Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883

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

Noticeboard archives


Question re Voćin massacre[edit]

Not an admin issue. Please use the talk page of the linked article if you are interested in commenting on this topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2015 (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.


"In the opinion of the Court, although the material before it raises grounds for grave suspicions about what occurred at Vocin, Croatia has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that Croats were killed by Serb forces in that locality in December 1991."[1]

Does this mean the incident didn't happen? Even I don't necessarily believe that. But if the ICJ rules that it cannot substantiate it then should the article exist? Please advise. I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
How is this an issue for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Just asking for advice. Like I said, I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Quis separabit? 23:59, 24 April 2015 (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.

Australian Beach and User:Scienceyperson[edit]

A strange sequence of events here:

  • User:Scienceyperson created the article, Australian Beach on 15 April 2015, having registered their username the same day.
  • It has been edited by several other editors since it was created, and PRODded and dePRODded.
  • There has been some discussion at User talk:Scienceyperson about the sources.
  • It is currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Beach because its references are unverifiable and its content untraceable.
  • In the last hour s/he has blanked the article, added {{db-author}}, moved the article to User:Australian Beach and blanked it again to remove the template (sophisticated actions for such a newly registered user)

To avoid disruption to the AfD, I suggest that this editor should be blocked while it is running. If not indefinitely. PamD 18:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the chronology here, shouldn't the AFD just be closed as speedy delete (G7) which would just put and end to the disruption? Deli nk (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, having started the AfD it might be better to let it run to get a consensus whether or not this is a hoax, with whatever implication that has for the editor's future on Wikipedia (is creating a "well-referenced" hoax article an "indef-block-on-first-offence" category of activity?). PamD 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree, the AfD should run its course. I'm more curious at how she was able to create a User page when there isn't an associated account. I tried creating a User page for an editor who couldn't figure it out and I couldn't unless I was logged in under their username. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Dunno what happened for you, Liz, but anyone can create any page in the User space regardless of whether the account is registered, with the usual caveats about salted pages, etc. Keegan (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Especially with the odd behaviour, please let the AfD run its course. As nominator I have no idea if this is a hoax or not. While we could speedy it, I think this case is better allowed to run to conclusion. WP:SNOW may well apply in the not too far distant future, and that would be pragmatic. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite block for using their user page as a platform for commercial advertisement opportunities[8] and for using Wikipedia for the purposes of perpetuating a hoax. Time to put the kibosh on this behavior. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support indefinite block, for exactly the same reasons as above. Promotions are not okay, hoaxes are not okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I just closed that AFD, and I support an indef block for anyone who uses Wikipedia to create hoaxes, or for advertisement. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Accusations and striking of comments.[edit]

The Boomerang (well, sort of...) takes another sock back to the drawer. You'd think they'd learn, but they never do... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I have been accused of sock-puppetry by user:Thunderlagoon in relation to my edits on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil. This user has also taken the liberty of striking all my comments, on the grounds that I am a sock. I have asked that he restore them until such a time as he can conclusively show I am a sock as he as no right to strike other users comments unless the are in breach of BLP or are vandalism. He has not. I have looked at his account. Today is the first day this user has made edits. His account was created this morning. He has just added code to customise his user name. He had opened an SPI about me here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. This seems a bit inconsistent to me. While it is plausible that this user find his way to an AFD on his first day, I think it rather unlikely that the user would also open an SPI based on a very specific AFD he probably would have had trouble finding. I am asking that and Admin restore my comments to their former state as I am not here to edit war. I also would raise the question as to whether the SPI nomination was a malicious one and would appreciate an admins opinion. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have preferred this kept in one place, but I've added User:Thunderlagoon to the list of users to Checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. Could we wait until this sockpuppet investigation has been dealt with, and then work out the striking/unstriking of comments based on who's actually the sockpuppets? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you User:Joseph2302 for adding his account as there is a genuine reason for suspicion when a 1-day-old accounts starts an SPI. I do not understand why this was not done earlier. I would however like the intervention of an as-of-yet uninvolved Admin and my text needs to be restored unless I am found to be a sock-puppet. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's all fine for me for checkuser check on my account cause I'm certainly aware of the outcome. Thanks Joseph2302 to put a mute to the meaningless war over a SPI. Thunderlagoon (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comments should have been struck out, Trout71, especially without a finished SPI and by an account that is only 10 hours old. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate someone with a neutral perspective. I am not particularly impressed with what is a highly unorthodox SPI being let go ahead, especially when it may be malicious. I am not a sock of users who clearly are from Asia. I live in Ireland. However there might be a silver lining. If he is not blocked User:Thunderlagoon can kindly undo his edit. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • 'I preferred sticking over removing for leaving it to others the reason for striking. All the Oppose votes were mainly made by IPs which is very suspicious. Moreover the actions of this user is bound to be more suspicious. I also stated that any experienced user is welcomed to unstrike if needed as already stated in SPI and AFD. There is no target of personal attack on the user. I have listed for checkuser which shouldn't bother the user if he/she is not a sock. Thunderlagoon (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this? User:Thunderlagoon has been indefinitely block as a sock, and User:Trout71's comments have been reinstated. I therefore believe there is no more issues for WP:ANI to resolve. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

IP editor refusing to accept consensus[edit] (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly re-inserted material against the conclusion of an RFC in which he participated relating to an illustration of Mohammed at Islamic Calendar. RFC concluded;

The consensus is to keep the image at this time. The picture is well-sourced, per the discussion, and illustrates a salient point of the section.
— [[User: HiDrNick!]] 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The editor has amended the caption of that image at least 8 times since the RFC closed. 10:50, 21 March 2015, 16:58, 22 March 2015, 11:54 23 March 2015, 16:43, 23 March 2015, 10:07, 9 April 2015, 14:53, 9 April 2015, 10:47, 13 April 2015 , 10:58, 13 April 2015

The user is also agressive and borders on personal attacks on the talk page; Last paragraph Last paragraph - Aspersions based on other pages edited

They have repeatedly taken this discussion to other venues such as the ANI thread on phantom consensus[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] and a discussion of general sanction templates[14],[15] on my talk page.

Can an Admin make them go away. SPACKlick (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

[16] Is now hounding me at an ArbCom request thread. I believe they've done similar to @NeilN: but I'll leave it to him to ring that up if he feels it necessary.SPACKlick (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with SPACKlick. It was one thing when the IP confined themselves to Talk:Islamic calendar but now they've taken to derailing unrelated conversations, often with blatant misrepresentations and attacks, as shown by the diffs above. --NeilN talk to me 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
User is now attacking user:Tarc at the talk page diff SPACKlick (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from archive until resolved. SPACKlick (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And again. SPACKlick (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This request is unlikely to get more admin attention, SPACKlick. At this point, I'd contact an admin directly with your concerns. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
─────────────────────────They've been quiet since April 16; is this still a current ongoing issue? It would make more sense to drop it unless they come back and do it again, IMHO. The conduct is offensive but they apparently quit it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Brian Peppers[edit]

Hi all. I am attempting to create an article about a popular meme, "Brian Peppers". I can't find any way to create the article - I've been to [17] and there's no obvious way to start it. Also, I notice there's been a lot of activity in the past judging by the log on this page. Is there a reason this article doesn't exist? Onion quality (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was protected from creation some while ago. If you want to create it you will need to get an administrator to unprotect the page. It might be worth creating a draft article to show them what you plan to create before asking them to do so as a credible design may help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 18:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Old timer comment Onion quality, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and it has tons of articles where contributions from newcomers are welcome and likely to be helpful, as well as (even now) lots of potential topics for new articles. There are also a number of topics that are touchy for one reason or another (typically involving controversies surrounding living people, or political disputes), and editing them without getting into a lot of conflict and drama requires a reasonable amount of editing experience.

    Brian Peppers was a hugely disruptive topic when Jimbo deleted the article, in part because Wikipedia's approach to biographies of living people was in a state of flux at the time, and Peppers was a living person back then (per Snopes, he died in 2012) but also because Wikipedia generally doesn't see internet memes as encyclopedic topics (and there was a battle over that going on as well back then, the heyday of Encyclopedia Dramatica). I personally don't think we need the article again but either way, recreating it would have to be done rather carefully, and as Amortias says, posting a concrete draft for review is probably the only workable way to start. It will certainly require a lot of adherence to Wikipedia editing practices (especially including solid sourcing) to be accepted, and new editors generally aren't familiar with how to do that, and "learning by doing" on such a topic is likely to be unpleasant.

    The best advice I can give you is to welcome you to Wikipedia and recommend that you start out on less contentious topics. If you're still interested in writing about Peppers after you've gotten more used to this place, you'll have a better idea of how to go about it. It's not something that can be explained in a few sentences. (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Onion quality, I think you should look at some of these before you try and recreate that particular article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see my user page: User:Onion_quality - I've placed my first draft there. I'd be appreciative if someone could review it for quality and neutrality. Thanks! Onion quality (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I've struck the address as unnessecary. It might be worth an admin moving it to a draft space rather than your userpage. Amortias (T)(C) 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
As an admin I'd be more inclined to WP:CSD#G4 and suggest deletion review when ready. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Adding an address strikes me as immediately-oversightable information, given that there is no need to expose a private residence address that is no doubt now occupied by someone else entirely. The purported sources are Snopes, an link, a Tripod page(????) and YTMND, none of which are really solid reliable secondary sources... Snopes is marginal at best. The entire article begs the question, "Why does this exist?" and I suggest that there is no good reason for it to. Consider this a !vote to keep deleted and nuke the draft. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── This attack page has been deleted. There is no legitimate use of this page on the project. Nakon 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I may quietly disagree that there is no legitimate reason for an article about someone who has shot to considerable fame (regardless of circumstance) to exist, I accept the consensus here. What I do take issue with, is the labelling of my draft as an "attack page" by the user above. It was never intended to disparage the subject, only to quote direct facts with as much neutrality as possible. I am actually quite shocked and hurt by any suggestions otherwise. Onion quality (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I can also no longer create my user page. Can someone sort this out. Onion quality (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh yikes, Onion quality, yeah, now you can see what I meant about editing this topic potentially being unpleasant. It looks like I inadvertently gave you bad advice by not checking first just how bad the old article was and how little usable sourcing seems to exist about Brian Peppers. So I don't think Peppers is a suitable article subject at this point. That said I think some newbie biting has happened with this deletion. The user page should not have been protected, and the A10 (attack page) classification sounds like it misinterprets the intent of the page. Onion quality, rather than posting drafts in your main user page, it's better to either make a subpage or use the draft namespace--see wp:draft for more info. But an admin should be able to unprotect your user page, if you agree to not re-create the Peppers article in it. Nakon (or anyone), can you unprotect the page? Thanks. (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
We have a policy against bios on people notable for a single event ( WP:1E ). Between that and the other longstanding issues, this is not a great topic to engage on. Additionally, the address *is* out of bounds as a privacy violation, making the draft an attack page. Though it looks like everyone assumed it was ignorance not intentional flouting the rule. I unprotected. Please do not reinsert the address. Now, that would not be considered ignorance, and would result in sanctions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Nakon's restore did the unprotect, I was misreading log. Nevermind. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible canvassing[edit]

Not canvassing and per WP:BOOMERANG, a large WP:TROUT for the OP as requested and warranted.  Philg88 talk 05:41, 25 April 2015 (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 changed EvergreenFir's original title "Canvassing by Guy Macon" to the more neutral "Possible canvassing" BMK (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in canvassing, specifically Wikipedia:Canvassing#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. See contribs here. I believe the extent of the canvassing warrants a direct ANI posting despite the good faith efforts of another editor to issue a templated warning. I have no recommendations for consequences (from trouting on up) as I have little knowledge of this user. However I request the canvassing edits be reverted at the least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Without looking very closely into the details, I will note that it's not considered canvassing if every contributor to a previous discussion on the topic is notified of the new discussion. It's only canvassing if the editor selects only certain editors -- those he or she believes will agree with their position -- to notify. Is that the case here? Did you ask Guy Macon how he determined the people he notified? Did you follow up to determine for yourself if that was the case. Did you, in fact, do anything at all beside come directly to ANI to tattle on this editor you have "little knowledge of" for an act that you have no real idea whether it broke a policy or not? BMK (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Look at diffs. 100s of article talk pages posted on. Posting here more for clean up than tattling. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Then it's not canvassing in any way shape or form, because every editor who reads those talk pages -- pro or con the issue -- will see the notice, which was properly neutral:

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no suggestion of how anyone should feel about the issue, and nothing about the notice which might attract editors on one side of the issue rather than editors on the other. You don't know how he determined what article talk pages to place it on because you didn't bother to ask. BMK (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your interpretation. I see this as canvassing given its scale and feel it warrants admin attention regardless of intent or rationale. I'll let an admin decide. If they agree with you, they are welcome to trout me for this ani. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any canvasing here. It's neutrally worded and generally circulated to all. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record, my selection method was simple: Every page that would be affected (All biography pages that have "Religion: None", Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Agnostic", "Religion None (atheist)", or "Religion: None (agnostic)" in the infobox). I am well aware of our canvassing rules, and I wouldn't canvass even if I could get away with it, for the simple reason that I value getting an accurate picture of consensus far more than I value getting my way. Right now the consensus is going against my preferences by over 2:1, and if that holds to the end of the RfC I will happily start plugging away at bringing those multiple pages into compliance with the consensus. And of course I expect to be reported at ANI for doing so -- some folks are really, really into making sure everyone knows that certain politicians are atheists.
Given how contentious this topic is, I wanted to avoid the multiple complaints that the last couple of consensus discussions on this subject generated from people who did not like their favorite pages being changed in a way that they felt strongly about without any notice that such a change was being discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (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.


(non-admin closure) OP blocked. BMK (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2015 (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 seem to be being stalked by a user called Interference, he is using his 'revert' power to revert every edit I made.

We have edited some articles the same - we are disagreeing about deletion of some new articles

But this user keeps using 'revert' on all the edits I do. Even when they are not related at all. Like this;

I feel like I cant make any edits without him using his rveret powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talkcontribs) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You know why I'm reverting your edits and you seem to be avoiding any discussion as to why multiple editors think your edits are in bad faith. Interference 541 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG. Bobbertybob is disruptively adding and re-adding CSD and PROD tags to articles as well as making fairly useless AFD noms. --NeilN talk to me 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you just did this

Can sonmeone help me fix the afd thing for that... and stop this person just 'undoing' everything?!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talkcontribs) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not 'avoiding any discussion' at all. I will talk to anyone about any of my edits. What is the problem? Why are you stalking me? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your interest in deletion of Ezra A. Bowen and Muara Bungo collide with WP:NPOL and WP:NGEO respectively. Furthermore, you aren't reading the talk pages of articles prior to re-flagging them in addition to ignoring WP:DEPROD. Interference 541 (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bobbertybob_reported_by_User:Jbhunley_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN talk to me 08:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:BOOMERANG is needed here. Bobbertybob has been making pointy CSD nominations, reverting twice, then PROD and reverting twice then opens an AfD. He has done this at Ezra A. Bowen (Notable under WP:NPOL) and Muara Bungo (Notable under WP:GEOLAND) as well as trying it at Lamont Cain but seems to have munged the AfD nomination somehow. Several users including Amaury and NeilN have told him these nominations and reverting properly removed CSD and PROD tags were disruptive. I have reported him at ANEW and I see he has just now been blocked at AIV. Additional disruptive edits can be seen in his Contributions. Jbh (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2015 (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.

QUICKY: Mitchell328[edit]

Closed by reporting editor: Me, as Acroterion is on the case. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (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.

Whatever's happening here needs a mass rollback, aaaand, probably an indef, even though we haven't climbed up the warning tree with him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, popups is still showing the rev-deled edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not any more; possibly just takes time for the rev-del summary to percolate around the system. (And, with one edit, it is doubtless proven just how small is Lindsay's understanding of computers and WP.) Cheers, LindsayHello 10:01, 25 April 2015 (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.

Somebody who doesn't like Yopie[edit]

Yopie seems interested in royal families, pretenders, and so on. This is of very little interest to me; it's of great interest to somebody who appears to be in Mesa, AZ, and anyway connects to the interweb via United States Phoenix Qwest Communications Company. What Yopie adds, the IP removes; what Yopie removes, the IP readds. Edit summaries sometimes look reasonable enough in themselves; but viewed as a bunch, they're vapid: the idea seems to be: (i) revert Yopie because Yopie, (ii) optionally add whatever edit summary might look OK at a mere glance.

I blocked Before that block ran out, I also blocked

Rather annoyingly, both IPs have, uh, expressed their displeasure with me (one IP, the other). I don't mean that the complaints annoy me in themselves (such complaints usually bore me but occasionally amuse me); rather, it might look as if I'm blocking this fellow because of his affronts to my dignity or similar. So I invite another admin to take a look. I also invite one or more admins to do some benevolent stalking of Yopie, to see whether another Mesa, AZ IP starts up. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. IP is stalking me for 3 weeks, without valid explanation (just this]. All started as BLP issue with IP about House of Orléans-Braganza and his members, where IP is inserting unsourced defamatory material. IP was in conflict with User:Materialscientist, User:Kober: and User:FactStraight too, all about BLP.--Yopie (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Odd editing at Kate Kelly article[edit]

A number of editors want to include an edit at the Kate Kelly (feminist) about what they call "laptop-gate" (see here.) I have no comment on if this content is appropriate and a talk page discussion has been started on that. However, all these editors pushing for the inclusion of this content are brand new editors, i.e., within the past several hours. There may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry involved, but I believe an admin should review the editing pattern. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing and semi-protecting, discuss on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the article. There are now about eight brand new users, with most of the accounts being created within minutes of each other. They all are posting support for including the laptop content. Do we need to do an SPI or is this just rather obvious that the accounts are related (sock or meat)? You can also tell they are related because all of them sign their posts the same incorrect way. Can their comments then be removed from the talk page? Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's rare that article talk page comments are removed unless they are a BLP or copyright violation. But I think you should feel free to start a WP:SPI case. Liz Read! Talk! 16:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I ended up creating a case at SPI with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Riboflavin6969. Bahooka (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

IP editor[edit]

IP editor hasn't edited in over two days. It's likely they either quit, or moved on to another IP. So it seems this is far as it can go, right now, at ANI... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This editor first started editing yesterday, and each one of their 5 edits has been either vandalism or spamming an external link. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They haven't edited since receiving a warning, almost 24 hours ago. As it's an IP editor, who might have already changed IPs, I don't think there's anything more that can be done unless they start making similar edits again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2015 (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.

Block request for user EauZenCashHaveIt[edit]

As requested, closing as non-actionable. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I recently seem to have crossed paths with a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation. It all started when I corrected a link to a disambiguation page [1], standard procedure. This user, who seems to be rather attached to the article concerned, rather bluntly reverted this change, displaying a relative lack of experience with Wikipedia by stating the obvious 'It's a red link, it leads nowhere'. Thus undoing a correction I introduced, and relinking to a disambig page. I then corrected him by explaining why we are making these changes [2], being reverted again: Then we should remove the link, since it leads nowhere. Comment noted, but that's not WP's policy.

But it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page. There I got a longread of incidents this user has already been involved in in just the course of a month, being told off and corrected multiple times, even being told to let it drop, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a block, Please remove that personal attack, Efforts to build Wikipedia are never improved by personal attacks on editors, etcetera, etcetera.

We're talking about a user here who has a good 200 edits, half of which seem to have been to talk pages justifying his behaviour, and repeatedly telling off experienced editors on good standing.

On this occasion, I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice. Upon being reverted, the user came harassing me on another, related, edit I had made, and has been making multiple agressive and/or personal attacks: As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post, Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means and the latest See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice.

Now, my sabre has been getting rather rusty lately, so I am no party for a duel. And this is where I am no longer going to entertain the behaviour of this user. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to be harassed or attacked, not me, not anyone else.

On the counts of harassment, agressive behaviour and personal attacks, I would therefore like to request for this user to be blocked, term to be defined by the admins, although I can't see this user coming to terms with Wikipedia. I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user. Thank you, and regards, --Midas02 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Removing and inserting redlinks has been always debatable, if enough people have agreed to keep them, then go for that. I don't see any personal attack if someone is telling other to sign their post. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I certainly did not expect this masterful storytelling, nor did I expect the need to defend myself. I will try to balance out whatever has been said here so far.
  • "a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation"... "it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page"... "I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice"... The condescending Willy Wonka meme comes to mind here: please, tell me more about how YOU were harassed and personally attacked. His heading on my talk page reads "Agressive and inexperienced editing - again".
  • The above named heading leads to a seemingly standard warning, except that it was Midas02 who kept restoring content in a rather pushy and aggressive manner, in spite of my expression of valid concerns, on both List of The Blacklist characters and James Jackson pages.
  • What Midas02 is calling "personal attacks" are replies to his own aggressive remarks:
1) As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post is a direct reply to the above named heading calling me inexperienced (he also gave me the wrong warning, but that's beside the point).
2) Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means is a direct reply to as an inexperienced user, please inform yourself on the guidelines of Wikipedia. Again, the pot calling the kettle inexperienced.
3) See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice is a reaction to Midas02 restoring the content without any explanation for the umpteenth time, right after he told me that repeatedly restoring content in spite of another user's objections is not OK.
  • As for harassment, I checked the disambiguation page and sure enough, the name he was battling to keep as a non-existent link was added to the disambiguation list just a few minutes prior to the edit in question. It doesn't seem like a good practice at all, since some of Wikipedia's bad rep is that people can add anyone to these kinds of lists and then claim their validity as notable figures, when in reality they don't even have their own Wikipedia article. Both edits are intertwined, so I removed them. No harassment there, as I already explained to Midas02.
  • I am not even sure what to read into his last paragraph here: "I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user." One minute I'm a noob who should know better, next I'm not? Please help me understand what the heck is going on here. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In my opinion, posting this on the ANI board is a huge stretch, and requesting a block is ridiculous. This stems from an editing tussle regarding a link (Jamie Jackson) that points to a disambiguation page. Midas02's solution was to disambiguate with "(actor)", though the page doesn't exist yet. After reverting, and conversing through edit comments, EauZenCashHaveIt's ultimate solution was to remove the link entirely, a solution that follows WP guidelines, and one that I approve of. [18] As I see it, the editing issue is resolved, all in a day's work, and there was no behaviour that even comes close to warrant wasting time on the ANI board. At best, it's a 3RR issue, with no talk page discussion, which is now resolved. Willondon (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2015 (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.

A user's constant insults and now curses towards me[edit]

Warned that personal attacks with respect to Armenian Genocide are subject to discretionary sanctions - Fred Bauder 18:14, April 25, 2015‎ (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.

(The user referred to is C1cada (talk · contribs)) User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The insults are overt and now that he's cursing at me, I believe it's time to report this here. This report is just a small extraction of the disruption and constant insults I had to witness and endure this past week. Seeing that he's new, I kept my patience with this user for quite some time. But he sent me to ANI yesterday for the most trivial of matters, and even after I laid out some of the issues I found concerning in his own edit-pattern there, the user continues to insult me and engage with me like it's a battlefield.

I warned him over and over again to not insult my English, especially in talk pages, but he just doesn't stop. Even other users, such as Alakzi, warned him about the ongoing insults.

Some examples (and I mean it when I say some):

And the more I warn him to stop, the more aggressive his language gets. Here's diffs from just a short while ago:

It has been almost two weeks now since he's been hounding me. He reverts my edits of good faith, only to prove some sort of point, or to engage with me elsewhere. His edit-summaries often contain subtle insults towards my English as well ([19]). He refuses to discuss issues I have raised with him directly regarding his particular edits (for example: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Re_Grace_Knapp:_WP:OWNERSHIP_issues.3F), yet he still goes about reverts me.

Elsewhere, the user displays a problematic editing-pattern in main space articles as well. He has openly said: "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact." and has edited to that effect. For example, even with a consensus reached by several users to exclude the word 'pogroms' from the POTD, the user has made unilateral edits to the template:

Unilateral edit by C1cada:

Please note the timing of the consensus and the unilateral edit. As you may have noticed, the POTD template revision page is filled with his unilateral edits, much of which were voted against over and over again at the corresponding talk pages. The user was opposed over and over again when he wanted to exclude 'massacre' from the blurb for the Armenian Genocide. That's like excluding 'gas chambers' from the Holocaust. And after failing in that regard, he attempted to play down an entire genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead. That was voted against as well, but as shown above, he still went along with his edit. What's even more troubling is that the user then places the POTD template of the Armenian Genocide in the most important Turkey related articles and portals. He placed it in WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and the Turkey article in an apparent attempt to canvass Turkish users to support his argument. And when continuing the discussion with him, he repeatedly insulted my English, and responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages [24]. The user also games the project over and over again when it comes to the 1RR rule at the Armenian Genocide article. This I find most concerning, and very frequent. For several times now, after being reverted at Armenian Genocide, he declares beforehand that he plans to revert the next day, and then does so without hesitation a few hours after the 24 hour mark. At any rate, I apologize for the length of my report, but the disruption caused by this user this past week alone is extensive and deeply concerning. I can go on and on with this. If more examples of similar instances are needed, I can provide them upon request. But the bottom line is, I find it impossible to work with this user. And in light of all this, I feel the admins here should be able to handle this in an appropriate matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

His post where he "responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages [25]" is translated, by Google, "For the rest of it, once again (wearily) ... not import what. And what the fuck is this: Please Etienne, can we the Chat things before hand before changing the blurb yet again ...., Stephen? Talk up the pot calls the kettle black ... shit, an "blurp 'really." User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Riiii...ght, my French is terrible ... I think it's very hurtful of you to highlight it like this, Fred. If it happens again I feel I will have no alternative but to take you to an ANI on it. Google doesn't do very well on "n'importe quoi" BTW. It's the French colloquialism for our weary "yeah right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1cada (talkcontribs) 13:23, 25 April 2015
I will ask him, on his talk page, to not engage in insults. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Unrepentant. The Armenian Genocide needs a section on the post World War I massacres, which carried off possibly hundreds of thousands Eastern Russian Armenians. The lede refers to it and accordingly the article should have a section on them. I provided that edit and it was immediately reverted by this editor as WP:NOCONSENSUS. So I took it, Massacres after Wordl War I, and two other issues Modification to the lede and "Historic homelands", to the Talk page and there has been no dissent save this weird one from this editor banging on about Tehcir law, the duration of the genocide and OR. But there is nothing in my proposed edit that references any of that (it refers to events several years on) and it's thoroughly sourced from two standard histories. Small wonder I question his comprehension skills. I have traced on the Talk page of that article how lack of English language skills leads to significant error.
I have no idea what is with with this editor. He treats me essentially as one of the denialist weirdos who persistently post at the article and whom I do duty reverting. I could add a list as long as his, but can't be arsed, of his insinuations that I am a denialist,. He has accused me (giving him the benefit of the doubt in a passage I find hard to construe) that I am undermining the article by supporting the Ottoman genocide, or something to that effect. He sees fit to remind me that I "may" be blocked for not observing the 1R rule in place there, though in fact I never engage in edit warring anywhere in my edits and haven't come close to reverting twice in a 24 period. c1cada (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The article talk page is becoming a public forum. This is not what Wikipedia was intended to be for, @C1cada:. When two users are being disruptive/passive-aggresive to each other, one must take steps for a resolution of the said conflict; in this case, there is no reason to engage in a conflict with @EtienneDolet:, because you weren't threatened to be blocked. The latter user just informed you that there's a 1RR, or one revert rule which may lead to a block (this is true, actually). If you have any contributions to do, which I can see you do, remember to assume good faith. --92slim (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, thanks for that, Slim. One reason it's becoming a public forum is that Étienne unilaterally did away with WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I can sense that Étienne is frustrated with my lively chat, but that's not because it's insulting as such but ... erm, well let's put it this way: I have quite good Russian and from time to time venture an edit on their wiki (which is absolutely excellent incidentally). But suppose I was to edit in some contentious area, say the Ukraine issue. I'm pretty sure I would be taken to the cleaners on their Talk page in short order and would just not be able to cope with their more forthright users, who can be very forthright indeed, and would quickly feel frustrated and aggrieved. Regarding the "Post War Massacres" edit I made, I gave 72 hours notice I intended to provide one and I explicitly invited you to provide it before me. I don't call that being a diva as some grump or other suggested to me on the other ANI, of which I happen to know an honest to goodness Russian one rather well as it happens (sdras!). c1cada (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Etienne did not "unilaterally do away" with WP:EDITCONSENSUS, because that's not how consensus works. If there is one editor who objects (as he and others have done), out of two, there is no consensus. No users have agreed with your edits, mainly because you don't include reliable sources to back your claims. This is where you'd like to start, in order to be taken seriously. --92slim (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
He did so with his reverts. What is it that you thinks needs citing at Massacres after Wordl War I? It's meticulously cited. I remind you that Armenian genocide failed a Good Article nomination because of copy edit and citation deficiencies. My edit sets a standard. As for your latest remark on the Talk page, I answered there. c1cada (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────My request on C1cada's talk page that he quit insulting EtienneDolet was met with a revert. Obviously a stronger remedy is needed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Modified by motion:

"The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Passed 10 to 1 on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors

";Decorum Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct." So what is an appropriate remedy? However, "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." From the way he is acting it seems User:C1cada is not aware that discretionary sanctions cover Insults and personal attacks. Therefore Template:Ds/alert needs to be placed on his talk page. Which I will do once I figure out how to format it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:03, 25 April 2015 (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.

IPBE request[edit]

An user needs an IPBE but cannot ask it directly because of a global block, can you please have a look at m:Steward_requests/Global#Global_unblock_for_104.131.93.125.? A local global block whitelisting could also work. Thanks! --Vituzzu (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Strong consensus for the OP to be blocked on the basis of a battleground mentality approaching WP:NOTHERE and the inability to identify a dead horse  Philg88 talk 06:06, 25 April 2015 (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.

For some reason, this guy has made some pretty nasty slurs on me in the past week or so - namely that I insert into Wikipedia information that is either unverified, or misrepresents a source. Despite numerous requests, he's declined to either provide evidence or retract the accusations, and has instead just terminated our interaction with the words "we're done here, now fuck off". Which in fairness is at least consistent, it's basically the same sentiment I detected from our very first encounter. You can see the version of the article he's referring to here:, and the source I've supposedly misrepresented here: I have a ton of other issues with this guy (Civil, Assume Good Faith), but I've seen enough disinterest from others to know I'd be wasting my time airing them. But given the basic purpose of this website (collation and presentation of sources), I think I'm entitled to resolution one way or the other on these specific two charges. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Some of User:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger's edits on Gunther Holtorf: [26], [27], [28]- not many of these seem very helpful.
Your blocks here are basically just complaining that the article was bad, and completely ignoring the disruption highlighted above, and claiming that "I can no longer assume good faith".
Your current userpage is calling Wikipedia a waste of space.
Your posts on their talkpage here are non-civil and claiming they are a jerk.
All this evidence points to one unhelpful editor, you. I'd recommend a WP:BOOMERANG. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all very interesting, but it hardly explains or excuses Drmies' accusations, does it? If I must comment on this, I got blocked for all that already. I assume double-jeopardy does not apply here? I've written an article, and then re-written it, even though I don't even think the first version was that bad (at least not bad enough to warrant ripping up). I've been more than helpful, and got nothing in response - hence why I say what I do on my userpage. Disagree all you want, but my userpage is not an article, the only source it needs is my own experience here. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My experiences with Drmies have shown him to be a fair, thoughtful, and incredibly patient administrator who is willing to help editors when they ask. You engaged him on his talk page, he responded several times, and then you exhausted his patience at which point this occurred [29]. If you've exhausted Drmies patience to the point of where he tells you to 'fuck off', you crossed a line you never should have gone over. From what I can see, WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate where you and this report are concerned, Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. -- WV 01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Someone should take Gunther Holtorf to AfD. BMK (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
In addition to the book he's written, the article subject seems to have received enough coverage worldwide to meet WP:GNG. The article, however, is pretty poorly written and at this time relies on only one source. -- WV 02:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Willing to help? I asked him very clearly - where did I insert unverified information? Where did I misuse a source? You can criticise the tone all you want, and like I said I got blocked for it, but you can't deny the question isn't there - it's there in black and white. Everyone can see he only told me to fuck off because he has no answer to give and got fed up of me asking. His responses, where they can even be called answers to questions, deliberately avoided these topics. If this gets shut down, then he will simply have been rewarded for telling me to fuck off when I asked him for proof to back up his accusations. That might feed well into this myth that he's somehow a great guy, always willing to help, but I fear the only people who think that are those who are never put into these situations. Have either of you had to ask him a question like this? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Of Ranger's edits, the following demonstrate WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude, an unhealthy obsession with Drmies, WP:OWN issues, and a desire to propogate WP:DRAMA:
That's about thirty links right there to problematic posts, out of (as of this post) 48 user talk page edits. Notable posts that do not address, mention, or reference Drmies include:
Could Drmies have been clearer and more professional in explaining reversions? Sure. Did Drmies actually violate WP:CIVIL before being pushed repeatedly by the overly hostile Ranger? Not when read under the assumption of good faith. Does Drmies behavior justify Ranger throwing a week long temper tantrum over 45 posts (out of 83)? Absolutely not. Does that temper tantrum indicate a user who is capable or willing to contributing to the encyclopedia in a mature and civil manner?
TL;DR: Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is here for the drama, and doesn't have the required patience. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You're just annoyed that unlike you I don't particularly consider being made to feel like shit, or just generally be ignored, is a price worth paying to edit Wikipedia. I've read Civil and Assume Good Faith, so unlike you I do expect to be treated with respect without having to beg for it. And not for the first time, you put a positive light on everything Drmies has done, while you interpret everything I've done in a negative way, which is pretty shitty thing to do at the best of times, but particularly shitty when you consider I've been here just a few days, he's been here for what I assume is years (he must have if there's this many people willing to fling themselves on grenades like this, to the point of denying basic reality). You keep going on about competence - how's this for competence, even I know there's nothing in Civil that says you can ignore it if you think the other person is not Assuming Good Faith. But once again, it's an example of me being held to a standard you admit Drmies isn't even doing. When it's him, ah well, he could do better. When it's me, ah, he's this, that and the other, none of them good. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have recommended that you drop this. You keep ignoring this advice. More editors keep recommending you just move on. If everyone kept pointing out that you were on fire and recommended that you let them pour water on you, would you start arguing that it was actually quite chilly and don't want to get a cold? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If a fireman accused you of arson, then refused your requests for evidence, then eventually told you to fuck off, would you care one bit how many other people told you to drop it, when it was as plain as the nose on your face that not one of them was remotely interested in whether or not the accusation was true, they just think the fireman was a stand up guy, and any misunderstanding between you two is of course entirely your fault? Is that really how you conduct yourself here? Is that how little self-respect you have? Or is it more the case that you're only saying these things because you've not really considered it from my side at all? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And considering he's got this long list even though all the time he hasn't been blocked adds up to less than a day? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention how I kick puppies too. This is ridiculous. I might as well put on an auto-reply, people are just repeating things I've already responded to, without even bothering to consider my earlier replies to the exact same things. Is that Civil? Acting like I'm not even here? I know it's not, as I've read the page many times these past few days. And how can someone who has written, and then re-written, and entire article, not be here to "build an encyclopedia"? If anyone wonders why the above is my "sole participation on Wikipedia", then I have to wonder if you possess the competence to judge me at all. I came here to improve that article, which was pure dogshit when I found it. I then spent a week blocked. When that expired, since nobody else had done so, I rewrote it, rather than leave it in the shitty state it had yet again been returned to, for reasons completely unknown, and never explained. I have spent precisely two days on Wikipedia not restricted to my own talk page, yet the way people are talking here, I'm supposed to have written articles on umpteen subjects? As well as arriving as the perfect editor, fully conversant in all policies, and prepared not to get upset if other people he encounters do not appear to have the same level of competence. What level of competence is it, to be still telling people to fuck off even after being here years? Or is that the reason for it? Do you all after a certain time stop even caring that it's not Civil, and instead as we see here, rely on your socio-political connections to ensure other editors will come and 'deploy a boomerang' on anyone who dares challenge your right to act that way, should you tire of being asked for evidence to back up your false accusations? Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Block Mighty Morphin Army Ranger[edit]

Proposal: Block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, length to be decided by uninvolved admin or community consensus. Note: Has already had a one-week block which apparently didn't work and resulted in only further aggression and disruption. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support indef block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support defined month-long block - Against better judgement, I'm for giving WP:ROPE here. He did initially come here to help, he just utterly failed at playing well with others. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Changed to month long, following Winkelvi. I do think that if he continually complains via hasty unblock requests (as he did last time), we might want (if possible) to revoke talk page access for a day, then a week, and then two weeks, before making the block (and revoked access) indefinite -- to make sure he gets the point that we don't support such hostility and help him focus on learning about the site before diving back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support month-long block - Time enough to cool down a bit, lose the aggressive battleground mentality, perhaps take more time to look around at well-written articles, find some other articles to edit, read up on policy and guidelines, and the like. Such a block would be truly preventative and not punishing. I say give the guy another chance. If he's truly hell-bent on being disruptive, it will become apparent soon after the month block and the correct measures can be doled out. If not, he should be given a chance to be a productive contributor. -- WV 03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous. The block was for disruption of the article, so how did it not work? Unless rewriting the article is disruptive? Since all I have done since the block is rewrite the article and file this complaint report, then any new block would be for one thing, and one thing only - for requesting Drmies be held accountable for his false accusations. Anyone who blocks me, is basically saying he can do what he likes. He can accuse anyone, of anything, and he can even tell them to fuck off if they don't like it. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
[42]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support lengthy block. I can never get back the time I wasted reading this "editor's" combative, lengthy explanations for why they freaked out and how much they hate evil Drmies. This person is either a troll or utterly incapable of collaborating with others to build an encyclopedia. Time sink. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm neither, but thanks for your feedback. I look forward to the day when you find yourself in a similar situation, and I get to see how you collaborate your way out of it. I actually came here for serious consideration of a serious issue. More fool me. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've got nearly six years of productive editing here with minimal conflicts. Maybe that's because I brush chips off my shoulder, instead of enshrining them on my shoulder with SuperGlue. Also because I make improving the encyclopedia my first priority, as opposed to pursuing trivial vendettas. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not buying it for a second. Either this is not a true recollection of how you collaborate with others (bearing in mind my experience is where you would have been 6 years ago), or you've never been put in this situation before and therefore don't really know how you would react. If your first priority is the encyclopedia, I doubt you'd so easily ignore accusations of this type, since if anyone actually believed they were true, they'd never let you add anything to an article. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support block of whatever length the closing admin sees as the consensus. (Because the OP admits to kicking puppies) BMK (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support month-long block Drmies (who I might add MMAR, is a woman) told them to drop the stick many times, but they've persisted beyond the threshold, and coming back after the block to immediately unload on ANI hardly suggests they want to be collaborative. It's rare when Drmies does get profane (from my experience they've nothing but kind), but here they were completely appropriate in asking MMAR to stop their harassment. Nate (chatter) 04:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Drmies is not a woman. They are anthropomorphic, no, that's not right, androgynous, no, ambiguous, ambidextrous?, ambivalent ... well, that will do for now unless Drmies wants to add better words.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Drmies is Drmies. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Bah, my apologies. They are who they are then and I did not mean to offend. Nate (chatter) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Not at all, Drmies would probably be pleased. Ian summed it up best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So, two messages on a talk page is harassment is it? Come off it. Some of you aren't even trying to pretend you've looked at what went on. If all it takes for Drmies to swear, is to be asked twice, the second time incredibly politely given her continued provocation, why they were making these false accusations and where their evidence was for them, then their talk page must be like a sewer. But it's not. So what was it about this situation that made them lose their top? I'd like an actual answer here, one that makes sense, if I'm going to be credited with pushing an apparent saint over the edge, someone who is always polite and respectful. I'd also like to remind people that this all started with the way they approached me, and the way they continued to treat me. I'm not an asshole, if there had been at any time, even a hint that they had realised they were being disrespectful and were trying to row back, then I would probably have calmed down as well. But no, every single post from them has contained some element of untruth, mockery or sarcasm. Whoever the person is you people get to deal with and find perfectly reasonable, it definitely isn't the same Drmies I've have to deal with. I suspect (and have even read) that a lot of you don't think they're perfectly reasonable at all, that this 'edge' they have is there, and is perfectly normal. Well, check your rules again, the 'edge' in this case is downright against the rules. You do not get to accuse people of these things, then ignore them, then tell them to fuck off. It's a simple as that. Your various personal experiences to the contrary don't magically negate the basic truth of that assessment. Mighty Morphin Army Ranger (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support block of any duration. This troll has been fed for far too longer. Any claim that Drmies is carrying some kind of grudge is ludicrous. "Edge"? "Rules"? Trolling is the "dramaz" being forced upon us here. MarnetteD|Talk 05:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • support block and suggesting adding a month for each combative post that MMAR posts here before the thread closes. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's time to revoke TPA. BMK (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Done, by Bbb23. BMK (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: A request for unblocking has been sent to the UTRS team (#13582) and has been declined. Nakon 22:12, 25 April 2015 (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.

WP:POINTY edit summaries[edit]

(non-admin closure) OP warned by admin, OP says he's done. No other admin action taken. BMK (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2015 (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.

Guy Macon has been flooding articles with WP:POINTY edit summaries for months to hundreds of pages with absolutely no attempt whatsoever to check for consensus on their talk pages. [43] Then he starts an RfC at Template talk:Infobox person. Rather than advertising the RfC to a couple related projects and central locations, he used a script to advertise on hundreds of article talk pages, inappropriate canvassing per WP:CANVASSING#Spamming_and_excessive_cross-posting. [44] This is also not the first time he's done this. Just over 2 weeks ago, he did the same thing for a different RfC (see same link, few pages in.) He was asked to stop in this instance by Samsara and reported by him to ANI also at this time. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882#User:Guy_Macon_posting_large_identical_text_blocks_in_growing_number_of_venues Padenton|   07:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well done Guy!. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
So what....we throw out Wikipedia policy and consensus as long as we can salute Penn Gillette? Screw those editors of those pages too? Even when almost none of the pages said atheism was a religion? How about we all just get off our soapbox and follow consensus? Is that too hard? ― Padenton|   07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Atheism is not a surrogate definition for those who hold Theist belief systems. If Guy could even bothered to start an RfC or alternative venue for consensus, such redundant infobox descriptors would/should have fallen flat as being and nonsensical. This is not canvassing, it's a statement of fact. As plainly summarised, "Atheism is not a religion, bald is not a hair colour, off is not a TV channel." Consensus for a meaningless and offensive label? "Support, support, support" its removal as being a non-descriptor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place for content debates, this is the Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents. ― Padenton|   08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── So let's talk about user behavior. Your wikilinking "None" to atheist is clearly a back door method of re-inserting a version of "None (atheist") against a clear consensus not to do that. Some people really want certain politicians to be labeled "atheist" in the infobox, presumably to make them less attractive to voters. See Anna Lo for an example of this.

I would also like to see your evidence for the claim that I am using a script. The "spamming" claim was just addressed in the section above this one.

As for the "absolutely no attempt whatsoever to check for consensus" claim, there have been multiple consensus discussions on this:

Until the RfC closes and I see a closing summary that tells me what the new concensus is, I intend to follow the consensus from the closing summary of Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. I don't follow my own preference in these things. I follow the result of the latest consensus discussion whether I agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I did not wikilink "None" to atheist. The article was like that until you decided to run a script to mass edit everything you disagreed with. That consensus says absolutely nothing on Religion = None, and the rate of your changes make it clear you made no attempt to look at the article's talk pages to see if there were any previous discussions. If you're claiming otherwise, how about a direct link rather than a list of irrelevant discussions?
Are you claiming that you aren't using a script? So you did these thousands of edits in that short timeline, maybe 5 different changes total to all those articles, with no automation?
You have yet to address your inappropriate edit summaries to these thousands of articles. Help:Edit_summary#What_to_avoid_in_edit_summaries Padenton|   20:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not using a script. I am going through every page that comes up when I search for "Religion: None" (roughly 800, not "thousands"), pulling them up in tabs (17 at a time), removing the ones not effected (you would be surprised how many schools and even political parties have "Religion: None" in the infobox), fixing any spelling errors or inappropriate wikilinking I see, adding {{reflist-talk}} as needed, and double-checking the end result before moving on to the next 17. I don't like scripts. I think that in general it is best for a human has to look over the result of an edit before saving. If I did use a script, I would register it as a bot as we are supposed to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So, Padenton, what you are saying is that Guy Macon is using snark when reverting your constant attempts to crowbar your belief that atheism is a religion, into infoboxes, despite unambiguous consensus that this is inappropriate. Apart from thanking Guy for his diligence and warning you that if you do this once more I will block you, what else did you want? Or can we close this now? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: Actually, I am an atheist myself, and I never said atheism was a religion. Show me the diff where I did. I would appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. I never put Atheism in the religion field as text, but as a link from None. If you look at the actual discussion on the topic, the clear consensus is actually far different than what Guy Macon claims. His unilateral declaration that surviving a few ANIs previously indicates consensus for his changes below the discussion is ridiculous. (Template_talk:Infobox_person#Religion_means_what.3F) Feel free to read the actual discussion on the topic, you'll see that there was no consensus on it saying None. In fact, the consensus is clearly supportive of "Religion: None (atheist)". But sure, I'll take your baseless assumptions.
This has nothing to do with his reverts of me, and if you read any of what I said above you'd know that. Look a little deeper in the list, at the rest of his edit summaries. For example, this to thousands of pages: [45]. Go a few pages deeper into his contributions on the Article namespace that I linked above, there are countless such edits.
Not wanting atheism to be called a religion is one thing, but there's no reason to be uncivil about it in the edit summary to thousands of pages. I'm done. ― Padenton|   00:49, 26 April 2015 (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.


Talk page access of offending account revoked. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user is blocked as vandalism-only account, but they're now making sexist personal attacks against User:Diannaa who blocked them. Please could their talkpage access be revoked? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Done by Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Nakon 00:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Links: Sucklechimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --IJBall (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2015 (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.

Conduct of User:Amaury[edit]

We've established the following. Loriendrew should not have templated the IP's Talk page based solely on the IP's history, which admittedly is not good. The IP was entitled to template Loriendrew's Talk page. Amaury should not mess with Loriendrew's Talk page except in egregious circumstances (this wasn't one of those). Nor should they have reported the IP to WP:AIV. That's it, folks. Please move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:59, 26 April 2015 (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.

After User:Loriendrew misused a warning template on my talk page, accusing me of edit warring after I made one revert. I then left them a warning about their actions. User:Amaury proceeded to remove this warning and accused me of vandalism. When I pointed out to Amaury that my actions were not vandalism they falsely reported my message as vandalism. Amaury is clearly acting in bad faith. (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do? Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what steps are usually taken for this kind of behaviour. I just want Amaury not to repeatedly falsely accuse myself or other editors of misconduct in future. (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Since you mentioned me, I placed the edit warring template on your talk page due to your history of editing warring and multiple blocks as a result. Your choice to blank your own talk page is your prerogative. I applaud User:Amaury for his removal of your warning template from my talk page since your historic actions and behavior indicate bad-faith.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
One revert is not edit warring. That is why I left the template on your page. That was an entirely good faith action. In what way do my "historic actions and behavior indicate bad-faith"? Your removal of the template is your prerogative, but accusing me of a "misuse of WP:WARN" is not. (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Quite frankly, in my own personal opinion, Loriendrew did not exactly know what 3RR was during the issue. Based on the IP's contributions, one revert was made after the initial edit made the IP. 3RR consists of 3 reverts in 24 hours under one article. History of edit warring and past blocks are not excuses to add the edit warring template. Also, there was no vandalism involved at all. With past experience, the use of the misusage of templates was in fact necessary. One revert is not edit warring and the Amaury's vandalism report was falsified. WP:Vandalism does not list IPs adding warnings as vandalism, nor was it in the beginning. Although, I concur that the IP should have begun a discussion on the issue through WP:Consensus if there were disagreements.Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, since this is an IP, we can't even be sure that this editor is the same editor who was blocked several months ago. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It was, in this case, myself. (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Callmemirela, do you really think that someone with a four year edit history is unaware of what 3RR is? (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
If she considers one revert as edit warring, then not entirely. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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


User:Middayexpress has removed my edits at Somalis in the United Kingdom even though consensus is against him on its discussion page. Cordless Larry pointed this out to him and he is now inventing that he has the support of an editor who hasn't even contributed to the debate. This is the latest in his harassment of me, where he follows my edits and says they're all red flag even though they're cited to reliable academic research. I'm fed up of this behaviour. BrumEduResearch (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading post. I've only encountered you on two pages; the one above and a superdiversity stub that you linked me to from there. Your edits also certainly did not have consensus, as AcidSnow can confirm. The Rfc on the GSE testing material there expired on 10 March with no consensus, as a bot noted [46]. And per WP:NOCON, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". With regard to the superdiversity material, that Rfc has not yet expired so your addition of the passage was premature. Middayexpress (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Misleading reply. Just one other editor, Acidsnow supported you so you invented support from another editor to claim consensus. BrumEduResearch (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

That is also misleading. I wrote that User:26oo who as you well know was already involved in the wider discussion, would surely not support the language based GCSE material [47]. And I explained why too in that link above ("This is because not all Somali language speakers are of Somali ancestry"). It makes no difference either way since the Rfc had already expired as no consensus in March and the default per WP:NOCON was to retain the incumbent version of the passage. Similarly AcidSnow indicated that he did not support the language based GCSE material, not me personally ("It's cerainly no suppored by Midday or I" [48]). Middayexpress (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. More lies. 2600 had not taken part in any discussion about education on that page. You're just linking his name because like Acidsmow you always agree on everything and try to control the page. BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Also misleading. I clearly wrote the wider discussion, as the talk page shows. I also linked to 26oo because he's one of the longstanding editors on WikiProject Somalia, which the page falls under. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Not only is that highly untrue BrumEduResearch, it's also a character assassination against me. AcidSnow (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom[edit]

The content dispute at Somalis in the United Kingdom has been going on and on since at least February 2015, and the threaded discussion has been too long, difficult to read. I became aware of the on-and-on discussion in February when I tried to respond to a request for a third opinion at the third opinion noticeboard, but I was unable to respond constructively because of the length of the posts and the difficulty of the posters in summarizing them. In view of the length and repetition of the discussion, I only see a few ways out. If User:Middayexpress, User:BrumEduResearch, User:AcidSnow, User:Cordless Larry, and others really want to work together to improve the article, and want help, they can request formal mediation. The controversy has been going on too long for any less heavy-weight content resolution procedure. They can treat this as a conduct dispute and argue here at ANI, which is likely to be inconclusive. The community can impose community general sanctions, but this isn’t as contentious or disruptive a topic area as those where the community has imposed general sanctions in the recent past. One or another of the involved editors can go to ArbCom, but this isn’t as contentious or disruptive a topic area as those that ArbCom has heard in the recent past. The community can close (or ignore) this thread and ignore any future threads about this article.

Do the editors want to request formal mediation, or do they want extended inconclusive threaded discussions?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon Is that the same as dispute resolution? Because if so then Larry already suggested that on the discussion page and Middayexpress threatened go report him for forum shopping. BrumEduResearch (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ]]

I didn't "threaten" to report anyone. What I actually did was point out that "given the Rfc and Third Opinion, that would be WP:FORUMSHOPPING", and that "Gigs likewise wrote that "it seems that there is definite consensus that there is a lack of reliable data on this issue, so consider just going with that, rather than spending a lot of time debating on how to present imperfect and potentially flawed data"". Kindly stop putting words in my mouths. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The dispute resolution policy defines a variety of different dispute resolution procedures. For content disputes, they include third opinion, the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN), various specialized noticeboards such as the BLP noticeboard, Requests for Comments, and formal mediation. Larry probably was suggesting DRN. I was not. As a DRN volunteer, I would refuse to accept this case because it is too long and complex, and DRN is intended for quick light-weight mediation. As to Middayexpress's complaint about forum shopping, citing RFCs and third opinion, I disagree. It is forum shopping to pursue the same dispute in two forums at the same time. I don't see any open RFCs on the talk page. Any RFCs have expired after 30 days, with or without actual closure. It is not forum shopping to ask for some sort of dispute resolution when other processes have not worked. It would not be forum shopping to request formal mediation. I suggest requesting formal mediation if the editors involved actually want to work collaboratively. DRN is not likely to work, and third opinion and RFCs do not appear to have worked. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Robert McClenon, I was unaware of the difference between DRN and formal mediation (not having been involved in either before). I actually meant the latter when I suggested dispute resolution earlier. There is actually an RfC open on the talk page, though it doesn't concern the education section of the article which is under dispute here. I presume that doesn't affect whether we can take the education dispute to mediation, but I might be wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, I have been dragged to this noticeboard at a late hour and although I support mediation, if it is indeed possible, I'm not going to launch the process at this time of night and I'm unlikely to be online much tomorrow so it will have to wait, or someone else will have to start it. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I understand the mediation process is voluntary. What I would like right now is for the present Rfc on the two brief "superdiversity" passages to conclude as per policy. It is possible that those passages will thereafter be retained. If this so happens, I will abide by the verdict. If it doesn't, the other party must abide by the verdict, as with the March expired Rfc per WP:NOCON. Middayexpress (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The mediation process is indeed voluntary. I see that I was mistaken and there is one open RFC. It would need to be closed in order to start mediation. If the editors want to allow it to run its course into May, it would be a good idea for them to avoid starting any more ANI threads in the meantime. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert McClenon. I wouldn't have opened an ANI thread about this myself, but will revisit this once the current RfC has expired. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services[edit]

I have closed the AfD (as delete). The allegations against BMK are not actionable; it is fine to change your own talkpage, and it's certainly fine to strike a second !vote in an AfD. I too am unsure about what Marketdiamond is saying in the AfD, but they certainly do themselves no favours by (for example) replying to editors pointing out the article's lack of useful sources by accusing them of lying. Black Kite (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2015 (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.

The article Corporate Election Services is up for deletion at AfD. When I evaluated it, I found the company to be marginally notable, and the article to be overly promotional. (The referencing was no great shakes either.) Therefore, I !voted to delete it. Unfortunately, the one editor so far who has !voted to keep it, User:Marketdiamond, is aggresively assaulting any editor who !votes differently. In general I don't like it when that kind of hassling happens, and I like it even less when it happens to me:

"Truly fascinating, did you read anything here? Is an editor's vote considered when they parrot unsubstantiated allegations that have unanswered reasonable challenges going back a week, and on the articles talk page?"

I let Marketdiamond know, in strong and sarcastic terms, that I didn't appreciate being insulted in that manner (and that, indeed, my !vote counted as much as anyone's.) He objected to this on my talk page, and tried to coerce me into striking my comment by threatening to come here.[49]. I told him to get lost.
I think it would be a good idea if an admin told Marketdiamond to cool his jets and allow other editors the freedom to disagree with him without insulting their intelligence in response. He's certainly not helping his case any with his current behavior.
And that's pretty much all I have to say about that. BMK (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there is one other thing. Marketdiamond !voted twice in the article, so I converted his second !vote into a comment. He replied:

BMK, isn't this AfD proof certain wikipedia editors can do anything they want for 13 days (now April 15, 2015; 11 days ago & counting)? Glad to see someone is interested in Wikipedia principals here, but I'd start with the 'drive-by' 'one-line', 'hide-for-a-week', editors.

Then on my talk page he wrote:

Hi. Your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Election Services after April 14, 2015; 12 days ago days of 150+ article-related edits are destructive.

Can someone decode this stuff? What is this obsession with days all about? He wrote the same kind of stuff on Talk:Corporate Election Services:
  • Going on: April 14, 2015; 12 days ago
  • Going on: April 16, 2015; 10 days ago (three times)
If he's trying to communicate something, I'm not getting it.