Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Avenger2015[edit]

MOS:TV#Cast explains that there are two ways to present cast content: Actor then role or Role then actor.

Harrison Ford as Han Solo
Han Solo (Harrison Ford)

Avenger2015 has added redundant cast lists to articles with existing character lists, for example here and here. I've explained this to the editor on their talk page at least three times, and have been clear that the articles are intended to be overviews, and that they should not contain incidental characters that are not pertinent to our understanding of the series. User has continued to add ponderous cast lists, without sourcing, without explanation, and without discussion of any sort. They've also added blank cast list sections numerous times including recent ones here and here, and over these four edits (the first few appear to be tests) ([1][2][3][4]) re-added previously removed content. Not sure how to get through to this user since they seem to be editing per their own whims and they refuse to talk. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I empathize with you here, Cyphoidbomb, but I will note that the editor in question has never made an edit outside of article space, and may be unfamiliar with the process by which we ascertain consensus. While a block may ultimately prove to be the only way he "gets the message" (i.e. his editing privileges are interrupted, so he knows something must be wrong), it is not a step I am willing to take at this time. I would appreciate the input of other experienced editors and administrators on this thread and appropriate courses of action thereof. Thanks. Go Phightins! 05:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Go Phightins!, I appreciate your empathy and I get your points, though if a user is not willing to communicate, I'm not sure how they will be able to process any of the information they need to succeed here. I'm not pushing for a block, rather for ANY, form of administrative intervention that results in a change. I have urged them on their talk page to respond to this report. I will wait. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Constant deletion discussions on the iPhone 6 redirect[edit]

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

Currently, there is no article pertaining to the iPhone 6, but a redirect was established a while back ago that redirected the phrase to iPhone. This is, and always has been, the way that potential future generations of the iPhone have been dealt with. Redirects have always been fine and nobody has ever questioned the need for a redirect until now. Currently, per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia guidelines prohibit "unannounced" devices and technology to have their own articles. That, even in the face of 77 Million results in a google search. In fact, I have never seen so much coverage of a future iPhone device in reliable sources, than I have seen with the iPhone 6. This is very much unprecedented and only tells me that perhaps WP:CRYSTAL may not apply here. And even if it does, CRYSTAL certainly does not prohibit a common redirect, especially with the millions of reliable sources that link the term "iPhone 6" to the "iPhone" Bottom line, we as Wikipedians are not making the connection, but the connection is being made by reliable sources.

That said, User CloudComputaions latest attempt to get this redirect deleted has gone beyond disruption. He/she has very little experience with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and has been known to WP:SHOUT very loudly on several occasions, [5], [6], [7], [8].

Now normally, another discussion wouldn't matter. I have no problem with discussion, but what happens in a particular discussion such as this, is that the redirect iPhone 6, now has a template at the top of it, which basically stops the redirect from continuing on to its target destination, which is suppose to be the iPhone. The previous discussion lasted nearly a month and a half. The whole while, this template was placed on the page, preventing the redirect from doing its job. This morning, I decided that the redirect needs to stay in order to prevent any disruption of the page and the redirect, all the while letting the "deletion discussion" alone so as to allow the discussion to continue, but allow the redirect to work. Unfortunately, User:Tutelary used WP:ROLLBACK on my edit and restored the template, thereby extending the disruption to the redirect. In addition, I was aware that ROLLBACK was only to be used for vandalism and should not be used to revert long time users in good standing. Many people, myself included, take offense to such use of ROLLBACK, But that is a secondary complaint at this point.

I hope that at the very least, the disruption to the redirect can be cured and that the latest attempt to delete this redirect can be closed as soon as possible.--JOJ Hutton 16:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

* now has a template at the stop of it, which basically stops the redirect from continuing on to its target destination, which is suppose to be the iPhone. Duh, that's what happened at a Redirects for discussion, and removing the template does not stop the discussion, and in fact is beneficial as it aids in getting more people to participate in the discussion. This morning, I decided that the redirect needs to stay in order to prevent any disruption of the page and the redirect, all the while letting the "deletion discussion" alone so as to allow the discussion to continue, but allow the redirect to work. That's not how it works. You don't get to remove the RFD template just because you feel that it will break something, and it's not 'disruption of the page' to have the template there. You seem to have a misinformed manner of viewing RFD and deletion templates. I assume that if an article has been afd'd multiple times, you would want to delete the deletion template informing people of the discussion, too just because it's been nominated a lot? That's what you seem to be making a case for. User:Tutelary used WP:ROLLBACK on my edit and restored the template, thereby extending the disruption to the redirect. I used Twinkle's rollback and used an edit summary. See the diff here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone_6&diff=prev&oldid=621220861 | That's what you're supposed to do; leave the template there. In addition, I was aware that ROLLBACK was only to be used for vandalism and should not be used to revert long time users in good standing. I did not use TW's rollback in that fashion, and use it as a revert button, so I don't have to click 'undo' twice every single freakin' time. Many people, myself included, take offense to such use of ROLLBACK, But that is a secondary complaint at this point. Woo, I used it as a revert button. Big deal. All in all, I think this side of the complaint needs some a boomerang. Tutelary (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Now on the side of the 'constant deletion discussions' point, the user that you seem to be accusing of this has only nominated the article for RFD...*drum roll*...once. Not twice, not three times, not 4 times, not taking 'no' for an answer, only but once. The first nomination was in September 2012, 2nd was in late February 2014, and the third was in May 2014. They were all nominated by different users, not by this exact same user like the misleading section title seems to claim. Tutelary (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I never said or even implied it was the same user. I only stated that there had been four previous nominations. Now Cloud Computation was well aware of the previous three. The user even linked all three previous discussions in this current nomination. And in fact nobody was louder, and mean LOUDER than Cloud Computation in that last discussion, less than three months ago. No way, this user is well aware of what he/she is doing. CC knows that by nominating this for deletion, it will disrupt the redirect and prevent it from functioning. CC is not ignorant of these facts.--JOJ Hutton 17:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No way, this user is well aware of what he/she is doing. CC knows that by nominating this for deletion, it will disrupt the redirect and prevent it from functioning. CC is not ignorant of these facts. Nominating a redirect to be reassessed by the community is not disruptive, and due to the nature of being a redirect, is unavoidable that it will stop working; but for a limited time only. Again, the template itself needs to stay even if you consider it to be a bad faith nomination. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm not really sure why you are defending this disruption by someone with a history of disruption. We let this go last time. A month and a half, we let this disruption go on. Enough is enough already. If this was JUST a discussion, I wouldn't care. But this type of discussion constantly disrupts the flow of the redirect. Three times in the past 5 months. Each time this happens, it disrupts the redirect for over a month. The last time it was a month and a half. At some point this just has to end. It cannot be allowed to go on and on and on. You may think that anyone can nominate a redirect for deletion, but when it gets nominated three times in less than 5 months, I think its time to argue that its being disruptive to nominate it once again. CC had his/her chance to speak in the last discussion. Its over. Time to drop the stick already.--JOJ Hutton 19:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. If you really want to keep the redirect, ask an administrator at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to see do WP:CBALL covers redirects.
  2. This redirect is actually a disruption. The RFD will just turn it into an soft redirect for a while.
  3. I use CAPS, Bold, Italic and Big fonts because I'm overwhemingly Wikistressed. See User:CloudComputation/Wikistress for more information.
  4. I will not make any apologies to the ones who insist on keeping this disruptive, fake redirect.
  5. Message to JOJHutton: It will not go on and on only if you (and Luminant, ADNewsom, Rich Farmbourgh, etc.) changed your mind to delete this redirect. One policy wins over one trillion rumors. This redirect will end up like Windows 9.
  6. Windows 9 now have 1,.62 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?!

CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker
00:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact Windows 9 was deleted has no relevance whatsoever to whether or not iPhone 6 should or should not be deleted. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Misuse. Windows 9 and iPhone 6 are upcoming (but not confirmed) products and the search results are over a billion, with the sources that JOJHutton has said... Go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to ask an sysop do WP:CBALL covers redirect. The other stuff, really, exists... only if it is confirmed. I'll try my best to renominate until iPhone 6 is officially introduced. Until then, you're allowed to vote for a keep, but no name-calling (Wikilawyering troll, as what JOJHutton said) is allowed. Note for JOJHutton: Beware of the 5th Nomination and don't attack the nominator as this enrages him/her. CloudComputation Talk freely
      CloudTracker
      10:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Making disruption to (The template in JOJHutton's view) a disruption (The redirect in my point of view) is highly constructive. Minus the negative adds the number.

Report to User:BDD

JOJHutton's account is created in 2008, that means he's bending, offending, breaching Wikipedia policies for 6 years! It's 6 years! Please, when can JOJHutton stop slandering me?! This disruptive user which claims himself as an old, good-standing user while slandering me by calling me a disruptive wikilawyering troll. Help me, BDD! You're a good-standing adminstrator and Wikipedians trust you! (Except the group of crystal balls, they wants you to be desysopped instead) CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker
11:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe that in Cloud Computation's comparison of "Windows 9" and "iPhone 6", he/she needs to learn how to use "quotes" in a google search in order to refine and define the exact parameters of that search. Without quotes, the search will pull up any and all article that contain the word "Windows" and the number "9", but with quotes, such as typing "Windows 9", the results are not in the billions, as has been alleged, but only a measly few million. That as they say is that.--JOJ Hutton 13:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

***Status of keepers' party members at the 3rd RfD nomination of iPhone 6 as of August 2014***

  1. User:Lowellian: Current admin, editing since 2002
  2. User:Rich Farmbrough: Desysopped admin with 3 bots, editing since 2004, 29 barnstars
  3. User:Nyttend: Current admin, editing since 2006, 41 barnstars
  4. User:ADNewsom: Common user, editing since 2008
  5. User:Jojhutton: Common user, editing since 2008, would like to be an admin
  6. User:Mark Schierbecker: Common user, editing since 2009, 11 barnstars
  7. User:Luminant: Blocked user since July 2014, Editing since June 2014

CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker
05:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for counting my barnstars! I have some more in a drawer somewhere though, extra shiny ones I think.
Wikipedia does regularly get contributors who decide that "cleaning up redirects" (by deleting them) is a super-duper way to contribute. Trouble is, unless they have a way of finding harmful redirects, they usually create more overhead than they save. Iphone 6 is being viewed about a thousand times a day. Removing this redirect would inconvenience about 360,000 people per year. Not a good idea.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC).
Barnstars are awarded to good-standing users, since good-standing users should improve Wikipedia, why not? The iPhone article doesn't have any information about iPhone 6! Perhaps an "no such article" page can persuade them to find other sources. Infinity bytes, CloudComputation Talk freely
CloudTracker
01:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Extreme personal attack[edit]

I can't see that there's any justification for this edit summary. Perhaps a block is in order for this editor. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

 :/ Sooner or later, some admin is going to have to take one of these c-word droppers and make an example of them, i.e. in the 1-2 week block range. This is getting out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
More vicious attacks in a tirade left on my talk page: [9]. 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW see the OP's record at WP:Long term abuse here. Kahastok talk 13:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

While I'm not going to attempt to justify that edit summary, if you're the same person as this edit then you are hardly in a position to criticize. See the IPs listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP for plenty of other examples. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, so if you think I might be someone who you don't like, it's ok to call me a cunt? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Here he goes again: [10] 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
If you would create an account & stick with it, tensions might drop. GoodDay (talk) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
So it's ok to call someone a cunt if they don't have an account? 203.19.70.162 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
They're picking on me, I'm only a little IP. Give that whiny record a rest. Listen if you don't wish to be referred to as a dopey fucking cunt, treat people with respect and it'll be reciprocated. Otherwise if you behave like a dopey fucking cunt don't be upset if I call you one. WCMemail 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the behaviour of the IP or any other editor. PS: Beware of the boomerang -- GoodDay (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP The edit summary was quite deliberate on my part, apparently its OK for the IP editor above to repeatedly refer to anyone who has an issue with him in the same manner cunts, cunts, cunts, You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster", you fucking idiot, told you nicely to fuck off. now fuck off., rv idiot, just fuck off, rm tiresome dickhead, For fuck's sake. Don't revert for no good reason. Do you understand why it pisses people off if their efforts are reverted for no good reason?, rm all the lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers
Variously, he'll claim:
  • its OK because people revert him solely because he is an IP - which he knows is a lie in my case
  • its OK because his edits are superior to everyone else and everyone else is a dopey cunt who can't write an encyclopedia
And as he seems to take delight in targeting articles I've edited I am fucking fed up with it. As far as I can see the guy is simply trolling and opening this ANI thread was just trolling. WCMemail 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

OP is now on 5RR after warning at Argentine Military Cemetery. I'd go to WP:AN3, but no point in informing admins in more places than necessary. Kahastok talk 13:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Australia, which is not within the scope of the LTA filing (Chile, Brazil). Are you alleging that the LTA person/persons are branching out? Tarc (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Its the same guy, he's regularly travelling. If you look at all the IP, you'll find the UK and Canada in there. Check Talk:Ian Gow and it'll confirm his mobile nature - this is why he keeps avoiding long term scrutiny. WCMemail 13:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The LTA notes that the IP has used geolocations in a variety of locations in the past, including the UK and Canada. Australia would not be unusual and the behavioural evidence is compelling.
Including the bad language. This was the first time somebody called somebody else a c*** on the relevant page. It's also the first of the OP's five reverts today (the last of which came after a warning). Kahastok talk 13:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
OP is now blocked for 3RR. Kahastok talk 13:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I blocked the IP after it reverted a 4th time after being properly warned. That doesn't mean the complaint of the IP editor is invalid, though I'm not going to offer an opinion on the substance of it. Monty845 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first (some cunt reverted for no reason) as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a WP:CIVIL policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? WCMemail 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best solution is to just not give such editors any ammunition to further disrupt process. I know they can get under your skin, but just continuing to deal with them through normal process, and without any overt displays of emotion is the only effective strategy. A decent number of serially disruptive editors feed off the emotions and go out of their way to bait you. Your comment was out of line, but personally, I'm not interested in doing anything about it because the IP editor came here with clearly Unclean hands. Monty845 14:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
If it is the same person, then yea, let's call it a wash as they have clearly inflamed the situation over the years. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
If it got dealt with during the normal process, do you imagine I would have responded as I did?
No, I basically get told I have to put up with it, I've even had a snarky comment about being the "civility police". This is just a "content dispute" that I should talk out on the article talk page with an editor who responds as above. And too often they've been given fig leafs to hide behind. WCMemail 16:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I sympathize, as I've had somewhat the same problem, a recurring troll who first turned up around 2009 and pops up periodically for the sole purpose as harassment - and since he's likewise able to hop across various IP's around the world, I'm told to ignore it. Your case is rather worse, what with the woman-hating obscenities your IP friend is throwing around. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
They're obscenities; "woman hating"--not so much. They sure dislike WCM though, and the feeling is very mutual. I can't fault WCM for their outburst, but this should have gone differently, as anyone can see who looks at the article's history. Bugs, this is not a troll. GoodDay, some people don't wish to get accounts, and nothing can make them get one: saying that they continue as an IP editor to avoid scrutiny is pure bad-faith hypothesis.

So let me just note that all this starts with a somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary, followed by WCM simply reverting because, well, it's this IP editor: I can see no other reason, and all WCM has to add on the talk page is "it is actually well known"--apparently this was enough for Kahastok to revert, with the net effect of producing a tag team effort that leads to Favonian's block. So what's next, after all this? Srich32977 comes in and does what a decent editor should do: check it out, and edit accordingly ("rm editorializing"). Thank you Srich. In other words, the IP was right after all, despite this revert a long time ago (unexplained, by an IP--and no one batted an eye). So it goes. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Obscenities, obviously. And woman-hating in the same way that "fag" is considered to be gay-hating. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
It's no more "woman hating" than calling someone a prick or a dick is "man hating". Such bollocks. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As has been discussed elsewhere, that particular word carries shades of meaning in North America that it does not carry in other parts of the English-speaking world, such as "woman-hating". It is, regardless, offensive and clearly best avoided.
As to Drmies' point about what happened, I disagree with her in policy terms. The source - a BBC TV documentary made by Peter Snow and Dan Snow - was taken offline at some stage. The BBC does not put programmes online permanently, so this is not surprising. That, taken alone, does not mean that verification was failed or that the source is no longer reliable as seems to be implied. Kahastok talk 08:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
If I may clarify, most IPs are beneficial to the project. They're the gnome's gnome & I value them highly. However they're a tiny few who aren't helpful, such as the IP jumper-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this argument need to spill over into every incident involving personal attacks? It does not matter if it is "woman hating" or not, it was obviously offensive and unacceptable.

This is a simple case, it was a clear cut and very offensive personal attack. I have given the user who made the attack an only warning about personal attacks. If it keeps up we block.

This is biting the newbies in the worst way and it was in a content dispute. That sort of nastiness has a chilling effect and drives off new users and hurts our ability to find neutrality by driving off all but the thickest of skinned.

We don't even talk that way to trolls, banned users and spammers. Chillum 03:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Chillum, the IP is not a newbie: details and links to an LTA file are above. What is more troubling than any incivility (from both sides) is what gave rise to it. I have given an account above, which editors and admins are free to disregard it at their own peril, since that's what usually happens. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Chillum, I don't bite newbies and the accusation is almost as obnoxious as the sanctimonious warning you chose to leave on my talk page. It had already been dealt with, I'd calmed down, apologised and asked for the offensive edit summaries to be redacted and then you steam in half-cocked issuing warnings and laying false accusations of newbie biting. The situation had calmed down as far as I was concerned and to be honest you just brought it back to the boil as far as I'm concerned.
  • Drmies can attest that as far as this IP editor is concerned the charge that I only revert because they're an IP is false and despite the abuse I did explain my reasoning for reverting their contribution. WCMemail 10:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And to add, did you read the above, as that particular IP editor has been calling me a dopey fucking cunt for years, where is your concern, warnings or blocks been for the past 5 years??? Where has been your concern for the chilling effect on my editing? Eh, tell me that mate. WCMemail 10:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wee Curry Monster, I read the whole damn thing. I've read just about every fucking word you wasted on this the past couple of years. It's really boring. Clearly you did not read all that I've had to say on the matter, since I have blocked this IP at least once. My concern is for the project. In this particular case, and anyone can see this in the article history, one of the IPs edits is reverted for improper reasons at all. First by another IP, then by you, with a cryptic edit summary: "comment is cited and the political motives are well known - wikipedia neutrally points out the facts that edit was censorship". (No, it wasn't "censorship": extraordinary claims require good, published evidence.) So the IP editor is "censoring"? Their next revert has a decent summary: "what nonsense. political motivation is as clearly expressed now as before. what is removed is the implication that they were somehow being crafty devils and cunningly "knew" something that the British had inexplicably overlooked". And your revert? The same old song: "rv as usual our foul mouthed IP editor from Chile thinks only his edit is allowed". Well, you're right about one thing: "rv as usual", since that's what you seem to do, regardless of the merit of the edit. If I got reverted as often as this person is, I'd get pissed too.

    For the onlookers, WCM pointed at Ian Gow or its talk page for another example of the IP's bad behavior. That article is another where they got into it, and where, the way I look at it, the IP presented (valid) arguments, while the anti-vandal patrol just keeps rooooooling them back. So, you may ask, how did we solve this, since solve it we did? The normal way: with an RfC. The IP did not get their way in the RfC, but the matter was addressed with arguments. And all is calm now in that article.

    I'm not making apologies for the IPs foul language, nor am I condemning WCM for his. It's not the point, nor is WCM's apology (they didn't apologize to the IP, I think). Their charge, that "I've done nothing", that's boloney. I've been trying to mediate and to help--but what WCM and his friends want is simply blocks and protection, and what I want is that IP editors' edits are judged on their content. That's all. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I hadn't thought about commenting on this, but this kind of admin action is exactly part of the reason why much of this is allowed to continue. A number of admins don't bother to read the story behind a situation prior to making decisions (such as placing warnings or blocks). Rarely is any situation at AN/I simple, and it would be best to keep that mentality at other noticeboards (e.g., the 3RR noticeboard, although even then matters also require good analysis) rather than here. WCM had also clearly apologized for the outburst, which is significant since few editors ever do.--MarshalN20 Talk 13:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see there were no admin actions. What admin action are you talking about?

    The warning was to prevent future incidences, not to punish the earlier incidence. Any user can make a warning and it is not an administrative act. If this is the end of it then fine, but if this type of behavior continues then the warning had been seen. Chillum 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did block the IP editor who was complaining about WCM, but that doesn't seem to be what MarshalN20 is upset about. AFAIK, that was the only admin action here. Monty845 15:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not upset, but I am displeased at what I continuously see going on in Wikipedia (meaning that this is not to comment on Chillum as an admin, mainly because I haven't interacted with him at all, but rather on admins in general). I consider this ultimatum placed in WCM's talk page (see [11]), as an unwarranted admin action. Now you may reply to this with a "warnings are not admin tools," but I have learned that warnings placed by admins are always given greater weight than warnings placed by other users. In fact, there are cases when a user's page (usually IP users) is filled with warnings, but admins only take action after seeing another one of them had previously placed a warning. Hence my statement above. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee Curry Monster, I want to tell you a story. When I was in grade 3 the other kids would make faces at me until I shouted at them, then I would get sent to a little room to get in trouble for shouting. The other kids got caught making faces sometimes and they got in trouble too but that did not get me out of trouble for shouting. I was told that whatever the other kids did that it was I who was responsible for my behavior.

By grade 4 I had learned not to let other provoke me into getting myself into trouble.

I think this long term disruptive editor has less to lose from a personal attack block than you do. I think you are being baited into shouting insults and that you are making his day by responding in kind. I also think my teachers were right that ultimately it is you who decide how to act to provocation and you who bear the responsibility.

You are being trolled, and you are feeding that troll. Don't let this person provoke you, it is what they want. Chillum 16:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I disagree with that last part. I think the IP isn't really enjoying having their edits reverted constantly. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Trolls like being reverted, they like being yelled at and insulted, the LOVE it when someone else gets in trouble for reacting to them. They want attention and reaction and they want to stir up shit. It is what trolls do.

Now it could be this is not a dedicated troll, but rather someone who is using trolling to get their point of view out there. In which case they would be annoyed are reversion but happy when they bait the person reverting them into doing something they should not.

Trolls hate it when you ignore them. Block, revert, ignore. This is why I don't even template the talk page of a returning troll as they collect block noticed like trophies. Chillum 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Block-revert-ignore" sounds good, but it leaves out an important fact: The difficulty of convincing an admin to block an obvious troll, and the extra attention the troll gets as a result of an admin slapping the reporting user in the face. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


I would like to offer a public apology to Chillum for earlier remarks both here and on his talk page. I have already offered a private apology on his talk page but as I also commented here and others have sprung to my defence I felt it important to do so here as well. I thank those who have expressed their concern about the warning but ask you not to challenge Chillum about this any more. Upon reflection, I think he did the right thing and I was out of order. I was annoyed and responded in anger and in a manner that violated the code of conduct I signed up to when I became a wikipedia editor. It would be hypocritical of me to complain about such behaviour in others and not apologise when I behave inappropriately myself. I extend that apology to the IP editor for my remarks. Finally, I would like to thank Chillum for their kindness in responding to me in a calm manner that brought me to my senses.
I am extremely disappointed that Drmies misinterpreted my remarks as being directed at them. They were not, there were intended for Chillum and I acknowledge that as I made them in anger perhaps this was not clear and I didn't express myself as well as I could. However, to respond to his subsequent comments I would also note my disappointment in the claim that I'm reverting solely because it was that IP editor. What he describes as a "somewhat explicit but good-faith and to-the-point edit summary" was one which started by referring to another editor as "some cunt", which is why the edit summary was removed. The edit summary was way out line and my response, which is still there, was to point out it was cited and well-known. The suggestion I reverted solely because of who did it, is an allegation I reject.
I am further troubled by the way he characterises the situation at Talk:Ian Gow. The original edit was a minor edit, where the IP editor removed the make of car claiming it was irrelevant. A number of editors disagreed and suggested it was a relevant detail. In the normal course of events, a discussion would have settled the matter on the talk page. That the normal course of events didn't happen was because this IP editor, simply revert warred multiple editors and contributed a load of foul mouth expletives in talk. They were reverted because they refused to engage in talk not because they were an IP editor. The RFC Drmies imposed was a waste of the communities time, it was simply something that needed a discussion in talk to sort out.
Fundamentally Drmies, you are giving the IP editor a fig leaf to hide behind. You're basically saying its OK for them to respond as they do, when they're reverted if their edit improves the article as you understand why it may make them upset. No one likes to see their edits reverted but a load of good edits does not build up credit to be a total WP:DICK if someone disagrees with them. That they get reverted repeatedly is often down to the way they act.
Baseball Bugs makes a good point above, the guy is trolling and I bet he is having a great laugh everytime you Drmies wade in to defend them.
Furthermore, Drmies claim that all I want is blocks and protection is utter nonsense. What I want is to be able to edit articles without minor disagreements escalating into foul mouthed expletives if someone disagrees with me about an edit. And I want to be able to discuss edits in talk in a reasonable manner, without one editor revert warring multiple editors to impose their will. That is after all how its supposed to work. WCMemail 17:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
WCM, "fig leaf"? Bullshit. (And I have no idea what you mean with comments not aimed at me.) Troll? No. Chillum, you need to look much more carefully. The talk page for Ian Gow is a clear indicator that, if the IP is not just reverted but is allowed to participate in community discussion, there is no problem. To call an RfC over an important matter (where I and others, not just the IP, disagreed with WCM) a "waste of time" is indicative of the attitude here. "Waste of time"? You know collaborative editing requires discussion, right? And that RfC is an accepted and encouraged way or reaching content decisions, right? Those blind reverts you and a bunch of others throw out, those are a waste of time. They're insulting, and they invite the behavior that is here mischaracterized as trolling. Bugs, you should know better: you've been accused of trolling often enough. WCM, "discuss edits in a reasonable manner"? Well, do it then. On Talk:Ian Gow you opened with "I have reverted the IP edits because they removed relevant information from the article, not because they were done by an IP editor", and then you went on to completely fail to address the content question. I see that in 2011 you already had this snarky tone toward uninvolved editors who tried to help, Born2cycle.

Fig leaf, my ass. Please look, all you impartial observers, at Talk:Ian_Gow#The_fully-protected_car_.28or_its_absence.29 (and the RfC I started), which is the first attempt to actually solve the situation--and guess what, the situation was solved with an RfC. And you, WCM, got your car make in the article (yes, the dispute was that silly), and the IP never came back to change it again. Instead of a "thank you Drmies" I get to hear "it was a waste of time"--a waste of my time, yeah. "Defend the IP"--I'll defend any editor who is treated like this one has by a variety of editors, not just you. I won't defend their language or their edit warring, but hey, you've been quite the edit warrior yourself here. Note also that you're the one throwing the c-word around and you didn't get blocked, so maybe you should be grateful. And I wonder: who's following whose edits around? But don't answer that: this thread is already long enough. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies I said it was a waste of the communities time to force an RFC over a trivial edit that could be resolved by reasonable editors in talk. To further make it plain, I meant precisely by a community discussion in talk. It was not a dispute of a level that warranted an RFC, just one foul mouthed stubborn editor who insisted it had to be done their way. If you're upset that I characterise your RFC as a waste of time, then I'm sorry about that but fear of offending you shouldn't stop me from speaking plainly. I nevertheless don't appreciate you inferring motives or emotions in my comments that aren't there.
You're being disingenuous to claim that the IP editor would have engaged in talk if given the opportunity, they wouldn't and they didn't. Thanks for paging Born2cycle because he can confirm they didn't engage in talk. Their participation in the RFC at Talk:Ian Gow was less than optimal such as their repeat of your allegation of anti-IP bigotry. You seem to forget in your rant above that you acknowledged I had been more than reasonable with the guy [12].
As regards your innuendo that I'm following the guy, I very much feel the need to respond to such a blatantly bad faith accusation. Firstly I invite you to explain how I could do so, given the IP is constantly changing. Secondly, I draw your attention to my first edit to the article on 3 March 2011 [13]. WCMemail 19:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. My "rant" was possibly prompted by the rather dumb suggestion that an RfC which settled a dispute was a waste of time. I'm not hurt or upset by it--I just think that it's a stupid statement to make, and I think it's worth pointing that out. As for my "innuendo" and the bad-faith accusation and whatever: I merely inquired how you run into this guy so often. Chicken or egg? It's a valid question. If that question upsets you, well, I'm sorry, but if you take the prerogative of speaking plainly, then so will I. Now, let me offer you one more suggestion: please stop pinging me here. This thread is going nowhere--the IP got blocked, and you didn't, so move on. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I often look at threads where I have participated, and sometimes I notice that although I have made hugely important contributions, in fact I am usually the most important person in the room, everyone is rude to me (maybe they are emotional about something) and it's very difficult to make progress on anything. If things seem to be basically under control otherwise, and I seem to be descending into another argument rather than removing arguments, then the strategy I often adopt in such circumstances is to... walk away.
Don't argue about who has pinged who or who is responsible for speaking plainly first, et cetera. Just, walk away. Sell the last word to a strange guy by the side of the road. Why worry? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Pinging Drmies I asked you a direct question, I invited you to explain how I could follow an IP editor whose IP is constantly changing. A question you rather blatantly avoided, to repeat the same innuendo. The answer is that it is in fact virtually impossibly for me to do so and yet you repeat the same innuendo with a further insinuation with reference to the frequency which the IP crops up on my radar. Chicken or egg? Join the dots. WCMemail 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, this seems to be a fairly long thread and I was thinking about letting people work it out, but there's something I don't see addressed here, and it doesn't look like anybody's mentioned it. Wee Curry Monster had his topic ban on Falkland Islands topics lifted after he agreed to a 1RR condition. "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." Has anyone taken a look to see if that's been honoured in all this mess? Wee Curry Monster is supposed to be extra careful on these pages. Multiple reverts and incivility on a Falklands war related page is part of a pattern of behaviour beyond this incident or the other user involved.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Paging Nick-D my mentor. It is completely untrue to claim I was blocked for incivility; pointedly it was noted that I had remained civil despite being provoked by a number of editors. The actual reason for the topic ban if you boil it down was to vociferously defend myself in talk pages and its one of this wikipedia situations where you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. Now this isn't the first time that Elaqueate has chosen to fling this at me, I'm getting rather tired of having to defend myself against these false accusations. The 1RR restriction is a voluntary thing on my part and I have stuck to it with one this one exception, when I got fed up with this. I have done exactly I said I would focusing on my editing and just helped take Falkland Islands to FA status. WCMemail 06:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
It was a voluntary condition you undertook as part of lifting a topic ban. I don't think that's the same thing as saying it's voluntary as to whether you bother with it after you commit to it. Is it only a condition when you're not fed up, and non-binding when you are fed up? If you're here saying that you were topic-banned due to the behaviour of others, then I think you are back-tracking on what you said at your topic ban lifting. You are not "damned if you don't" if you don't vociferously respond in talk pages. That's what you were topic banned for six months for, and if you're still characterizing it as needful somehow, there's a problem.

As far as bringing it up here, this is an ANI incident where you "got fed up" and reverted multiple times on a Falkland Islands page. Why shouldn't there be passing notice of your topic ban condition for exactly that? Why wasn't there notice of your topic ban condition? A directly relevant editing restriction seems like the kind of thing you should have passed on to Chillum when you thought they didn't have the full background story.

Since you say incivility had no part in your topic bans, I should take a look over those discussions. Maybe you point out to me where you were cleared of any incivility in your topic ban. I see many accusations of behavior that would be classified as uncivil and I can't see what you're referring to. Even in the discussion regarding the lifting of your topic ban, people who supported you still mention that you got into an uncivil dustups contrary to what you state in your request. I'm fine with looking further into it.__ E L A Q U E A T E 09:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

WCM; I concur that the topic ban was not imposed for incivility per-se, though the issues which led to it did include impolite treatment of other editors. I have to agree that you violated the 1RR arrangement here though: the IP's behaviour wasn't helpful, and I note that they appear to have a seriously problematic history, but their edits weren't vandalism and you should have asked an admin to intervene or waited for other editors to respond. Dropping the C word also wasn't a good idea at all and I'd urge you to not do it again on Wikipedia, but isn't directly relevant to the terms of your topic ban being lifted (I don't claim to be an angel when it comes to not swearing on Wikipedia, but the C word is pretty much guaranteed to cause offence to a range of editors, regardless of circumstances). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nick-D Nick, I agree with everything you said. That is why I apologised, undertook not to repeat it (and if I do I expect Chillum to carry out his undertaking to block me if I renege on that promise) and I think you'll agree it was uncharacteristic. If I'm mistaken please correct me, the 1RR restriction wasn't a condition of the removal of the topic ban it was something I undertook to do voluntarily to keep out of trouble and I've stuck to it with this one exception. I have also made an effort to be more culturally sensitive ie not reply in Glaswegian to delicate flowers.
You suggested I should have gone to an admin and part of the problem is I did. Please note the date of this diff You dopy little fuck, "wee curry monster" and I've been having the same thing from this editor ever since. I've now had the admin I asked for help accusing me of A) only wanting blocks and bans and now B) of somehow stalking an IP hopping editor looking for trouble. Please can someone explain how I'm supposed to do that? If I'm apparently running into the same IP hoppping editor repeatedly but given only one of us can knows how to find the other it doesn't take a genius to figure out who is stalking who. Why is such a ludicrous allegation allowed to be levelled and not challenged? I don't want anyone blocked or banned, I've never asked for either only for the opportunity to discuss my edits in a reasonable manner. WCMemail 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I won't hold my breath waiting for Wee Curry Monster to retract his "false accusations" comment, but I will note that I never said he was topic-banned specifically for incivility (when I mentioned that he had been uncivil on those pages before his topic ban, I didn't think that was a matter of serious debate.) I'm afraid that I can't see this, "I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics." as being something unrelated to the lifting of the topic ban, as it was directly part of the argument that the topic ban should be lifted. If it had already been part of WCM's philosophy of editing, it wouldn't have been suggested to him as something to offer at the topic ban lifting stage. Nick-D or another admin may have a better understanding about it. It does seem like following it would have helped prevent this thread, and I can see how it still might help prevent the type of conflicts that happened before. My general understanding was that voluntary restrictions undertaken in arguments to modify bans and blocks are something admins could choose to enforce or not enforce at their discretion, depending on if they believed there was a repeat of any of the behavior that caused the original sanction.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a delicate flower and swear a fair bit (hey, I'm Australian!), but using the C word is guaranteed to get lots of people offside quickly, and is not suitable for use here IMO. Given the 1RR arrangement, I'd suggest that you should have asked someone else to intervene or stepped back when the IP continued edit warring given that you can't do so. Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak to the details of this specific case, it seems to go far deeper than my involvement. I will say that if sanctions were strongly considered and were prevented by a voluntary promise then that promise would be binding. I am not sure if this applies in this case as I do not know the full nuance of it. Chillum 03:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, this is the first time that WCM hasn't stuck to the 1RR agreement concerning the Falkland Islands since the topic ban was lifted in February, which is good work. If my understanding here is correct, I'd suggest that there's no need for a sanction beyond the comments made in this thread (and I do note the provocation to which he was responding here). Nick-D (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that there is no point in a sanction here, and wasn't calling for one. I had thought there should be some acknowledgment that the agreement existed, and was slightly more binding than how WCM decided it applied based solely on his own discretion and mood at times of great stress. I think it protects him from avoidable drama as much as it encourages the peace of the project, but only as long it's followed at those times when it's hardest to follow it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
You can see the IP is right though if you look at the situation and what gave rise to it. That doesn't excuse the actions of both sides though. Kirothereaper (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

General Comment When people talk, sometimes they speak without engaging their brain and the occasional bad word comes out. That's life. When peole write, they have to engage their brain first and I can see no excuse for swearing in writing. If these bad words have been written per the claims above then as far as I am concerned, it is a "slam dunk" and action needs to be taken. If people need to swear then please can they be encouraged to find a suitable forum, i.e. not here. Op47 (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Qxukhgiels[edit]

Behavior of Qxukhgiels (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić (2nd nomination) has been substandard. Apart from a giant failure of following WP:BEFORE, first removing [14] and then striking other people's comments [15] in a deletion debate where you were a nominator, and then edit-warring about it [16] strongly suggest a lack of clue. No such user (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I explained the procedure. You probably want to take these kinds of issues to WT:AFD in the future, it's not really an issue requiring admin attention unless it escalates further. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
He has been around since 2012, and possibly longer [17], and knows a lot of WP:ALPHABETSOUP, including WP:DICK. Somehow, I don't find that the Hanlon's razor applies, and my supplies of AGF are somewhat short. No such user (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
When my supplies of AGF are somewhat short, I find a WB helps restore them much faster than a visit to ANI, hint hint. betafive 09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Heed betafive's wise words. Kirothereaper (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I had expressed a concern that this article may not meet WP:AUTHOR and maybe not even WP:GNG. Both of the comments (the one I struck and the one I removed) relied on arguments specified at WP:ATA, including WP:LASTTIME, WP:MUST, WP:GHITS, WP:ASSERTN, etc. This is the main reason I removed them. Aside from this, User:No such user's comment ([18]) of "disruptive nomination. Homework: read the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanja Bulić first, or just fucking type his name in Google" may constitute a personal attack and is a sign of dickery. I have again removed this per WP:RPA. Upon Google searching the topic, most of the results you get are for social networks, blogs, and the so called "internet farms." Many of these are circular references or mirror sites to WP. As I mentioned on the AfD, this ANI report has not accomplished much.-Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This AfD has already passed it's seven days, and should've been already closed by now.Qxukhgiels (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Stop removing my comments, or anybody else's, from that Afd, as you were already warned by two administrators. That's a comment relevant for the afd outcome. Also, stay off my talk page. There was no "personal attack" in my afd comment, as it only points to your apparent laziness to read the previous afd, or to click any of the links at the top of that page. WP:RPA is not a policy, it is and it is certainly not your business to apply it, as you have a conflict of interest on that page as a nominator. I'd ask an admin to finally close that ridiculous AfD and apply an appropriate cluebat at your direction, because you just don't get it. No such user (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
...starting, maybe, from his WP:ROLLBACK rights per [19] No such user (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we close this now. Everything that needed to be said was said, the AfD outcome is predictable at this point, and there's little to be gained from escalating this discussion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Lord of Rivendell's sockpuppet Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor[edit]

Resolved: Indeffed by FPaS

Hi there. There was a user called Lord of Rivendell which caused a lot of trouble(check his history) and blocked more than 3 times(check his talk page). We have opened up a discussion about his sockpuppetry(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell) but he continues to do distruptive edits on Turkey and related articles. Favonian protected Turkey at the moment but Eldarion of Gondor and Arnor will do these things again. Could you please find a solution. elmasmelih 12:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Decent circumstantial evidence of being a sock, I'm guessing it will probably draw a block from another admin, but its not quite enough for me to pull the trigger personally. On the chance that they don't end up blocked as a sock, I've issued an edit warring warning. Monty845 12:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NigelHowells[edit]

Has been blocked indefinitely. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have a feeling this is a sock of someone given the editing pattern (might be a compromised account maybe). Blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

There has been some discussion recently about the issue of hoaxes in Wikipedia. My gut feeling is that this editor was kind of testing Wikipedia's hoax detection ability. The edits were remarkably unverifiable, some of them dubious; yet not always obvious hoaxes and cited to some obscure off-line sources. The editor's comment that the article of a pornographic actress should be speedy kept because she has donated to autism causes seemed rather sarcastic/trollish. Iselilja (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This seems like an odd first edit after not editing for seven years, and then busily creating more articles. Bahooka (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an odd one, and he certainly seems to be jerking us around. His only contribution before today was over seven years ago, to file a frivolous arbitration request, which was rejected, about a joke "religion" called Briefsism. The history of that ten-times-deleted article, and its AfD show a long string of SPAs, mostly blocked.
He has also filed a DRV for John Bambenek, another much-fought-over article from 2006/7 with a history plagued by SPAs and sockpuppets.
That is all much too old for a checkuser, but it seems extremely likely that he has used other accounts, and also that he is WP:NOTHERE to help. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
It's obvious the user is a well-known LTA from their second edit (which I removed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
NigelHowells is now unblocked and making the same kinds of edits. Bahooka (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the recent contributions of this user, since his previous block was listed has created a number of hoaxes. e.g. See those listed in DRV, and others created in his history. e.g. Gavin Neale who apparently plays for Liverpool F.C. with the only cite being to a club board meeting - I some how doubt NigelHowells was there and that the information would not be published elsewhere (with Liverpool FC listing their squard, U21, U18 etc. on their official website).

He has also taken to removing the CSD notices on this stuff and issuing vandalism warnings to those tagging this junk. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I put a link in the other section that shows User:NigelHowells is a particular LTA and needs to be indeffed quickly and quietly. Johnuniq (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2014 (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.

Massive creation of CSD material by User:Scymso[edit]

User:Scymso creates a lot of articles, which are typically one-line stubs. Articles get nominated for speedy deletion and get deleted on a regular basis (some of them survive, I guess mostly because other users find reliable sources - I did it a couple of times). His talk page has an evidence of over 60 CSD nominations, mostly successfull. A couple of months ago, I tried to talk to him and explain that one-line undersourced and unsourced stubs are not really welcome, but did not get any response. From what I see, he never responded on his talk page, and never tries to improve his writing style or to source any of his article, merely continued creation. Should we do smth about this, or should we just let it go?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

  • As these are BLP articles I think we need to act. Scymso has figured out a way to avoid BLPPROD by adding unreliable and often useless links to the articles being created. Given the total lack of response to attempts to communicate, I believe the appropriate action would be to block until such time as they open a dialog, and then leave it to the discretion of any admin reviewing the unblock request whether the article creation and BLP concerns are adequately addressed. Monty845 18:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I've gone ahead and blocked. I will communicate to the user that indefinite does not mean forever, and suggest that, at the least, an understanding of WP:BLP would be necessary to warrant an unblock. --Kinu t/c 18:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

IP editing disruptively[edit]

Closed this discussion to talk to the IP a bit more to see if behaviour improves (closed by original reporter)
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.

All the edits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are disruptive, unsourced, POV pushing material. Reverting explaining the edit doesn't work. Repeats behaviour next day. Kingsindian (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

When you left a note on his talk page asking him to enter into a discussion, before you came here, what did he say in response? --Jayron32 19:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian, it's always useful to talk to users who make problematic edits. If they don't respond to a note on their page and carry on adding unsourced material, then it's easier for an admin to act. I don't mean to criticize you, and thank you for bringing the issue here, but the IP won't get much information from merely being reverted. They may not even be aware of what the history tab is for, so edit summaries are a very dodgy way of communicating with them. They may even get the impression that it's all right for them to revert, too. I've put a notice on their page asking them to source their edits. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, I will drop this for the moment and see if this behaviour recurs. Kingsindian (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2014 (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.

Ed_Woodward[edit]

Hi, can we get the following rev-del'd, dont think we need ip's threatening to kill people (im taking the claims as baseless or would have whipped this over to emergency).

[20]

Can we also block the IP User:79.64.105.185 I'd hate to think they might feel like they've got away with it. Amortias (T)(C) 20:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for disruptive editing. I'm not sure that revdel is necessary though.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe for the idiotic threats the IP made. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I've just semi-protected the page for two weeks as well. If any admin wants to revdel, I wouldn't object but that is something that I was leaving for discussion. The other actions, I felt comfortable making right away.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Matthiaspaul[edit]

Hi.

I have been wanting to avoid coming here for a long time but it appears it cannot be avoided. User talk:Matthiaspaul and I contribute to the computing area of Wikipedia. We disagree a lot. Except, his manner is somewhat lacking. He never talks to me; he may talk at me if he condescends. (Wikipedians in dispute must communicate much more.) And he never assume good faith, rather he directly accuses me of sabotage.

  1. Accuses me of deliberately ignoring a consensus. ("Lisa was fully aware of MOS:COMPUTING as well as of this move discussion, but has announced to ignore the consensus.")
  2. Accuses me of verbally attacking administrator User:Jenks24. (Jenks24 later refutes this. Still, what does rudeness have to do with the appropriateness of a rename request?)
  3. Accuses me of gaming the system by bypassing the procedure. ("If Lisa really wants the article names changed for some odd reasons, she should issue proper move discussions, instead of trying to game the system by bypassing the procedure.") This sentence is equal to saying WP:RM/TR is not the procedure.
  • Instance #2: This time, I am subjected to personal attack in spite of having done absolutely nothing. Following the closure and eventual move of CMD.EXE to cmd.exe, another user asks whether the remaining pages must be moved or they need a separate move discussion. Matthiaspaul objects by saying:

I get the feeling that Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting to force the lowercase forms into articles where they do not belong into, and this is really getting annoying with all their (groundless) personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting.

What? I didn't even say a word; how does it become "personal attacks and aggressive editing/reverting"? Since when does starting a dispute resolution process is counted as "concerted effort to violently attempting ..."? If anything, there were six other supporting parties in that discussion.

These points are just tip of the ice berg, with the ice berg being the neighboring diffs or more talks in the same talk pages. But there are more disputes. For example, back in 2013, I filed a WP:RM/TR request for CHKDSK, which was rejected. An admin started a full RM on my behalf without asking me (definitely in good faith) but in the interest of avoiding WP:POINT, I withdrew the full discussion. Matthiaspaul revived it simply to exhibit his opposition and his message accused me of subverting MOS:COMPUTING for my own purpose. (This issue actually came up in Talk:Cmd.exe § ‎Move request – CMD.EXE to Cmd.exe.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lisa! I am confused about what sort of intervention you are requesting from administrators. May I suggest WP:DRR? betafive 17:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Betafive. It appear you did not notice that I am just out of a successful WP:DRR. Stress on successful. Here is what I am requesting.
Bearing in mind that civility and collegial cooperation is one of our founding pillars here, I am starting to feel concerned that if he keeps dragging my name in the mud like that, I lose my reputation unjustly. If people keep hearing "Codename Lisa lied" repeatedly enough, regardless of the fact, they start to look at me like a liar. (This has actually happened once.) I perfectly understand that admins are not at liberty to kick anyone out of Wikipedia permanently just because of offending someone a couple of times. And we certainly don't want to lose a knowledgeable editor, do we? But a warning at this stage has significant remedial power. So, for now, please tell him to stop.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Preliminary admin note - I would like to give Matthiaspaul a chance to respond to this - he does not appear to have edited since the initiation of this discussion - but preliminarily, I will comment that editors are encouraged to cultivate a collegial atmosphere conducive to collaboration, a standard that some of the edits above do not appear to meet. That said, I would like to give Matthiaspaul a chance to respond in case there is any confusion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 04:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Note - I have alerted Anthony Appleyard to this conversation as he was the one that Matthiaspaul appealed to with regards to the page moves. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a very strange thing in MP's edits; a Codename Lisa-fighting mentality.
It was I who started the WP:RM discussion in Talk:Cmd.exe and I saw it end. But he says "...Lisa and Fleet in a concerted effort are violently attempting...". (Call me crazy but I feel he is denying me the credit the should be solely mine.)
Another example is: Command Prompt. Five editors reverted there, an IP user edit-warred. Two of these users are those against whom there is (or at least, once has been) a certain degree of intolerance in ANI and AN3: Dogmaticeclectic and I. Yet, MP constantly calls it "Codename Lisa's edit war".
What MP did in CHKDSK is a little queer too. I definitely won't revive a withdrawn proposal to oppose it, much less to call the OP a liar. I'd just do nothing. If it was just reviving and one forth-and-back revert, you could assume good faith. But you can't mistakes trees for a jungle, can you?
Fleet Command (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest closing this frivolous report, warning User:Codename Lisa for making a frivolous report, and warning User:FleetCommand for purposely using a link to my username that does not notify me of its use. (Note that these two users have thrown around personal attacks left and right yet this seems to have been ignored by administrators for some reason.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Dogmaticeclectic: I briefly looked at this, and I believe that the report is not frivolous. As FleetCommand's usage of your name does not call into question of your actions, it's not really an issue, although he probably should have let you know on your talk page about this conversation. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by different IPs, different Usernames[edit]

All edits are by different IPs and different Usernames but they always add the same sentence (He lives in the shadow of his uncles majesty.) since 1,5 years. Is there anything that can be done about this or do we just need to revert the edits over and over again? 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53

Dynara23 | talk 21:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

Semi-protected the article for six months for the slow edit-warring and added PC1.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
that is creepy poetic. Jytdog (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

ISO 8601[edit]

Content dispute. Would benefit from additional editor input but nothing calling for admin tools. I kind of agree re the unlikelihood of an RFC resolving this issue. But AN/I isn't going to resolve it either. Euryalus (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: JMJimmy insists on installing and reinstating a completely incomprehensible version of ISO 8601#Date. The editor has participated in extensive talk page discussion, but his responses are indirect, discursive, and difficult to comprehend. I am unable to discern if the editor sincerely believes the editors edits are useful, or if the editor is a troll. I started an RFC, Talk:ISO 8601#RFC: Does ISO 8601 use the Gregorian calendar?, but not enough editors participated to convince the editor that the editor was in an extreme minority. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems an insane amount of work to go through if I were trolling. The version, prior to any edits by myself, contained factually false information, information not relevant to the standard, and it generally lacked a significant amount of relevant information. My good faith edits to improve and add to it have been met with hostility from Jc3s5h who was the source of some of the information. I have, repeatedly, made revisions to remove/adjust my contributions when consensus was reached whereas Jc3s5h prefers to delete text and make bad faith* edits for content that is being discussed on the talk page before consensus is reached. Why this was escalated to administrators I do not know, I would think there are more appropriate resolution processes to attempt before going to this extreme. *Note, for clarity, I believe that edit to be in bad faith as, even after significant discussion on the topic and clear evidence in the text, it intentionally seeks to change the meaning back to Jc3s5h viewpoint despite no evidence/supporting documentation/opinions other than his to the contrary. It also removes 99% of the information I added in good faith, cited, and worked with other editors to improve. JMJimmy (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Neither version is particularly well worded in my opinion. MaybeWP:3O would help? All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
I don't know which two versions Rich Farmbrough is referring to. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
MaybeWP:3O would help?
The disagreements may be more complex than appropriate for WP:30. A third editor - myself - is involved. Mostly I tend to agree with Jc3s5h's viewpoints and disagree with JMJimmy's, but it's not as simple as "two view points, multiple editors". There are several points of disagreement (as I see it), some of which are related to each other:
  • Whether or not ISO 8601 defines its own specific version of the Gregorian calendar (I'm not actually clear on whether this is a disputed point or not, but I include it for completeness)
  • Whether the year 0000 is a reference point in the proleptic Gregorian calendar
  • Whether conversion between other calendars (eg Julian) and Gregorian is within the scope of the standard (and thus the article), and whether parties exchanging date/time data using 8601 are required to mutually agree on such conversion
  • Whether the term "Gregorian UTC" is meaningful and/or should be used
  • Whether or not 8601 recommends UTC ("Gregorian" or otherwise)
Some of those ought to be able to be split out into separate sections and discussed apart from the others - it might help. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I wrote a rather long response here since Jc3s5h brought in a 3rd editor as well as perusing this dispute mechanism. I think Mitch is right though, this subject is of such a complex nature that a clear guidance from administrators would be appreciated. The above is really the tip of the ice burg if a series wide improvement is ever to occur. JMJimmy (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi! This isn't the appropriate forum for requesting editorial guidance from administrators (and please note that administrators' opinions in matters of disputed content are not generally afforded more import than those of other editors.) You might consider a RFC, or pursuing the dispute-resolution options available at WP:DRR. betafive 18:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I share your view that this is not the appropriate forum, it is merely the one put upon me and being insisted upon. An RFC was initiated by Jc3s5h almost immediately (without really trying to talk through it). Mitch was the only respondent. Just to clarify, I was not meaning intimate that import was somehow to resolve this, just that clear guidance is needed (by consensus or some other mechanism) from those with experience (and ideally knowledge of the subject). It's not really an issue that a weekend-wikier will likely be able to delve into in a meaningful way. 18:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMJimmy (talkcontribs)
Note that some of the disagreements on the ISO 8601 talk page are apparently about policy, not just article content. Both Jc3s5h and I have pointed out that some of JMJimmy's edits and/or talk page assertions are contrary to WP:NOR, but JMJimmy seems to think that it is necessary in this case. I disagree, and said so. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:PSTS / WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD may apply, again I don't think this is the venue for that discussion. WP:RSN or WP:ORN would likely be more suitable. I would maintain that standards fall somewhere between a primary and secondary source. They are primary in the sense that they are similar to law sources in their codification. They are secondary in the sense that they are, in general, the consensus of experts in the field who evaluate the collective sources on a subject. ISOs especially require a multi-stage process that has experts/organizations/governments/committees/etc for peer review prior to publishing, 1 voting member from each participating country in that process and 75% agreement further aids peer review/acceptance, explicit (though lengthy & dense) definitions/document structures which provide detailed guidance on how to interpret and weighting of elements, they are not static like law sources (ie: are updated as expert consensus demands), after official publishing they are opened up further to the global communities being influenced for comments and are not confirmed as stable if any significant issues arise, and finally they are authoritative to all possibilities within their scope. Sources discussing them never cover all possibilities, they often only examine a single perspective of a portion of a standard in context of a particular agreement. The effect is, for the lack of a proper term, a Perspectivism paradox. JMJimmy (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that when in article is about an ISO standard, that ISO standard is necessarily a primary source, and so (quoting WP:PRIMARY) we may "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge", but we may not "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What Admin Action is Requested in This Content Dispute?[edit]

What administrative action is being requested in this content dispute? A block? No evidence has been given of personal attacks, disruptive editing, or full-sized edit-warring. A topic ban? No evidence has been given of tendentious editing, ownership behavior, or other issues rising to TBAN. An interaction ban? I see two editors who do not like each other, but it hardly rises to the difficulty of enforcing an IBAN. Why is this at this noticeboard in the first place? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There is an RFC in progress. It hasn't run 30 days, although it clearly won't resolve anything, because it has already resulted in long tedious discussion with no conclusion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I see nothing being discussed here that calls for admin action. Either a better RFC should be formulated, and the previous one closed down (if its originator will agree), or the dispute can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard, or something else should be done rather than continuing here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% - @Jc3s5h: shall we allow the RFC to run its course and see what comes out of it? JMJimmy (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have with the way the RFC are responses that, in my mind, are to long to comprehend, bring in irrelevant material, and avoid restrictions made by posters on their statements, for example, an editor adds a sentence to the standard that only applies to standard-compliant representations of dates, but is criticized as if it applied to a much wider range of written dates. I will make one more attempt to participate in the RFC, but will abandon it if I again perceive that contributions are intended to obscure the meaning of the discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The basic problem with the RFC, in my opinion, is that it doesn't have the recommended Survey and Threaded Discussion sections. As a result, it is all Threaded Discussion, and will be nearly impossible to close with any sort of consensus. It will just give posters a chance to post more walls of text that are too long to read. Can someone state a question that can be added to a Survey section (either in the old RFC or a new RFC)? I would do that, but I am not sure what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Once again, is there a reason why this was brought to this noticeboard, or was the OP wasting pixels? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
When one editor reverts changes that a few editors view as improvements and discusses the reversion in an incomprehensible manner the article is locked in a form that readers cannot understand. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. The claim that the article is "locked" in a form that readers cannot understand is just plain wrong. It isn't locked. In any case, you haven't answered my question as to why you brought the issue to this noticeboard. What admin action are you requesting? A block for the non-existent lock? A topic-ban for the incomprehensible discussion on the talk page? An IBAN? What? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2014 (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.

Harassment following SPI[edit]

Xermano (talk · contribs) blocked indefinetly by Bbb23, due to the extent of the deception he has carried on. (Non-admin close) G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 16:26, 18 August 2014 (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.

Borsoka (talk · contribs · count) Made an unfounded accusation that Akifumii (now called Xermano) was a sock. After the case closed with no evidence of socking, Borsoka has apparently continued to harass Xermano (in Hungarian).

I gave warning that I would act on continued provocation, to no avail.

I'd like an admin response to this witchhunt. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris troutman, would you please ask Xermano to translate my messages? I have not sent any harrasing messages to him/her. Borsoka (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Can you translate for us, Chris?--v/r - TP 05:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope, sure can't. I'd be glad if a third party could handle that. I've notified Xermano of this ANI post. My assumption is based off of Xermano's previous reaction to Borsoka's message. Borsoka has at least become an unwelcome guest at that talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Chris troutman, would you please stop harrasing me. First you accused me of Wikipedia:OWN (here) without evidence. Next you suggested (also here) that I only initiated a sock-puppet investigation, because an article created by me received a template. Later, without being able to read the message written in Hungarian, you accussed me of harrasing (also here). I again suggest you that you should imagine a world where editors are not driven by bad emotions. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Also no. I've seen no evidence to refute my assertions. You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset. Believe me, I would be happy to be proved wrong, apologize, and leave this alone. However, you foolishly said "if you think it is harassement, please take me to an ANI" and so I have. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Foolishly? Chris troutman, I again suggest you that you should assume good faith. I said that you could any time take me an ANI, because I was sure that I had not (and I would not) made any harrassement to anybody. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
To avoid a biased translation, I will ask Armbrust, a fellow Hungarian to translate the messages at my talk page. XermanoTalk 06:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Xermano, I trust your fairness. Please translate it yourself, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian. Actually, I insist on your translation. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused here because your insistence here is basically a declaration against a neutral thrid party being involved. Why?--67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Because there is no need to involve a third party. These are so basic texts. You can translate them in 10 minutes, and this case will be closed. Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Xermano, I am surprised that you have not translated the texts yet, because you are a native speaker of Hungarian, and your English is excellent. Sorry, but I would like this investigation to be closed in short, because I would like to concentrate on editing articles. Would you please tell us whether my texts on your Talk page contained any harrasing message? If you think there was a harrassing message, please translate only that part. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Xermano, a fellow Hungarian editor, Fakirbakir, expressed his/her doubts about your knowledge of the Hungarian language here. If you are only pretending that you can speak our language, please tell us, because in this case we actually need a translator in order to assist the administrators to close this case. Borsoka (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Chris troutman You should apologize to Borsoka. Your comment "You screwed up and you should've backed away when I warned you at the outset" is impolite and unacceptable. Regarding the conversation between Xermano and Borsoka, I assume Xermano does not speak Hungarian. Her/his account is suspicious (IMHO). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
One does wonder how Akifumii/Xermano, who initially claimed on his userpage that he was a native speaker of Canadian English and French, with professional knowledge of Spanish, Galician and Catalan, and who became a "Translation Administrator" at Wikimedia Outreach (outreach:User:Akifumii), but whose actual "Galician" translations on that project look suspiciously like machine translations and contain some rather glaring errors (see outreach:Best_practices/gl, which among other things translates "best practice articles" as if it meant "best articles about practice" rather than "articles about best practice"), has suddenly become a native speaker of Hungarian with professional knowledge in English, German and Romanian. Isn't it a bit deceptive to make yourself a "translation administrator" on a Wikimedia project on the basis of faked credentials? Fut.Perf. 09:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise: and he/she also forgot to speak Basque while transforming from Akifumii [21] to Xermano. (Interestingly, Akifumii's Basque knowledge was mentioned during the sock-puppet investigation process. All the same, I am desperately asking the administrators to close this case, because I would really like to concentrate on editing.) Borsoka (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The text Borsoka sent me on my talk page does not contain any harassment of any sort, in my opinion. Sorry lately I have been active on Wikia instead of Wikipedia. All User:Borsoka said was that "We do not need Armbrsut to translate for us. I object a third party to translate my messages" XermanoTalk 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Xermano, thank for the above clarification even if I do not understand why you suggested a third party translation hours ago if you was well aware the fact that I had not harrassed you. Your absent-mindedness could have easily caused new offending or harrassing remarks by Chris troutman about me. I hope the case now can be closed. Have a nice day! I am sure that we (together with Fakirbakir) will continue our communication in our beautiful language and we can cooperate in improving many many articles. Sorry, but it was so strange that you did not want to translate the text, but now I understand you. Your English is not so excellent as I thought, and that is why you were not able to translate exactly my words. Borsoka (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on third-party translation and admin intervention. I suspect shenanigans. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Chris troutman, are you kidding? You declared that I had harrassed Xermano - Xermano declared that I had not harrassed him/her. Please stop harrassing me. Sorry, but I cannot imagine how you can have any administrative role in our community. Do you really fight against vandalism??? Borsoka (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
It's ok if User:Chris troutman would like a third party translation even though Borsoka has not harassed me. The third party translator will find nothing bad that Boroka has put on my talk page. @Borsoka: User:Chris troutman is a very experienced editor and my CVUA trainer. He often fights against vandalism and helps other users. Please do not make such assumptions. XermanoTalk 18:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot imagine how he/she can fight against vandalism. My experiance is that his/her style of communication is uncivil and he/she can only assume bad faith of other editors. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My main issue with all of this is that even if they aren't a sockpuppet, you think you would like to mention that you are Hungarian under your userboxes on Akifumii's page. On that page, he says that he is Canadian and is studying in the United States. Nowhere does he suggest that he is Hungarian, or a native speaker of the Hungarian language. Personally, it would be hard for me to edit here all of these years, and forget that I know English and grew up in America, as well as visited multiple countries in the meantime. In his rename, he now lives in Budapest, and now speaks Hungarian. The languages were also further jumbled around, with the removal of many of those on Akifumii's page, and the addition of a few others. I am leery of giving any trust to anyone who is acting like this, although I would like to see what others think before I move ahead with any action. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see the messages on User:Xaosflux talk page. XermanoTalk 03:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Ktr101, it was me who initiated a sock puppet investigation against Akifumii (now called Xermano), because I assumed that he/she was identical with Afro-Eurasian. Bbb23 closed it, stating that "Akifumii has an impressive list of credentials, here in a very short time in terms of the privileges that have been accorded him, and elsewhere in other wiki and wikimedia projects that make it unlikely that he is a puppet of anyone". I am a simple editor with no credentials, so I cannot determine whether his/her credentials are authentic or fake. According to Future Perfect at Sunrise's above remark his/her knowledge of Galician (claimed under the name Akifumii) is dubious. All the same, if Akifumii/Xermano is a native speaker of Hungarian, he/she cannot be identical with Afro-Eurasian, because the latter declared (here [22], in the "Personal beliefs" section) that he/she was "Hungarophobe" (and also "Russophobe", "anti-Zionist", etc.). Afro-Eurasian also used disgusting anti-Hungarian slur. Nevertheless, I assume Akifumii/Xermano could not properly translate my Hungarian message because his/her English is poor, not because he/she cannot speak Hungarian. When I suggested him/her a cooperation on his/her Talk page in Hungarian, he/she answered me saying "Thank you" in the same language. There are few Hungarian editors, so I would not like to lose him/her. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Borsoka, Akifiumii got all the advance permissions by deceiving me into granting them and I have just found that out myself through this ANI discussion. So I want to thank you, Borosoka, for spotting something fishy and decided to investigate further. I'm going to start a sub-section below to demonstrate just how far Akifiumii has deceived the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to the sub-section, but, regardless of that, the purpose of SPI is to determine whether someone is socking. The burden is on the reporter to present sufficient evidence of socking. Whether the user is a problem in some other way is not the province of SPI. I don't question Borsoka's good faith, but he simply was unable to present sufficient evidence to connect the user with the master. It's fairly usual in such cases to close the report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, sorry, I did not want to offend you. I remember that during the previous SPI only a CU could prove that the suspected editor, along with many other editors, was in fact Afro-Eurasian's sockpuppet, because the evidence that I presented seemed unsufficient. An administrator initiated a CU because she was also convinced, for reasons she did not want to reveal, that it is a sockpuppetry. Sorry, but my English is rather poor and I am not good at administrative issues, that is why I cannot always express myself properly. Nevertheless, Xermano, who proudly declares that he/she is a native speaker of Hungarian on his/her user page, can hardly be identical with the Hungarophobe, Russophobe, anti-Zionist, ... Afro-Eurasian. Borsoka (talk) 05:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries, Borsoka, I wasn't the least bit offended. Regardless of the socking issue, from the looks of below, Xermano is going to be dealt with. Also, based on the history, I don't believe that OhanaUnited is the only administrator who was fooled.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, taking into account the events what have happened in the meantime, would you please agree to close my case? I did not harass your pupil. Please, let me concentrate on editing. Borsoka (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Armbrust: @MusikAnimal: What say you? Chris Troutman (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Chris troutman, I hope you will learn based on this case when you should be cautious and when you can trust an editor. My feeling is that an editor who is not a native speaker of English is always suspicious for you, especially when this barbarian attacks somebody who has several times expressed his/her thanks for you in excellent English. I understand: the barbarians must always be overcome. Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:, @TParis:, I translated my messages. You can read the translations always below the relevant texts here. (Armbrust informed me that he would not like to be involved in the case and he did not like translating.) Borsoka (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Your translations seem to evince your hounding of Akifumii/Xermano. Some of your comments here (about barbarians, etc) including your eagerness for me to let the matter drop indicate to me that you are aware of your guilt. I leapt to Akifumii's defense at the SPI based on my interactions with them for CVUA. Clearly, Akifumii/Xermano has been less than forthcoming and I'm beginning to think I made a mistake getting involved. Still, your conduct needs to be addressed and I'm happy to watch this train-wreck continue until an admin puts an end to it. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:, I know that I am not guilt, because it was not a hounding. It was a hunt for a sockpuppet of a banned editor who was taking a new personality similarly to the way he had several times done beforehead (I refer to my below remarks of the multiple CVs of Afro-Eurasian and his socks). Yes, I have experienced that you can only assume bad faith of those who attack a favorite of yours. This lack of neutrality is the reason I think you should not have any administrative role in our community. You are talking of witchhunt and hounding, but it was you who accused me of WP:OWN without knowing anything of my past, or who accused me of harrasing based on messages written in a language you do not understand. You should be ashamed of your behavior, but it is obvious that you are unable to realize this. Actually, on my part, this was the last piece of communication to you. I wish you new experiences for the future. Borsoka (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Deception by Akifumii/Xermano[edit]

Since Xermano disclosed that everything Akifumii provided were "all a dare and a lie", I will be summarizing what Akifumii has emailed me to get various permissions (email copies are available upon request). Akifumii began editing on April 30, 2014. Six days later, he contacted me to inquire how to be involved in Canadian education program. I told him the usual (read five pillars, get some edits, communicate with others). In an email dated May 9, he told me that he is a Canadian from British Columbia and recently moved to California for college. Three days later, he asked me to grant him reviewer and rollbacker. At that point I granted those rights because he seemed to be trustworthy (but now it all appears to be an elaborate scheme/confidence trick to deceive myself and others to get those tools) In June, he made an application to become an online ambassador. He explained to me, through email, that he can only be helping Canadian universities through online and not on-campus since he is in California.

Ever since Akifumii changed his username to Xermano, we're starting to see that his deceptions are finally catching up. Akifumii claims Canada to be his home country and grew up there yet Xermano says he is a native Hungarian. Akifumii absolutely made no mention on Hungary and claimed have visited Brazil during the World Cup in 2012 (wrong, they just hosted it earlier this year). We now know why he wanted to be an online ambassador not because he is studying in California, but because he lives in Hungary. We also noticed the completely absence of Hungarian language on Akifumii's userpage plus a few other languages (e.g. German, Romanian) that mysteriously appeared on Xermano's userpage while Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese were dropped quietly. All these evidences point to the fact that I have lost all confidence in Akifumii/Xermano because we simply don't know when is he telling the truth and when is he giving us crap and bull. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Based on this behavior, I have removed his "Online volunteer" right, as I am not comfortable with having a user with this kind of edit pattern participate in the program. If anyone wants to revert me, please go ahead and do so as I will not object if a good reason is given, but I just wanted to explain why I did what I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, a sockpuppet of the Hungarophobe, ... etc Afro-Eurasian also deceived an administrator [23]. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
And his online ambassador application successfully deceived User:Neelix into supporting him too. I think all of us fell for it because we all used AGF and he exploited it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Another interesting coincidence, that Afro-Eurasian also changed his identity from his sockpuppet to sockpuppet. Afro-Eurasian was a Latin man who had been born and lived in Florida [24]. One of his sockpuppets, Paleolithic Man also said that he was a man living in Florida, but under a new (Basque) real life name [25]. His next sockpuppet, Southeastern European, said that he had been born in Southeastern Europe [26], but at the same time a fourth (or 14th) sockpuppet said that he is a "Moroccan American" [27]. @Xermano:, please answer my next question: are you a native Hungarian speaker or you are only pretending it? I have not read any long sentence written by you in Hungarian. Borsoka (talk