. She then removed all of the material on the page that was not in a reliable source.[23][24][25][26][27][28]

A detailed explanation of the sources involved can be found here.[29]

This page has been reviewed and edited by a number of highly-credible users, including:

all of whom went through and fixed reliable sourcing issues.

That statement is, at best, disingenious. What SandyGeorgia actually said is that they don't have time to even begin fixing the substantial issues with the original version of the article, so it doesn't seem that they in fact approve of the version you're trying to preserve. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem[edit]

Approximately one week after the sockpuppets mentioned earlier were blocked, a different user by the name of FergusM1970 came through and removed all of the same material that the sockpuppets were attempting to remove[33] (and the following 20-or-so edits), effectively removing every piece of controversy.

I reverted these edits to the version that was agreed on from the RfC mentioned earlier. FergusM1970 then re-reverted me with the edit summary: "Alek, I spent a lot of time cleaning up this article and removing the attack sections. Please discuss before reverting again." [34] Not only had this material been discussed on the talk page, but FergusM1970 is attempting to out me as "Alek Boyd", the blogger he referred to in a number of other edits. [35] [36][37][38]

His edits all refer to "dubious sources" or lack of "reliable sources", yet he has never once engaged in a discussion on the sources involved.

Questionable edits[edit]

Recently, and the reason why I am bringing this issue to AN/I, FergusM1970 removed all negative information added a great deal of hyper-positive information, including a number of foundations that Derwick Associates supports [39] None of this information was sourced, and he even tagged it with "Citation needed". The only place this information exists (as far as I can tell) is on Derwick Associates website [40], which is obviously self-published and not to be used on the page. He also added the following text:

Neither Derwick nor Bariven have released any information regarding the contracts. The companies are bound by confidentiality agreements and Venezuelan laws that prohibit any of the companies from releasing information.

Again, he did not include a source. I asked him on his talk page where he found all of this information and he responded with a thoroughly unsatisfactory response about how I am "paranoid".[41] His tone in his response was uncharacteristically civil, as you might notice by the numerous blocks, sockpuppet investigations, and warnings on his talk page for "incivility".[42]

After going back and forth with FergusM1970 for nearly a month and a half, I have decided that my only option is to bring this issue to AN/I.Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Your "going back and forth" has consisted of restoring your original (massively POV) version of the page twice then asking me what position I hold at Derwick Associates. It hasn't exactly been a deep discussion, has it? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me put a word in with a bit of advice for both of you. First of all, for FergusM1970... As both an administrator and as an editor, I've had many dealings with editors who hold conflicts of interest (either disclosed or undisclosed) and sockpuppets. I've been the target of a good number of angry sockpuppets over the years. I once wasted literally months in a mediation case where ultimately one of the people involved was a sockpuppet who was affiliated with, advocate for, and actually posting from the headquarters of the article subject we were trying to be in mediation for. One thing I've learned is that sometimes on Wikipedia, you're not paranoid enough. :(
For Justiciero1811... I have a lot of experience with sockpuppets and conflict of interest accounts (as I said before). Looking over FergusM1970's prior contributions and apparent topics of interest, I have a lot of trouble believing that they are affiliated with Derwick Associates, or a sockpuppet of someone else previously involved with the article. I find it far more likely that this is simply an editor who honestly disagrees with you. I suggest that as you continue to work on this article, and as you discuss matters with FergusM1970, that you approach your interactions from that perspective. -- Atama 05:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Atama, thanks for the speedy response. I stumbled across the article in question by accident and was quite impressed at how evil the company was. When I started to dig a little, though, it turned out that more or less the entire article was based on editorials by a single journalist who, to put it mildly, seems to have a bee in his bonnet. Justiciero1811 seems quite determined to keep it in that form, but it really was outrageously POV. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the attempts I've made to outline the content piece piece-by-piece have been completely ignored. In addition, a section that I had added to the Talk page to open up a discussion with full transparency is repeatedly removed by FergusM1970.[43] It was a good faith add to discuss content and there was discussion below it with a former sock (apparently a Derwick lawyer[44][45]) who was obsessed with striking it from the record. We have since moved on, but it seems wrong to entirely delete someone's edits repeatedly and to push so hard to strike it from the record like FergusM1970 is doing, continuing the work of the FinanceReferee username. As for the other pieces, I'll be adding each point I am talking about separately so we can have a thorough, open discussion. I hope others can join in as well. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

AIV backlog[edit]

There seems to be an outage of the HBC AIV Helperbots that usually clean up the list at WP:AIV once a user or IP has been blocked. Currently this function is no longer available for whatever reason, so entries may be piling up over there although they have already been dealt with by an administrator. I have checked the AIV page and the bot code and as far as I can see there are no recent changes that would affect the bots' functionality. De728631 (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

As of right now, this is pretty much handled. I'm not sure what's going on with the Helperbots - they have been intermittently disappearing from AIV over the past few weeks, but they appear to be functioning normally at UAA. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I believe I saw them disappear at UAA as well the other day/week. Odd, since they're run by different ops. Someone want to ping WP:BOWN? — PublicAmpers&(main accounttalkblock) 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a good idea - I knew there was someplace where the bot people hang out, but I wasn't sure where. I've left a message there and notified the operator of one of the bots. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ajativada - User:174.1.118.185 is User:Aoclery[edit]

User:Aoclery, who's been blocked, is using User:174.1.118.185 to edit again at Ajativada diff. 174.1.118.185 has been blocked before at the Dutch Wikipedia after personal attacks diff one day block. please block. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The appropriate noticeboards here would be administrator intervention against vandalism and sockpuppet investigations. TBrandley 19:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
IP blocked 3 days. If it returns, report at AIV with a link to the SPI. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A user named Ratemonth is vandalizing the article "Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution."[edit]

Definitely the wrong venue. Consider a dispute resolution method, but ANI is not the venue for you. NativeForeigner Talk 06:33, 22 March 2013 (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.

We had written an additional entry based on the Classical Liberal view on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution.

First he deleted our article for no real reason, then he deleted it again accusing a collection of works by Law professors a "bunch of Jibberish."

Then he went through the sources and said that the "content was not present" in our sources, but that's because he's obviously NOT a Libertarian (Classical Liberal) and has absolutely no idea of how to read those sources, or disagrees with them fundamentally (one of his edit reasons was "biased source).

Of course the source is biased towards Libertarianism, because WE ARE EXPLAINING THE LIBERTARIAN INTERPRETATION (BIAS).

I request the attention of a superior Wikiepdia officer to deal with this offense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinthAmendment (talkcontribs) 05:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There are no "superior Wikipedia officers". The best course of action is to follow the directions at WP:DISPUTE. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

NinthAmendment's writing is not encyclopedic. Most of it is not based on any sources. Some is based on unreliable sources. I was able to salvage one sentence, and have put it in an appropriate section of the article. Ratemonth (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, this is not the place for disputes. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:14, 22 March 2013 (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.

Request for guidance[edit]

Closed per OP request. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (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.

There are or were edit wars at the following articles: Microsoft Office 365, Product activation, Microsoft Office 2013, and Windows 8. In each case, other users (than myself) have done one or more of the following:

  • Edit warring without any discussion at the talk page
  • Edit warring while ignoring discussion at the page (by at least one user not edit warring in this case)
  • Edit warring after some discussion at the talk page but no consensus reached

For some reason, though, I am the only one who has ended up blocked because of any of this. (I obviously consider this administrator abuse, but the report I filed here was basically laughed at by the community, since it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues.")

Anyways, to resolve these issues, I have tried one or more of the following in each case:

  • Simply reverting the edits that were made without consensus - I ended up blocked
  • Reverting the edits that were made without consensus but directing the users in question to talk pages - I ended up blocked
  • Reporting another user for edit-warring - my report was closed (without even citing policy) and I was threatened with a block

Leaving the pages in their current states is simply not an option I am willing to consider as there is no consensus for this, so my question now is: what exactly do these very administrators who block me, and others who agree with them, expect me to do in this situation? (Note that WP:DRN - and probably any other such venue - isn't particularly useful in general, as I have discovered, and is even less so when at least one user refuses to cooperate, as is clearly the case here.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You're expected to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass. Whatever your understanding of consensus is (and frankly I don't think you're on as solid footing there as you think you are), you're not supposed to keep hitting the undo button every few hours while carrying on the dicussion. Raising things on talk is supposed to be the process by which disputes are worked out, and not just something on a checklist that allows you another revert. That option that you're not willing to consider is very soon going to be a coded editing restriction if this carries on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Since you apparently haven't realized this, I'll spell it out for you: I have dropped the stick in terms of reverting by coming here.
Content issues, on the other hand, are quite a different matter, and your response is not even remotely helpful in this regard. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You're still insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong, that you've been wrongly blocked by abusive administrators, and that you want your way on the articles in question. You need to stop all of that. Your decision to stop directly edit warring has merely prevented your being re-blocked. Go and edit articles on a subject other than Microsoft and DRM for a while. Stop talking down to everyone you disagree with. And if, after calming down and getting a bit more of a feel for how collaborative editing is supposed to work on here, you feel that there are specific issues on your target pages that remain unresolved (to the community's satisfaction and not just your own), start an RfC and don't touch the article at all until it's completed. And if that doesn't result in you getting your way, accept that as the will of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm insisting that I'm right and everyone else involved in this is wrong - about not establishing consensus and simply edit warring instead, not about the content issues. That's Wikipedia policy, and you, as an administrator, should know this better than myself.
I would add something here about the mention of administrator abuse, but given that you seem to be so dismissive of a policy as fundamental as WP:CON I doubt that there is much point in discussing other policies with you.
As a final note, I would ask that you not project any of your own actions onto me ("Stop talking down"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I keep seeing you pointing a finger at everyone else including the other editors you got into an edit war with, the admin who blocked you, the admins who rejected your unblock requests, and I predict that you will soon make some sort of accusation against me as well for writing this. What I don't see is you taking personal responsibility for your behavior or making a commitment to following community standards of behavior.
Dropping the stick does not mean bringing it up in place after place hoping that this time you will get the answer you want. Dropping the stick is not badmouthing everyone who disagrees with you. Free clue: if you have problems with everyone you interact with, maybe you are the problem.
Here is some guidance: spend six months without any of the behavior that your talk page is full of warnings about. Everybody else seems to be able to follow the rules, so why can't you? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we stop discussing my conduct and start discussing how to obtain consensus to resolve the content issues - which is what this case is really supposed to be about? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
No. Start following the rules, then we can talk about your content issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I have already been blocked - twice - for the conduct issues, so I feel that that has been addressed at this point. Even so, if these blocks had been administered fairly, perhaps I could take personal responsibility for my actions, but with multiple administrators directly violating policy - see the quote above from WP:EDITWAR - doing so would likely serve to embolden the other users involved in this.
Note that I did not particularly want to discuss this given the community's response to the previous case I brought up here, but I felt it was necessary given that you repeatedly made comments directed against me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
First, AN/I is not for discussing content issues. Secondly, by posting here, your own actions are very much up for scruitiny - and, if I may be very frank, I don't like what I see now, or before, which is best defined by a battleground mentality, a refusal to drop the stick, and a serious case of not listening because you are, after all, right. We don't want to block or ban people, we want productive and collaborative contributors. But that goes both ways - you have to be willing to compromise and follow policy if you're here to help build the encyclopedia. What I'd suggest would be to step back, take a deep breath, and stop editing the article in question - all of them - for, say, a week. Find another subjet that interests you, and work on that for awhile, and see how you feel afterwards - I suspect you'll find that much of what you thought were problems and doubts are, in fact, very small things after all. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to get other users to follow WP:CON. What, exactly, do the links you provided - except the one to WP:CON itself, of course (which is mislabelled - it is not the same thing as "compromise") - have to do with that? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the fact that WP:CON does not say what you think it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
We cannot stop discussing behaviour, because ANI is about behaviour. It is not about content. The dispute resolution processes involve not only the noticeboard, but third opinion and request for community comment. Dogmatic, if your behaviour right here is indicative of how you approach conflict, I can understand why you're having trouble. You're new to the project - as much as longtime, respected editors have worked their asses off to show you the ropes, you decline to listen. How about remembering something: this is a private website, and you agreed to a set of rules. If you choose not to listen to those rules, and insist that your personal interpretation is correct, then you will not likely be permitted to remain on this private website. Arguing against the people who know is like peeing yourself in a dark suit: only you notice, and it shortly becomes rather uncomfortable. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this "set of rules" you are talking about not include the quote from WP:EDITWAR above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
You keep citing that sentence from WP:EDITWAR, yet you haven't provided any evidence that the admin(s) in question didn't "consider all sides". Has it occurred to you that they may well have given consideration to your position, and, in doing so, decided you were wrong? I count four experienced administrators (make it five; I endorse their advice) suggesting that you back off and consider the possibility that your interpretation of the rules is not in line with the community's, and your responses seem to me to boil down to a repeated and unsupported assertion that you are right - that's not how to reach consensus here. Once more for those at the back; drop the issue for a while, come back when you feel more level headed and less persecuted, and then pursue your changes through the appropriate channels - and be prepared for possibility that the community will decide not to implement your changes. Yunshui  11:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
If this is the case, then I would ask that an administrator explain why my actions were considered block-worthy while the actions of the other users involved were not. Even a brief explanation would be better than complete silence on this matter.
In fact, it is quite likely that knowing this would help me adjust my conduct. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this. The impression I'm left with is that you were edit waring with at least 3 other people (Viper, Coin, and GB Fan) to get your own preferred version forced through. That is considered disruptive. Does that help? Because quite frankly, I think you're getting dangerously close to a WP:BOOMERANG with much continuation of this line of discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear it is only two editors, Coin Operation was a declared alternate account of mine and I mistakenly posted from my main account also. I have abandoned the account because I was confusing myself and it will no longer be used. GB fan 11:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to point out that this is the very user who reported me (using the "alternate account") - and it now turns out that this user was using two accounts to edit this article, quite possibly confusing the blocking administrator. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Multiple other users expressed concerns about removing the material from the article at the talk page. These users, however, chose to ignore those concerns. What would a preferable method of addressing this issue have been?
Additionally, I would like to request a similar explanation for my previous block, which I find more puzzling given the extent of edit warring by other users in that case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Here's the easiest explanation: if YOU want something in, and you're the only CURRENT editor who wants it in, and 2 (or more) editors say "NO", that means your edit does not hold consensus, period. Don't ever re-add it until you have new consensus, if ever. By re-adding and insisting that they tell you why it should not be included is edit-warring to your preferred version. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
In this case, the information in question was not added by me - I was simply restoring it - so, if anything, your advice should have been followed by the other users, not me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So the question is why exactly were you restoring material that was removed because it was completely unsourced and in some cases out of date? Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The preferred method of addressing the issue is bold, revert discuss. You have never discussed why you feel the information belongs. You only point to a couple of editors that 5 years ago expressed that they thought the information belonged. One only saying it was "convienent" Why do you believe the information belongs. GB fan 12:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That article is basically at your preferred version and you still have not explained on the talk page why you believe the lists belong in the article. You just point to a couple of editors from 5 years ago that thought it belonged, one whose reasoning is that it is "convienent". GB fan 12:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To respond to both of you: as stated above, "AN/I is not for discussing content issues." This kind of question should have been discussed at the talk page instead of simply filing an edit warring report.

In any case, I have still not received a response regarding my question about my previous block, nor very much guidance as to what I should do next to resolve the content disputes. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Raise and RFC, go to WP:DRN, ask for a third opinion, the associated Wikiproject which is listed in the talk page. Usual sorts of things for content disputes. You really should just drop the stick. Move on, find something else to do. Nagging people about it is just going to earn you another one for being disruptive. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Dogmaticeclectic, you've received a lot of advice from a number of different editors and it's been remarkably consistent in its tone! I think the problem is that the advice you're getting is not what you had been hoping for, so you're reluctant to recognise it for what it is. I don't think for a moment that you are going to get any contradictory advice by keeping this open. I'd strongly suggest that you ask for this thread to be closed, then read it carefully and try (even if you disagree) to follow the advice you've been given. If you need further guidance, then rather than raising an AN/I I suggest picking an editor whose manner and style you respect, and asking them if they'd be willing to mentor you, either officially or unofficially. They don't have to be someone who agrees with you - just someone who you feel you can do business with. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This is very true: it is apparently acceptable for administrators to ignore policies such as WP:EDITWAR: "Where multiple editors edit war or breach 3RR, administrators should consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues."
  • If somebody came here who was right, while many others were wrong, she or he would be roundly criticized for insisting that that truth was true.
  • Consensus is a popularity contest, regardless of the self-flattering story the community tells itself to the contrary. What percentage matters deemed to have a clear consensus are not also a supermajority? !%? Humanpublic (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
This type of comment is exactly the reason why I chose not to request that this case be closed. I am aware that there is a simmering cauldron of discontent with Wikipedia administrators in general and therefore considered it not unlikely that someone would make such a comment in this case. Of course, it is unlikely that administrators will pay much heed to this, but every attempt to get a message of this type across counts.
I would like to note, however, that - contrary to one administrator's implicit assertion above - WP:THETRUTH has nothing whatsoever to do with this case. In fact, this case stems from these issues not even being allowed to develop to that point (assessing whether reliable sources exist on each side of the disputes) due to my blocks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
As an additional note, it's not even a popularity contest in at least one case: at Microsoft Office 365, one editor is fighting the consensus of two and currently winning due to what I, for one, consider administrator abuse - semi-protection and blocking, both of which in this case violate direct quotations (!) from the respective policies (WP:EDITWAR in the latter case). Also note that both of the reports against the latter two editors were filed by the former one. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
ViperSnake 151 is not an admin, so I don't understand how there could be admin abuse. I've also notified both ViperSnake 151 and Bbb23, who placed the semiprotection you refer to, of this discussion, which is required when you refer to another editor at AN/I - while you did not name them explicitly, the intention is clear. Also, I repeat my advice: stop beating the dead horse. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
You clearly misunderstood - I was referring to User:Mark Arsten blocking me. Out of fairness, I have decided to inform this user of this discussion as well - although I am not necessarily in agreement regarding notifying any of these users about this discussion given that none of them are actually "the subject of a discussion", in my opinion at least. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
When the first sentence of your original posting contains "other users (than myself) have done one or more of the following", you are attempting to make them the subject of a discussion and therefore yes, you are required to notify those users. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems interesting to me how you sound so sure of this now, and yet you have previously posted in this case without mentioning this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Because I wasn't aware that you hadn't notified them. I don't tend to go round checking avery notice, since the guidance at the top of the page is pretty clear. Black Kite (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • is there a good reason this timesink continues? The title is "request for guidance " and I see about a dozen admins, numerous editors all providing identical guidance, yet the OP refuses to follow or even accept it. At what point does WP:CIR kick in? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Given that an administrator has now threatened me with a block in connection with this case - an indefinite one, no less, and at another page, too - I now request that this case be closed. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2013 (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.

"The ed17" and civility[edit]

My eyes are sore from this computer screen and i imagine its the same for yall. Pass a Method talk 17:49, 22 March 2013 (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.

Editor User:The ed17 has been unhappy with several of my content edits. In my view, before the content discussion could be joined for a constructive discussion on improving the encyclopedia, The ed17 initiated the discussion on my Talk page with an uncivil comment about me, and what I consider a personal attack. Difficult to work on improving articles under this cloud.

  • Here is The ed17's comment on my Talk page: diff
  • Here is my request to The ed17, on his Talk page, requesting that he simply retract and remove the uncivil comments so we could get on with discussing improving the encyclopedia rather than editor behavior. diff
  • Here is The ed17's reply on my Talk page diff.
  • Here is my reply to The ed17 on my Talk page stating that I won't discuss the content changes on the related articles until he ceases the uncivil personal attacks, and requesting again that he remove/retract/try-to-clean-up his uncivil personal attacks. diff
  • If he were to do that, then we could put away discussing editors and get back to discussing improving articles and relevant article standards per current Wikipedia policy.

I am requesting Administrator review of The ed17's behavior against me, as a fellow editor endeavoring to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for your time on this issue! N2e (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm shocked that this has come to ANI, as I don't think that my comments were in any way uncivil. My comment was meant at editor behavior in this instance, as I don't believe his practice of systemically gutting articles over several years through wholesale removals of uncontroversial information (e.g. Precooled jet engine or Legends of Shannara, where apparently book titles in a trilogy need citations) benefits the encyclopedia. The applicable policy in this is WP:PRESERVE, though I now know that this interpretation is disputed from a discussion I started on WT:V. Having said all that, while I don't feel that my comments on N2e's talk page were uncivil, I'm willing to accept that they were if outside editors here agree. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I consider ed's comments to be blunt but not uncivil. N2e is free to blank comments from his talk page that he does not like, and/or request that ed cease posting to his talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the OP needs to read WP:V again, especially WP:When to cite. Unreferenced, non-controversial, non-advertorial content is completely fine in most non-BLP articles ... if you want to help, find references or use citation needed tags. Blanking just makes the article less useful for readers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to the WP:V policy that explicitly says "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed" ? ElKevbo (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
May be. That doesn't mean that you should. See WP:PRESERVE. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to mention WP:BRD; if other editors feel the content is fine as is, continuously removing it is tendencious editing. As long as it's not a BLP or non-neutral, of course. See WP:BLUE — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2013 (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:O9837tr7xs and Master–slave morality[edit]

Going, going, gone. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:21, 22 March 2013 (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.

O9837tr7xs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Can I ask an admin to look at this? This user seems determined to stuff the article full of original research and dubious "Jewish master race" conspiracy theories, such that the article more closely resembles a neo-nazi tract than a serious encyclopedia article. Example additions: "This implies that there are two psychosomatically immature slave races—the unconscious Mongoloid "embryos"/"sheep" do tedious manufacturing work for the semiconscious Aryan "children"/"sheepdogs", who are mind-controlled by the fully conscious Jewish "adults"/"shepherds"" ....."The Aryan race commands the Mongoloids but obeys the Jews. This combination of commanding and obeying abilities is symbolized by the German sheepdog. The domestication finished in 1945 AD, when the last pack of Aryan "noble wolves" was tamed into sheepdogs."...."The Jewish master race is symbolized by a hook-nosed eagle and a wise serpent:" etc etc

The user received the full series of warnings on their talk page about violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV, they brushed off those warnings, declaring that "avoiding OR is a slavish trait" and continued to edit war to readd the material until they were blocked. They have now returned from that block to add exactly the same material on the article. I'm bringing this here as attempts at discussion with the user have proved futile. Valenciano (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected this article to put a stop to the edit warring. I have chosen not to block O9837tr7xs for edit warring because I do want to give them an opportunity to give us their side of this story (AGF and all that). However, if another admin feels that a block is necessary given the previous lack of a constructive response from this editor, so be it. --Kinu t/c 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, however, the user's response to this thread doesn't inspire confidence that this is an editor who will heed the advice of several editors to stop using the article as a WP:COATRACK. I expect I'll be offline most of the weekend so I would appreciate it if other editors could keep an eye on that situation. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
And an edit summary that says "Avoiding OR is a slavish trait" not only doesn't inspire confidence but makes me wonder if this editor is likely to ever be a positive contributor here. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Checking the contribution history, I have my doubts on that as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I so look forward to some form of explanation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I wish that O9837tr7xs's reply in this thread wasn't removed. It didn't rise above the level of being "mildly uncivil" and it would help demonstrate their behavior. My personal belief is that the editor is doing this as a joke, this is so over-the-top I have trouble believing that they're sincere. I wouldn't expect any kind of legitimate explanation, or even an attempt at one. -- Atama 19:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Poe's law in action? Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
A quick look at the contribs indicates that this user appears to be WP:NOTHERE at best. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Trolls gonna troll. Indef and ignore. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Indefed. Fut.Perf. 17:21, 22 March 2013 (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.

Merge tag removed by article creator[edit]

On 9 March User:Kauffner created a new article Han-Nom. On the same day User:BabelStone proposed a merge by tagging the article. A merge discussion is in progress. However, User:Kauffner has removed the tag, twice now, and despite my trying to engage him on his talk page. This all follows a move discussion on a related article, where I tried to start a discussion about how many articles were needed, which he did not engage in. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You may want to check his use page.... it just might violate Polemic as he's using it to call a wikipedia user "this thing" "wiki stalker " and "it". He has at least one link where he shows this individual's wikipedia account.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the personal attack paragraph from the page, that's just not on. No comment on the other matter. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Also can you make sure you inform the subject about this thread on his talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 18:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm just raising the question of the removal of the merge tag. I think the person that Kauffner regards as his stalker is aware of the user page comments. I did tell Kauffner that I was raising this at ANI and he said he was looking forward to me defending the tag. Tags, because there was another one that I don't currently have a view on although I did revert Kauffner's removal of it (haven't reverted his restoration). Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I would be grateful for a response to the merge tag removal question. As I understand it, when someone has started a merge discussion that should be allowed to run its course. Assuming good faith, removing a merge tag is mistaken, and the editor who does it should have the position explained. I have tried to do this, but my explanation has not been accepted. As further background, the editor who started the article has put it forward for DYK, so I can understand that they would be disappointed at seeing a merge tag. But the solution is not to remove that tag, is it? Itsmejudith (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:SocialRanger -- newly registered user engaged in hoax article creation[edit]

Banhammered by Black Kite. If you manage to dig up anything more than your "gut feeling" then head over to WP:SPI. Basalisk inspect damageberate 19:04, 22 March 2013 (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.

This is a new problem to me, so I am requesting appropriate admin action here regarding this user. SocialRanger is a newly registered user (March 17, 2013), whose first Wikipedia edit was to intentionally create an admittedly hoax article, Ehsan Malik. Apparently a new page patrol editor discovered the hoax, and an AfD is now pending at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Malik. User admits that the article is a hoax, and appears to be an account engaged primarily in hoaxes and other disruptive behavior. Comments and behavior demonstrate a knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policies, and I suspect we may be dealing with a sock puppet. Request immediate block for intentionally disruptive editing per WP:DISRUPT. Frankly, if I had more evidence than just my gut feeling, I would also initiate a sock puppet investigation. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Obvious sock but whose sock is it? - Who is John Galt? 18:54, 22 March 2013 (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:Dogmaticeclectic - time for a ban?[edit]

Clearly there is never going to be a consensus for a ban from this thread, however Dogmaticeclectic should note that regardless of his talk page message, he will be blocked for any future edit warring. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:07, 22 March 2013 (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.

Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs) is an unrepentant edit-warrior and policy wonk whose behavior has twice gotten them blocked (and during his last block, he promised to continue edit-warring, viewing WP:3RR as the relevant policy as opposed to WP:EW). Shortly after he came off this latest block, he inserted a warning box on his talk page threatening to report anyone who tried to stop him from edit-warring here, presumably to be sanctioned. I removed it, citing WP:POINT and WP:IDHT, only for him to remove it and demand I cite a policy "with quotes" supporting its removal. I've removed it again (citing WP:POINT yet again) and he's once more restored it.

Given his words in his unblock requests, his belligerence, and vast selective reading skills (coupled with the aforementioned policy wonkery) I am proposing an indefinite ban on Dogmaticeclectic. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That box is allowed per WP:USERPAGES: "The Wikipedia community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. [...] Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. You've been sanctioned twice for edit-warring and have been insanely combative towards administrators. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
WP:POINT can be used against virtually anything. Any blocks and/or bans based on it are completely ridiculous. (Also note that there is no specific mention at WP:USERPAGES of anything even only similar to the message in the box not being allowed.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
That is only true in your warped weltanschauung. In practice, POINT is only invoked when someone's deliberately skewing a rule to its breaking point, such as you are with WP:USERPAGE. Which confirms my assessment of you as a policy wonk. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the reporting user is quite wrong about what the message in the box actually is. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose ban We're not going to ban anyone on the basis of two edit-warring blocks, though if the edit warring continues he'll likely be given a lengthy time away. As for the box, I don't really think its that big of a deal. I'd suggest ignoring it and growing a thicker skin. AniMate 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)x 2No For all their failings, blocking (much less banning) Dogmaticeclectic over a userbox like that is beyond silly. Let them have the box; it's doing no harm. Just because someone's criticizing an admin admins doesn't mean they're being abusive. Unless their other, actually problematic behaviors are being continued, I don't see any action that needs to be taken, and an outright ban is way premature. IMO. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd like to note that I'm not even criticizing any particular administrator (an action which could actually possibly violate WP:USERPAGES), but merely attempting to offer guidance to administrators who deal with any potential future issue(s). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Noted; I didn't say what I meant in that respect. Reworded. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the box is a little pointy, it does not raise to the level needing to be removed. Their actions to this point are not sever enough to justify a ban. GB fan 21:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban. We need something more than a userbox, even with the history here, to justify a ban. Bringing this editor up again here less than a day after the last discussion was closed seems counterproductive to me, I suggest a small trout to Jéské. (PS to Dogmatic - I suggest you leave it to others to oppose - your contributions are effectively making the case for the prosecution!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I couldn't care less about the template or some of the drama explicitly stated here, what concerns me is that the user was unblocked for just 1 day before being reblocked for the same offence. They've also been highly abusive to admins, making frivolous allegations in their unblock requests. Equally concerning is their clear intent to carry on edit warring, and to just "cherry pick" certain guidelines to follow, whilst ignoring others they disagree with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The fact is, however, that since my second block I have not done anything that could even be construed as edit warring. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - This user has been blocked for edit warring twice now, and doesn't believe he was wrong either time. He uses policy left and right throwing different ones out to try to get himself unblocked, while saying explicitly he will continue to edit war, just not hit 3RR. He now says to any admin who blocks him that they are required to block someone else or they will be reported here. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality at it's finest. gwickwiretalkediting 21:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You're twisting my words from the box, just like the reporting user did. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • "Any appearance of a breach of this statement against this user will almost certainly result in a report at WP:ANI." - That's a threat to report any admin who doesn't "consider all sides, since perceived unfairness can fuel issues", and considering your blocks and unblock requests, you mean by this that unless someone else is not blocked too then you weren't wrong and don't deserve a block. You're wrong, you've been wrong, you're still wrong. Either drop it and move on, or continue to dig your hole deeper. To others, the behavior the user is displaying here (replies to everything, comments unrelated to others "I have not done anything...", etc.) are very WP:BATTLEGROUNDy . gwickwiretalkediting 21:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Dogmaticeclectic. The box does not say that any admin blocking them for editwarring is "required" to block "someone" else or they will report them here. They say that if they feel that there wasn't equal treatment they will most likely report the blocking admin here. GB fan 21:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Look over their block log and their talkpage history (mainly unblock requests, etc.). It's clear this user meant to say that if an admin didn't block someone else too he'd report. He didn't say that, because he knew he'd get reported for that, but he's just wikilawyering around the policy to WP:POINT and everyone looks to be falling for it. gwickwiretalkediting 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Any blocks and/or bans based on what one user thought another user "meant to say" are at least as ridiculous as any based on WP:POINT (the latter being such per my reasoning above). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Multiple edit conflicts here have already caused at least one user's opinion to be removed, and although it was already restored, this could easily happen again. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose That silly message won't deter me in the slightest as an admin from hitting the block button. If it makes him feel better under some false umbrella of protections against admins, let him have it. I'll be sure to read it twice and ignore it if he edit wars again. Administrators are always available to be labelled as abusive at anyone's leisure, this userbox doesn't make us anymore vulnerable.--v/r - TP 21:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think it's a dumb thing to put on one's talk page, but it doesn't justify even lesser sanctions, let alone a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban. I see no edit-warring since the last block, and that message box is nothing to kick up drama about. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That box isn't worth a block (and any admin worth his salt should be thick skinned enough to take no notice). There are conduct issues which might result in further sanctions if they go unchecked, but I'd rather we try to deal with those less heavy-handedly. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal. While this is not quite a WP:SNOW close, this is never going to fly. May I suggest a withdrawal by the OP or an early close by an uninvolved reader, to save us further dramah? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:48, 22 March 2013 (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:Axlerun is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

Socks washed and put in the drawer. De728631 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2013 (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.

Axlerun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) He removed the SockPuppet tag from his user page and has started vandalizing other articles. Special:Contributions/AxlerunCarolMooreDC🗽 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another: Sandeeprao1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). TippyGoomba (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The users are both blocked, their damage reverted. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (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:KLBot2[edit]

Does this bot need new approval for wikidata migration or does the existing approval cover that? Werieth (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not covered, but I'd say IAR here, since it's closely related and not hurting anything. Nyttend (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Constant article vandalism by User:NotHelpingMatters in Futanari[edit]

NotHelpingMatters is once again vandalising the Futanari page and has broken the three revert rule. So have I in reverting his vandalism. Please either warn him or protect the page from him. Thanks 86.164.67.30 (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this user is either a sockpuppet or an accomplice of user Niabot, who has consistently attempted to rewrite the page in question to both have bias towards greater acceptance and prominence of the subject than actually exists, and to include a piece of art that he created which is needlessly pornographic in nature and poorly drawn. My main concern is that the image in question be removed permanently. Even if no other changes are made, the exclusion of the image in question would be enough to end my changes to the page. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
NotHelpingMatters, it would seem that your only edits to Wikipedia have been to censor Futanari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Why is this?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
This is false. I have also rewritten the text of the page for clarity, removed pre-existing grammatical errors, and generally worked to bring the page up to the impartial and scholarly standards of the site. I have been removing the image because it is needlessly profane, adds little or no value to the page, and has been added back despite the protests of previous users by Niabot. The image is Niabot's pet project and is harmful to Wikipedia as a whole. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It would seem that the editors of the article disagree with your changes to its prose. Additionally, Wikipedia is not censored. Just because the drawing is pornographic in nature does not mean Wikipedia should not include it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
After looking through NotHelpingMatters' contribution history and tone of edits, I have applied an indefinite block. Assuming good faith, the editor has a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies and purpose; alternatively they are either trolling or are editing in a fashion indistinguishable from trolling. Either way, going to 12RR with comments like "I have nothing to do today" [46] and the personal attack "Read any good books lately?" [47] is inexcusable. The user is, indeed, not helping matters by editing here; the image might or might not be suitable, but that's what discussion is for, not a "cease uploading" note [48]. Also, the IP OP has been hit by a WP:3RR boomerang for also going to 12RR. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that there were other editors in the past who raised issues with the drawing provided by Niabot. Perhaps there's some sockpuppetry going about?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
70.112.2.185 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is absolutely NHM's previous editing. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but no checkuser (should we go for one) is going to say anything on that quacky correlation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any others that jump out at me as deafening quacking. There's one or two that might be, but if I was a CU it wouldn't be enough to make me run a check. Although it'd probably be a good idea to look out for possible socking in future. And I'm off for coffee as my typos are piling up... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Eldumpo violating several policies in regards to WP:NOBLANKING[edit]

Eldumpo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user initially caught my attention when i reverted his edit (he spuriously removed content) on the Landlocked countries article (at first i assumed good faith and justified my action appropriately in the edit summary). he then came back About a month later and once again deleted the exact same content - a different user again reverted his edit a few hours later. So i noticed this and decided to have a look at Special:Contributions/Eldumpo...and found him practicing much of the same behavior on the majority of his edits as well.

The most blatant example of this user`s WP:DISRUPTIVE/WP:VANDAL editing is the West Country derby article, where after several smaller removals he went ahead and in a -single- edit removed 16,261 byte`s worth of information. The article was 21,963 bytes before he started and by the time he was done, he had shrunk it down to 1,302 bytes...and while at it removing referenced content as well as 31 references.

This is not confined to just 1, 2 or 3 edits either. It's rather prolific. In a single swipe he also removed 7,215 bytes from the Friuli-Venezia Giulia, 4,741 bytes from the Dárvin Chávez, 4,465 bytes from the Joe Harvey, 4,893 bytes from the Iran Pro League articles....and i could go on and on listing several more easily identifiable WP:DISRUPTIVE and borderline WP:VANDALISM edits from this user.

I'm just a passing ip but i seriously doubt this user's "contributions" to wikipedia are constructive.


i would go ahead and try to revert his damage but admins are probably better equipped than me to do that. so i thought that since i couldnt find a more appropriate place to put this i'd put it here to (hopefully) get the attention of an admin.

diffs (before and after his edits): [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.94.226 (talkcontribs) 05:12, 21 March 2013‎

  1. You didn't sign your comment. For shame
  2. You didn't notify the user of this discussion per the rules of the page and the big orange notice block. For shame
  3. There hasn't been any recent discussion with the user about this.
  4. You're an IP user and yet seem very familiar with the lingo and proceses for Wikipedia dispute resolution. So much so that I question if you're evading scrutiny by being logged out.
  5. The diffs you present are over 2 months old. How is this an "Immediate action requested" instead of a longer term and lower level of dispute resolution?
There might be a coaching opportunity for this user to use inline maintanance templates as opposed to outright deletions (give intrested editors an opportunity to fix issues prior to deletion). At this point (in my mind) there's enough procedural flaws in your request that I think it would probably do with being dismissed for the time being. Hasteur (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 1) Why would i sign my comment when i know a bot will conveniently come along and do it for me ? 2, 3 & 4) wikipedia is a full fledged lumbering bureaucracy, some people being specially anal about this. i am fully aware of that, but i could not care less (see WP:IAR, WP:PRAC, WP:ENC, WP:BLOAT, this, and this, among several others for my reasoning.)...i want to get in, read about whatever i want to read, make any valid eventual contributions i think i should make and get out...not get embroiled with endless entanglements of bs wikidrama...this also happens to be one the reasons i have never registered for an account and should wikipedia tomorrow disable edits by ip users i would simply stop editing. 5) these edits (the derby edits being the most blatant of them) are not constructive towards building a better encyclopedia...i wanted to get -someone- to look into it and this is the means i deemed appropriate to do just that.

I dispute the accusations of vandalism and disruption. Yes, I have at times deleted sections of unreferenced material, often when it is poorly written and/or debatable/POV, or when the section just may not be notable, but have added references and cites to a large number of articles. Eldumpo (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Hasteur, your comments about the IP's familiarity with the guidelines are inappropriate: I'm not pro-IP myself, but that sort of speculation doesn't help anyone, and immediately shoots yourself in the foot. These diffs are old, but I think some of them are a bit dodgy. The West Country derby edit is bad, it removes WAY too much content, and the top few paragraphs need to be there, as at the moment, it's literally only about the one matchup, whereas before it spoke about all of them. I agree it needed improving, and some of it needed nuking... but you've over-nuked. The Iran Pro League edit is bad, as that information was perfectly valid. The Joe Harvey edit is mostly good, although it does leave some promotional-ish fluff in there, and removed a valid table (the latter seems to be a theme with your edits). Darvin Chavez is bad - you've removed a table completely, it was a valid table. The Friuli-Venezia Giulia is an excellent edit, removing lots of unsourced fluff. Basically, Eldumpo, you're clearly acting in good faith, but I think you need to be a little more careful. You've blanket removed tables as being unsourced, when finding a source for them would really not be that hard, with a little effort. Some of your edits are bad, others are very good. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I will aim to take points made on board. Regarding West Country derby, there were no citations confirming the football derbies, and I added a specific reference for a particular derby. A lot of the deleted refs simply listed matches between teams (for uncited derbies). I don't think there should be too much focus just on how much is deleted, it's about the content, and some of the above was very poor. Eldumpo (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Also, the consensus at WP:Footy is that tables of intl' appearances are regarded as overkill. Eldumpo (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
  • For appearances other than for the full international side, I would be inclined to agree with you: 6 full international appearances in a collapsed table isn't that much of a problem though. A quick search would turn up the following for the West Country derby: [54][55][56][57][58] Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • All your refs above are for rugby; I only changed the football part of the article. Re intl' apps it is football consensus to not have them. I'm not saying that ends the discussion but there's also the issue of WP:NOTSTATS, especially as many players have a lot more intl' caps than Chavez. Eldumpo (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why you chose to show rugby references when the edits in question were related to football, but anyway, it's interesting that 4 of the 5 football refs you added are for Bristol Rovers v Torquay, which is the very 'derby' I added a cite for (although one of your refs is the same source, and another two appear to be the same text/report but badged on different sites). The 5th ref is for Swindon v Yeovil, although technically it doesn't use the derby term and it's not a source I've come across. However, I think all the sources are fairly weak, only a fleeting comment. Also, I would point out that at the time of my edits the article had been tagged for 2.5 years as possibly containing OR. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I showed them just as how easy it is to find reliable-ish sources referring to this derby, with some actual effort to find searches (I found those in just two vague sources) you could easily rebuild the article rather than purely nuking it. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

sock alert. block or change policy to allow socks[edit]

To gives me no pleasure to report a sockpuppet and troublemaker, Randykitty. This user is clearly a sockpuppet. The sock registered an account 4 months ago and immediately got Twinkle use and has all the signs of an experienced user. In addition, this user is up to no good. The user is very hostile. The user makes no useful edits as far as adding facts and re-writing articles. In short, that editor should be blocked.

It does not need any type of sockpuppet investigation because the user is clearly the same as a sock, acts like a sock, and is up to no good. Just randomly look at this person's edit history.Editing WP is not a U.S. constitutional right. It is a privilege granted by a private website.

I see only one of two fair outcomes:1. Block Randykitty.2. Change WP to allow sockpuppets. As long as a sock is editing to constructively add and fix WP, then sockpuppetry is allowed. In turn, when considering others' opinions, there will be NO weight given to opinions mentioned by several editors but weight given to the substance of the opinion. In other words, 100 people could be saying "the Pope is Muslim" and this would carry no more weight than if one person said it. Rather, only logic, truth, and citations would be a consideration.

I kid you not. Trying to be a professional writer and considering what a good writer would write should be the criteria for edits, not more people writing support or oppose. Mere counting of votes is childish and shows stupidity. If we do this, there would be no need to have rules about sockpuppetry.

I urge

you to do 1 or 2. Since I think 2 would be too much of a revolution, I urge you to block Randykitty permanently or at least the user tells us his other user names. He clearly is a sock. An innocent person would simply say "I have no other usernames" plain and simple. Bamler2 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

He is disruptive but you could argue not theed most disruptive in history. Ok, if you allow him then you should be quoted that socks are allowed. Thank you. Please don't block Bamler3 if I decide that I am being stalked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talkcontribs) 04:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
So if you'll read the sockpuppetry policy, you'll see the having more than one account is not expressly forbidden (see Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts). So unless you plan to demonstrate that Randykitty is violating one of those rules (which would be done at WP:SPI), he is not going to blocked for socking. If Randykitty is being otherwise disruptive, you can make that case and provide diffs to support it. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Bamler2, who am I socking for? I'm dying to find out whose sock I am! And given that I'm spending way too much time on WP, perhaps it would not be a bad thing if you could give some diffs showing my disruptive behavior and get me blocked. The weather is starting to get nice and the garden needs some attention... But if you cannot present any evidence (or even show us some edits that would raise suspicion), then please read WP:AGF and leave me alone. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing in the OP's comments that provide a link to any of the supposed infractions. If Bamler is 90% certain that Randy is using the same accounts to vote and edit (thus a violation of WP:SOCK, they they need to submit an WP:SPI report that clearly delineates why he is so certain. SPI is not a fishing trip - and sadly, neither is ANI. If however he's merely disagreeing with someone's !votes, well, that's not something for this board (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I already directed Bamler2 to SPI on my talk page, but they elected to come here instead. --Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOMERANG for raising frivolous accusations without the slightest shred of evidence maybe? Also, why are you complaining about a 4 month old account, when yours is 2 months old today? I also see frivolous accusations about stalking aimed at another user: [64]. Now, let's look at your contributions, Bamler2 (is there a Bamler/Bamler1? Is that you?): [65][66] - incorrect removal of an image without a valid rationale - how the hell is Obama being foreign relevant? Also, what the hell is going on here: [67][68][69]? Wiki-gestapo, "removing comments..you are all powerful, can make life hell, even drive one to suicide. I support anything the AC wants. AC is perfect.Sorry.Sorry"? I'm not sure Bamler2 is here to improve the Wiki, but I do think they're here to troll - definitely requiring a block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The "I know how Wikipedia should work better than Wikipedia does" tone of the comments is somewhat troubling, as well. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • [70] is another thing I've found in relation to this frivolous socking allegation. I think Bamler2 should be indeffed under WP:NOTHERE as a pure troll (both their actions towards users, and their dodgy edits). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, accusations of racism: [71]. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Bamler2 has removed[72] the picture of Prince Albert and President Obama for the third time. Stating 'removed undue weight and trivial part of his reign)'. I have to agree with Lukeno. A case of WP:NOTHERE....William 10:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Randykitty is plain rude and sarcastic. He doesn't deny being a sock. He is a sock. Duck, I don't care too much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talkcontribs) 04:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Bamler2, there are a lot of things that I don't deny: I don't deny being President Obama, nor do I deny being responsible for World War 2, for example. Yes, I'm sarcastic, you find that strange? You come to my talk page out of the blue and ask me point blank to list all of my alternative accounts. When I asked whether you were accusing me of socking you specifically said that you alleged no wrongdoing (obviously not a completely truthful answer). When I said that if you had no reason to ask that question, I had no reason to answer it, you simply assumed that I am a sock. Do you really think that if I were a sock that a "no answer" would have been truthful? Or that a lack of an answer constitutes proof that I am a sock? As several people here have pointed out, you have presented not a shred of evidence. As for my being proficient shortly after I established an account, perhaps I had an account in the past and abandoned it when I left WP after having been hounded by some troll and couldn't remember the password when I got back 4 months ago. Or perhaps I had edited WP for years as an IP and decided to finally establish a named account. Or any other of many different possible legitimate things. Socking is using an alternative account abusively, such as vote-stacking in an AfD or to circumvent a block. Up till now, you have not presented any indication that I have done any of these things (not surprisingly because, and this is the only time I'm going to answer to your ridiculous accusation, I never engaged in any such activity). Now lets talk about you: you come to me with ridiculous unfounded accusations. You file this report here and assert, again without any foundation, that I am "up to no good", "very hostile", and make "no useful edits". Now that is disruptive behavior in my book. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You still have yet to prove that Randy's a sock, and in particular, of who. We just don't throw accusations around without proof. You know what they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Take it to WP:SPI to make your case. Also, you still have yet to address the comments raised above. ZappaO