Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Sepsis II and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography[edit]

Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

User:Sepsis II has a history of POV-pushing regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, POV pushing that has amounted to two blocks, and sanctions as well.

Anyway, earlier today, he went to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography and moved Palestine from unrecognized states to recognized ones, his first edits to anything VA/E related. VA/E has rules, namely that you don't make controversial moves, adds, or drops without discussing them at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded, so I reverted him on that basis. He then posted on my talk page, where I told him he needed to discuss the edit. Recently, he reverted me back to move Palestine back to recognized states, accusing me of ownership of the page. This revert seems to be in violation of his sanctions. Could something be done about this, starting with undoing his actions and reminding him of his sanctions? I don't really have the stomach for getting in an edit war with this, and I take no position on the recognition of Palestine, merely that such a clearly controversial edit should have been discussed first pbp 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Question: Wasn't Palestine officially recognized by the UN last year? - (
We also have an article about it. - theWOLFchild 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I still say it should have been discussed before the move was made. VA/E has rules. Discussing things before you do them is one of them. Again, I take no position as to whether Palestine is or isn't recognized. pbp 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, but the fact is, he is correct. So, instead of helping him to add info we know to be correct (and supported by RS), you are fighting to keep it out on a technicality? Meanwhile, now the article still has incorrect info and you are seeking to drag him here to ANI? Have you tried discussing this on his talk page? Have you considered any other means of dispute resolution? What admin intervention are you seeking here? - theWOLFchild 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Further note; I don't see how the initial edit was "controversial", and therefore required you to revert it. But that said, once you did, he should have discussed it with you, per WP:BRD. But I see he has instead reverted you again. You guys should be careful, you don't want to end up in an edit-war. - theWOLFchild 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
a) It's not an article, and b) He has the last edit pbp 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
a) Whatever. Let's not get hyper-technical. b) I noted his last edit with my previous comment above, (it was caught up in an edit conflict). - theWOLFchild 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis's only current sanction appears to be a 'civility' one. From the Palestine-Israel log of blocks and bans for 2013: Sepsis II (talk · contribs) officially restricted to 1RR/week and put on a shorter leash for personal attacks.[225] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) curtailed to a civility restriction only [226] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)     ←   ZScarpia   16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It's gotten messier since I withdrew it[edit]

User:Thewolfchild, FWIW, a new editor undid Sepsis II's edit in his very first revision. This is well on its way to becoming the next Arab-Israeli conflict battleground. User:Sepsis II needs to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography, and avoid edit-warring further. This may even need to be added to the ever-growing list of articles under sanctions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict (at least the portions of the article related to Palestine and Israel). pbp 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you that these areas are very sensitive and prone to conflict. You may have felt I opposed your ANI, but if you noticed my last edit (I'm not sure, first it was tied up in edit conflict, then the thread was closed), I pointed out that once an edit was reverted, that should have activated the WP:BRD cycle, which means should guys should have had a discussion. I know you tried, and I was saying he should have tried discussing as well. Cheers - theWOLFchild 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Sepsis undid that guy's edit. I guess I'm going to have to start the discussion myself... pbp 23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I get followed by banned editors a lot, sorry for bringing them along with me. I was unaware the list was a special article under different editing rules, i only noticed it due to a bot edit - [1]. I hope everything is well now. Sepsis II (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who began the discussion. Sepsis II (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The editor who followed me is probably the same racist as [2]. Sepsis II (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
a) VA/E isn't an article per se, b) The discussion should go on at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. As it plays out, you may consider reporting those users as socks or SPAs, but you gotta stop edit warring! pbp 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Sepsis II:, with very few exceptions, there is basically no edit that "has to be reverted! right away!!". If you are not familiar with WP:BRD, please read up on it. You should try engaging others in discussion when you want to make contentious edits or edits to controversial subjects. Or, when other editors want to discuss an issue with you, and... always before making that 2nd revert. (unless it fall under those few exceptions I mentioned). This will help you avoid edit-warring and being brought to ANI. FYI/Cheers - theWOLFchild 23:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I did try to discuss PBP's revert before my second edit; I mistook the VA cabal as a violation of wp:own. As I am constantly followed by new accounts reverting my edits I have discussed the issue with admins who state that when it is clear they are banned editors their edits may be reverted freely. Sepsis II (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, well, here's an opportunity for the two of you to resolve any outstanding issues. If the two of you can pick a talk page to chat on, then PBP can close this up (withdraw it) again with no further action required. That way, you don't have to deal with any admins... - theWOLFchild 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) is not new, just sporadic - actually started over 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
And... ? - theWOLFchild 18:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
To me Sepsis II (talk · contribs) looks like another reincarnation of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely for nationalistic behavior, specifically Personal attacks or harassment: General persistent disruption and attacks. I've opened a SPI report, based on behavior and technical evidence, which was not seriously reviewed. Oh well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd prod a little harder on that, User:AgadaUrbanit. The main thing that concerns me now is that editors will be showing up to change the status of Palestine away from what we decide to call it at VA/E, and we end up with a (slow-moving, perhaps) edit war. I don't want VA/E to turn into another Arab-Israeli battleground. What can be done to avoid that, User:Baseball Bugs? pbp
The same way you keep a wave upon the sand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It's possible this thread might end with an offer by User:Sepsis II to wait for consensus before reverting again. If he does so, that's good. If he does not do so, one option would be to raise the issue at WP:Arbitration enforcement for consideration under WP:ARBPIA. Longer term, there is a question as to which states ought to go in the section 'Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states' in WP:VA/E/G. We already have an article at List of states with limited recognition. It might be reasonable to use inclusion in this list as the criterion for the 'Unrecognized' section of WP:VA/E/G. It would be even better to change that header to 'States with limited recognition.' That way our terminology would be consistent across articles. This is up to consensus, but it would save having to conduct the same dispute in more than one place. At present the State of Palestine is included in List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathan Johnson[edit]

Note: This section was originally titled User:Nathan Johnson refusing to stay off my talk page, edit warring over a longstanding practice, inappropriately templating a regular, and demanding a retraction. It was changed here. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

After disagreement about the use of the WP:Dummy edit feature, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) predictably took it upon himself to alter the WP:Dummy edit page by removing a sentence that the feature may be used to briefly communicate with other editors...despite many Wikipedia editors having used this feature for brief communication with other editors in a variety of ways for years, and despite objections to its removal, as noted at Help talk:Dummy edit#Don't message thru edit summaries. Nathan Johnson decided to WP:Edit war with me to remove the material. He then templated me with an edit warring notice when he was also edit warring (this is typical behavior of him). He did all of this while refusing to stay off my talk page. He is still refusing to stay off my talk page, even though I made it clear that I no longer want him posting there. And he is demanding that I retract my statement that he has committed vandalism to prove a point, even though I pointed to a previous discussion that clearly shows he did indeed commit vandalism to prove a point. See here for backstory. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FYI - you hadn't notified him of the ANI. I have done it for you. - theWOLFchild 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
As shown in the aforementioned post on my talk page and this post on his talk page, he already knew that I was going to start this WP:ANI. He was well-notified. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Having read through the links you provided and looked at the diffs when you mentioned vandalism, I don't see vandalism, I see an edit war between you two which is not vandalism. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Moe Epsilon, I'm talking about a different matter with regard to the vandalism; that's why I pointed out a discussion that talks about this and this. He vandalized that article and an editor noted that it was vandalism. Nathan Johnson responded in a rambling, mocking manner. His vandalism to that article is what I called vandalism and is why he will not be getting a retraction and/or apology from me for having stated that he committed that vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
That's a good move Mark, it needed that. It seems that Nathan has suddenly taken exception to it, and wants to arbitrarily change it, despite established consensus. Along with that, he did template an experienced editor, warning of a potential edit war - that he was on the other side of (wtf?). Also, Flyer did clearly, and repeatedly ask him to not edit her talk page, which he ignored, and continually posted there anyway. She definitely has valid complaints here. - theWOLFchild 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Without commenting on the other allegations, WP:Don't template the regulars may be good form and good manners, but in the end is only an essay and not an actionable offense. Also, I suspect this would hardly be the first time an involved editor gave another editor an edit-warring warning; it wouldn't surprise me if that was the norm. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@Doniago: - This is not so much about "templating a regular" as it is misusing or abusing a warning template, which is not permitted (just ask twinkle). - theWOLFchild 04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, but that's not the point that was originally made as I read it. If that's the thrust of the argument then whether Flyer's an experienced editor or not is irrelevant. Anyway, I wasn't trying to nit-pick or anything...editors not infrequently confuse essays with policies or guidelines, so I try to point it out to be helpful when I see it happen. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Well the thrust of my comment, was that he abused a template, edit-warred and harassed another editor, which are all policy violations sort of. Let's face it, no one cares about an "essay violation". Unfortunately, the talk of unrelated (and alleged) vandalism and a needless focus on the OP's seniority have served to be a distraction. - theWOLFchild 08:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I pointed out below (in my "01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)" post), there was no "[confusion of] essays with policies or guidelines" on my part. Never has been. Many at this site are aware that I thoroughly know Wikipedia policies and guidelines and am sometimes quick to point out what is an essay; my talk page is one example of that. Either way, just like WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a well-followed essay, so much so that it might as well be a guideline, similar can be stated of WP:Don't template the regulars. And now I think I'm done with this whole thread, since it is clear that Nathan Johnson, who often acts like an administrator, is an exception to administrators when it comes to repeatedly posting on someone's talk page against their wishes and clearly has free rein to continue doing so. Flyer22 (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and haven't fully reviewed the allegations raised, so I should hope that my personal opinions on a minor subsection of this aren't being categorized as any part of consensus on the part of admins.
The point I was trying to make is that ANI cases are touchy enough without raising points that are tangential to items that are actionable. Whether or not you received a templated warning isn't relevant from the perspective of whether or not you're a regular editor since templating a regular isn't a policy violation, and bringing it up, regardless of who is doing so, only clouds this case and, as evidenced, is a distraction from pertinent matters.
I don't agree with the notion that any essay, no matter how well-followed, "might as well be a guideline". Any Wikipedia editor could post an essay expressing an opinion that, coincidentally, is shared by multiple editors; I don't believe it's appropriate or even a good idea to say that that escalates the essay by default.
For what it's worth, while I may be coming across as a voice of opposition, I do hope your issues are worked out and that the harrassment stops. Based on your Talk page discussion I feel you may have antagonized and consequently encouraged Nathan's negative behaviors (a better solution may have been to stop feeding the troll), but that would by no means excuse said behaviors. I hope the admins will take a more assertive stance regarding this filing. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that you are not an administrator. As for the rest of what you stated, I disagree, with the exception of wanting Nathan Johnson to stay off my talk page and that I am not to blame for his ridiculousness; this is clear by my responses in this section already. Even though Nathan Johnson has several or more administrator friends and is seemingly thought of as an administrator by more than that, and I therefore feel that this is why not one administrator has yet warned him to stay off my talk page, to me, your initial comment is what distracted from the more serious matters at hand in this discussion. And now it's a further distraction. I don't think that anyone who has participated in this thread needed a reminder that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay. Thewolfchild, as shown above, clearly understands why I brought up the ridiculous templating matter (and I obviously explained below why I brought it up). I will always bring up such ridiculousness.
I responded to Nathan Johnson how I felt he should have been responded to. It was not to antagonize him; it was to let him know how I felt about him/his editing and that I would not put up with his disruptive behavior. That I don't put up with such behavior (in fact, generally have zero tolerance for it) is not a surprise to a lot of people at this site, especially those who watch my talk page (which you were doing before you excused yourself from it due to my interaction with Nathan Johnson). You have a different way of dealing with such matters. Okay then. That is your way. Obviously not my way. I cannot take the blame for Nathan Johnson's behavior whatsoever. And as others can attest to, and as touched on below by others, he is ill-tempered and has very questionable editing. I generally will not take it easy on someone just because that person has a problem with self-control, and I'm beyond tired of certain editors coddling such people at this site...essentially stating, "Oh, it's expected of him. The opposing editor should not have tempered matters." There is no tempering matters which such editors; the situation is always tempered, just to lesser or higher degrees, because that's how that person is. If I want someone off my talk page, I will state it instead of ignoring that person; that person should then stay off my talk page...unless they have a very valid reason to still be posting there (such as my being blocked and that person being the blocking administrator who is validly explaining matters). I see nothing more to debate with you on this. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
And there is WP:TTR, also. I should probably push that back into project space someday soon. DES (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Mark Arsten, is there a way that the page could protected so that only this user's edits are rejected? Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a technical feature that would work that way, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Since editors have decided to focus on WP:Don't template the regulars instead of the serious matters at hand here in this discussion, such as an editor refusing to stay off my talk page and therefore attempting to force me to read what he has to state and to retract a valid accusation, let me state this: I brought up WP:Don't template the regulars because I see no valid and/or good-faith reason for Nathan Johnson to have templated me; I see Nathan Johnson as having used it to intimidate me and make it seem like his efforts to remove the wording were correct while my efforts to retain it were wrong. He templated me to make it seem like the WP:Edit war was on my head alone. I am familiar with his editing, have had past conflict with him before, and I know how he operates when it comes to editing. Every very experienced Wikipedia editor knows that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay, but it is an essay that very experienced Wikipedia editors generally follow. It's not the norm at all for a regular to template a regular, unless the regular being templated is an editor who has been registered with this site for years but is significantly inexperienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, unless both regulars are not very experienced Wikipedia editors...or unless it's an administrator issuing a block on a regular Wikipedia editor. Yes, I'm also well aware of DESiegel (DES)'s less-followed essay arguing why it's good to template the regular; I generally don't agree with that essay, as should be clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As someone who has yet to have a single pleasant interaction with Nathan Johnson, I understand Flyer22's concerns. Nathan's approach is frequently crass and when he thinks he's right about a guideline or policy, he doesn't hesitate to edit war. I've also seen some questionable editing such as adding a blatant BLP violation to the Dan Savage article. Then there was this unfortunate tirade. The bottom line is, if Flyer22 wants him off her page, he should honor it except for required templates (noticeboard notifications, final edit warring notices, etc.). If he can't exercise that minor level of self-restraint, then blocks are always an option. - MrX 02:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • My impression of Nathan Johnson is that he has a bit of a temper and tends to shoot from the hip. (See this archived thread from my talk page for an example or two. In that case, he quickly apologized and everything turned out fine.) If he'd choose his words more carefully, he'd be likelier to avoid this sort of conflict in the first place. Sometimes it would be better just not to say anything at all; earlier this year, Newyorkbrad gave him some good advice about avoiding stressful discussions. Having failed to avoid this one, he turned stubborn and declined to honor a fellow Wikipedian's request to stay off her talk page. That is disruptive behavior. Edit warring to remove relevant content from a help page he's citing when criticizing that editor . . . well, that's disruptive, too, to put it mildly. One would hope this could all be resolved with an assurance that the disruptiveness will stop. Rivertorch (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing all that out, Rivertorch. It seems to me that an editor who disregards Newyorkbrad's helpful advice is skating on thin ice. On the other hand, vandalism has a very narrow meaning here, Flyer22. Please use that charge with great care. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Cullen328, I always respect your input. However, did you not review the exact situation that I and another editor referred to as vandalism with regard to Nathan Johnson? Look at what Nathan Johnson did there, and, if willing, explain to me why you do not consider that WP:POINT edit to be WP:Vandalism or rather why you consider it a narrow interpretation of it if you mean that I have interpreted WP:Vandalism narrowly? Being very familiar with WP:Vandalism, it seems to me that you are stating that it's that policy that defines vandalism narrowly and you mean "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, keep in mind the first line of WP:Vandalism; it states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Who is to say that Nathan Johnson was not doing exactly that? Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think there is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with regards to Nathan. Having looked at the talkpage discussion with regards to the BLP violation, it's clear that he has a very limited, if any, grasp of policy. For someone who has been editing for over five years to have a totally improper interpretation of WP:BLP is utterly unacceptable, and I wonder how long it'll be before he falls through the trap door that is an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Without at all suggesting that Nathan is in any manner in the right, it would certainly be nice to hear from him here. That said, he hasn't edited for the past couple of days either. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
While he does have the option of commenting here, it certainly is not requirement that he does, for an admin to take action. As I said above, the OP has a valid complaint - Nathan did harass her on her talk page, did abuse a warning template and edit warred. She has every reason to expect that an admin will act on these issues. - theWOLFchild 18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Without meaning to snark at you, you're not really telling me anything I don't already know; I'd simply like Nathan's perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No 'snarky-ness' received. I understand your point, but just the same, a lack of comment on his part should not prevent an admin from acting. And by this point, an admin, any admin, should do... something, even if it's just as warning and/or some guidance. Perhaps Flyer was looking for more (I don't know), but there's obviously enough here that there should be some kind of response. - theWOLFchild 11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (but for me, I've lost interest, this is my last comment)
  • Without delving into specifics here, I'd like to make a few comments:
  1. editors have fairly wide leeway on the management of their talkpage. This can include requesting that someone "stay away"
  2. as long as that person has been reasonably-well advised of that request, then future posts there can be considered to be harassment - and blocks may occur accordingly
  3. the only time such a limitation should be broken is when advising them of AN, ANI, or other admin noticeboard filings - templates, etc should be placed by someone else, if valid
  4. if you have "banned them" from your talkpage, then you should consider it to be a 2-way ban ... you cannot presume to provoke them on their talkpage and not permit a response
  5. except where limited above, in ALL cases, templates CAN be used on ANY and ALL editors ... but ONLY if that template is appropriately used - that said, if you template someone, be aware that they're going to respond
  6. tit-for-tat templates (try saying that 3 times fast) is fricking ridiculously silly behaviour
  7. if you know based on previous behaviour that someone has a short fuse, think twice
Take these comments as you will ES&L 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User: again[edit]

This matter has been referred to the WMF for further review. - theWOLFchild 11:19, 14 December 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.

See User talk: Blocked user is using talk page to continue trolling. Suggest revocation of talk page access. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff? - theWOLFchild 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
[3] — SamXS 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
That's hardly "trolling". It's just a simple question (which I have since answered). If that's all this is about, then this ANI is a waste of time. - theWOLFchild 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
When an editor is blocked, they should be engaged in discussion about the block and how to behave better once the block is over - not posting junk about "end of the world November 2014" or whatever.[4]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. That's trolling. I think that post resolves the question of whether the user merely has competency issues or is a troll. The user is a troll. In any case, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs) 23:06, December 10, 2013

It takes two to "troll" @Robert McClenon:. I suggest removing the page from your watchlist. John Reaves 04:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Why would anyone care about what a blocked ip user posts on his page? If it was something that needed to be removed, that's one thing. But this is just harmless nonsense. It's between him and any admin who might unblock him at... some point. If he wants to waste space there, so what? But why waste space here complaining about it? - theWOLFchild 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Why do you care so much? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't, and neither should anyone else, which is my point. I didn't create this ANI, I'm just questioning the need for it. What admin action is the OP seeking, and based on what? Blocked or not, users are allowed to post on their own talk pages. As long as his posts don't violate a policy, who cares? - theWOLFchild 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that IP question is on the very mild side of trolling. Some people should go back to writing an encyclopedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

He's been blocked twice within a week. His current block will be up on the 15th, so we'll see if the IP in question is interested in "writing an encyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This is hardly trolling, though the IP is using the talk page for requests other than unblock. That's the only thing that is of concern right now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It is a tempest in a teapot. The user is not going to be an asset to the project. Extend for 12 months, ignore the user's talk page (unless it is an unblock request because of a changed or shared IP), and move on. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 11 December 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.

Rivatphil's multiple BLP's and Copyvios.[edit]

Blocked indef by User:Shirt58. MER-C 07:40, 13 December 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 had this up at AIV, but was told to report it here. User:Rivatphil has created numerous BLP articles either unsourced or direct copyright violations from other sites. I noticed this after the New Pages utility was flooded with numerous BLPs, which were all then speedily deleted, so please check the deleted contribs of this user. Also came upon this while notifying user of discussion. 『Woona』Dear Celestia... 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

This user is also non-communicative, with exactly one user talk edit in seven years. Given the copyvios, an indefinite block is in order. MER-C 07:24, 12 December 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:Tobby72 is vandalising this article: [5], [6], [7].It is not political site but i added short info about current human rights issue, and this user started to vandalise the article.He is trying to prove that the Mongols are bad people but Russians and Chinese are innocent people.It is impossible to justify such serious human rights violation: 4, 5, 6, 7. Khereid (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

  • (NA) Vandalism should be posted over at Wikipedia:AIV 『Woona』Dear Celestia... 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't obvious vandalism so would be referred here from AIV. Khereid you need to engage User:Tobby72 in discussion, because at the moment I can't find anywhere where anyone has told them that there is a possible problem with their edits. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added short info about the human rights issues (9), because human rights violation is continuing in China and Russia.But this user is adding irrelevant materials on the article.The article is about only one ethnicity, not about whole world.Khereid (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded with a comment here: -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Khereid, I don't see what the point is of your giving wikilinks to articles with Roman numerals. Now, there is no vandalism here or in the other diffs you gave. On the other hand, your edits could do with a bit of explaining (like an edit summary, for starters), and the charges you make here are not proven by any evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hyper-aggressive editor, Roccodrift[edit]

I'm not interested in drama, and since there's clearly no consensus to block Rocco yet, and the article has been fixed, there is no purpose to keeping my report open. I do reserve the right to refer back to it if Rocco repeats this sort of behavior, and I will insist upon a block.
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'm dealing with an editor, User:Roccodrift, who is edit-warring, making false statements about sources, making false accusations, refusing to discuss article content and repeatedly templating my talk page even though he is banned from it.

These are big accusations, so allow me to back them up with diffs.

I simplified the language of Ted Cruz to use the summary from the source instead of quoting Cruz. Roccodrift immediately reverted, with an edit comment claiming I'm not sticking to the source. He also templated my talk page, accusing me of vandalism. Both of these accusations are unquestionably false.

I politely explained on the talk page, quoting the part of the article that directly supports the change, then reverted exactly once. He edit-warred back, falsely claiming a BLP violation. At this point, I stopped at 1RR to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring.

(There's more -- he's edit-warring against a few people on Economic inequality andtemplating User:EllenCT. A visit to his talk page shows that he's edit-warred over this page before and said some non-factual things about BRD.)

At this point, Roccodrift has violated a number of key policies and is extremely guilty of WP:TE. I am requesting that he be blocked for a suitable period of time, taking into account that this is not his first offense. MilesMoney (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

About being banned from your talk page. You recently gave a general amnesty to all who had been banned from your talk page. Has Roccodrift received a clear note of being re-banned from your talk after that? Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see you have. You don't seem to have excused yourself from their talk page, though. Iselilja (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Dropping a notification on a user's talk page when an ANI has been posted about them is required as per the big orange header at the top of the edit page. Roccoshdrift hasn't banished MilesMoney from their talk page so dropping a notice was the right thing to do. It would be a courtesy if MilesMoney had refrained from posting to Roccoshdrift's page but in this case it's not really relevant. Blackmane (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, ANI notifications are required. But what I noticed was that at the same time (10 Dec) that MM notified Roccoshift about being banned from MM's talk page ban, he made himself two other independent edits to Roccoshift's page. 1 2. Iselilja (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I take your point, but like I said, banishing someone from your page does not have to be reciprocated. It's a courtesy to not post on the banished editor's page but no policy requires it. Also, apologies to Roccodrift for misspelling his name and have corrected my previous posting. Blackmane (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Miles should probably be trouted.

  • At Ted Cruz, he made a bold edit [8] and his edit got reverted[9]. It's all well and good that he started a discussion, but then he reverted again [10]. That's edit-warring, any way you slice it.
  • Immediately after this, Miles felt it necessary to revert my next-most recent edit. At Economic inequality, Miles re-inserted unsourced material (right along with 3 "citation needed" tags, no less), completely ignoring several edit summaries and messages on the Talk page that make the problem clear. Apart from anything else one might say about it, this is disruptive editing.
  • I've recently tried to explain BRD to Miles [11], but I think what just happened at Ted Cruz shows that he still doesn't get it.
  • We have UW templates for a reason: they help us communicate. Collaboration is impossible if there is no communication.
  • I'm not going to have a fit about it, but I will just mention that this accusation of TE follows close on the heels of another accusation gratuitously made in an AfD nomination [12]. Miles was cautioned by an uninvolved editor [13], but apparently he doesn't think there's a problem with this sort of thing.
  • Miles' complaint about "aggressive editing" appears to be projection. Truly aggressive editing looks like this [14], or this [15], or perhaps like this [16], or maybe this [17].

It seems to me that Miles' angling for a block is an attempt at gaming the system. Roccodrift (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The edit that started this by MilesMoney was correct, Roccodrift should have taken the time to read the source before reverting (twice) Nonetheless MilesMoney should have waited for editors to engage in the discussion he started in the talk page before reinstating his edit, that's how WP:BRD works. The original edit has been re-instated by another editor so I say everybody drop this.
A minor comment: I've recently had a similar issue with Roccodrift regarding his use of templates. I pointed him to WP:DTR and I'll once again repeat my recommendation: instead of impersonal templates that can be taken as somewhat aggressive, a polite message in the editor's talk page will always be better received. Roccodrift should perhaps ease up on the templates a bit. Regards. Gaba (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
A minor point WP:TTR. If you feel that the templates can be taken as aggressive then they should be done away with. If regular editors find them aggressive, what do you think new editors think of them? (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── My complaint isn't about content, it's about behavior. If my initial change could be considered Bold, then his Revert should be followed up by Discussion. He did not discuss; he just communicated with comments that are factually incorrect. He violated BRD, among other things.

For my part, I did follow BRD by opening up a discussion, but there was no reason to wait for others because the stated reason for the revert ("source does not support") was demonstrably false. There was nothing further to discuss. Now, if Rocco had stated some more general basis for disagreement -- for example, if he admitted that it was sourced but thought the ambiguous direct quote was somehow an improvement -- then I would have discussed it with him before my single revert. Of course, he communicated only through vulgar gestures: reverts, false edit comments, and templates modified with false accusations. In simple terms, he lied and bullied.


  1. Aggressively reverted without discussion.
  2. Left edit comments that were false.
  3. Made false accusations of vandalism.
  4. Repeatedly templated a talk page that he was banned from.

I don't see how these issues have been resolved by someone else reverting Rocco's changes away. Do you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

"Lied" is pretty strong language. Most view it as a personal attack because it is an intentional deception. As for your talk page, why don't you just delete it? You seem to have banned just about everyone from it anyway. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to use some other term for saying something that you know is false. He knew that the source supported the edit. He knew that changing the article to match the source isn't any sort of vandalism. If he didn't know, then he's guilty of reckless disregard for the truth, which is no better than lying.
Do you also support the rest of his behavior, including the edit-warring, the templating where he's not allowed, the refusal to discuss the content? MilesMoney (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney there's no point in opening a discussion if you're not going to wait until other editors comments. Was the matter so urgent that you needed to revert again before anyone commented? No it wasn't, so you should have waited at least a little while before reverting again.
As for the rest of the issues you mention: I don't particularly agree with the way Roccodrift handled the issue (specially the vandalism template which was completely out of place, hence my request to Roccodrift to ease up on the templates) but there's no real reason for blocking here as far as I can see. I understand you are upset but you'd be wise to follow Arzel's advise and tone down your comments. As much as I could agree with you, WP usually regards comments on how another editor "lied" as a WP:PA. Both of you should continue editing as usual and if something like this happens again, well then perhaps some sanctions will be necessary. Not right now though. Regards. Gaba (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree about whether it was ok for me to revert exactly once after I completely refuted the stated objection, but this doesn't in any way offer Rocco a defense.
As far as I can figure it, there are exactly three explanations for Rocco claiming the source didn't support the edit (and therefore claiming BLP violations, vandalism, etc.). They are:
  1. Rocco read the source, saw that it supported the edit, but intentionally lied.
  2. Rocco did not bother looking at the source, but pretended he knew what it said, which is a different lie.
  3. Rocco read the source but failed to understand the direct statement, which is gross incompetence.
No matter which horn of the trilemma you grab, Rocco should not be editing Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldn't either.--MONGO 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Citation needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand your frustration Miles. Just try to ignore Roccodrift if the opportunity presents itself. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no particular interest in dealing with Rocco, but he's made a point of accusing me of violating BLP and of being a vandal. That's hard to ignore. He's also edit-warred to remove cited material while falsely stating that it's not cited, which is very, very bad.
My hope is that Rocco takes a hint and dials down his aggression. I think that a suitable block would prevent further article damage during the block and perhaps even motivate him to dial down afterwards. After all, even Rocco's most ardent supporters here can't deny that his actions are beyond the pale. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
MilesMoney, if you have such a severe problem that you have to ban people from your talk page, maybe it's time to go on a short wikibreak. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Citation needed. The only editor who is banned from my talk page is Rocco, and this is motivated by the fact that he has made a habit of leaving false templates on my talk page. Sounds like my only "severe problem" is that Rocco keeps misbehaving. As such, it is not so much my problem as his; he controls his own behavior and is responsible for it. Don't you agree? MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 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 a section move (It was posted in the wrong place)[edit]

Can an admin move THIS discussion from the WP:AN to the WP:ANI? The reason for the request is that WP:AN states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators", while WP:ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." But, since neither User:Ahnoneemoos (the affected user) nor User:Caribbean H.Q. (the posting user) are administrators, the posting at WP:AN couldn't possibly be affecting any administrator as intended by the directive and, as such, it has not followed the requirement for posting there. On the other hand, the posting made by user User:Caribbean H.Q. is asking for the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, which is what this page --WP:ANI-- is for. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was posted here due to the SilkTork/Ahnoneemoos ArbCom issue, but I don't really have any objection against moving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Um moving that very, very long section to here will achieve nothing other than the section being closed very fast. If there is still something that remains to be addressed, may be someone could open a new brief discussion (preferably taking in to account anything learned from that thread) explaining what that is with appropriate evidence. And Caribbean~H.Q., Ahnoneemoos, you Mercy11 and the IP could refrain from discussing the issue amongst each other, at most perhaps including one response to the original request and further followups to be limited to responding to other participants. Alternatively, may be accept no action is forthcoming and let it drop. You could always negotiate with each other in an appropriate place over whatever the problem is. You seem either very very good at it (or very very bad but I'm hoping it's the former) after all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
P.S. While topic bans (or site bans) can be discussed at either desk, AFAIK it's preferred to discss them at AN. Particularly when they are the intention of the thread and primarily arise from a long history of problems rather than in response to a recent incident (even though you will usually also take in to account the history). AN does mention this: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: ....ban proposals ...". P.P.S. I've been wondering whether to mention this and have decided I should particularly since Blackmane said the same thing. Before opening anything further on AN//I, you should consider whether or not it's likely to be rejected due the absence of a WP:RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I figure that if a RFC/U is going to be open, then the civility concerns presented by Mercy are more serious and should take precedence. The idea of the thread was not to "punish" Ahnoneemoos (and as such I did not want to enter into the whole "desired outcome" debate), but rather to stop an issue that has been spreading through several of the articles within scope. If a RFC/U is opened, I have no problem in participating in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Caribbean HQ, have you heard of the WP:Wall of text disruption tactic? Notice the comments by User:Blackmane at this place HERE. You know my position regarding User:Ahnoneemoos, and I am not after "punishment" either, but neither banning nor blocking are punishments but instead means to avoid further disruption (as well as opportunities, hopefully, for soul-searching and/or rehab). Unfortunately for him, Ahnoneemoos is playing the going-in-circles game HERE. You are better qualified than me at summarizing and submitting petitions to forums. Perhaps you could open up a petition for review WP:RFC/U, I could then contribute. Hopefully an uninvolved admin via community consensus of whatever, can then help this matter to a fair closure for all. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
You can't lay the blame solely on Ahnoneemoos. It takes two to tango, and if Ahnoneemoos had been the only one causing the massive wall of text in the AN discussion (in other words, replying to nothing), people would likely have more easily seen the problem with Ahnoneemoos's contributions. It's perhaps fair to say that Ahnoneemoos contributed the most text (although they were the one who's behaviour was most at issue and for which there was a topic ban request) or perhaps the IP. And you Mercy11 contributed the least amount of text of the four primary participants. But ultimately that discussion only got the messy way it was because despite the fact it was supposed to be a request for outside intervention, existing parties to the dispute namely those four I've already named seemed held extensive back and forth with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Nil Einne, you seem to be assuming that having a topic "closed very fast" is somehow not beneficial. What's not beneficial about that? Is closing "very fast" somehow inherently better or worse than having an item sitting endlessly without closure? I am sorry, friend, but your "very fast" comments above are not objective at all and, thus, quite elusive, and as such not beneficial to reaching any understanding. You don't seem to have squarely provided any resolution or alternative to my section move question above. Perhaps you could be more precise? Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing beneficial to having a discussion closed very fast because no one can be bothered reading the extensive back and forth between existing participant parties (from before the discussion was brought to AN or ANI).
The topic in AN will be archived when people stop replying. If you want, someone can close the discussion at AN without the pointless moving, but I don't get the reason why you need someone to close the discussion nor why you would have to bring such a request here rather than at WP:AN, when the discussion could be simply to left to die a natural death.
And I have provided four alternatives before you replied. Either open a new concise request probably at WP:AN; open an RFC; continue the discussion among yourselves (which is more or less what is going on in the existing discussion) in an appropriate place (perhaps one of your talk pages) and try to reach some sort of accord; or finally, just drop it.
I don't get what you mean by 'not objective at all' or 'elusive'. I feel I have been fairly clear. And I have no connection to any of the key participants I'm aware of so whether or not my comment was right or wrong, helpful or not, I don't see why I would not be objective.
Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Since the discussion seemed to be heading in a bad direction, I did close the AN discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Mercy, I will not be baited into continuing a circular argument. The fact of the matter is that Ahnoneemoos is not interested in pursuing an accord. Not only that, but when one points out that he can't continue to victimize himself after a user posted to his page in a dickish manner, because he did the same before, then the drama sets in (this coming from the same user that likes to throw "fuckings" all over the place when involved in conflicts and even questioned my mental health in a thinly veiled attack). I am not going to get drawn into a maelstrom of drama, that plays to his advantage.
That being said, I have reconsidered my original position and determined that a simple topic ban may not be enough, notably because the user refuses to see that there is a problem. Hence, I am not really interested in pursuing a partial ban on a RFC/U. Of note is that of the few third parties involved in that conversation that favored him, none justified his actions in the politics/economics articles, they only defended him from a complete ban that wasn't even being discussed there. Even in a stalemate, the fact that even those that favored his position admitted that he "gets carried away" is notable. If the MO continues, then it should be considered regular disruption and then a RFC/U requesting an actual block could be argued. The ball is on his court. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. And I think we accomplished several things: (1) We proved that Ahnoneemoos has issues with various editors, not just you; (2) We memorialized HERE (and later archived HERE!) a historical record of Ahnoneemoos's violations into a single location and useful for future action (hopefully won't be needed); (3) We put User:Ahnoneemoos on notice that his (a)WP:Disruptive editing, (b)Non-WP:Civil behavior, and (c)WP:OWN tendency have not gone unnoticed, won't be tolerated next time, and that anyone of them is reason for a RFC/U. Hopefully there won't be a next time. For the record, let me add the following quote by Ahnoneemoos to your "otherwise pointing to his "years editing Wikipedia" comment as well, for it now appears that it is not only about his tendency to own articles but his tendency to claim ownership of editors as well:
"If you have an issue with someone from WP:PUR feel free to channel your inquiries through me."
With Ahnoneemoos's recent Declined history of his ArbCom request in the periscope as well, if User:Ahnoneemoos is smart I think he now knows he needs to play his next moves in a fashion more aggreable to the community. BTW, the 2 editors that came to his defense were never any bit of a concern to me. Experienced closing admins would have been able to read thru them in no time. Their comments were WP:OTHERSTUFF and pointing to unrelated ocassions when Ahnoneemoos did the right thing does not absolve him from cases when the did the wrong: doing the right ALWAYS is what you are expected to do to contribute here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis back again[edit]

I'm sorry folks, but he's back again. You know who: Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

Background: in April 2012, Dolovis was blocked for six months after some serious and repeated gaming of the system, and general failure to abide by consensus, specifically when diacritics were involved. He volontarily (?) prolonged his absense until this spring. I noticed that, as his name started showing on pages I have on my watchlist, but I didn't follow his edits around as I assumed he had learned his lesson. There were also no new controversies (at least none that I noticed).

Now, however, after I have moved a handful (recently), or several (over time), articles on various Russian sportspeople to follow WP:RUS, at least one of them apparently created by him, he is going back in my move log, and is reverting them all, as it appears – I'm getting plenty of notifications (the count is now double-digit).

That's all good and well per WP:BRD, but obviously, I did ask him (politely) on his talkpage why he did that. His response was this: "Hi HandsomeFella. Please stop moving biographical articles to names not supported by English-language sources as you did at Dmitri Akimov, Andrei Akimov (footballer), Sergei Akimov (ice hockey), and others. Wikipedia is not for testing or experimenting with your skills as a translator from Russian to English. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (Russia), please follow the general WP rule WP:UE policy when naming articles. That is, when possible, we use the conventional English name (as used in verifiable sources) instead of the WP:Romanization of Russian rules."

That's the worst assumption of bad faith I've seen in a long time. I have around 29000 edits under my belt. I'm not "testing or experimenting with [my] skills as a translator", and I can read the Russian alphabet. I'm no newbie, and Dolovis knows that very well. (Besides, names are not "translated", they're transliterated.)

As if that weren't enough, he then went on to place the same inflammatory text as a "warning" on my talkpage, adding as clarification to his previous response: "I will also place the above message on your talk page as notice to others that you have been warned about your page moves. Cheers."

Those with a good memory recall that Dolovis has had frequent run-ins with several editors here, and (disclaimer) I was one of them. Without being too paranoid, it's hard to avoid the thought that this might be an attempt to get even, when given the opportunity. It would appear that he is trying to frustrate and/or infuriate me with his formal, but inflammatory, choice of words – but I'm not taking the bait. Be that as it may, this is highly uncollegial behavior, it assumes bad faith, and I think he at least deserves a slap on the wrist for it.

The issue at hand – the notion of WP:RUS generally being in conflict with other guidelines (mentioned above) – I intend to start a discussion on with an RM. (It's not pointy, "D" comes after "BR" in WP:BRD.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Dolovis: I replied to HandsomeFella's concerns on my talk page here, but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue, he has brought it to this ANI. HandsomeFella accuses me of not acting in good faith, but it appears that the exact opposite is true. I only became aware of HandsomeFella improperly moving articles to new names apparently based on nothing more than original research (i.e. no verifiable sources) because one of his article moves showed up on my watch list. It was only then that I realized that he had recently improperly moved several biographical articles, including Sergei Akimov, Andrei Akimenko, Sergei Akimov (footballer), Andrei Akimov (footballer), Dmitri Akimov, and Sergei Akimov (ice hockey). It is proper procedure to warn someone, even an experienced editor, if they appear to be running afoul of Wikipedia policies, which is the case with the above listed moves. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely not proper to "warn" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, then it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.
Your claim "but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – politely. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
As further explained at WP:UW, talk page warnings also serve to notify other editors that you have already been notified about the disruptive editing. Given that you had recently moved several articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. Dolovis (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You're only providing more evidence that you're acting in bad faith, the latest example being the accusation of "disruptive editing" above. There was nothing disruptive in my page moves, that were all done in good faith (if that concept is familiar), following a guideline that I may (or may not) have misunderstood.
It's not that I don't understand what user warnings are about, as you pretend to believe. You're assuming bad faith and using inflammatory wording, obvious for anyone to see. I suggest you retract it.
HandsomeFella (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Has it ever been considered that Dolovis may be is under a topic ban? "'For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed.'" This may not be a violation of the ban, but the user is already on a very short leash. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this ANI does not concern diacritics, and even HandsomeFella admits that contesting his article moves is “all good and well per WP:BRD”.[19] The issue brought here by HandsomeFella is that he is upset that I placed a warning on his talk page about his improper article moves. If he didn't like the warning, he should have removed it from his talk page and moved along. Instead HandsomeFella has chosen to create a lot of drama and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
It is true that I didn't like the warning. It is also true that I didn't like the bad faith assumption that was its very foundation, and was even more emphasized by the totally baseless accusation of "disruptive editing" above. When one approaches an editor in good faith, as I did, such a response is totally unacceptable, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged. That is what I reported you for. Had you just responded in kind – with an emphasis on kind – you wouldn't be in trouble again. You need to learn quicker from your experiences. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is really a matter for ANI, but I randomly clicked on one of the articles listed (Sergei Akimov (footballer)) and there aren't even any sources in it. So Dolovis's rationale isn't sufficient for undoing ALL of the moves. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

self admitted sock[edit]

From their first comment they admit that they have communicated with the user before. Blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, AIV then, rather than here? Just looking at the guy's edit pattern I could tell he was a sock without even reading the edits pbp 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
This is obviously an alternate account, but unless you can point to an actual violation of WP:SOCK (which posting talk page comments normally is not, unless it is to appear as multiple voices in a discussion) or unless there is good reason to think this is al already blocked or banned editor, I see no reason for a block. DES (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Behaviorally, there is very strong evidence that the account is being used by Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I've just blocked him indef for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
And why was Arnhem 96 blocked? And their talk page access withdrawn? No-one has pointed to an editor (blocked or not) of whom they are a sock. Their only crime seems to have been embarrassing Werieth, in the SPI of Betacommand where Werieth had just admitted to 9,000 edits under another identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Andy Dingley the edits where not under a different identity, Please review Wikipedia:Unified login Werieth (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
And its not like I was hiding them, commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth and see the link on my user page. Werieth (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Just like Betacommand, you still haven't learned the grammatical use of "where" vs. "were" (although per both of your usual practice, you'll now edit your grammatical error to hide it). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor ([20]). Regardless of the result of the other SPI, this is a block-on-sight issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Has a CU been run on Formal Appointee Number 6? Or on Arnhem 96? Because if they haven't, then that's a pretty serious accusation for you, a heavily involved admin, to be making on zero evidence. We have much better behavioural evidence than Werieth is another of Betacommand's accounts than we do to link Arnhem 96 to another randomly picked account. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
...apart from the fact that this account admits it ... I give up on this one and won't comment further. You're obviously not a stupid person, but if you want to continue to ridiculously defend an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user seemingly on the basis that they agree with you, well knock yourself out. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)
Well its nice to meet you too! i always enjoy meeting socks impersonating other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I see that this Formal Appointee person has been blocked, but would any admin consider revoking his/her talk page access too? S/he is using it to trade insults (and judging from the list of names at the top of his/her talk page, I doubt his/her behavior will cease. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, they'll find a way through their local library or whatnot. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Won't we need a checkuser to verify that? It may just be some teenager that created an account and tried to act stupid. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Safer Wholesale[edit]

Resolved: TheDailyFlows blocked by User:Mark Arsten. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates at the top of Safer Wholesale are the subject of an edit war between myself and TheDailyFlows. Both of us are on the edge of WP:3RR and I have no wish to see either of us sanctioned for our edits. I am requesting a neutral administrator to "take charge" of the AFD and cleanup templates for the duration of the AFD. Once an administrator or even a neutral non-admin indicates what the templates should be, I will not edit the templates except to restore them to that state for the duration of the AFD. I would politely ask that TheDailyFlows agree to do the same. Because this is at AFD and because the AFD template is one of the templates involved, I am posting here rather than in a non-admin dispute-resolution area. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I started to take a look but it looks like User:TheDailyFlows has already been blocked for edit warring (8 or 9RR is a bit much), so I think this can be marked resolved. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This may be a moot point, the other editor managed to trip 3RR, so we'll have to wait 24 hours to see if this request is still necessary. If the issue re-appears I will re-file as a fresh request. In any case, if at least one administrator can watchlist the page and the corresponding AFD that might help avoid a return trip here. I am truly sorry that this new editor managed to get off on the wrong foot here, he's had a frustrating last day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The rule is clear, AfD templates should not be removed while the AfD discussion is open, doing so is a form of disruption even if 3RR is not breached, and can lead to blocks all by itself. Article issue tags such as {{tl|notability} and {{refimprove}} should be removed only if the editor also edits to fix the issue, or if the editor thinks the tag does not properly apply, then before or just after removing the editor should start or participate in a discussion on the article talk page, and should not persist in removing if the removal is reverted, pending a consensus on the talk page. multiple removals without discussion can be considered to be disruption also. As to whether the tags belong, that should be discussed on the article talk page if anyone disagrees with them. DES (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd say the tags are moot until the AFD concludes anyway. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I disagree: In my dream world (which doesn't exist) every article that is at AFD for notability would be about a topic that actually is notable, and during that week the article would be improved with quality references that clearly demonstrate that the topic is notable and at that time - even before the AFD concludes - all editors would sing Kumbaya and agree that the notability and reference-related tags should be deleted. As I said, that's my dream world it does occasionally happen (minus the musical interlude). In this case, the cleanup templates will probably become moot as soon as the AFD concludes, as it looks like the article will be deleted in about a week barring someone adding references that others have been unable to find. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright claim on Pyramid (card game)[edit]

Can someone familiar with how copyright law deals with describing card game rules deal with [21] and Gkrsoft's edits. Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user on their talk page that they can simply remove any copyrighted information. After all, nothing on this page is sourced... For this reason adding copyright notices "copyright (c) Ckrsoft" etc is not appropriate as such material should not exist in the article to begin with. It is unclear which content on the page the user is referring to. — MusikAnimal talk 22:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the editor is objecting to the detailed description of the game rules rather than a straight copy of text. --NeilN talk to me 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that would not warrant removal in itself... I'd say WP:ORTS would have been the right course of action, as Pharoah suggested. At any rate as you've probably noticed he's since been blocked... I had reported him to WP:UAA already as it was clear his intentions were only on behalf of the organization. However to his benefit I'd argue the article should probably be nominated for deletion per WP:GNG. — MusikAnimal talk 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
As I replied on the help desk, no one can claim a copyright on the general concept of how a game is played, at least not under US law. The version of the rules linked to from the help desk did not look to me as if it were close enough to the version in the article to warrant any removals or deletion on copyright grounds. All that said, I feat thsi probably foes not have enough general notability to survive an AfD, if anyone cared to nominate it. It was PRODed as non-notable in 2010, and restored as a disputed prod earlier this year, it seems. DES (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


Resolved: You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please check if a larger version of this file exists in the history? It was mistakenly tagged as non-free, and, as such, may have been scaled down. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6, part II[edit]

Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user was blocked a few days ago for 24 hours for disruptive editing. And guess what? She's back at it, and has created many very short pages, and it is apparent from both these pages themselves and the fact that she has repeatedly blanked sections of her talk page [22] that she still doesn't understand how to create redirects, and our efforts to teach her have been unsuccessful.

  1. She was requested to respond in a previous ANI thread. She did not.
  2. She was asked to create redirects correctly in the future. She did not.

I would like it if something be done about this user once and for all, though I don't know what should be done, which is why I am coming here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 23:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have reblocked for a week and asked her again to listen to us and create articles and redirects in accord with policy. If she cooperates and indicates she will stop the problem behavior any admin may unblock without notifying or asking me first, based on your own judgement etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────It would be advisable to look at the all the pages that she created, and delete all of the ones that look like wrongly created redirects.Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Could an Admin please look at the editing behaviour of User:Gabriella~four.3-6 please. They are creating many unhelpful articles and modifying existing, plain disruptive. I believe they have been blocked before for similar. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the post above. Problem sorted :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Good. She also marks all her edits as minor. We really should get rid of that function. I don't see any purpose to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block warranted?[edit]

Good points raised, especially "reblocks are cheap." Will let the month block stand and reblock if used returns with same disruptive edits.
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.

Per WP:INVOLVED, I'd rather let the community decide if this is a case of WP:ROPE. [User response after second block for a month]. It is also worth noting the gems in his [deleted contributions]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jamie - can you be more specific about whats going on so I don't have to guess? You cite involved but are you involved as an editor or involved as the blocking admin? What led up to the block? Do you believe the response is what warrants an indef? What's going on?--v/r - TP 01:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the user's talk page would be self-explanatory. My involvement began when Retoru repeatedly reposted the dumb verbose rap song synopses and was given a final warning to stop. They did so again recently and I blocked for a month (previous block, for creating an attack page, was originally indef but reduced to a week because Retoru had made a small number of somewhat constructive edits. I also posted some additional info intended for a block-reviewing admin. Retoru's response to the block and additional info is what I'm suggesting merits an indef, but wanted to get additional consensus before extending the block to indef. (I try to err on the side of caution regarding WP:INVOLVED. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Just trying to see if there is any other reason you think you're involved. My opinion: At the very least, he needs to be topic banned from religion topics if he cant control his opinion. As far as an indef, not sure we've risen to that level yet. Just ignore his little rant about you, none of us are going to read it and suddenly say "Oh Lord, everything I knew about Jamie is a lie based on this newb's clear and well thought out perspective." :)--v/r - TP 02:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The crux of my reason for suggesting an indef (other than the tantrum) was WP:NOTHERE, given that most of the edits were attempts to be subversive (i.e., listing someone's occupation was a "pedophile," while arguing "but it's true! They are a pedophile) and other similar gaming behavior. Either way, I'm fine with whatever folks suggest here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Reblocks are cheap. He's one day into a month block, and the only new behavior is incivility (which isn't really new anyway). Judging from the tone of his post-block comments, this user isn't likely to return anyway. An indef would only give him something to brag about off-wiki. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 06:02, 14 December 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.

Google News Archive[edit]

I want to write a article. But Google news is shut down. What do I do? Tommieddd (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have secondary and tertiary sources enough to create an article? Is the subject notable? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is Kirk Everist. There may be sources but where are the archive? Tommieddd (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tommie. That's a good question, but this particular board isn't set up to answer it. The editors at the wikipedia teahouse will be happy to give you a hand, though. Good luck! Garamond Lethet
04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Google News is running for me[23], as is the newspaper archive.[24] Doc talk 04:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

See this discussion on the miscellaneous village pump. Graham87 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Englishfootballfan block evading[edit]

Hello, Englishfootballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman - blocked yesterday by SPI has begun to edit again, could an Admin please block too? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Face-smile.svg Thank you JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Noting that I've also filed an SPI with a request for a CU to take a look. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User Alexandharrison[edit]

User Alexandharrison has been editing Wikipedia since 25 October 2013,[25] and has created a variety of new pages that have been deleted.[26] I went over his/her last fifty edits outside Alexandharrison's user page and found most of them reverted/undone. None of them were productive and I reverted/undid the remainder and posted a warning on Alexandharrison's talk page. He has under 200 edits that have not been deleted[27] If you have time, please go through each of Alexandharrison's edits from October 25th to the 21:12, 25 November 2013 edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked for 72 hours

Six months ago, the user received a warning about their edits, to which they responded with: "Hey, Darkwarriorblake, suck my dick." (as shown here). The edit was reverted on 13 December, but BieberLover23 reinstated it several hours later (see here). User has also been instigating an edit war on Fast & Furious 7, as seen in edits 1, 2, and 3. - Areaseven (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. There's adequate warning here and really nothing to discuss as far as whether the edits were in conflict with policy or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Technoquat sock[edit]

Block please? [28] --NeilN talk to me 17:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Deletion outside of policy by involved admin[edit]

There seems to be no support for this speedy deletion, but the forum to challenge this is WP:DRV, not ANI.
BD2412 may wish to consider undeleting the redirect, and listing it at WP:RFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 15 December 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 bring your attention to admin BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The admin speedily deleted Marina Rodina with the reason "redirect to disambiguation page with no apparent solution" despite the redirect being an established alias of the subject as discussed previously here and here.

Why has this admin just ignored previous discussions and speedily deleted the page? For the above reasons, I believe the page was speedily deleted outside of policy, and the admin has violated bullets points 1 and 2 of WP:TOOLMISUSE, and even after being challenged, has refused to accept responsibility and amend their mistake.--Sinistrial (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Just to clarify one point, before this redirect was deleted, it was pointing to Marina Orlova, a disambiguation page that was not created by me, but by User:Den1980-. There is no reason for the title Marina Rodina to point to the disambiguation page, Marina Orlova. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • So then why didn't you just fix the redirect instead of deleting it? And you did create the page it was originally redirecting to for 3 years. See end history of Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Sinistrial (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
      • At the time that I noticed the redirect, the page had been moved; nothing on either Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity) or on Marina Orlova (actress) indicated that either page should be the target of such a redirect. I am certainly not obligated to retarget a bad redirect to an article for which it is still a bad redirect. bd2412 T 22:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
        • BD2412 if you thought there was a valid plac for the redirect to point to, you should have directed it there. If not you should have listed it on RFD. A redirect present for years is not "recently created" and so this was not a valid speedy deletion. Who created the redir or any of the pages it might have pointed to at any time is not relevant. Speedy deletions are for narrow, bright-line situations that have clear consensus in advance. Outside of these criteria, or even inside them when an admin knows the action will be contentious, XfD should be used instead. DES (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
          • As it happens, I did not think that there was a valid place for the redirect to point to; there is none within the context of Wikipedia's policies. Since there is no reliable source for a notable person named "Marina Rodina", a redirect to a disambiguation page not including that name fails WP:DABMENTION, and is basically a WP:CSD#A7. Furthermore, retargeting it to an existing BLP article for which no reliable source supports having this as an alternative name for the subject is a very clear WP:BLP violation. bd2412 T 00:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Shouldn't this be at Deletion review? JodyB talk 00:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:16, 15 December 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.

Sockpuppetry, more conspiracy-mongering, personal attacks etc at Ruggero Santilli and Hubble's law[edit]

Apparently, there is a conspiracy amongst Wikipedians (Jewish naturally) to denigrate the scientific theories of Ruggero Santilli: or at least, there is according to the contributions of User:Aabrucadubraa [29] and User:ClenserBlastAaa [30]. Obvious socks of the blocked User:ScientificEthics and his sockfarm. See here [31] for the last ANI thread. I've filed a SPI, but I think further intervention may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them. If the SPI turns up anything, we'll go ahead and tag them appropriately. John Reaves 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, I've just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Aabrucadubraa. What timing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah - I'd added them to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zkurko. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
And before any of the above, there was another SPI, now closed and at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScientificEthics/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple issues concerning User:Tom Fearer[edit]

This incident involves Vandalism, possible sockpuppetry and threats of violence. I'm not sure where to put this specifically, so I came here.

Within the past few hours, User:Tom Fearer began blatantly editing other editors' talk page comments on Talk:Retail loss prevention. I then noticed that Tom Fearer's userpage redirects to User:Camaro82, his apparent new username. Tom insistently undid my rollbacks, claiming he wanted his name removed from the page - no exceptions.

This continued on and after my WP:3RR was up, he posted on my talk page, claiming he's been receiving threats of violence from other users. However, I cannot find anything of the sort from either accounts' talk page history or on the current version of Talk:Retail loss prevention. He then went so far as to completely blank the article's talk page. He does not care if his account gets blocked/deleted, only wishing to have his name completely expunged from Wikipedia.

Again, I'm not sure where to put this and I personally have no idea where to go from here. I do not know whether or not this is an SPI/vandalism case with some threats of violence smoke-and-mirrors being made. Antoshi 01:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who last sent me a threatening message is an unknown individual with the IP of Go to my User Page and click on the October 2nd 2013 revision. In addition to this message I have received several threats in the past from fired co-workers since my account originally cited my email. I have had not had an incident that was sourced from this website since 2008/2009 when I was last and active user. I attempted to delete my name off the (retail Loss Prevention) talk page due to it showing up on Yahoo and Google searches with my name. I have also submitted a request for a name change to Camaro82 which I believe might resolve the issue for me and with the users on this site. I just want my name removed somehow, I set my Wikipedia account up when I was my early 20s and had I had the foresight back then would have not used my name. Forgive me for the signature jargon, I don't even recall how to do that properly on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talkcontribs) 01:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a link to the edit I spoke of:

I don't even know what this is referencing at all. But what gets me concerned is the KILL part, to me that is a clear cut threat as any. I have received emails from former employees who have been terminated by me and have had a similar vein of tone in the message. I take these threats completely seriously and as I stated before I would like my name reference removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talkcontribs) 01:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That seems more like a vandal's way to frame a suicide threat on your user page, than an actual death threat. Would you like your username changed? Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, yes I would like to change my user name to Camaro82 if possible. I fairly certain that I submitted the request correctly on the Change User submission page. So long as my current name is removed for an alias I would feel a lot better about messages like that. I wasn't even aware of it until I did a chance Google search on my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Fearer (talkcontribs) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Tom Fearer: just a side note, since you mentioned you don't know how to write out your signature.. at the end of your text simply type ~~~~ (those four tildes) and your signature will be automatically added in at the end of your message. I'd have left this on your talk page but as noted, it's redirected to a different account. Gloss • talk 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Announcing your username change here, in front of the known universe, is not necessarily the best strategy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Tom Fearer: The "Camaro82" username is not registered yet (despite the fact that the user page has existed for more than eight years), but you can register it now. You just have to request a change in username. It's at WP:CHU/S. Epicgenius (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The username request was submitted - and as soon as a 'crat gets around to it, there shouldn't be a problem with it being taken care of. Gloss • talk 02:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's just what I was about to ask, thank you. Tom Fearer (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


Hore55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) created four articles with lists of airports in Southern, Northern, Eastern and Western Norway. I tagged those articles for speedy deletion, because they are redundant as we have List of airports in Norway. User removed speedy deletion templates from some of the articles, and I notifies him on his talk page not to do that (