Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Editor and IP Claiming to be Possessed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Editor User:Evelynheaven (whose IP is almost definetely User:76.104.128.57) is claiming to be Evelyn Amielia Eirayonia Heaven Bovaxx, possessed by God and Adam. The user sent me an email claiming they were wanted by the US, Russia, and Britain and that I should put their edit back after I reverted this edit by their IP to Eve. See also User:Evelynheaven/sandbox. Could an admin take care of this? Thanks! Vacation^nine 03:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

... HalfShadow 03:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Vacation^nine 03:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking for a Wiki-exorcism? Actually, I'm not sure there's anything for admins to do here. If the editor continues to add inappropriate material to articles, she can be blocked as a vandal/troll or indistinguishable from one, but in the meantime, there seems little reason to have brought this to AN/I, unless it was intended as comic relief. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

OK then, just wanted to make sure. I didn't really know what to do here. Vacation^nine 04:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You could try to engage them and explain that Wikipedia is not the place for what they're doing. If that doesn't work, just keep an eye on their contributions, issue warnings when necessary, and bring it to WP:AIV if they don't stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I threw some holy water on my laptop as a precaution, and it shorted out and won't turn on. Thanks a bunch.

Jerk. HalfShadow 04:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Like — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've revdeleted the edit because there was way too much personal info including a phone number and this is very likely a prank on someone. —SpacemanSpiff 04:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that. Good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Mister "avoid drama at all times, mostly by doing nothing at all" 58 here. Completely agree with Spiff's revdel, thoroughly endorse BMK's assessment.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikihounding by User:Benyoch

• Benyoch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Benyoch's contributions to Wikipedia were "generally" constructive, but he is unable to accept criticism and this has led to Wikihounding that is most definitely not constructive. I first became aware of Benyoch when he made some edits to New Lambton, New South Wales (I have most Hunter Region related articles on my watchlist) which, although flawed in their implementation,[1] represented a reasonable attempt by an editor with only 9 edits in his history. I had no real interaction with Benyoch until March 2012, when he started editing Paterson, New South Wales (also on my watchlist), reverting the edit of a well established editor,[2] and adding an image gallery of random pictures of the area.[3] The reversion of the other editor also restored some categorisation errors that had previously been made by Benyoch.[4] In fact Benyoch's edit hadn't been a reversion of a single edit, it was a reversion to an earlier version of the article, which reverted reasonable edits by 2 humans and a bot.[5] After a "discussion" about that on the article's talk page, in a case of what appears to be "tit for tat", Benyoch headed to Talk:Raymond Terrace, New South Wales where he started a discussion titled "Intention to delete gallery of pictures", although the article did not actually contain a gallery.[6] Although that discussion went on for two weeks, there was then a generall lull until I made a blunder (I blame Firefox) at Vacy, New South Wales. Although I tried to explain this on the talk page,[7] Benyoch subsequently started attacking me and the civility level dropped. As I explained at the DRN discussion that I tried to start,(link), Benyoch resorted to writing inappropriate edit summaries,[8][9][10][11] making baseless allegations,[12] and resorting to the odd personal attack, even attacking me on my talk page.[13] As well as that direct attack, he added a few non-constructive trolls to existing discussions there.[14] Benyoch chose not to participate in the DRN discussion, despite a reminder form another editor.[15] Instead, he resorted to puerile attacks on his talk page, such as this one that I removed when I fixed his archiving for him.[16] Since then, he has made some thinly veiled attacks, obviously still aimed at me,[17] but persists in wikihounding at articles that he has never edited. At Talk:Steven D. Binder, not content with this attack, two hours later he added this post, in which he refers to my alternate account, which is rarely used for anything other than edits in my own userspace. It has only been this month that I've started using the account to do some work using AWB. In the spirit of WP:DENY, I reverted the edits, although I did note in the edit summary, "Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor". I had let it rest there, but today, Benyoch reappeared at Talk:Steven D. Binder and, in his first edit today and the first since posting there previously, struck out a comment that I had made to another editor, with the edit summary "Strikethru: Wikihounding - not aimed at improving the article, just at attacking an editor." a cut and paste of my own.[18] Just to clarify, in the interests of full disclosure, as I explained elsewhere, I made that post because I had responded to that editor, explaining I was busy and would address his post in a few hours,[19] but instead of giving me the courtesy of waiting to me allow to respond, he posted more stuff and then immediately rushed to DRN about an issue that had barely been discussed - the comment was valid and not an attack, just an expression of dismay. In short, there was no reason for Benyoch's post. There are other examples that seem to point to this editor following me around Wikipedia; this edit 20 minutes after mine on an article he'd never edited previously, and it was the only article he'd edited that day. Similarly, Benyoch's only edits for 9 November 2012 were to City of Lake Macquarie, an article he had never edited before and which I had edited only hours earlier.[20] On their own, these edits don't really seem out of the ordinary but, together with edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder and the attack on my talk page, I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding. At this point, I'm hoping that a third party will at least warn him about wikihounding. There's no point me doing so, anything I post is ignored and deleted quickly. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Benyoch has been notified of this discussion, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And this is how Benyoch responded to the notification that I was required to give. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WOW, you do quite keep a dosier on fellow-editors, don't you AussieLegend. I could keep a dosier on you, too, but I have better things to do than to count up the alleged editorial sins of other people. What some would say is a deception on your part (used to inflate your editorial status) you say is wikihounding. Get a life and be more honest in your interpretation of what actually happens here, especially of other people's critiques of yourself or changes made to your edits. What is th eproblem with my edit of Lake Macquarie? What if it was my first edit? It's on my watchlist. Why, because I grew up in the shire! But whan I correct your edits and remove redunancies you cry 'I am being wikihounded - and I can prove it because his edit followed mine'. Well, what a lot of shite. Unfortunately for me most of the places I have an interestd you you also have on your watchlist. Damn, well maybe Aussielegend is wiki-stalking me! I have observed you can make anything say what you want, and if that doesnt work you keep changing the goal posts in a discussion to meet your own needs - that process is totally pathetic. And stop being such a sook, too. You are one of the reasons why people stop editing wikipedia, because you are so anal, punctilious and officious and cannot accept another person has a different view to you. Furthermore, you allow no room for others to learn and make mistakes because you just want to big-head yourself. Well, your handle here the great 'AussieLegend' says it all, to be sure. They who no longer edit here were good people who have a lot to contribute, but because people like you cant cope with someone having an alternative perspective you hide behind your legalistic grip on policy and procedure and your little black book and your head full of jargon terminolgy and your vomitous verbosity to push your weight around. Even in this case you drag up stuff that was done and dusted thru a DRN process which I chose not to participate (why? because your method is to swamp people with so much shit - I couldnt be bothered - just like here) - even so, it was a process that was finished yet you want to drag it up and rubbish me in the process. Again, get a life, and stop going and crying to teacher all the time. To any third party who is reading this, please take AussieLegend's pants down and smack his backside. Failing that get him off my case and tell him to be more reasonable and not beat the shit out of other editors here. Wikihounding? Bunkum! Showing Aussie he can be wrong sometimes? Yeah, right on! Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Immediately above, in ostensibly attempting to refute the allegation made against him, Benyoch demonstrates rather too high a level of excitement than what's conducive to the intelligent discussion of the editing of an encyclopedia. His earliest edits do indeed seem level-headed, but Talk:Vacy, New South Wales shows the Benyoch we see above. His talk page carries the stern warning Edits to this page which I consider to be offensive and/or executed by any editor whom I consider to be a sociopath or psychopath will be removed without notice. This of course leaves open the possibility that he also removes messages that are neither offensive nor "executed" by anybody diagnosed as sociopathic or psychopathic; but for whatever reason, the talk page is now free of a large number of messages posted by AussieLegend. None of the latter messages approaches what I'd regard as offensive, but Australian sensibilities may be more delicate than my own. NB here we see what he considers wiki-hounding of myself by AussieLegal (sic) and Benyoch's forthright disposal of it; better bear in mind Benyoch's idiosyncratic understanding of the term "wiki-hounding" when hearing his allegations of it. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, Hoary. I might get to respond to it later. In the meantime you need to ask, what happened with Vacy? You need to also appreciate that AussieLegend is a jargon-head, where only the most perfect and technical language will do (provided it is by him, of course)--where simpler terms will suffice--regardless of whether the every-day reader will understand the article or not. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I will make this point about this current process: If some at least consider that AussieLegend is just an editorial bully who hides behind his officiousness and superior understanding of wiki stuff and by doing so lords it over the lesser informed like me like he owns the place, and look into that seriously, then I will have some confidence that this process is, in someway, balanced. Otherwise, you may as well just hang me now - but with the understanding I am not the first and wont be the last he hounds out of wikipedia. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ultimatums like that really aren't helping your case... — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems quite apparent I wont get a fair hearing from you, HandThatFeeds, as you judge my comments wrongly in saying I put up an ultimatum. To be sure, it was an invitation for a balanced perspective - there is neither a demand nor a threat of or against anybody or any editor. Disagree? Then have a look at wikipedia for ultimatum and properly compare with what I said. I view your comment here as incorrect, unhelpful and antagonistic - but that doesnt surprise me given my experience of biased and/or poor interpretation here in wiki. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You made an "either X, then Y or else Z" statement: that's an ultimatum. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Bwilkins, You miss the point about there not being any threat to others on my part. Now are you going to deal with the issue at hand or quibble about justifying other people's inaccurate observations? Have you considered, for example, that AussieLegend is gaming the wiki system thru swamping people with protocols and procedures and continuously moving the goal posts in talk discussions to the point that it becomes fruitless having a discussion with him/her? For example, Aussie will take a genuine edit on my part and bundle it up into a claim against me that I am hounding him - its utter bullshit. Now, critically examining his editorial activity and interaction with other editors in disagreement with him/her would be a productive thing for someone to do. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide some diffs to support your claims? I'm sure editors would be interested. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You know full well - I wont waste my keystrokes on you. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course that's up to you but if you are going to make allegations, as you did immediately above, you need to provide proof. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There you go, again ... nag, nag, nag, nag. I am confident, given my past experience in communicating with you, nothing I could say would amount to anything near proof for you. And even if I did bother, you would just conflate it beyond all proportions. AussieLegend, you are a legendary bore. Now piss off, stop hounding me and leave me be. Furthermore, if you have come here with your complaint to garner support from a cohort of biased administrators, then you all know what you should do. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please mind your civility. And if you make accusations without providing diffs, don't be surprised when nobody does anything about them. If you have complaints about AL, show the diffs or don't make the complaints. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Too quote an editor above, 'How many editors leave because of persistent nagging behavior by others that the community does not self-police despite a trivial solution'? Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

OK boys, why not just give me your warning about wikihounding, as The Legend wants, and any other warnings you like, and be done with it. Then I will be off. You wont ever hear from me again. I am closing my account - the reason: AussieLegend's editorial bullshit. There ya go AussieLegend - the place is all yours, just as you want it to be. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the comment regarding the "editorial bullshit of AussieLegend" on Benyoch's personal talk page can be considered a personal attack, and can be considered a blockable offense. As a result, I've issued a final warning towards this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My request to leave, boys, has been denied so that you can continue your administorial wiki procedures. Perhaps we have a different perspective on things, but I thought clearly stating my reason for leaving was the "editorial bullshit (i.e. the content) of Aussie Legend (i.e. the editor)" was a fair and reasonable description of my opinion of why I am leaving. You need to understand I am leving because of an EDITOR, and it is fair to name him/her. Perhaps you have a different opinion, but opinion it is. So, I ask, are you also going to deny me my opinion and procedural fairness in the process? Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Your "request to leave", which you didn't actually make, hasn't been denied. There's nothing stopping you leaving. You can go when you want but, many of your edits are constructive, like the ones you made at Waratah, New South Wales and City of Lake Macquarie.[21][22] If you concentrated on making constructive edits like that, accepted facts when they are presented to you, learned to discuss matters rationally and laid off the personal attacks and wikihounding, you could be a good editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, the above is an example of Aussielegend's manner gaming of the system, of using the system of reporting to his advantage, to garner support thru double-speaking. full disclosure would mean he would say he was wrong and has changed his mind. But No, Aussie muddies the waters by trying to holdtwo positions at once. In the first place (his initial critique of me) he sayed my edits of Lake Macquarie and Waratah 'don't really seem out of the ordinary but ... I believe they clearly demonstrate Wikihounding.', yes, that's right, folks; what he says in his paragraph above is good editing (he could have said that before but didnt) was previously wikihounding. This is an example of how Aussie moves the goalposts in discussions to divert the attention from himself when he has been found out. Truth is Aussie, I do a reasonable job of editing and have done so until you come and scerw me over. So Aussie, do I make good edits, or am I hounding? You cant have it both ways. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

What can I say of the original claim regarding edits such as those at Talk:Steven D. Binder. the other editor at that page is at his wits end concerning Aussie's relentless attacks on his editing. So much so he took Aussie to a DRN. But Aussie couldnt handle that, because things have to be done according to AussieLegend's timing, will and ways. So he attacks the other editor and rips into him for doing something Aussie didnt like. my part was simply to highlight to Aussie that what he thinks is good for others is also good for him. And so, using Aussie's methodology I made an edit to highlight that fact. Unfortunately, Aussie has no sense of humpour, or no sense of what he says is good for others is good for himself. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On Talk:Steven D. Binder you will also notice I have called Aussie out for lying about his editorial prowess, about how he corrects copy vios 'every day'. My review of his contributions demonstrated otherwise and I made that know in order to assist the other editor as to knowledge of what is really truthful in the matter. But Aussie cant cope with being exposed for making false claims and so brings me over here on a wikihounding charge. Another truth is, I have the right to edit any page I wish and I dont need AussieLegend's permission to do so. And, revealing the truth where editors seek to misrepresent themselves and their editorial superiority is a reasonable thing to do, is it not? Please, Administrators, go check the facts for yourself and discover what I say is true. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

AussieLegend, you said I made no request to leave. That is utter garbage and I demand you to retract that statement. I did in fact, by making a request for Courtesy Vanishing, because I am so pissed off with all this bullshit of yours and the biased state of this Administrator's noticeboard, at least in part. I even have an email by Fumitaka Joe that states, 'Due to the current controversy surrounding your edits (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_by_User:Benyoch>), we are unable to grant your request for courtesy vanishing.' So Aussie, the request to leave which you in the first place say I didnt make, and in the second place say 'hasnt been denied' (Thtat's some twisted logic on your part) does actually exist and has actually been denied. Yes, I would like to still be an editor, but you make that impossible. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the other matter I havent brought up is the times AussieLegend edits immediately after me and reverts MY edits. Sounds a bit like wikihounding to me. Maybe more of that latter if this farce continues. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 05:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It is a curious matter that no one has yet thoroughly analysed AussieLegend's critique of me here, wherein you will find links to the diffs in question. Hoary has made a stab at it, but mainly deals with the peripherals rather than the substance. And so editors will have to make an effort and read around to see how everything has to be done his way. Have none of you the gumption to take an alternative opinion and stand up for the weaker editor who gets thrashed by the stronger over such small things? Not one of you, thus far, I notice. Ask Aussie about the time he told me, more or less, that I had nothing valuable to contribute or say until I could match his 72,000 edits. I had less than a 1000 at that time; so being a newbie is more than just a start date. Ask him why he didnt demonstrate full disclosure by reporting how I thanked him for an edit on HMAS Cerberus? Ask him why he will report some alleged houndings because I am said to more or less immediately make an edit after he has on a page, but not report all the other time he has made an edite on a page/s and I didnt do anything? You see, for AussieLegend his claim to 'full disclosure' is selective self-puffery and, in my view, dishonestly so because all he does is game the system to support his critique of others. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit? Why can it not be after him? Unfortunately for me Aussie and I live in the same geographical region, and so our watchlist would be similar. in fact, when AussieLegend mmyakes an edit watchlist gives me a mental prompt as to my interest in that article; and as with so many articles on my watch list I go visit that page to check the validity of the edit and to make a contribution. That is my methodology. I didnt think it to be a big deal, but AussieLegend wants his special space around articles, in my view he wants to maintain a form of ownership. Selective reporting to a 'tribunal' such as this is nothnig more than gaming the system in order to discredit another editor. Its about time someone seriously examined his methodology, otherwise, with editors like him around, who package themselves in WP:CottonWool, wikipedia will be a lonely and hard place void of feelings and the valuable interest and contributions of others. I am actually asking some of you more experienced editors than I am, and administrators, to take him to task, even if it means you have to do some hard and serious digging to see how he operates. To be sure, I am not the first to express such concerns. Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

"You may also want to ask AussieLegend why it is a big deal to claim my 'first edit' on a page is a matter of hounding him? Am I not permitted to make a first edit?" - The big deal is when your first edit makes it clear that you're only following me around so as to attack me as you did at Talk:Steven D. Binder.[23] It's an even bigger deal when your second post expands on that attack,[24] and make no other posts that day. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Now here is an example of the his jargonising of wiki, over which we came into conflict... The lead of an article states, "[a certain place] is a locality within [a certain local government area]". Now I ask each of you admins who have an interest in the pursuing fairness and understanding in these proceedings,

1) what does "locality" mean in this context?

2) What would a common reader make of it?

3) How would they understand exactly what the nature of that place is? And,

4) do you think the common reader should have to go look at the source material to understand what is the nature of that place?.

AussieLegend, in the interests of fairness I request you refrain from answering these questions, as yet anyway, and refrain from communicating your interpretation of the term to other admins. Thank you to all.

Benyoch ^{...Don't panic! Don't panic!...} (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AndyTheGrump has repeatedly called me a troll and accused me of being a sockpuppet in this talk page discussion.[25] [26] [27] [28] When Andy removed warnings from his talk page, his edit comment was "fuck off, troll"[29] I asked him to please focus on content, not contributors, and not to accuse someone of being a sockpuppet without filing at SPI, which I saw an admin had told someone who did that a few days ago. Andy was warned five times, including by another editor who said "Andy knock it off please. Name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive": [30] [31], [32] [33] [34] Thank you. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You have demonstrated, or faked, a time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week. This is troll-like behavior. If name calling and sock puppet accusation are disruptive, then an obsession such as yours is more so. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious - see block log [35], and (frequently blanked) talk page. And note the way this 'new' IP contributor parrots policy, with no discernible regard for who we are writing articles for. All over the entirely reasonable suggestion that an article concerning a notable event might actually say what day of the week it occurred on. Yes, I was rude, and yes, I'm drunk (I'll probably have an apocalyptic hangover later ;-) ), so maybe I could have been more 'civil' - but as far as I'm concerned, we are here to write an encyclopaedia, not engage in endless Wikilawyering over stupidities - and I'd rather be blocked for telling a fuckwit to go boil his head than take responsibility for writing a fuckwit encyclopaedia (and come to think of it, I could probably do with a Wikibreak over Christmas anyway - or possibly longer). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Apocalyptic hangover? The world's still here - or is it supposed to end at EST? It will be here tomorrow. Happy holidays, Andy! Doc talk 09:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, Andy's above comments speak for themself ("I'd rather be blocked for telling a fuckwit to go boil his head than take responsibility for writing a fuckwit encyclopaedia"). He's made my point. In terms of the talk page discussion, I was reasonably discussing a legitimate issue about an extremely common edit (date format). And a very experienced editor (six years) indicated the legitimacy of my concern to Andy.[36] I was courteous throughout the discussion and focused solely on content, then was personally attacked without provocation. And while Andy thinks it's productive to reference my block log, I suggest he focus on his own block log,[37] which I had no intention of bringing up initially. Yes, I was blocked briefly (for edits, not mistreating others). But I have learned from my mistakes and have been working hard to productively contribute here. Andy has been editing for years, yet still treats other editors as inappropriately as he apparently always has. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of diffs to support my claims, not to mention Andy coming into the thread and calling me a "fuckwit". Please do the right thing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

People can't see your entire edit history. Your first edit on this IP used the WP:USPLACE link so you are clearly not new. I assume Special:Contributions/76.189.107.195 is you too. Who else ? Have you been blocked more than once ? How many years have you been editing ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about USPLACE until an administrator taught me about it on a talk page because he had seen that editor violating it. It's interesting how hard you're trying to make me look bad, yet are completely ignoring Andy's totally inappropriate behavior. Why is that? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The troll's edit's speak for themselves (look for yourself, don't take my word for it). And note the troll's endless citations of the intricacies of Wikipedia policy, and utter inability to explain why we mustn't tell readers what day of the week something occurs. This isn't a new contributor, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked the IP editor to form an argument as he seemed to dispute the use of the day of the week when the consensus seemed to be against its use when I arrived at the discussion. Andy was asked a direct question to explain the relevance to the subject for adding the day when the article had not had this information and I percieved a clear "I just like it" discussion forming with no clear reasoning. He declined to collaborate in anyway to the question, leading me to believe "I don't hear you" was an issue. Since Andy would not provide his own relevance I attempted to do so to at least demonstrate to the IP editor that it was possible. While I do not have an opinion to the addition or exclusion of the content Andy's editing under the influence has become too much of an issue for me to believe the editor is working in either good faith or within the spirit of Wikipedia. I am now understanding a little better what Andy's issues are. Andy has requested that he would rather be blocked than stop. I suggest his wish be made true. If the IP editor is indeed a sock puppet please report this to SPI and deal with that. As far as I can see, there is no clear boomerang detectable for the IP in this case. As for the block log....why is it not mentioned when bringing that up that the IP is one "through which multiple users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different user when the current user disconnects." If editors are able to demonstrate that this is the same "editor" in some form, I would still ask why the block log means anything here. The IP was not being disruptive in this case.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, are you seriously suggesting that there may be multiple individuals making near-identical arguments from the same IP address? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, could you please provide diffs to this "time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week" please?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having read the talk page discussions Hoary's account is more accurate than Amadscientist's tl;dr outpouring above (just dramamongering like the OP). The IP has been blocked several times in the last few days and their conduct on the talk page isn't helpful and could be described as "trolling". They cannot in fact edit the article, which has been discussed multiple times at great length on WP:AN. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was attempting to be impartial, but I can see that was a waste of time. At any rate, the IP did, in fact confess to being the same editor. I do disagree that the editor was being troll like as I asked them to form an argument also making your assessmnet of me way off. An editor admits to being drunk and we see nothing wrong with that. Noted.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mentioning the day of the week is not a controversial matter, yet the IP made it so. Their recent block blog speaks for itself. The fact that you have ignored it along with the WP:IDHT conduct on the talk page and are now suggesting that ATG be blocked would not normally be taken as signs of impartiality. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I asked them to form an argument. If it is truly so uncontoverisal...why was the discussion so long to begin with before the dispute. An editor just trying to continue the discussion and make their case after another asked them is not troll behavior. There is no "fact" that I have ignored the block log. But it does not speak for itself. Please tell me that you are not blowing off the dispute with a drunk and beligernet editor in favor dismissing the IP based on his block log. And...Andy actually suggested the block. I agreed --Amadscientist (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP policy is not on your side and your last remarks are out of place. Please stop this drama-mongering. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears the drama mongering is coming from you. As I said. Andy admitted to being drunk, said he would rather be blocked than to stop name calling and I still suggest an admin take him up on the offer.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sean, this is starting to sound similar to a rape victim being blamed for wearing revealing clothing. And I would consider myself a new editor, unless you define someone's who edited for a month or two a veteran. I haven't done or said anything that can't be easily learned in a couple weeks. Reading guidelines and other pages that explain how to do things isn't rocket science. And this is the only account I've been blocked on. So, Andy has not only called me names and accused me of being a sockpuppet numerous times on the other page without reporting it, he's now come here and continued it and called me more names. There's no doubt that if I (or any other IP) did the things Andy's done, they would've been blocked in a heartbeat. Just calling someone a "fuckwit" would've gotten an IP an instant ban. Is this going to continue being ignored and, in essence, encouraged? I hope not. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Question, do you have other accounts?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I promise that I have no other accounts. Just this one. In fact, I would encourage that to be investigated, however that's done, rather than repeatedly being accused of editing improperly. Someone did that to another editor a few days ago and an admin came in and told him to knock it off if he wasn't going to report it. And by the way, if I did have an account, I would've just made some of these edits myself that I've been discussing on the talk page. I wouldn't have needed to make edit requests and have discussions on a bunch of them. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You've also edited with the IP mentioned by sean.hoyland for example on User talk:Jayron32. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That was my previous IP. It changes. I have no choice in the matter. My internet provider does that from time to time. But I'm using one account. Why am I being treated like a criminal? I came here to talk about a problem I had and I gave the links to back up what I said. Yet no one, except Amadscientist, will even say a word Andy's actions. The sole focus is on this IP for some reason. This is very sad, but I still have faith that a good admin will do the right thing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The 'right thing' being of course blocking trolls who think that the day of the week isn't relevant to Wikipedia articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're also calling Crisco 1492 a troll and think he should be blocked?[38] --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) "Other accounts" in this context would mean "any other previous account, IP or otherwise". If you knew about USPLACE violations for your first edit here (and the fact that that editor had been warned about it before), you are ahead of the learning curve. Doc talk 10:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet means using more than one account at the same time. I never said I didn't have a prior IP, I explained this above, my internet provider changes it, I have no choice. And I knew about USPLACE, as I already explained, from an administrator who had warned this one editor about it, and the admin had reverted a lot of the violations, so I started helping out and doing more, there were lots of them. Now, any words about Andy's actions, Doc? Or do you see what he's done as acceptable? --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy's "traceable" - he's got an account. That's how you can have a choice as to someone seeing your overall contributions. Not that you have to do that at all, but it does help sometimes when discerning an editor who hops IPs because they like the freedom of anonymity vs. those who hop around to avoid scrutiny because they are already blocked for one reason or another. Doc talk 11:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You still have yet to address Andy's actions. Your entire focus is on me, trying to make me look like a criminal. I asked if you think Andy's behavior is acceptable and for some reason you have ignored it, even though I've answered your irrelevant questions. And what does my history have to do with this situation? If you have evidence that I've done something wrong in this situation, please provide links so that everyone here can see them. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Andy's a self-admitted grump. And he's been drinking tonight, so I've heard. What do you suggest we do with him to prevent damage here? Block him? Doc talk 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just on this specific point "An editor admits to being drunk and we see nothing wrong with that. Noted." Nothing wrong at all. Comment on the content (whether under the influence or not) not the (state of) editor. Leaky Caldron 10:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hoary, could you please provide diffs to this "time-wasting, tiresome obsession with removing mention of the day of the week". No, I can't be bothered; but you'll see the results here (passim). -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is an admission disclosed on the AN/I. It is a part of the discussion. It is the content here and the behavior being admitted to.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Trolling by blocked ipsock of banned editor Mikemikev
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev Note: Mathsci often sides with Andy in disputes. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC) ip trolling from Korea ==> Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Note: many editors often side with Andy in disputes because he is often right. GiantSnowman 10:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC) And note the sudden appearance of an IP who has never edited on Wikipedia before... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Note: Mathsci's empty rhetoric could be applied to either party, but is being applied to one. "Making the issue controversial"? Takes two to do that. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC) "Dramamongering", "trolling". Pretty serious accusations. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC) And now we have Wikipedia's favourite pig-ignorant racist sockpuppet turn up. Oh joy. Mikemikev, go find a landmine to practice your pogo-stick on... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC) I am just trying to nip any partisan rhetoric in the bud to provide a fair discussion of the issue at hand. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Really? Well a Happy Christmas and an unfortunate incident involving a chainsaw in the new year to you, Mike. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Happy Christmas to you too. 211.50.30.36 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I think the day of the week is fluff and not necessary in the long run of things. This IP editor should be listened to with an open mind, not condemned for arguing with Andy. If he were registered and logged in Andy would have been blocked a long time ago. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I completely agree. For pity's sake! I don't give a good goddamn how often Andy is allegedly "right." Do we, or do we not, have a policy forbidding personal attacks? From WP:NPA: "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." (emphasis in the original) Is this going to turn into another MMN situation, where an editor racks up dozens of blocks for civility violations over several years before people applied the same standards to him they demand from newbies? Ravenswing 11:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do It doesn't really matter if Andy is right or not.If he is right there are proper administrative channel that he should followed.Its not the first time that he breaking WP:NPA.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this sequence of events. While editing under the influence is not ideal, and calling someone a "fuckwit" is not something I would encourage, my judgement is that Andy's behaviour here falls short of the blockable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have been blocked if his target were not an IP. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kim. You have just given Andy license to continue his personal attacks on editors. It's nice to hear that calling someone a fuckwit - on the incident noticeboard, no less - is "not something (you) would encourage". How bold of you. Not to mention his numerous other repeated insults and accusations. It's people like you that are responsible for so many of our children being bullied. So often, our kids are told by adults that the bully's behavior "falls short" of warranting any consequences. So it continues until someone has the nerve to stand up and do the right thing. Thank god for people like Ravenswing, Amadscientist, and Crisco, who can cut through all the nonense and clearly see the obvious. Much of this discussion is a very sad commentary on what many people see as acceptable behavior. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

"It's people like you that are responsible for so many of our children being bullied." You just lost your last ounce of credibility with me. But, drama on... Doc talk 12:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that this has been open for about 4 hours now, and that no other admin has seen fir to enact a block, suggests that I'm not alone in my judgement. I have (I think) blocked Andy before and will do so again if I think it's necessary. Actually personally I would block for calling someone a fuckwit if it were entirely up to me. But time and again the consensus on these boards is that lone admins doing that get shot down by the community who call it an over-reaction by the civility police. So my judgement here is trying to reflect what I think the current consensus is, and not actually my own private view. I do however think that extending this thread much longer is unlikely to be fruitful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the famous WP:BOOMERANG. 76.189.123.142, please stop making personal attacks on other wikipedians. Mathsci (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've read all your comments in this thread. So what you're saying is that my comments are an attack, and Andy's are not? Got it. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The comment in quotes above was a personal attack. As for the original objections to mentioning the day of the week, the article on September 11 attacks does so prominently in the lede. Mathsci (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Again... so my comments are an attack but Andy's are not, right? Got it. And we're not here to discuss the content of an article; this is about an editor's behavior. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• 76, I'd suggest being careful here as that is (arguably) a PA. Not as bad as Andy's, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Doc, based on all of your comments above, it's obvious to anyone reading this thread that I had no credibility with you from the very beginning. So to pretend I did is quite disingenuous. And once again, although I answered all your questions - even though they had no relevance to this issue - you have yet to answer my one very relevant question: Do you see Andy's behavior as acceptable? You also have yet to provide any diffs which show I've done something wrong in this situation. Perhaps you'll respond to what Ravenswing said. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Crisco, your comment is well taken. I'm simply saying that obviously inappropriate behavior like Andy's should be addressed accordingly, not defended or downplayed. In any case, your point is ironic. ;) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Kim, I appreciate your follow-up. However, I don't believe consensus can or should ever override clear policy or guidelines. I hope you will reconsider Ravenswing's thoughts on this matter. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

How long do want Andy blocked for? A couple of days? A month? Longer? What would be justice for you? What are you seeking here, exactly? Doc talk 13:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Answer the question and provide the diffs you've been asked for several times, and then I'd be happy to discuss that. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 13:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You opened this thread. What do you want to happen to Andy as a result of it? Doc talk 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

76 engaged in a protracted debate, in several venues, about whether the word "Elementary" belongs in the name of Sandy Hook Elementary School. Having been blocked for that disruption, and having learned nothing from it, he is now engaged in a potentially protracted debate about whether it should be mentioned that the Sandy Hook murders occurred on a Friday. For a user whose first visible footprint here is December 12th, he seems to know a lot about wikilawyering and making Everests out of anthills, while also repeatedly demonstrating "IDHT" mentality. He also admits to being an IP-hopper. It's no wonder Grumpy might think him a sock, as that's the type of behavior demonstrated by other banned users. P.S. The behaviorial connection to that other Grover-based IP is pretty "obvious", to coin a phrase. It's also interesting that the other IP stopped editing the day before the one here started. I'm just trying to recall which registered user(s) were on that same obsessive-about-small-things track, as checkusers won't do anything with IP's by themselves. Also wondering which other IP's he's edited under. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPADE discussion has gone on long enough

I'm going to lance this debate and drain it of the puss.

• Andy, please don't use language like that. Even if they are an IP address that has way too much knowledge for the aparent editing history.
• IP Address, you've gotten your pound of flesh by drawing attention to Andy's behavior. I suggest you leave the field NOW. Anything more becomes more disruptive than the suppositions and intemperate words that Andy used.
• Board in general: We're supposed to drain drama, not inflame it.

I suggest this request for immediate action be closed down with prejudice. Hasteur (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just do away with WP:NPA policy and stop kidding ourselves. Andy is clearly in breach. Even a short 1 hour block is better than inaction. If admins can't be bothered enforcing policy for such a clear breach (and nobody above has indicated that he's not in breach), then we've no hope for this policy and it simply becomes a tool open to abuse by an admin when they personally get pissed off at an editor. Just my 2c. But if consensus today is that calling someone a fuckwit doesn't breach policy and merit a block, please lets recognize that and adjust the policy. That is the best way to save time and drama. Next time, we can simply point to policy and say "Calling someone a fuckwit isn't in breach". --HighKing (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That might be fair, as long as it's traded off with about a month for the IP. And if he switches IP's again, his behavior will tip us off, and then a rangeblock could be imposed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, inaction is the wrong choice when it comes to policy breaches that are brought here, given that there doesn't appear to be too many extraneous circumstances or mitigating factors. As for the IP being disruptive and back from a block - I'm sure the community would agree to a block there also. A slightly longer block than the last time would suffice. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP-hopper needs to be put on ice for an extended period of time. (Given the current weather conditions in the midwest, that might be redundant.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

One of those examples where incivility by an established editor is obscuring underlying issues. First of all Grumpy (hope you don't mind me calling you that) should not have called the IP a fuckwit, or a troll. Sorry but though the IP is likely trolling it rather obscures matters if you do as the false flag of incivility is raised. Editing whilst pissed wasn't the smartest of ideas, enjoy the hangover.

Secondly the IP has been blocked once already for disruptive editing. The editing pattern is disruptive, its not so obvious to anyone not directly involved but it is. Its wikilawyering and arguing over utter trivia, whilst continuing to demonstrate an unwillingness to engage in consensus building. The thread here is a further example of disruptive behaviour, with a lot of time wasted on trivia. We don't seem to be able to deal with disruptive editors unless their editing falls into obvious categories of vandalism or incivility.

Proposed solution:

• Slap grumpy with a huge WP:TROUT slap and beat over the head with a clue stick/
• Block the IP for disruptive editing per WP:BOOMERANG. They're not contributing usefully to wikipedia and wasting a lot of energy.

Jobs a good 'un. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belchfire

User:Belchfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would someone (who has not already) please have a word with Belchfire? Edit summaries like this are not conducive to a collegial working environment. He's always been a bit outspoken, but lately he's become insulting and been making personal attacks. This is not a productive attitude. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think giving them some time off from Wikipedia over the holidays is now a neccessity. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have diffs of a pattern? After I raised some issues at WP:WikiProject Conservatism, I notices a distinct lull in how often he showed up here, but seen anecdotal evidence of more problematic behavior recently. This one summary was uncivil, but I would want to see more of a clear pattern before I mashed the red button. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The POV in this [39] reminds me of old patterns, removing good sources with bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see more than one before considering a block - that edit summary was technically a tautological comment about as arguably empty set, but if not empty, admins are expected to have thicker skins, so I don't see it as blockable on its own.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Not sure what you are referring to in that diff you presented. That point aside, the edit summary in question is definitely inappropriate. While BF is being hounded by more than one editor, I can understand his frustration with what he thinks is inaction by the SPI team. I personally feel that frustration is unwarranted and by no means should he have lashed out like this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• I did give Belchfire a warning, and notified him of this thread (which the puppy forgot to do). — Coren ^(talk) 17:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh crap, and thank you. *hangs puppy head in shame*... wanders off to kennel... KillerChihuahua 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think that, in general, we do a piss-poor job of supporting editors who find themselves harassed by sockpuppets. It's an incredibly frustrating experience, and I don't think we should be coming down hard on Belchfire for what is, in context, his understandable frustration. I also don't think that referring to admins, categorically, as "dumbfucks" is anything that we should get too worked up about, assuming it's a momentary outburst of frustration. I've occasionally had similar thoughts, although I've usually caught them at the "Show preview" stage.

  Separately, as Dennis alludes to, I think there is a clear longer-term pattern in Belchfire's edits of treating Wikipedia primarily as an ideological battleground. But since our approach to dealing with partisan editing is so ineffectual, I don't think it's worth the effort to make that case formally. I don't see the particular edit summary in question as necessitating any more than a request to chill, which Coren has already supplied. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• My comment was directed at the system and not at any particular admin. When I have something to say to an admin, it will be posted on their talk page where I know they will see it. (KillerChihuahua should already understand this.) Coren's message on my Talk is well-taken - vis-a-vis the edit summary, which was inappropriate. But I stand by the body of my comment: the system failed and left a known socking problem uncorrected, and I'm not going to apologize for being unhappy about that.

Off-topic (and opportunistic) remarks about supposed "battleground" behavior is - unsurprisingly - coming from people with their own battleground issues who see me as an opponent. If somebody wants to make an issue of such things, perhaps they should start their own ANI topic concerning their complaints instead of throwing rocks from the bushes. Belchfire-TALK 22:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet our policies dictate that we remain civil, especially in edit summaries where one cannot refactor personal attacks or incivility. I saw your rude comment merely because your page is on my watchlist; anyone else could have also seen such. However, all that is beside the point, which is this is not isolated;[ your verbiage is becoming increasingly hostile, and yes, calling people dumbfucks is definitely WP:BATTLE, regardless of your view that it is not. I am concerned that you're becoming burned out or letting things get to you or otherwise becoming unable to remain civil here; taking the effort to correct this is to your benefit, and someone trying to bring this to your attention is not "throwing rocks from the bushes." Please note I said "Have a word with.." not "warn or block" or somesuch. You are failing to see that there is actually an issue with your edit summary; I suggest that you reconsider my motives and your approach here. KillerChihuahua 00:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've acknowledged that the edit summary was inappropriate; you've acknowledged that I can't actually do anything about it. I haven't said a word about your motives. Since you're not pursuing a grudge, there doesn't seem to be much left to talk about. Belchfire-TALK 01:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is that you may wish to dial it back a notch. I suggest you give it some thought. Puppy (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

He's just labeled this edit summary[40] "Copyedit (minor)" while what he actually did was change the word 'Palestine' to 'Canaan'. No way is that copyediting or minor. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, two of them with the same edit summary, [41] changed "following what he believed was" to "obeying". Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see why it could be considered minor as it referred to the anteceding use of Canaan in the same paragraph, and that was the term used at the relevant time. Seems a very odd place for "Palestine" considering its content -- referring to a time before the Philistines were there. Sort of like referring to American Indians settling in the "United States". Collect (talk) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The Levant geographic region has borne many different names at different times of history. "Palestine" is the correct name (or close enough to it in English) that it had between the years AD 133 and AD 1948. References to "Palestine" between these dates are NOT anachronistic.

This is because in AD 133 to punish the Jews, the pagan Roman Emperor declared that the name Judaea was to be remembered no more (damnatio memoriae), that the very name of Judah or Israel was offensive to paganism and must be obliterated, and replaced with that of the Philistines. Even though the Roman emperor's sentiments could not be considered "neutral", we do recognize that Palestine (Palaestina) was therefore made the official name for the next 1800 or so years. But even after 1800 years, there is more recent literature coming from some quarters, written by people who seem to be pining away wistfully their whole lives because the name Israel has not been eliminated yet, indicating that this type of polemic sentiment still has an active following today, feasibly even among users who come to this site.

Before AD 133, the Roman Province was called "Judaea"; under the Seleucids it was part of "Coele-Syria"; under the Persians it was the province of "Judah"; before Assyrian invasion the northern part, later Samaria, was part of "Israel". At some point (exact dates become elusive) it is more precise to speak of the region as "Canaan", there are even older Egyptian names used before that. In the 19th century when the region was in fact Palestine, there began a trend in some literature to use the then-current name Palestine generally for all time periods, which is becoming less common practice in recent scholarly works, but even so it is an anachronism when used in reference to events before AD 133, as the only historical political unit it could have referred to then was Philistia. We can strive to be less sloppy and more precise than that though, not having, as a collective project, any emotional antagonism to a NAME, that should sway us to use Palestine even when it's clearly anachronistic. I think we should use such politically charged terms carefully and only where chronologically appropriate to avoid confusion: Especially since 1948 the name Palestine / Palestinian correctly refers to entirely different sets of people, with different religions and languages, than it had before 1948, let alone before 133. Til Eulenspiegel talk/ 15:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So, not a minor copyedit. My point is that there is a political(pov) content to such changes, and the two edit summaries were misleading. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

inflammatory comments and potential canvassing

Hi,

There is a new, and rather inflammatory comment on the talk page of White privilege. Because there has been a history of previous WP:CAN violations at this page, I am perhaps more sensitive to the language of this comment, but it appears to me to be threatening additional canvassing.

the comment is from an ip editor (User Talk:71.127.139.4), and can be found here

--UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP has a somewhat frustrated tone and could arguably be described as inflammatory, but he's not being uncivil, making personal attacks, or otherwise breaking any rules in the process. I also don't even sense a hint of canvassing. Canvassing involves inviting people to a specific discussion that is taking place, in the hopes of influencing that discussion. He mentions an RfC, but for the life of me I can't find any RfC on the subject, and I don't think there is one. If there is no discussion, there can't be canvassing. I don't think there is any reason that this needs to be discussed at ANI. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

What Scottywong said. Was just about to draft exactly the same reply and found I'd been beaten to it! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If i was being overly knee-jerky, then mea culpa. the page has just been through an edit war after a number of new editors with the same opinions seem to have discovered the page at the same time (this editor among them), and has noted has had an issue with canvassing, so the comment "as more and more editors slowly discover this article" was what i sort of siezed on. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The IP contribution doesn't bear the hallmarks of a collaborative and consensual editor, that's for sure! But this is AN/I and I don't think this is an incident - yet. certainly not one requiring any admin action such as a block or page protection. Let us know if it develops any further. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

UseTheCommandLine is describing the same thing I am - the more new editors stumble across this article, the more find it objectionable as time goes on - only he is describing it from the OWNER's point of view. He therefore doesn't want this article getting too much attention, since as he himself indicates, the number of people who have stumbled across it and objected now surpasses the few OWNERs who wrote it. The only course left to him then seems to be to cry WP:CAN every time yet another dissenting editor shows up. Honest articles don't need to fear the rock being turned over. 71.127.139.4 (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The battle ground attitude and the sweeping accusations and the entire language need to be curbed. You have people trying their best to develop an article, and wikipedia has a bad habit of not protecting good contributions. SOAPBOX time, this is why every month more leave. I don't think WP:CAN or WP:OWN (proposed by the belligerents) are valid. But someone should step in and mediate the situation. It is not helping wikipedia. And that is why we are all here. A few FRINGE views should not spoil the experience for serious contributors.--Inayity (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Jay Westerveld

Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK. I laid out some rules of engagement on the talk page. I may have used a conjugation of the verb "dictate". With the article on full protection nothing will change, so I have modified this to Pending changes, and will place a note on WP:BLPN to invite uninvolved editors. Barek, as far as I'm concerned you're not so involved that you can't act; basically, I've threatened anyone who makes another personal attack with a block. I hope I don't have to police that page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarky reply from User:Alan Stenberg. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony, it seems, is alive and well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Talk:Jay Westerveld: Good thing this is a wiki; there's some great material here I am gonna save for later use -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you give proper attribution. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy&paste/pagemove chaos

• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier)
• Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation)
• Nicholas van Rensselaer
• Nicholas Van Rensselaer (reverend)

Plus a few redirects.

I found this mess because one of the pages was blanked. I reverted the blanking, but quickly realized that the whole thing was a mess of page moves and cut&paste moves. And I quickly lost track of what had been moved where. Could someone else take a shot at straightening this out? The biggest thing is that the history needs to be straightened out to end up with the history for the right page(s) with that page. As it is, I cannot even figure out if there are actually one or two different subjects here. There appear to be two. but I can really only find article data on one. I'll notify the two main editors next, but I really don't consider this a report on their actions so much as a plea for help in cleaning it all up. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two subjects here. The clergyman which I had put together an article on based on Appletons' some time ago, and a soldier for whom a stub has recently been created. The clergyman's article was copied to give it a new name with a disambiguation suffix. The clergyman (now Nicholas Van Rensselaer (reverend)) lost a lot of his links (as well as his history) in the shuffle, and my main interest is in restoring the links. I did a move on the soldier's stub to give it a disambiguation suffix as well, but the other editor did not appreciate it, and I will leave it alone, and see if I can restore some of the clergyman's links. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please nobody edit these pages right now. Nicholas Van Rensselaer and Nicholas van Rensselaer don't appear to have any problems right now, but the soldier's history has several revisions of the minister's article, so I'm going to be doing some G6 deletions. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

History merge performed, and redirects fixed; I think I've finished everything, but I'd appreciate someone else reviewing what I've done. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: JGVR appears to have undone every redirect you attempted to implement. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 01:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I may have contributed slightly to the mess when I saw the blank page as well. Thanks for fixing Nyttend. -- KTC (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Additional copy/paste move fixed with another histmerge. I'd appreciate someone else giving JGVR a warning about copy/paste moves, since I suppose that I'm mildly involved. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And undone again... Then there's now this. KTC (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've warned them to stop with the name-calling and have reverted their most recent reinstatements: a short block for disruptive editing will be the next recourse. Acroterion (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not create the problem. I created a page that someone thought should have someone elses information in instead of what i created and someone keeps reverting things back to mistakes and it is not me JGVR (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The proper spelling is 'van Rensselaer' why someone thinks it is such a big deal i do not know JGVR (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the problem with cut-and-paste moves? Do you realize how much work Nyttend put into fixing that? We're fine with correcting information, and properly-executed moves are OK, but please read the advice you've been given, follow the links, and please stop calling people who are trying to clean up the attribution problems names. If you want something moved to a better title, please ask for help. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Since they resumed reverting I've blocked for 24 hours and left a longer explanation. I've reverted to Nyttend's version to return to an attributed history. I take no position on possible content, naming or capitalization: it will be up to JGVR to support his case that there's a problem with that and to obtain consensus and assistance if needed so the cut/paste problem doesn't recur. Acroterion (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Acroterion, I take a position — JGVR is right to say that it should be "van" instead of "Van". However, I don't have time to work on that right now, and I'd rather see an RM that either gets support or at least gets no opposition for a while. My only objection is the copy/paste moves and the attacks that Acroterion notes. Thanks for resolving the situation for now; I just hope that we'll not see more problems at the end of 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

By your posts I gathered that the history of pages is of some importance. I am only wanting to kee the pages straight. aint looking to win any debate. I think it is only fair that being part of the mess (only after being dragged in by an erronious edit to the page I started and was working Nicholas van Rensselaer on, got changed) -- I should be of assistance in straightening it out too.

I am not going to try getting the article back to the original page name, but I will admit I got a bit more agrivated than I should have in the first place but i let it get to me further seeing the rename with (soldier) at the end. The parenthetical suffix is not my gripe, in fact I made articles with suffix (colonel) (and I am not accusing you of being thoughtless) I came to the realization that anyone could research and find numourus references to (Nicholas) being Capt., Lt. Col, etc, - In all fairness to not only the subject,but the researcher the suffix should be mearly (military figure) suitable for "Latrine Attendant" to "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff", because - obviously nobody starts out as Colonel.

In all honesty most of the blame falls on whomever didnt care to check if they were actually editing the topic they intended (on the other hand may well have checked and didn't care. (Without mentioning ______'s name )). Somewhere under the mesozoic layer in the history of one of the pages ought to show this, which in turn got me overreacting too quickly.

In closing I apologize for dubbing you a sabateur, although (if it was you that I responded to at first indication of the ongoing mess) I did explain that Nicholas van Rensselaer had the original article of the (military figure), I am only saying this regarding the 'history and attribution'

If it can be managed to change the suffix to (military figure) 99.999% of my aggritation will be resolved, the ony remaing portion would be the "v" vs. "V"

Being as there are current pages: Nicholas van Rensselaer Nicholas Van Rensselaer (Capped V) Nicholas Van Rensselaer (soldier) (Capped V) And yes even a: Nicholas van Rensselaer (disambiguation) and lets not leave this one out in the cold either: Nicholas Van Rensselaer (disambiguation) (Capped V)

I imagine one or more will have to be deleted Another article I started Philip P van Rensselaer is tagged for deletion, I am down with that. info on him is too scant for the time being to warrant keeping it up. Hope the holidays are safe and happy for you and yours JGVR (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent dynamic IP at Talk:Autism

Since at least 2009, a dynamic San Francisco Bay Area ip has dozens of times requested that the article discuss an as-yet-unproven commercial test developed by the UC Davis MIND Institute, claiming to detect maternal antibodies related to the development of autism. No reliable secondary sources are ever offered (to my knowledge, there are none), commercial sources and sources related to the product are sometimes offered, and in spite of having this discussion with scores of IPs in the same range dozens of times, nothing has changed in the research or the discussion that would indicate there are reliable sources backing text that could be added. The IP has a persistent case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT that consumes article talk. See Talk:Autism#Summary of past discussions with IP 76.2C IP 75 and other 70 ip range for a very small sampling of past discussions. Since it is a frequently changing dynamic IP, I don't know what can be done to prevent this recurrence on article talk; if we archive the discussion or hat/hab it, it just recurs. If IP is ignored, it just fills up the talk page. I also don't see much utility in notifying the current IP, since the IP changes frequently within discussions on the same day, so I will notice article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Noticed the most recent IP and a post IP made to the talk page of arb requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• If this is so persistent and it's going nowhere, maybe just rolling them back is the most helpful thing to do, besides semi-protecting the talk page, which is unusual but possibly warranted in this case. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Semi-protecting article talk, ugh ... locks out all IPs. Do we need community consensus to just rollback or otherwise remove future posts from the same IP? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, ugh. Well, you have my blessing, haha. Seriously, I would think that WP:NOTFORUM gives you plenty of leeway to revert disruptive edits, and I'm sure you can argue easily enough that it's disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Another thing--I was going to archive the talk page so you could start with a clean slate. But maybe you, or some other clever person, can make a sub-section of the talk page where you lay out the case, including that "Summary of past discussions", so you can point to that easily, maybe with a note on the talk page. Same applies to Talk:Causes of autism. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• There's nothing unaddressed on the talk page, so it could be archived, but it might be better to wait until tomorrow, in case anyone else adds something to the Summary thread. And, once the talk page is archived, IP will just start up again anyway. Thanks, Drmies, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am very impressed with your patience, Sandy. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's been going on for four years-- it's not going to be solved any time soon :) And, I've got a Christmas party to host ! Merry ho ho ho, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about three months of semiprotection for the talk page. It sounds like this IP is becoming a hindrance to development of the article. After checking the addresses used, it seems to me that no range block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you look at IP's long-term pattern, you'll see that three months is a mere drop in the bucket :) It might be nice to have a break for a while, but IP is a true believer in this product and will be back as soon as the three months expire. It's interesting to read the (perhaps) first 2009 post, where IP wanted to add unsourced text because it was "cutting edge research" (unpublished) that someone had told IP about, and it was to IP important that parents know they can get this test. That was four years ago; no big breakthrough yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate at this stage to simply delete - not even archive - any further similar posts from that IP range from now on, as we do soapboxing, trolling, personal attacks and other inappropriate content on article talk pages. It is either a serious competency problem or a determined financial COI. Either way, I'm sick of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

From this point forward yes I agree with Anthony. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Record label interference

The account User:Sonymusicireland (which shares a name with the record label of Niall Breslin) deleted half his page the other week. [42] [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.105.202 (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah. Maybe that's not good. Then again, in this edit they removed, besides a ton of trivia and meaningless chit-chat, "he discovered a love and talent for sports as well as being shite at music". I'm looking through the other edits to see who all needs a spanking. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've gone through the article, pruning a bit. That Sony account is blocked per our username policy. That article needs help. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking request

Just so no one thinks I'm abusing my "authority" or trying to "hide" something, I'm making this request here. I would like Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 blanked as I'd rather not have my name come up with the absurd discussions taking place on those pages. Blanking them will still make it possible for anyone who wishes to do so to review the history and anything on them, but will prevent search engines from associating me with that filth. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done and  Done Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for review of Administrator conduct: KillerChihuahua

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My recent interaction with Administrator KillerChihuahua has been extremely unpleasant. Here are just some of the many words this person has used to attack me:

"ignorant", "abstruce", "sarcastic", "patronizing", "insulting", "childish", "not civil", "nasty", "snotty", "bitchy", "troll-like" and many other suggestions. Of course always hiding behind the old idea, 'I'm only talking about how you are behaving and not name-calling'.

This all started with a well sourced edit I made at the God page which was reverted and which turned into a couple topics I began at Talk:God. Administrator KillerChihuahua responded to everything I posted and had a very strong opinion on the subjects I brought up, evidenced by the overwhelming counter point content this person added in response to my points. This part is fine.

What I believe is highly questionable is how the Administrator mixes the role of being an adviser of Wikipedia policies with being a person with a personal bias on a topic. This includes exaggerating the advisory and authority role when no major violation of policy is being committed. It includes the Administrator bullying and making veiled warnings and threats, again, without major justification. Example:

"And finally, if you ignore my advice to continue this elsewhere rather than here, I will not be responding to your posts at all here. This is about your lack of civility, not about the God article, and should not be continued here. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done."

In general, it seems to me this is an Administrator drunk with power and control who makes me question whether or not I want to be a part of a community that allows people like this to throw around their authority to push editorial biases and enforce their beliefs. I am still new here and have been learning the ropes, but being treated this way leaves a bad taste, especially when it's coming from an Administrator. If some experienced people have time, I'd like to know what they think of the content on my talk page, User talk:Allisgod and on Talk:God between myself and KillerChihuahua. I acknowledge I have made mistakes in the dialogue, but I don't believe they warrant the kind of treatment I've received and most importantly, I would think an Administrator is held at a higher standard. Allisgod (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua? Yep. A pattern emerges with this puppy. My own complaints about her abuses got short shrift at this forum. I wish you better luck; but don't expect a fair hearing. Others have simply left, conceding the field to her. We may never hear from them again.

We soon learn, on Wikipedia, that admins tend to support each other as a matter of reflex. Sad, but undeniable. It only takes a few to bring the standard down. ♥ Noetica^Tea? 10:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Allisgod, is there a reason you haven't provided any diffs? If you want people to look at the problem, you'll need to link them to at least one or two examples. I'm not an admin, and frankly, I'm not someone who kisses admin ass, but in my own experience KillerChihuahua (KC) is one of our best. I've just now read through the thread on User talk:Allisgod and I can't see anything actionable here. Allisgod, you say you've been treated poorly, but I don't see any such treatment from KC. If anything, she tried to explain to you how WP:AGF works and you didn't seem to understand her. And, Noetica? If there is a pattern here, it is shared between you and Allisgod, not KC. Now, I will be the first to admit, she does sometimes come off as if she has an attitude, but many of us do have attitudes since we are human, not machines. To me, her attitude is refreshing, as it gives her color and depth, and I find her sense of humor and perspective charming. There's nothing for any admin to do here, so maybe you could put this behind you and try to AGF in the future. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So sure of your ground, Viriditas; and what great reflexes!

If you care to check (as I did), Allisgod is pretty new on Wikipedia. That would entitle a user to a lot of consideration; but not, apparently, from KillerChihuahua. And not from those who frequent this forum, that's for sure.

As for puppy being human, yes. Of course. And how various humanity is! Let's see how this will proceed. I have a hunch about that.

Noetica^Tea? 10:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing actionable for any administrator to act upon in any capacity. Since you are so concerned with KC, why don't you yourself find something actionable on User talk:Allisgod. Since there's nothing there, the best thing that could happen is for this thread to be closed and for you and Allisgod to get back to improving the encyclopedia. These noticeboards aren't for complaining about admins "drunk with power and control" based on harmless differences of opinion and interpretation during a discussion. Some people might claim that you need to grow thicker skins, others would say stop making mountains out of molehills. I would say, stop escalating minor disputes and start negotiating. This isn't the first place to go when someone says something you don't like. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This report is meritless. Allisgod told KC on User talk:Allisgod that KC was "opinionated", and refused over several posts to recognize the negative connotations of that statement. Earlier this month on Talk:God, Allisgod had complained in an unhelpful way about the main image in the article God. Some of their statements there contradicted the consensus resulting from the "Muhammad images" arbcom case and the subsequent RfC. Various administrators and editors explained those wikipedia policies carefully, but the response seems to have been WP:IDHT. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Don't see anything actionable here, per Mathsci and Viriditas. --John (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I should have organized some diffs:

1) VERY liberal use of Wikipedia policy to force her way and close discussion [44]

2) UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "sarcastic, patronizing, and insulting...nasty and snotty...bitchy" [45]

3) UNJUSTIFIED THREAT of hounding [46]

4) Making UNJUSTIFIED Accusations of 'assuming bad faith' when she is clearly assuming bad faith using metaphors[47], accusing me of "trolling"[48], accusing me of "hostility and rudeness"[49].

5) More UNJUSTIFIED name calling - "ignorant" [50]

6) More subtle THREATS - "If you ever actually understand anything I say on the first go, I might decide you don't need help. but as it is you are merely providing more evidence that you do."[51] Allisgod (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• These are not diffs, please see Help:Diff to see how to make a diff. Nevertheless I have reviewed the edits you are concerned about and I still think there is no action warranted against KC. --John (talk) 11:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • John, after all these years, I don't myself understand the half of Help:Diff. I think it's better to link new users (in fact all users, but that may be just me) to Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. It's a page by a lamer for lamers (I wrote it myself). Bishonen | talk 11:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC).
    • You're right, that is better. --John (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see anything actionable here. If you're getting this upset over a minor content dispute, then I recommend you either find something else to do or try to pursue dispute resolution in a calm and collected manner. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try the instructions again to fix those diffs but I'm frankly shocked at your quick responses here and how there are apparently no standards for an administrator's language or harassment, not even a 'hey, maybe you shouldn't be name-calling, bullying, threatening users who you simply disagree with being that you are an Administrator'. In that case, I find this website to be basically corrupt and discouraging to better contributors. Allisgod (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Logical reasoning isn't your strong point. Because you had a disagreement with one admin, the entire website is corrupt? Someone shut down this thread before Allisgod makes a further fool of himself. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Editor retention is a recognized issue on Wikipedia.[52] In fact, there is an organized effort to counter the ongoing loss of good editors. [53] Whether the entrenched old guard wants to admit it or not, admin behavior is part of the problem. People who are truly concerned for the future of the encyclopedia should be paying attention to these kinds of issues. Belchfire-TALK 11:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Gee, I wonder if KC is your buddy Allisgod (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know her, but if "all is god", aren't you playing with yourself? Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

KC is definitely not my buddy but having taken the time to review your complaints I can confidently say they have no merit. --John (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate WP:CANVASSing by User:Cydevil38, not the first time

I believe that this edit by User:Cydevil38 is very problematic, since I see it as inappropriate canvassing. Per the page at WP:CANVASS, this message is quite biased in its message, since it uses loaded language which accuses editors which disagree with him to be "Chinese POV editors", and he has specifically chosen to notify a partisan audience, and not all relevant sides. I see this as campaigning and votestacking, and this has not been the first time that this has happened with this editor. This is a long-term issue, and I am under the impression that this editor thinks that this is perfectly fine behaviour. Not to mention, this editor has specifically ignored calls to engage in proper and thorough discussion in September 2012 on Talk:Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and is now edit-warring because he thinks that there is "insufficient discussion" regarding an article merge (Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences into Goguryeo controversies). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like it to me. I suggest admins and other editors keep a close eye on that discussion and be sure that all decisions are based on strength of argument rather than numbers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues. I more than welcome constructive edits and discussion from neutral parties. Cydevil38 (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Quote "The editors in question have a long history of making antagonistic edits on Korea related issues" - I sure hope you aren't talking about me, because if so, I find your argument to be somewhat absurd.

Let's have a look at the label you have given me, a "Chinese POV editor", which you have written in this diff. I have entirely avoided Korea dispute-related topics since 2011. Even in the article Senkaku Islands dispute which I have been involved in relatively recent (read: a few months ago) times, I believe that I have been able to keep a reasonable head, and being fair to both sides (China and Japan). I have even written many things that are critical of China, and I have been accused by other editors of being too Tibetan friendly, too Japanophilic, or being an agent of Taiwan independence or the Chinese democracy movement. Now, let me ask, what have you done, Cydevil38?

Now, ignoring everything political on Wikipedia, I have written articles about computer software, I have written articles about electronics, smartphones, game devices and computer security; I have been involved in topics relating to video games, and have written numerous articles about Japanese animations about cute little girls doing cute little things, not to mention anatomy and physiology articles, linguistics articles and military articles. I have written my first GA not that long ago, and I'm on the journey on writing my first ever FA. I have participated in numerous community discussions on how to improve Wikipedia overall, and I have reported various bugs. Now, may I ask, what have you done, Cydevil38? Have you been involved in any articles that aren't related to Korea and its neighbourhood disputes? And you have the nerve to label me as a POV editor?

Now, I'm not upset about this current edit-war dispute at Goguryeo controversies, I frankly don't really give two rat behinds about how this will end up in the end. What really grinds my gears is that you have the nerve to write things like this, about myself and other editors, over and over like it means nothing to you.

Currently the article at Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences serves nothing other than a content fork, since everything already exists in Goguryeo controversies. I made an edit which I saw fit, as a long-term Wikipedia editor, and through my judgment, I saw that your revert against an article merge was unnecessary. Your action of pulling out the "POV editor" card in response to me is unsportsmanshiply behaviour. Yours truly, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

You are the major contributor to many antagonistic and biased articles on Korea, major examples being Pure blood theory in Korea (now moved to a more appropriate title despite opposition from Benlisquare), Anti-Korean sentiment, Anti-Korean sentiment in China and Goguryeo controversies. It is rather an objective fact that Benlisquare is particularly notorious among Korean editors. You can accuse me of being "Korean POV", which I openly admit, but yourself denying your own biased point of view against Korea is rather ridiculous. With this history of anti-Korea edits in mind, as well as with one other particularly biased editor involved (Shrigley, where one of his edits gave me a very strong impression[54]), I found it not very "unsportsmanshiply" to mention POV editors. And I hereby state that by POV editors, I only referred to Benlisquare and Shrigley.

Regarding your argument that Northeast Project is merely a POV fork, first, creation of the article Northeast Project predates Goguryeo controversies. I am a major contributor to creation of both articles, the former focusing on the project itself, and the latter focusing and expanding upon a particular aspect of the former. Second, Northeast Project is an article dealing with a significant and unique subject matter, with their respective counterparts in three other languages. Goguryeo controversies does not even have a counterpart in the Korean Wikipedia, and the term itself is not a commonly used word. The only language counterpart of the article is Chinese, and no other languages. Third, the initial POV of Goguryeo controversies wasn't very different from that of Northeast Project, until a series of edits and edit wars, where you were actively involved, were made well after the article was stabilized and balanced.

With the above issues in mind, it is rather ironic that you accuse me of unsportsmanshiply behaviour, when yourself accuse me of WP:CANVASS on this board (not the first time he accused me of wrongdoing on this board, with ") [55]. I feel that this matter is very much relevant to WP:Korea, and I felt that persons interested in Korean articles should be alerted to this matter, as much as WP:Korea was alerted of Pure blood theory in Korea[56]. Of course, you are referring this as my previous attempt to WP:CANVASS, and if you are bitter that the article was eventually merged against your strong opinion on the matter, you are more than welcome to raise the issue again through a request for article split. I have not alerted any particular individuals, and I do not believe alerting WP:Korea of this ongoing dispute is an attempt to solicit biased opinion. If you wish, you can go alert WP:China. I will not object and I will not perceive it as WP:CANVASS. And I more than welcome any neutral parties to this dispute. In this regard, I am sincerely thankful that you notified this board, despite the false accusation, which has turned more attention of neutral editors to this dispute. Cydevil38 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how things that I've done 20 years ago makes your argument more convincing. Anti-Korean sentiment was written in 2008, my last ANI report against you was made in 2011, your problematic edits were made yesterday. Are you trying to divert attention away from yourself? Or are you the type that keeps old clashes close to heart? I'm commenting on your inappropriate behaviour now, you're commenting about edits to Wikipedia that I made when I was 16 years old.

I have never ever touched Goguryeo controversies except for yesterday and a few posts on the talk page, Anti-Korean sentiment and its subarticle(s) are by no means "antagonistic to Korea" (I may actually say that it's critical of right-wing politics in Japan), and I'm pretty sure you were the one who wanted to merge (not rename) Korean ethnic nationalism. I am particularly notorious among Korean editors because Korean Wikipedia editors post about me on Korean internet forums, such as the one created and hosted by User:KoreanSentry. I'm also quite notorious amongst Japanese editors, and my name shows up on 2channel quite a lot as well, but that's a different story. It's natural that you gain a few enemies, after being on Wikipedia for so long and getting involved in controversial topics, so I don't see what the big surprise is. Also, nowhere have I ever used the word "POV fork", please do a CTRL+F next time you write your replies; Northeast Project is a content fork, because a large percentage of its content is repeated in another thread. You don't need a degree in astrobiology to figure that out.

Also, if I am "anti-Korean" like you say, then why the hell am I writing articles which, some might say promote, Korean things like Samsung smartphones and Korean video games? Your reasoning, again, doesn't really make sense. I shall repeat again, by what means do I become a "Chinese POV editor"? Does this label have some kind of criteria, and is this a permanent label that is never removed? If I spend the next two years writing about, I dunno, frilly dresses, am I still under that label? Now, please have a look at these, CYdevil38, and tell me with a straight face (oh wait, internet) that you're not the pot calling the kettle black. Of this list of the 500 most recent edits of yours that goes back to 2009, find me just one edit that isn't related to KOREA STRONG! astroturfing. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I rather getting tired of this. Yes, I am a pot calling the kettle black. I'm POV, you're POV, regardless of the number of neutral edits you make on other subjects. As for Goguryeo controversies, I ask that other editors look to the edit history of the article and see for themselves that Benlisquare made major edits to this article in the past. This being said, I find this discussion with Benlisquare rather pointless. Unless an admin or other editors comment on the matter, I will no longer partake in this meaningless squabble. Benlisquare, if you feel that your edit is neutral and justified, make a request for merge rather than destroying an article with no consensus whatsoever. I'd like to see more neutral parties involved in the process, and also editors who are well apprised of the subject matter, the reason which I notified WP:Korea, where definitely a lot of people would know about the Northeast Project and Goguryeo controversies.

With regards to the issue of content fork, as far as I remember as a main contributor to the creation of both articles, Northeast Project was a split from the Modern Politics section of Goguryeo, and Goguryeo controversies was a split from the Northeast Project. In other words, much of the initial contents of Goguryeo controversies were copy/pasted from the Northeast Project. Cydevil38 (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the bigger problem here is that User:Cydevil38's style of editing exclusively involves repeated reverts, no discussion with opponents (but canvassing of supporters), and heated nationalist rhetoric. Even if I opened a dozen RfCs, AfDs, and merge discussions on the topic, it would not change his behavior. After all, the "pure blood theory" article did go through AfD, yet disruptive Korean nationalist SPAs like Cydevil continued their attempts to blank, deface, and destroy it. This user's reverts don't even come with a rationale. Reopening the merge discussion for a few more months is not the solution. As Benlisquare points out, it's extremely difficult to find any contribution of Cydevil's that does not boost Korea or denigrate its opponents; that consist of civil dialogue with other editors; or that refute the obvious conclusion that he is not here to build an encycopedia. Shrigley (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Gentle help needed for overenthusiastic admin-wannabe

User 255000 has made several reports to the Username admin board. While those users are problematic Meridian has not made any attempt to talk to the users to sort out the situation, and problematic behaviour is best tackled with the correct policies. Username policy shouldn't be used because it allows an editor to come back with a different name and continue previous behaviour. Note that Meridian is young, male, has English as a second language, wants to be an admin, uses Twinkle and rollback, and has several "vandal patrol" style pages listed on their user page. Individually none of these are concerning, but collectively they are a useful flag for editors who may be making over-enthusiastic contributions to the admin / meta side of WP rather than building content. This is a problem because it damages gnomes, some of whom will just drop out of contributing. Like I say, it's only gentle guidance that this person needs. --87.113.116.168 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I notice you also have made no attempt to discuss this with Meridan. Something about black pots and kettles comes to mind here...--Atlan (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, the only user named Meridian (talk · contribs) has only one edit to his/her name and has no user page or user talk page. Perhaps you mean someone else? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Checking out UAA, they are probably referring to Mediran (talk · contribs). 72Dino (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• The above request could describe any of a great many valuable editors. There is no incident for us to consider. While there is a sizable portion of the community who holds it against editors that they perform primarily gnomish and work on the admin / meta side of Wikipedia, there is just as sizable a portion of the community who sees nothing wrong with that sort of activity, and in fact encourages it. Mediran appears to be editing consistent with currently accepted practices, if the OP thinks those practices should change, this is not the way to do it, instead go start an RFC on UAA practice. If the OP cannot provide a specific instance of conduct that is problematic, I say we award Mediran an appropriate barnstar and move on. Monty₈₄₅ 17:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• •  Done --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the problem the IP is pointing out is that Mediran isn't trying to discuss this with editors before going to UAA. He isn't saying there is a problem with maintenance work.--v/r - TP 19:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Right, but the reality is that the process at UAA often doesn't involve prior discussion, as evidenced by the willingness of admins to block most of the recent reports without starting discussion themselves. If there is a problem, its a UAA problem, not a problem with any particular editor. Monty₈₄₅ 19:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Sounds like a problem with a lot of particular editors. UAA is right, the folks patrolling it are wrong. Items #3 and #4 of the edit notice specifically call for discussing it with the user. That should be followed for any cases except for bad faith usernames. The IP is correct, this user - and several others - need a gentle reminder to discuss things first. TW has a template for it.--v/r - TP 19:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I've left brief note on Mediran's talk page suggesting that they engage editors on their talk page before going to UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello folks! Well, I knew my mistakes regarding these issues for not engaging them. Sorry for that guys. Yes, I don't discuss them to the user I'm reporting because it is already given that their only intention on why they registered to Wikipedia is to edit only that interests them and also to use Wikipedia as a mean of promotion. I also report users that has already made bad faiths although I doesn't apply this to all (and that is why I got here). Maybe I really made deeds that is bad for others but I will and I am trying to fix those because it is hard for a Wikipedian to work when someone is not feeling great with you. Well, sorry for that IP and I will work on that and re-prove myself to make myself worthy with this right given onto me. Regards, Mediran (t • c) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mediran - nearly a quarter of all unblock requests that come through UTRS are from spam usernames requesting to change their username and edit other things. This gets put on the shoulders of the roughly 5 active admins on that system. It's much better to discuss it with them on-wiki both because 1) It saves them the embarrassment and frustration of a block, and 2) There is a wider userbase to do it. Most users are willing to change their username, declare a COI, and avoid spam edits. That's why you shoule engage. Only appropriate time to report w/o a warning is when it's a username like "FuckTParis" or "MyMonkeyBallsAreFuckingHuge" ect...--v/r - TP 00:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I will start a new routine in reporting but this routine will be better. Well, it has been clear to me now. Thanks and I promise to be better now. Thanks though. ;) Mediran (t • c) 01:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Albania / Azerbaijan editing

Would someone neutral but with knowledge of the area please take a look at the edits of User:88.72.229.34? I reverted their removal of sources on the Azerbaijani American article, but I'm not conversant enough with the topic to judge the rest of the edits, although I know there's been disruptive action in that area recently Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of edits removing sources and removing cn tags. I think it might be the same person as 88.72.245.145 (talk · contribs) and 88.74.38.219 (talk · contribs). However, it's an active range used by other productive editors... bobrayner (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this are good, because they bring our content closer into line with what sources say. But edits like this are not (Regis Philbin is not my specialist subject but the first source I googled said Arbëreshë, not Albanian). Putting hyphenated-americans into new national pigeonholes is a BLP problem, I think (although the edits to Eliza Dushku weren't so bad, actually).

This change looks bad at first glance, because we expect nationalist warriors to change demographic numbers away from what a source says, but in this case their new numbers actually match what the ACS tables say. Well, there's potential to misinterpret primary sources and how they pigeonhole people but overall I'd call that a good change if it weren't for removing the source. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If this area is subject to discretionary sanctions, should the editor (at all 3 IPs) be notified? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there's some good and some bad. It's not a clear-cut case and I am absolutely no expert (I'm not even an admin, I just wandered in here by mistake when I was looking for where all the cool editors hang out). What would get the best outcomes - help, warning, or some combination of the two? bobrayner (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal action being taken, block request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This IP address User talk:69.27.21.250, issued to Neumont University, may be involved in the process of legal proceedings against the WMF or it's users. In accordance with WP:NLT, could this IP be blocked from editing until this is over? I'm not sure what, if anything Philippe is able to tell anyone at this time, however Philippe may be able to elaborate on this. I know this IP isn't all bad most likely, but probably more than one user on this IP is taking action against Wikipedia for some reason.

Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 23:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see anything on-wiki so it's going to need some more information from WMF. Or, rather, they can take appropriate action.--v/r - TP 23:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Per the IP's talkpage, Philippe is seeking to make contact. In the meantime, there haven't been any edits in several weeks (at least not from this specific IP). No immediate action seems required but I will monitor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with no. Making threats to take legal action may be a blockable offense, but actually taking legal action against the WMF is not. Unless they're making legal threats, there is no need to block them. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT:

Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding.

In that way, if anyone else knows of the legal action taking place, could they be blocked? Thanks. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That passage says exactly what I said; making legal threats is blockable, but taking legal action is not. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not digging too deeply here ... but if the school (for example) was suing WMF, why would we prevent a student from anonymously editing the project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, I'm requesting that they be blocked while legal threats are outstanding (quoted from above, in turn from WP:NLT). I'm not saying block accounts from that IP, just block the IPs that are suing, per the policy. The way I read it, the policy says those who are in the process of legal action against the WMF, and in turn against Wikipedia, should be blocked until those legal actions are resolved, be it a suit, subpoenas, or any other thing involving the WMF/Wikipedia in some way. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

But that specific user (as per the definition) does not appear to have made a legal threat themself, and thus NLT does not apply (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, the more relevant quote from WP:NLT is this one:

If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels.

So I'm afraid that Deskana is wrong - one cannot edit Wikipedia while legal action is underway. So if the IP is involved in legal action against the WMF they must not edit. If they do, they should be reminded that they cannot edit, and if editing continue, they should be blocked to ensure there is no editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Just from the above, If the school were suing.....are we going to block every student?--Amadscientist (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We also have no on-wiki evidence of legal action. I havent seen any news sources quoted, WMF hasn't come here saying anything, IP hasn't made a threat. All we have that I can see is gwickwire's word that legal action is taking place. We don't block on those grounds. That's why I said WMF can either give us the heads up or block them themselves.--v/r - TP 00:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, technically yes, however practically no. If they do not actually say on-wiki that they are taking legal action, then we have no way to know that they are doing so, other than if someone from the WMF explicitly states as such. The minute they mention that they are taking legal action on-wiki, then it becomes a legal threat and they are blockable under the policy. Philippe knows what he is doing and as such we can assume that if he had wanted the IP blocked then he could have done so himself or got someone else to do it for him. As TParis has said, we have no evidence of anything right now. We're better just leaving this alone. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement from the WMF

To my knowledge, that IP has made no legal threat, and has not filed any action against the WMF. I'm seeking contact with them in a matter that's not public, and my message was intentionally vague. Sorry for any confusion, but there should be no block of that IP (for that reason, anyway - I make no determination about any other block reasons that may be outstanding.) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppeteer on the loose!

FiveSidedFistagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has caused serious issues since his block in August of this year for sockpuppetry. Today, he has returned, this time as Villano VII (talk · contribs) and has posted the same JerrySandusky Barnstar, which is a personal attack on the userpages of Srj4000, an IP, MarnetteD and myself. This round of sockpuppetry and personal attacks is the last straw. Can someone please deal with this sockpuppet? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never done this, but I think you can report the sockpuppets and the master to WP:SPI (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/FiveSidedFistagon). iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've indeffed this account for its own "contributions." Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw the edits before they were oversighted, and I don't get how it was degrading. But that may just be me. :/ iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've revdel-ed, not oversighted. --Rschen7754 23:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The sockpuppets Villano I, Villano II, Villano III and Villano IX are all blocked. Other accounts created at exactly the same time are Villano IV, Villano V, Villano VI, Villano VII. Villano VIII and Villano X. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To Xavier: He was presenting users with "the Jerry Sandusky barnstar." See Jerry Sandusky. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search of that name, and I think I know now but there may be stuff I'm missing. iXavier [talk|edits|logs] 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The revert warring I saw at one page destroys any good faith that I may have in this being an innocent mistake. --Rschen7754 23:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Violation of AGF

I am an unregistered user who recently nominated an article for deletion. The rationale was valid, being that the article was created by a vandal. In the AfD discussion page, User Zeng8r called it "bogus" while also suggesting that I am the vandal that created the article.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS

Also, while I was looking for where I could report AGF violations, User:Zeng8r proceeded to request a sockpuppet investigation on me. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned at this sockpuppet investigation request a few hours ago, I was pretty sure that the IP user who started this bogus deletion discussion (and yes, I said that it's bogus, as I believe that the nominator knew that it was without merit) was actually User:Rhinoselated / User:Latish redone, who was indefinitely banned about a year ago for contentious editing and for dicking around with Wikipedia procedures for his own amusement.

He helped me put the pieces together, actually. He keeps insisting that the list in question should be deleted primarily because it was started by a banned user: Latish redone. That name was familiar, as I had several experiences with both Lr and his socks last year. So I checked the IP user's edits and saw that they fit the old pattern - lots of contentious, near-3RR edits to college football articles (especially SEC-related football articles) accompanied by snarky edit summaries.

With the filing of this report, I'm absolutely certain it's the same guy, what with the claims of ignorance about wikipolicies while correctly linking to them left and right coupled with fake indignation and claims of persecution, all classic modi operandi of Rhinoselated/Latish redone. I've seen his act before, and I'm not playing along again. It's time to investigate, block, and move on, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that the IP filing this report has been badgering other editors at the AfD, although he is the one misinterpreting policy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is discussion called "badgering". I made my case for deletion, others are suggesting the article be kept, I am only attempting to discuss the issue so that hopefully they will understand why the article should be deleted. I am also commenting on people's rationales to point out where they may be flawed, so that the admin who closes the discussion can see which side has presented their case well and which side is consistent with WP policy. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Arguing with every editor who holds a different view from you is not helpful. Please be aware that the majority of us, if not all of us, are well aware of Wikipedia policy and we do know what we are talking about. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7

User:Tomcat7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I hate to bring this here, but I think this warrants it. Tomcat7 continues to edit war after a RFC/U into his edit warring has been created. The diff in question.[57] I did issue a warning prior to the RFC/U filing on Dec 17th. [58] Discussion has continued on Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder from December 11th across two GA's and two separate discussions on that page. Easier bits to read are here [59] and here [60].

Edit reverts relating to the one source tag in particular.

• Paperluigi added One Source tag on 22:02, 7 December 2012‎ [61]
• Tomcat7 removed One Source tag on 13:35, 8 December 2012‎ [62]
• ChrisGualtieri added multiple tags on 01:53, 11 December 2012‎ [63]
• Tomcat7 removed tags on 10:45, 11 December 2012‎ [64]
• Ritchie333 replaced by undoing Tomcat7's revert on 12:38, 12 December 2012 [65]
• Tomcat7 reverted again on 12:53, 12 December 2012‎[66]
• ChrisGualtieri added one source tag on 04:43, 13 December 2012‎ [67]
• Tomcat7 removed One Source tag on 19:48, 16 December 2012‎ [68]
• ChrisGualtieri added one source tag on 05:35, 17 December 2012‎ [69]
• Tomcat7 removed tag again on 11:47, 17 December 2012‎ [70]
• ChrisGualtieri added multiple tags on 03:21, 19 December 2012‎ [71]
• Tomcat7 removed many tags and fact templates on 10:49, 19 December 2012‎ [72]
• KillerChihuahua undid the revert on 16:26, 20 December 2012‎ [73]
• RFC/U filed. He makes his first post at the RFC/U on 20:17, 22 December 2012 [74]
• Tomcat7 reverted again on 20:23, 22 December 2012‎ [75]
• KillerChihuahua replaced on 01:55, 23 December 2012 and is current as of this posting [76]

This has gone on for too long, and even my opening of the RFC/U into his edit warring has not discouraged him from removing the tags even after all the warnings and discussions from several users. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given that several editors have tried to discuss this with Tomcat7 prior to the Rfc, including myself[77] and generally get no reply except a removal[78] I agree that something needs to be done. It is clear the Rfc is having no effect; the last removal was after posting at the Rfc. Unfortunately, I cannot see a way forward from this venue unless we have consensus for a community sanction of a ban on tag removal - which to the best of my recollection is unprecedented; and even that would not address the issues of poor sourcing. I am open to ideas and suggestions. KillerChihuahua 05:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Tomcat's edit warring is not limited to the above page. He reverted three edits that placed a citation needed tag in Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. He was the warned about his conduct by Crisco 1492, but swiftly removed the notice from his talk page: [79]. I agree something has to be done, his unwillingness to engage or address the issues is worrying, especially as multiple editors have expressed concerns. Yet none of this has worked, I'm not sure what action should be taken, but if left unattended I fear his poor sourcing will continue and there will be more of these disputes. NapHit (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a content dispute. That is not serious, and is more likely a case of misunderstanding and aggravation. I am not going to hold that against him or put it forth here, as it is an unrelated matter to the Eckenfelder page. Crisco has commented on my talk page about it and I am going to discuss it on the page. A fix is likely for this little matter. Oh and I notified Crisco about this ANI as you brought his name up. Though I think the edit warring notice is valid for other things, it was not given to Tomcat7 for this page. So I did not include it and I would not hold it against Tomcat7. The only ones which should be held against him were the Eckenfelder related ones. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)