Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not the best Wikipedia user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.

• You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced.
• Maybe you should start listening to those of us encouraging you to do that, before you dig your own grave into AN/I, hmmm?
• You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame..

This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Wikipedia merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

• Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions: [1]
• IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO: [2]

Eric ^talk 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Wikipedia, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Wikipedia. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, I think that. With this, EEng will likely come to sanctions. It is this irresponsive flamewar which caused him to lift any control of his own conduct. Who will account for his imminent block and/or sanctions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this thread? No one.. it's about you.. no one willaccept a shift of blame from you to him. You could open a new thread, but I'll lay odds that it will WP:BOOMERANG because everyone will see it for exactly what it is.. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

With 4 or 5 editors having expressed a similar concern here, is there a willing admin looking into the matter further? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... Yes, but I'm starting into a much more ugly and complicated one further up on the page. Another uninvolved admin is encouraged to try and take a look, I will probably not have time sooner than tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Don't worry, this one isn't particularly "ugly" just a little spread-out, might take a bit of looking into, I've only been a little involved in the recent developments, personally, so I can't say how much deeper it goes or the best way to resolve it, because said editor does not seem to care about resolving anything due to not accepting being at fault to begin with. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what I would consider personal attacks or even incivility so much as odd and disruptive comments regarding other editors. For example, saying X is a waste maker is literally true -- both human and bot editors generate waste heat and of course humans generate biological waste -- so one has to try to infer meaning.
• The removal of such comments is problematic. Although there was no blowback in this case, such removal of comments by higher status editors would typically cause a fracas.
• Incnis Mrsi seems to be generally right on content but needs to improve their interaction with other editors. Quite simply, comment on edits not on the other editors.
• Note: This is a quintessential WP:WQA issue -- no admin action is needed here -- and illustrates the folly of closing that forum without first establishing a realistic replacement. But hey, the tribe has spoken. Nobody Ent 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Somehow, I don't think someone is going to call a person a "waste maker" because their body generates waste heat or dumps shit... that's cutting it a bit thin and taking AGF too far... Regardless, fortunately the precise meaning can be found in his own words: User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary#W - a "botcher" (User:Incnis_Mrsi/Glossary#B) even describes it as "may be fairly harmful", this being true, why does he use it so much? One can't admit that a term is harmful, then claim not to be uncivil.. that would be hypocrisy. And calling someone a botcher or a waste-maker is essential contrary to AGF.. it's virtually accusing them of vandalism. Not civil terms. In fact, I find it disturbing that a guy who edits calculus/physics articles sees fit to maintain a list of negative words to use in summaries and comments.. add "imbecile", "twat" and "retard" into the list and he'd have the ultimate glossary of anti-AGF words. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:WQA has been terminated, and WP:DR is for resolving disputes. The problem here is that the editor is uncivil, and when asked to control his attitude even by uninvolved editors, he basically tells them to "fuck off and mind their own business".. so yes, admin intervention is needed here to look into this editor's behaviour - not his editing, his overall conduct with regards to rude edit summaries, antagonising comments to other editors such as ownership-like remarks, pretentious comments, and total disregard for other editors opinions. When an editor is allowed to be uncivil, without warning, or ignoring all concerns, they think they can get away with anything. That is the "potential blowback".. he even admits above that trying to force him to be uncivil is impractical use of ANI time, which is essentially admitting that he does not want to be civil and does not feel anyone is good enough to tell him otherwise. If that isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. The more eyes there are on this guy's interactions, the better. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to MarcusBritish he posted the link to my glossary, although I did not advertise it anywhere, even on my user: page ;) First, a "waste-maker" (sorry, I did not find a better English expression) does not necessary produce only waste and never a product of acceptable quality. Though, if a construction worker improperly installs, say, "only" 2 beams out of 40, then he can be not only fired out, but fined and even imprisoned. Happily, Wiki is not a building construction, but monitoring for low visible waste such as invalid redirects and improper characters, and, in some cases, even arguing with persons (accidentally) making such a waste, consume valuable resources of (other) users. Second, waste-making is perfectly compatible with a good faith, under such conditions as "ignorance" and "negligence". It is another thing which is not compatible with good faith: a harassment towards a specific user because he argued with another user(s) about quality issues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds as if you're attempting to try us under the Law of Spikelets for the destruction of collective property. Are we all to be shot, or sent to the gulags? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advertise, no, edit, yes.. thus it's plain to see on your contribs list.. no secret really, anyone might have noticed it. And we all have a Special:PrefixIndex/User:Incnis_Mrsi/ page.. so again, no secrets here on Wiki, son. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 11:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+428)‎ . . User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary ‎ (+waste) (top) [rollback 3 edits]

Per WP:5P:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

So once again, I repeat that your Wikihounding list, condoning mistakes by User:Jarble is a direct attack, contrary to "do not worry about making mistakes". The list and manner in which you delivered it was uncivil. The only time that might be appropriate is if the edits were vandalism or controversial.. but in this case they were all trivial errors, typos, and you simply bullied him by making him out to be a useless (ie "waste-maker") editor. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, less try this for a tack. Incnis Mrsi, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia, so if you are looking for a view from an editor given some kind of status by the community, that's me. I have three pieces of advice, which may make your editing experience less confrontational.
• First - On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
• Second - if you are trying to use a Russian expression and are uncertain of it's translation, don't use it - say something simpler. For example, the expression "waster" in English is terribly rude when applied to someone, and that's how everyone has been reading your 'waste-maker' (and getting angry with you because it sounded like you are being terribly rude). What you are referring to is a situation in which an editor appears to make a significant number of mistakes such as misplaced dashes or erroneous characters.
• Third - it may be considered unreasonable to pick on editors for making minor errors in spelling, punctuation etc, unless it is a really massive problem (they have just run a script that accidentally replaced every n-dash with an underscore or something like that). Normally, to assist everyone in rubbing along together, it's better to ignore minor mistakes in talkpage edits, and fix them without fuss in articles, and see if you can find a tactful way to say "are you having problems with....." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not minor mistakes is human edits is a problem. Scripts which allow to make multiple errors, which are hard to detect, is a problem. And this becomes a very problem (yes, my English is funny) when automated users are unwilling to fix their scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One can only wonder, AGF aside, if his lack of response, despite actively editing since Elen commented, is further indication of Incnis' disregard for others opinions, as he was evidently willing to argue with everyone else of less "authority" – not sure if there's anything more can really be done at this stage, but I hope there are a few more eyes on his questionable interactions as a result, rather than let this matter be swept under the proverbial rug. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet comments not related to topic – SPI/CU confirmed as blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have encountered Marcus here before but indirectly as an anonymous IP, he was involved in a dispute almost a year ago that spiraled out of control, having trawled through the OP's history of contributions I can safely say that he is not innocent of incivility, as he is also guilty of battleground and bullish behavior that conveniently has been buried under a mass of recent edits. An example is an editor review submitted by said OP, when asked for an opinion. an editor then provided Marcus with some constructive criticism, Marcus than unbelievably personally berates and is very incivil towards the editor, but a more extreme example of the OP's incivility issues was when he threatened an editor in real life after a long and lengthy dispute over something stupid, this editor appears to have then be driven over the edge. With all due respect to you Marcus, you appear to have some good contributions despite everything else but you are the last person who should be submitting an AN/I report for incivility as you appear to love the drama so I suggest you stay away from AN/I for your own sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisiterottingcorpse (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) The above is this brand-new editor's first and only edit. Hmmmmm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, don't worry.. that'll undoubtedly be my favourite Irish stalker, User:Sheodred – I'm sure he fancies me. Feed him some WP:ROPE then I'll pass it to WP:SPI, again.. Reported to WP:SPI. He has more blocked accounts than braincells now. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good one fresh out of the oven [3]. EEng (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Funny how editors who lecture others about English mechanics so often are the same ones whose contribution histories are littered with "(reduced an overlinking and cleansed a lame typography)" [4] and similar examples of unintentional self-parody.

So ironic that he tells someone that their skills are insufficient to copyedit an article, yet follows up with a very poorly worded question. Perhaps showing that they should refrain from offering advice when they've got similar issues? Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Given that Incnis is now obviously ignoring this thread in the hope that given time others will grow bored and it will self archive with nothing actioned, what.s the way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

The way forward is to go forward. A legit concern was raised, and multiple editors, capped by Really High Status Elen have addressed Incnis. Either their future behavior will be appropriate or it won't. If the former, nothing more needs to be done, if the latter, another ANI or RFCU can be opened. Nobody Ent 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whose Really High Status? Give a link or diff to "a very respectable editor who already addressed Incnis Mrsi", please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Elen of Roads' reply above.. having stated they're a member of Arbcom, what more do you expect.. Jimbo Wales to reply personally? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of typical behavior for Incnis Mrsi -- check out the discussion here for example, which Incnis Mrsi begins with typical massive incivility and personal insults. When Incnis Mrsi discovers that s/he has been wrong about several factual points in the discussion (e.g., whether a merge template was used) s/he simply ignores the new information. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a typical behavior of a good Wikipedia user. Incnis Mrsi and D.Lazard (talk · contribs) in 2½ days wrote the article square (algebra), something that JBL was unable, or unwilling, to do in 3 weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the time it takes to write an article have to do with anything? That's just another typical uncivil remark where you compare yourself to other editors and claim to be somehow better. Doesn't the whole block of remarks above indicate how your persistence in that manner is unwelcome, because it's rude and not collaborative language? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Square (algebra) article predates the filing of this ANI -- Incnis has already been encouraged to improve their collaboration moving forward; finding additional examples of past behavior isn't useful. Nobody Ent 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all! — Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[5] Nobody Ent 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I did not find it in this  for some reason. Thanks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now this really takes the cake. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does seem somewhat hypocritical.. not that it matters, Arbcom wouldn't take the case unless it had unsuccessfully passed through other channels first.. for all his mathematical and scientific editing ability, can't understand why he didn't grasp that. I think it's more important we try to resolve this now though.. six days is more than enough preliminary discussion time for such a straight-forward matter, hence why I proposed some kind of resolution below, before this gets too tedious and appears as WP:BAITING, as Incnis has clearly frayed a few nerves lately. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Incnis Mrsi does not abide uncivil remarks towards himself, despite his own behaviour towards others. He has opened an ironic RFC against EEng. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EEng Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained here I stand by my interactions with I.M. EEng (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some administrator involvement so we can wrap this up. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This thread has dragged on for a very long time, multiple editors have commented confirming User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility across a number of article talk and user talk pages, in addition to my concern over his blunt edit summaries. So far, despite all these remarks, and an Arbcom admin commenting because Incis only expects to be rebuked by an "authority figure", he has failed to acknowledge the comments, has not voluntarily agreed that there is a problem that he should be taking steps to deal with, instead he continues to argue with editors across a number of talk pages and WP:BATTLEGROUND is becoming the case, including the initial signs of war editing, as reverts begin to show. Let's not have this spiral out of control. Given that this issue does not relate to content disruptions, no topic ban should be required. An interaction ban might be appropriate, if this was very serious, but I'm not sure that it would be worth enforcing.. Incnis might be prudent to offer himself to a voluntary interaction ban, staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months, and keeping edit summaries to an absolute minimum by only stating edits effected, without commenting on other editors, or the state of the article, and no words from his "glossary". This would need monitoring, however. I propose, the best thing might be to see that Incnis receive the necessary mentoring, from an experienced mentor/adopt-a-user editor, who can focus specifically on his interaction skills, and help him understand the distinct differences between relevant and potentially "rude" remarks to other editors, and with respect to his non-native English, it is clear that he needs to be more careful and far less bullish, pride isn't required to be a good editor, as much as patience. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a mandatory interaction ban with the conditions MarcusBritish suggested, with the agreement that any violation of the restrictions would result in a block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the continuing aggressiveness, unpleasantness and lack of good faith (see for example the latest posts here in which Incnis Mrsi repeatedly misconstrues constructive comments and is borderline rude and aggressive) I support the proposal (in either the weaker or stronger form). --JBL (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should allow time to pass to see if Elen's suggestion is followed or not. Nobody Ent 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen's comments were made on the 25 Sept. He was still being abrupt after that. e.g. 28 Sept, 29 Sept. Given that he didn't even offer a courtesy response to Elen, do you expect people monitor him once this topic is archived.. unlike ex-WQA 24-hours and zap! archived and we have to start afresh, pain in the arse it is... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have overlooked this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

Thought I'd mention that he did reply, only 3 days later. It's indented under her reply so it's not easily seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The reply is completely non-responsive to any of the concerns raised here. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So he does... and all he does is comment further on what he sees as problematic, as though trying to justify his behaviour, but either completely ignores or fails to respond directly to the concerns Elen took the trouble to highlight about his behaviour which have been raised by several editors this week. Just seems like another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only meant to say he responded, as opposed to responded in a meaningful way Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban. I support some sanction, but why an interaction ban between just two editors when the issue of User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility has affected other editors too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one proposed an interaction ban with one editor, it says "staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months" — so all editors, all article discussion pages, not including things like requesting admin help/ANI or a mentor's talk page, of course.. just none of his usual "nasty" messaging to IPs/other editors telling them what they've done wrong, no article talk posts as he also tends to upset people on those too. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a talk space ban, not an interaction ban in the usual sense of the term, which I don't think is the way to go. If he's edit warring, then slap an indefinite 1RR and a civility parole that the next ANI he's brought to is a 1 week block and it escalates from there. Simple and no need for monitoring. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There were only early-signs of war editing, I don't think a 1RR need be set unless it escalates. 3RR applies to everyone anyway. "interaction ban".. "talk space ban".. it's all interaction to me, I see no need to worry about semantics as long as it does the job. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This issue has dogged you for a week now. The nature of the ban doesn't matter half as much as the fact of it. Please stop User:Incnis Mrsi from driving away more editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

South China Sea, again

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

---

This has gone on for too long without intervention. This same user has been informed of the rules multiple times, including his talk page, and here. Last time no intervention was made, but a sysop made the remark that if this user was to engage in the same behaviour again, there would be something done about it. Now that this has started yet again, can something actually be done? There's clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, this user hasn't learned a single thing from last time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made an edit which hopefully will satisfy both viewpoints. Nobody Ent 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have been reverted by him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

See also these edits to Scarborough Shoal made just a short while ago. If blatant POV pushing like this occurred at Senkaku Islands or Liancourt Rocks, the user would have been immediately crucified. So after almost a month of similar nonsense on a multitude of articles, why hasn't there been any action? Does the community have some kind of super secret hierarchy of priority that I haven't been told about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. A review of their talk page shows that they were warned some time ago about it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

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

---

Topic ban for this editor for any article about the South China Sea, broadly construed?--Shirt58 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Nobody Ent 17:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And why not? "No." does not help collaborative discussion of the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Give Arbcom something to do? They love geographical conflicts, I hear. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't we apply discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this a dispute about the naming of the sea [6] (South China Sea vs. West Philippine Sea), not of some islands, so it may be a stretch to apply "8A" from there. But you may want to ask ArbCom to enlarge the DS area. Here's the full text:

“ 8A) An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

”

So, you'd have to (1) decide that the "editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands" (which may not be the case here since the dispute is about the sea), (2) give a warning (to whom?) that you intend to place the pages under DS. (3) wait a month after doing the previous step (4) place the page under DS (5) proceed to give AE-style warning to the partie(s) and (6) if they don't stop, place AE sanctions. (7) note that the DS placed at step 3 auto-expires after 6 months. I'm curious if this algorithm stemming from that 8A was ever actually used, because it seems so... WP:BURO. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the default principle of Wikipedia is supposed to be anyone can edit. So it's up the editor proposing a ban to make the case for it, not those opposed to the status quo. The editor engaged in inappropriate behavior. They've been sanctioned for it, and the sanction is ongoing. Good faith should dictate that the community wait until after the expiration of the block to see if the problematic behavior is ongoing, not that we sit around discussing a pile on of what else we can impose whilst they're blocked. Nobody Ent 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus as this is their first block we have to also consider WP:ROPE. It's fairly obvious that if they continue the edit war they'll be at strike 3 (You're out!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose topic ban based on reasoning of Nobody Ent, Tijfo098 and Barts1a. So glad I included a question mark at the end of the suggestion: obvious bad idea.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Obani

Obani (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over the correct romization of a song title at three articles: Flow (band), Eureka Seven: AO, List of Eureka Seven: AO episodes. Ryulong (talk · contribs) had attempted to engage Obani about the contested rominization,[7] however, Obani altered Ryulong's post to read as if Ryulong was praising them.[8] I reverted the altered comment and left a warning to Obani not to alter another editor's comments again,[9] but Obani pulls the same exact stunt with my warning.[10] Obani then leaves a message on my talk page calling me stupid in Japanese[11] and appears to have left similar messages on Ryulong's[12] and Juhachi's[13] talk pages. This editor is clearly not editing in a way that is constructive to Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit warring aside. It's obvious that Obani is using their fluency in japanese to throw it in your faces and thumb their nose at you. They're obviously fairly capable in english and japanese. Edit warring and personal attacks after a warning should be deserving of a day or 2 off. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think the initial statement that the song and the game are unrelated is correct. I'm not even sure how BlazBlue comes out of the original Japanese, as it's effectively a silent z. Being able to type アホ isn't really an indicator of fluency, either, so that conclusion doesn't seem logical. MSJapan (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And then there's this. --JBL (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Having now actually gone and read the thing, TheFarix was more precisely called a fool. Moreover, most Japanese speakers will type kanji in a sentence at some point, and the level of colloquialism indicates somebody who "learned Japanese" from anime and movies, because the construction isn't even the usual way someone would use it in speech - the usage is what you'd say to a friend, not to someone who was truly being a fool. So fluency's got notrhing to do with it,　アホ達. :) MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to ban the idiot at this point? He's clearly here only to repeatedly change "Bravelue" to "Blazblue" because the katakana are identical, despite sources to show the song has a different romanization.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@MSJapan, I did pick up on their usage of the colloquial style, which kinda threw me a little, but depending on how you look at it, that may actually be even more insulting. Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, is there a way you can cite one of those sources, either in the article or on the talk page? But I'm surprised that he hasn't been given a vacation after changing Blackmane's comments to turn them into another personal attack on me. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one and linked it to the band's page. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Xe2oner

Xe2oner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been disruptively editing articles related to Sri Lankan Colleges (i.e., elementary through high schools). There is a multi-year debate going on about the proper names of these schools. The status quo is that we use the names proposed by User:Cossde, primarily because he is the only one to ever give reliable sources. On the other side, there has been a long list of IP addresses and "new" users who routinely pop up; sometimes they just edit war, sometimes they also insult Cossde, but they never actually discuss the issues on the article talk pages. The thing is, a few of them have provided references, and there has been some productive discussion on Talk:Panadura Royal College (where a few non-disruptive editors have actually left comments), enough to make me believe that, in fact, Cossde is actually wrong in the content dispute. But because the other side basically refuses to talk, and just edit wars across multiple different articles, there's really nothing we can do other than block them. Thus, I present to you the above user; a simple look through xyr contribution list, along with the warnings of left on xyr talk page, will show the refusal to discuss and widespread edit warring. I'm somewhat involved, so I shouldn't block myself. I've tried, here and in the past, everything from kindly explaining to threatening to begging for an actual discussion...but when I opened a sitewide discussion on WP: WikiProject Schools, no one showed up. At the moment, I think Xe2oner needs to be blocked, and if anyone has any smart ideas about how to actually solve the long term problem, I'd be open to hear them. One final, additional place worth looking is User Talk: Qwyrxian#Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila, which I think points out the key problem with Cossde's POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with reliable sources when it comes naming articles as been high lighted in [14]. Cossde (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cossde has said the above even more clearly on my talk page, in this edit. In a way, this is good, because it clarifies that we can no longer rely on Cossde's analysis either. Cossde has here demonstrated that he is unwilling to work within the clear rules of Wikipedia wrt naming of places and organizations. There is never a case when we ignore RS because of some real world rationale. Wikipedia always follows RS to determine the names of things. We name the article and stick with a primary name when we can determine it, but when there are multiple names in RS, we are bound by WP:V and WP:NPOV to describe all other names that rise above WP:FRINGE (which I believe these do). I think that in addition to considering direct sanctions (block for editwarring) against Xe2oner, we may also want to consider a topic ban against Cossde for Sri Lankan schools, to last only until such time as he is willing to follow WP policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in [15] in Qwyrxian talk page I have no problem in use of RS. But as I pointed out [16] the RS in this case local news papers are inconsistent when it comes to naming schools, the same paper uses different names in different articles. Therefore what I say is that we can not depend on local news papers as RS for school namings even though they are RS in general terms. Cossde (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because User:Cossde chose BBC to ref the name of Royal College, Colombo:

• instead of the local news papers, doesn't automatically grant User:Cossde a wested right to stop or delete (Speedy deletion request per A7) other Sri Lankan schools that are funded by Government of Sri Lanka (or Sri Lankan Government) having word ROYAL in it's name. Colombo Royal College too is funded by the Government of Sri Lanka.
• doesn't mean that Royal College, Colombo is situated in the City of Westminster in United Kingdom. Real life Common sense.
• doesn't mean other Sri Lankan schools that has word ROYAL in it's name that has got absolutely zero references from BBC are insignificant, illegal or not prestigious and therfore not qualified to have a wikipedia article even with credible real life references. This is totally against Wikepedia's heart.
• if the name is ambiguous (User:Cossde self made rule to have only one school in Sri Lanka that has word ROYAL on it's name) in real life sources (ie: well established mainstream local news papers such as dailynews, Sunday Observer etc) then it must be ambiguous on Wikipedia (majority of Sri Lankan school articles do not have a refernce from BBC) too. Does that mean those schools are not significant to be on WP ?. Reliably sourced info can't be excluded to fulfill the self made rule of a single editor. This is totally agaist WP policy.
• whole of this argument or word war (what ever you call) about word ROYAL is self created by User:Cossde to fulfil and promote an individual's own (who is not being able to live with real life) agenda but it is an insult (others will have to seek consent from User:Cossde and then debate) to other intelligent WP editorial community as a whole. (Xe2oner (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Well, the two of them are talking a little now on Talk:Royal College Colombo...the problem is that both of them are still edit warring across the spectrum of effected articles. Seriously, if no one else is going to act, I'm going to have to take an IAR restriction to WP:INVOLVED and block both of them, because this is very disruptive to the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As of writing, neither of them have edited in a while; if they start up again, I'll handle blocks. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is still going on. I've just commented at Talk:Royal College, Colombo#College name. Perhaps they do not realise that justifying a position on a controversial topic at the talk page does not give them some sort of right immediately to adjust the article to agree with their position? - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dragon Loy

Dragon Loy (talk · contribs) has been constantly recreating articles surrounding Chester See, which has been deleted and salted, but has since then went on to create the article under other names, such as Chester See!, Chester Yeah, etc. The user has also had a past history of vandalism, as shown here: [17][18]. In the past two days, Dragon Loy has also created some redirects to YTF Legacy, which can be possibly recreated as another Chester See page, as I stated here. (Redirects: Chester Yeah!, Chester Thing, Chester Yeah, Chester See!, Chester Object, See, Chester). I believe that Dragon Loy should be temporarily blocked and the redirects be protected. ZappaOMati 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted the redirects. I was pondering a temporary block, but I think an indefinite block is warranted given the complete and utter uselessness of their edits. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing but blatant vandalism in an attempt to promote a band and evade the salt. An indef blcck is the only thing that will stop this and the edits to associated YTF Legacy (currently at AfD). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• So ordered. (Well, not the salting--it's kind of a bitch to do that with my netbook and it may not be necessary.) Drmies (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just gotta hope a sock of Dragon Loy doesn't get created. ZappaOMati 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Competence problem?

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

---

محمد1992 (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple duplicates of Huvrat ehl echeik at various spellings, adding sources that don't say what he claims they say, as well as unsourced information that's clearly incorrect, some of it copied from other articles, and messed-up geographic coordinates. (He's also the creator of the corresponding article on the Arabic WP.) He hasn't responded to any messages that I and other editors have left on his talk page and may not understand much, if any, English. The thing is, I can't even find any reliable secondary sources to confirm the existence of the place in question, and I'd like to run the article through AfD to see whether there's any evidence that it meets WP:V. I hate to ask for a block of an editor who's perhaps well-meaning, but a 7-day block would at least give the AfD time to run without my having to continually monitor for the creation of duplicate articles. What do you guys think? Deor (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a 7 day block is in order here, as he has disregarded many talk page messages requesting him to stop. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as delete, the article should be indefinitely salted to ensure that it is not created. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What AfD? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerou vil. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No. That's something else محمد1992 (talk · contribs) tried to create a year ago (an alleged airport, probably just an air strip around Guerou.) Tijfo098 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I left them another note. I personally don't see the need to block yet, but if they fail to respond here or at their talk page, and if they make one more duplicate article or whatever, they should be indef-blocked for incompetence and incommunicativenessability. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I actually drove through this area (does that count as original research?) and there's nothing at that location except perhaps a couple of outlying buildings which would be considered part of Guérou by any sane measure. The article title is odd - typographically it doesn't look much like the name of a Mori town though some quirk of transcription could be at play here. There's certainly nothing on my copy of Michelin 741. I don't see how it could pass WP:N unless somebody suddenly conjures up some sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also checked my ITM map of Mali, which shows southern Mori along the border, and again it shows nothing east of Guérou. However, I'd argue that our coverage of Mauritania suffers from very serious systemic weaknesses so it might be worth one last attempt at guidance (if these edits were on a topic where we already have great coverage and skilled editors, I'd argue that a new editor like this could only be a net negative) bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Compare Kiffa with fr:Kiffa. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• OK, this discussion is clearly going nowhere. I've gone ahead and created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huvrat ehl echeik. I guess I'll just monitor the editor's contributions to prevent further creation of duplicate articles while the deletion discussion's running. Any comments are welcome there, but this thread can probably be closed. Deor (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring

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

---

IP editor User:37.59.222.92 seems to be using this address exclusively for the WP:POV point of trying to artificially declare the end of the Occupy movement. This has been reverted by multiple editors including myself. I warned in English to stop edit warring. Now these edits are escalating, trying to erase the sourced evidence that it is still active along with the declaration. Obviously these are well watched controversial articles, the IP will continue to get reverted. But proper procedure should be to block them, right? Trackinfo (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take it to WP:AN3 - the edit warring noticeboard. --Jethro B 20:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Zaiger and baseless claims of homophobia

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa, User:Zaiger has repeatedly accused User:Cupco of homophobia ("Cupco is obviously homophobic", "This is anti-gay witch hunt is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia.", "message to known wikipedia homophobe cupco" (edit summary)). Now that's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. But in this particular case it's especially absurd: Zaiger is one of the main admins of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site not exactly known for its lack of homophobia (even Zaiger himself is happy to use the term "faggot" over there. Can't link due to the spam filter, but I'm happy to provide diffs if requested).

Still, just in case there might be something to it I asked Zaiger to back up his allegations on his talk page (User talk:Zaiger#"Homophobia"?). Unsurprisingly, he did/could not do so. I told him to retract the allegations or back them up, after which he threatened to contact Jimbo Wales and the media(!) and have my sysop-bit removed should I block him, before he simply declared me involved and having a conflict of interest (Not sure why. I used to be active at Encyclopedia Dramatica (the article, not the site), but I don't think I ever interacted with him over there). Despite the silly allegations of having a COI, I figured that having a few more eyes on this couldn't hurt, so here I am. By now, Zaiger has agreed not to call Cupco a homophobe again, though he also said that he would not retract the allegations. (For what it's worth, the origin of the homophobia claims seems to be this edit. At least that's the best I could find.)

That's a bit besides the point, though. Frankly, Zaiger is a troll. He's a main admin on ED (where he calls other people "faggot" regularly), he knows the art of trolling in and out, and he knows exactly how much he can get away with on Wikipedia. His act of being horribly offended by (supposedly) anti-gay comments is blatantly fake, and the only reason he might be doing this is, as they call it, "for the lulz". He's here to have fun, and not to contribute to the encyclopedia. As such, I propose a ban on this user. --Conti|✉ 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in the discussion at this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, since Zaiger got the SPI spotlight deflected, we can look forward to Zaiger resuming productive article-space edits like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit is multiple years old, and Jewbuntu is an actual Linux Distribution. I am sorry but I felt that I was being attacked because of my sexual preference and got defensive. I have promised not to call him it again, yet he continues to make baseless accusations about me being User:LiteralKa when it has been proven otherwise. I feel as if I am the one being trolled. I apologize for making a couple of edits that could be taken as humorous, multiple years apart. Please assume good faith. I am not an active user on Wikipedia, but I do prefer to keep an account so that I may join into discussion concerning pages that interest me. Blocking me is going to do no good and you know it. I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do. I am not trolling, I was just defending myself from what I felt was persecution based on my sexual orientation. The language I use off Wikipedia should have no bearing on anything. I no longer plan on "feeding the trolls" so to speak, so I will not be responding to this anymore. I have promised not to say what I said to him anymore, and I would like to continue to keep this account, but I can't then so be it. There is obviously a back-door agreement to block everyone who edits the GNAA or Encyclopedia Dramatica articles on a non-POV manner. By the way I said I felt that Conti has a conflict of interest because he has an unflattering biography about him Encyclopedia Dramatica (which as far as I can remember I have never edited) and in my opinion seems to have formed an opinion about me based on emotions rather than rational thinking. I am not a bad person, I just react harshly when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize for that and promise to keep it in check. Thanks for reading. --Zaiger (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An edit from late last year is not "multiple years old", and this appears to be the only constructive article-space edit you've made since that edit. Being an actual Linux Distribution doesn't make that factually accurate (a dead project that never gained any traction is not popular anywhere for starters) nor is it a productive edit (piping Richard Stallman to Jews). You also appear to have a history of Jewish-related "jokes". - SudoGhost 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not just indef this editor as a troll, regardless of the SPI results? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any. The SPI results came back negative, by the way, though I'm not surprised by that. There's multiple ED trolls editing Wikipedia at a time, after all. --Conti|✉ 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Naive question for Zaiger: If you "react harshly when you feel [you are] being attacked," and presumably understand that other people have the same feelings you do and have the same reactions when they are attacked, then why do you spend so much time on a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Jew Bagel

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

---

Dear wikipedia administrators. I'm not sure where to put this but I really feel it has to get out. While looking for projects about the Jewish people and culture I came across this picture, Image: Jew Bagel.jpg. It is supposedly givein as an award for contributions to Wikiproject: Jewish culture. Maybe I am overreacting but I feel this is a little racist and think other people might find this a little racist as well. I mean imagine if we put a star of david above a dollar (or some other currency) bill that would be a similar instance of racist stereotypes. Also please keep in mind as well that bagels also have virtually nothing to do with Jewish culture outside of the Ashkenazi community. Maybe some of you won't agree with me and that is fine but I do not feel this picture is an appropriate reward.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the image is inappropriate, you should nominate it for deletion. Administrators don't have any special position in determining what is or isn't appropriate content on Wikipedia. The image is not widely used. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So... you (Rainbow) are offended by an image that is transcluded on one inactive page, and your solution is to post it on the most watched page on the whole project? If this image is not offensive (btw, it isn't), then posting this thread is silly. If it is offensive, then posting it in this thread is silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what to paste to nominate for speedy deletion?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You should follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Note

Rainbowofpeace (talk · contribs)

There's more to this than bagels. The OP is an editor looking for a fight. Rainbow came very close to being permanently sent away, 3 days short of a year ago, for making legal threats. Also, the editor doesn't like being called "he" but won't indicate how to be called. That's another battleground area brewing (again). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the editor is accusing me of "defemation". I don't know what that is, but most likely it's either a claim that I'm trying to remove a woman's femaleness, or it's some attempt at a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki spamming

Dear admins, 68.3.67.81 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) is spamming Wikipedias in obscure languages with stub articles about actors. Example contributions from diq-wiki. This is causing various bots to spam interwiki links on these articles here and on every other Wikipedia the articles exist. This is a great cross-Wiki problem, previously seen, I believe, on Avril Lavigne. I think this needs to be discouraged in some way. Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The address was blocked 19 days ago, for 6 months. That is about as discouraging as admins can do. If the ip's changes haven't already been reverted, you should act as you see fit. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this editor is blocked from the English wiki, but by proxy he is successfully spamming the English wiki using the agency of Interwiki bots. I understand that perhaps en-wiki admins are powerless here, so perhaps this is the wrong forum. Surely you don't expect me myself to venture out into weird foreign Wikis where I don't understand a word and pursue this editor through CSD/AFD/ANI processes repeatedly on each Wiki. The best I can do here on en-wiki is request each page be fully protected for a short time in WP:RPP, but surely you agree that this is a last-resort solution, especially for the sheer number of articles we are facing here. Perhaps a Village Pump forum is more appropriate for this particular problem. What do you suggest? Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist, if you can think of a pattern for exlinks can be meaningfully blocked; m:Meta:Babel for a more general discussion. Small, neglected wikis are indeed sometimes a problem, for which meta is the best place to object. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: started at m:Babel, but moved to m:Stewards' noticeboard for steward attention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've globally locked the IP for 6 months. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures

After he recently closed an RfD in which he was involved, I have a few doubts about some of this editors other closes and wondered if an uninvolved admin could look his closures over for other problems. Snottywong's Admin AfD counter seems to show a few debates where the consensus is not clearly with his close, and checking a few others individually seems to show cases where he ignores stronger arguments for one position, instead opting for a headcount siding with the opposing position (particularly worrying since the margins in many cases are low). I don't intend to start listing specific concerns with specific closes unless asked to do so (or I would be as well taking all the many cases to deletion review) but a few pairs of eyes looking over his closes would be advantageous. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at his AFD participation with scottywong's tool and see the last afd he closed was on the 27th...he closed it as no consensus which seemed to be the right decision. I suppose he could've relisted or let an administrator do it, but I don't see any glaring issue here. Note: I'm not an admin, just an interested editor. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look back further you can find some more questionable ones, but they are pretty old to bring up at AN/I now, and certainly too stale to reopen. The ones in the last month or so are certainly within the range of acceptable discretion in closing) If anyone wants to, the simple thing to do would be to renominate articles if they disagree with the close (depending on the closer a note explaining why the old discussion shouldn't prejudice the new one may or may not influence them). Monty₈₄₅ 02:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The ones in the last month are still marginal Advance Romance for instance has two deletes that it doesn't meet the GNG and one keep that it's "well known" - The only two Policy based arguments form a consensus that it doesn't meet GNG and whilst No Consensus is a valid close, it flies n the face of the fact that a month previously he closed Island province with a similar voting ratio though numerically oppositely weighted with a keep rather than no consensus (and the delete argument there was stronger than the keep for Advance Romance). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal and BOOMERANG for the banner

User:TParis has taken it upon himself to monitor the 2012 election articles so as to enforce the community probation, and I really wish he hadn't because he's done a poor job of it from the start, showing a mixture of partisanship and simple incompetence. I've complained bitterly about it and gone so far as to demand that he recuse himself.[19] Recently, messed up again, issuing a bad ruling that led to an edit war.[20].

Now, I haven't edited Paul Ryan in days, but one of the changes made during that sequence of edits went too far; it violated our sources by siding with Ryan's version of the facts instead of attributing them clearly. Given that it's a biography, I reverted it.[21] To reiterate, I made a single revert (1RR) on a BLP so as to remove an edit that violates Wikipedia standards. My reward? A topic ban. Oh, and while he was at it, he went nuclear on three others.

Not a single one of us deserves this draconian punishment. I consciously keep myself to 2RR, so I'm used to avoiding reverts, but 1RR goes too far. A 1RR limit means that any two changes within a 24-hour period could be interpreted as a violation and used the basis for a block. As a result, it becomes very difficult to edit these articles at all.

I strongly recommend looking at the edit history. Note how it all started with Homunq making a good-faith edit to change the article to match what the talk page shows agreement for.[22] This led to a knee-jerk revert by Toa Nidhiki05 [23], which TheTimesAreAChanging valiantly reverted back to avert a full-blown edit war, explicitly citing TP's ruling.[24] Unfortunately, Arzel piled in with a pair of whitewashing edits [25], which I reverted. At this point, TheTimesAreAChanging put aside continued his earlier good sense and ignored BRD by reverting back by compromising.[26] Then the Thermonuclear Banhammer of Overreaction came down on all concerned.

Well, almost all. As Arzel pointed out, this whole thing could can been avoided if TP hadn't encouraged the edit war with his bad ruling. The problem here isn't four editors; it's one admin. I believe that TP has shown that he is unfit for the task he has volunteered for and should revoke any punishments and step away to allow more competent admins to fill his role. If he won't recuse himself and he can't stop making a mess of things, he needs to find a new hobby. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the community decide the rest, but I will point out that I've never singled this editor out (I noticed he gave no diffs of partisanship) and I have also given ample warnings to all four editors. The rest of this nonsense is an open and close case.--v/r - TP 23:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that you overreacted in "solving" a problem that you created. Your partisanship and singling out are the background information for why you've already been asked to recuse yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend resolving this situation after November 6. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it worrying that an admin clearly involved in an RFC on the talk page of the article in question is suddenly handing out topic bans without prior discussion? I also note on the general sanctions page: "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages." Does this mean that the topic bans should be nullified as they were not handed out by an uninvolved admin? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, the reason that SS reverted Arzel was "We can only use Ryan's explanation if it's fully attributed to him". Therefore, I changed the wording from "acknowledged" to "stated" (I considered "claimed", but thought Arzel would object) so as to attribute the assertion more directly to Ryan. In both cases, I was attempting a compromise. Like SS, I have not been editing the article very frequently. I thought TP had made it clear that Homunq's revision was acceptable, so I reverted an attempt to remove it. Homunq certainly seemed to suggest that TP's ruling was the main reason he insisted on re-adding the material after Arzel removed it the first time. As far as I can tell, SS did not do anything even remotely objectionable, even if he has done objectionable things to merit warnings in the past.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you describe how I am involved? WP:INVOLVED says admins that act in an admin capacity are not involved. I've never given an opinion on the RFC, I've only ever commented on civil discussion and hinted at how consensus gets established. Feel free to describe with diffs where I have not done exactly as I describe.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have been uninvolved as a content editor,[27] but on the other hand, you have knowingly waded into this very dispute on the talk page,[28] which makes you involved as an admin. Finally, you have been directly involved in a personal dispute with StillStanding-247 on the same talk page.[29] Therefore, when the evidence is examined, this makes you involved IMO. In other words, you should not have been the one to enforce this topic ban, and this action could be interpreted as a misuse of your position since you also enforced full protection.[30] Given the above, you really shouldn't be involved here, and one could see this as a form of gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "involved as an admin." Admins have to act in an admin capacity. If it makes them involved, then no admin could act at all unless they canvass another admin who has not watched the situation. Your logic is circular. Secondly, I am not in a dispute with StillStanding. He has time and again attempted to describe my impartial involvement as a vendetta against him as an effort to prevent me from being able to hand out a sanction but I have never taken the bait.--v/r - TP 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is such a thing, as "involved as an admin" refers to WP:INVOLVED, shorthand for your involvement as an editor acting as an administrator. In other words, you were involved in a dispute on the talk page with the editor you topic banned. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's where your logic fails. I've never made a single edit on that talk page in any dispute not in an admin capacity mediating a dispute. That doesn't make me involved. Linking to a list of edits isn't evidence. You should try reading the edits themselves.--v/r - TP 00:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been personally involved in a dispute with the editor you topic banned since at least September 18[31] and that dispute also carried over on to the talk page in question during that time. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved doesn't work that way. TParis provided information, Still disagreed. That isn't a dispute, that is a difference of opinion. More importantly, it wasn't about the content, it wasn't a prior sanction, it wasn't even remotely a substantial disagreement. It was a trivial difference of opinion. That is not the threshold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that TParis and SS have been feuding for more than a week, with TParis threatening to topic ban him during that time while taking the side of many of the editors editing on the opposite of SS. That is involved. TParis was not a neutral party here. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring anything, you are just interpreting the policy differently. Telling someone they need to be civil, informing them of the consequences, those are de facto administrative responses to a situation. If that disqualified an admin from acting, then editors should just scream at any admin and then say "You are involved! We had a disagreement!". It doesn't work that way. The real conversation is below anyway, like I said, if there is a policy reason that bars him (and WP:INVOLVED does NOT even bar him if he is involved, so you are beating a dead horse) then I will be happy to hear it, below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let's stick with the burden where it belongs. What is the policy reason for topic banning SS here? Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking only to the issue of TParis being WP:INVOLVED or not in the discussion, in this case it would be accepted that he is not. He is not taking a stand on the content, he is acting in an administrative role, clerking and mediating, a helpful and neutral role. This is common, and in fact is done by non-admins sometimes as well. This would not disqualify him from taking administrative action. Protecting the page, adding content during page protection, (ie: proxy editing) are not considered involved edits, they are maintenance issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: are these edits consided to be done purely in an administrative context? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) How are they not? In one, I said it's not appropriate to take the RFC as a consensus yet, and in the other I was suggesting that Arzel calm down because an RFC is not a freeze on content. How does that involve me?--00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TParis (talk • contribs)
• Yes. He was providing instruction about the process of RfC and general accepted norms. It wasn't choosing a side on the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I commend Barts1a for providing diffs of edits that TParis actually made, but so far as I can tell they are all in an administrative role. In those diffs (and in his other edits that I've seen) TParis seems to be enforcing civility, talk page guidelines, making notes about procedure, helping editors work through their differences, warning people, and basically moderating the discussion. I've yet to see a diff where TParis takes one side or the other. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please tell me you are kidding. I've provided numerous links to discussions showing TParis threatening SS with a topic ban and taking the sides of his opponents. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• TParis threatened a lot of people with blocks, including SS's "opponents". I still haven't seen an actual diff of TParis taking somebody's side on a content issue. (I may have missed something...this discussion is growing faster than I'm comfortable keeping up with, so I apologize if I did.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• My interest is to cut through the emotion and get to the issue which was raised. To be clear, I've reviewed and his actions on the page would be considered administrative, not involved. Of this I am sure. Being involved doesn't prohibit an admin anyway, if another admin would have done the same, so that isn't the issue to begin with. Trust me or don't, but that is how it will be considered. The issue is "Was TParis within policy to make the topic bans?" I'm all ears if someone wants to explain why he wasn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, for the record, the article is under discretionary sanctions, per a decision at WP:ANI previously, so normally an admin would not make this type of a topic ban unilaterally, but it is authorized (subject to review) in this case. This is the review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any review, only rubber stamping. How in the world does this edit justify a topic ban? The user has not edited the article in 13 days,[32] and prior to that, the last time they edited the article more than once was on September 3. I'm not seeing any justification for a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • What you are doing is being rude. I haven't given an opinion one way or another on his topic ban, and you are assuming bad faith and telling people they are rubber stamping because they don't agree with you. I have stated that the policy is very clear that he isn't considered involved, and he isn't. The only question is: Are his actions outside of policy in any way? You talk about how Still hasn't edited the article, but neglect to mention all the talk page edits, which is misleading. And frankly, I get along with Still just fine, check his talk page or ask him, so I certainly don't have it out for him. But I still insist we get passed the incivility and look at the policy involved, which is the purpose for the review. But the issue of INVOLVED isn't a valid one, as he wasn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
      • What is the justification for the topic ban? One edit in 13 days? That's ridiculous. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding WP:INVOLVED: What Dennis said, this is clearly a non-issue, and time spent arguing about it is time wasted. Regarding topic bans: I'm all in favor of handing out topic bans like candy to all partisan editors until the day after election day. Also, I'm in favor of giving a really large benefit of the doubt to any admin willing to get their hands dirty monitoring these pages. Also, there's no excuse for the recent edit warring. So I won't second guess these topic bans, they should stick. Regarding page protection: I don't really have a gigantic problem with it, per GoodDay below ("A protected article, will force discussion (at that article's talkpage) & lead to consensus), but I suppose if the topic bans are upheld here, then the protection as a result of this particular edit war isn't necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• For anyone interested, here is the authority granting discretionary sanctions, so the question is only if his actions are authorized and proper under this decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I found this little gem in the arcives... [33]. Why the sudden change of heart? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• That was before the discretionary sanctions were in place, by 10 minutes as a matter of fact. That he closed it is meaningless, as closing is reading consensus, not voting, which he didn't do and wouldn't disqualify him anyway. Again, you are beating a dead horse. I will only spend so much time explaining the policy before I give up all hope in your willingness to understand it. Your point is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're talking about the Paul Ryan article...

...I see that it's gold-locked again, which flies in the face of the consensus we had to just let sanctions work. Now, I'm fine with gold-locking it 'till kingdom come (i.e. the election), but I was outvoted last time. Therefore, I propose shortening the gold-lock to 72 hrs and reverting to indeff (yeah, folks, it's time for indeff) semiprotection, with the caveat that another one or two of these will get it gold-locked until the election pbp 23:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A protected article, will force discussion (at that article's talkpage) & lead to consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with a controversial BLP, the options are either locking down the article until it is no longer controversial or permitting admins to actively engage in enforcement of policy. Given the above discussion, it appears that individuals will not accept active enforcement of policy, therefore full protection appears to be the best course of action. If StillStanding and Barts were willing to withdraw the above thread, I'm sure Tom would be willing to reconsider the full protection. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please describe, in your own words, how this edit justifies a topic ban and supports the claim that SS "will not accept active enforcement of policy". He's barely edited the article in the last two weeks. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if another admin would have done the same thing. Some would, some wouldn't. The only question is whether or not he acted properly, within policy. The purpose of a review isn't to second guess the admin, it is to insure he acted properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that discretionary sanctions are authorized on Paul Ryan and related articles, and that TParis is not "involved" in editing this article and so is eligible to impose the sanctions. That brings us to the merits of the topic-bans. I'd appreciate TParis's clarifying why the topic bans he imposed include the article talkpage as well as the article itself. From my arbitration experience, I know that sometimes there are reasons to ban from the talkpage as well as the article itself, while other times it makes sense to allow editors to continue discussion on talk while allowing others to do the actual editing. (And other times we forget to specify, which leads to endless arguments at AE, so we try not to forget any more.) I'm interested in that particular aspect of your thinking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post something very similar. Although it's a hell hole, I think progress is being made, albeit slowly. I suggest converting the topic ban to only cover article edits. On the other hand, I agree with Floquenbeam that topic bans should be handed out like candy to partisan editors and thus suggest that the topic bans should be widened to include article space edits to election related articles, broadly construed. Allow discussion to take place, but require edit requests to make article edits. Sædon^talk 01:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As as a pretext, I want to say I'm not trying to throw edits to get them to stick even though there are a lot of them here. The edit warring over the marathon issue dates back quite a ways. All edits involved have tried to push one of two point of views: either Paul Ryan is a liar or he made a simple mistake. The merits of either side arn't what matters, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. What matters is the on going edit warring the POV pushing: [34]([35][36] Hector reverted himself, preferring not to get involved in an edit war)[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] I would normally consider calling someone a liar to be a WP:BLP issue except that there are so many sources that say that so I ignored it as far as WP:BLP goes. But it was still POV pushing both ways. Both sides wanted to characterize the situation to their preferred point of view. As far as topic banning them from the talk page, I felt their behavior had become disruptive and battleground. These diffs arn't all encompassing, they only span the last 3 or so days. Starting with Arzel (Battleground): [48][49][50], TheTimesAreChanging (Battleground, NPA): [51][52], StillStanding (Battleground, Synth, POV pushing): [53][54][55][56][57]. Honestly, Homunq is the only one who I can see not banning from the talk page and if I am wrong on Homunq then I apologize and he should be allowed to edit the talk page. I think his editing on the talk page has been cordial and polite. My only rationale for banning him from it was to be consistent, fair, and even.--v/r - TP 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's rather ironic that although the statement is currently neutral, the cited article (Huffington Post) is titled "Ryan's marathon lie". There's no evidence that it was a lie. Just like 4 years ago, the editing restrictions need to be in place, and anyone violating them needs to be locked out of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TParis, it sounds like you are saying you topic banned SS for making one edit in 13 days because you personally disagreed with what he said on the talk page. I don't see how that justifies a topic ban, but it does sound like you are too close to the topic and instead, you should have notified an uninvolved admin who didn't have a history of disputes with the editor you topic banned. Why was SS topic banned? We should depend on hard evidence, not the whimsy of admins who are personally involved in disputes with the accused. And, that's not my opinion, that's the opinion of the accused, supported by diffs. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• As for Homunq, he has already piped in supporting the decision [58] to topic ban him, and only disagreeing on TheTimesAreAChanging's ban, who hasn't protested but did say that he thought he was making an approved edit. Those two I would trust to TParis's own review. As to even numbers on both "sides", I don't see how that should matter. I don't see any procedural issue with the topic bans and whether or not another admin would do it isn't an the issue. We aren't here to second guess the admin or declare what WE would do, only to insure his actions were consistent with the authority in the discretionary sanctions. It seems they are. I suggest that the topic banned parties themselves, without the posse (who are doing you no favors), give it a day or two and talk with TParis on his talk page if they want him to reconsider, as I've found him pretty reasonable. The fact that we passed discretionary sanctions to begin with should indicate that the threshold for topic bans is very low, much lower than under standard conditions. Was it a harsh topic ban with a low threshold? Perhaps, but all discretionary sanction topic bans are and the community cleanly supported using these sanctions. So if they are harsh, they are equally so to everyone. Again, there is no justice here, only solutions, which are sometimes ugly. It is political season, tempers are high, we don't need to drag it into here and start calling each other names. Leave that to the politicians. So sleep on it, and revisit it with TParis when everyone is a bit more calm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Woah. Wait a minute here... I didn't read carefully enough, and didn't realize all of us are banned from the talk page too. That, I do consider to be an overreaction. It's within TP's rights to ban us from talk, but I think it shows poor judgement. I also strongly disagree with putting the article under protection. The point of hair-trigger bans is so that people back off and you don't need protection. So I would support making the protection last as short as possible.

As for the matter of SS's inclusion in the (legitimate article-space part of the) ban: no, they didn't "deserve" it for a single edit which did address a real BLP issue. But I just don't see a single-article ban as being the end of the world. There's no article that simply can't live without any specific editor or four. As I said prior to these bans: the atmosphere at the article was getting out of hand, and I'd rather see a little too much enforcement than too little. And SS did show poor judgment in reverting, rather than editing for compromise, on a section where an (minor) edit war was already active, so they're not purely an innocent victim here.

Anyway. My 2 cents is that TP overreacted, but not by enough to make it worse than if they had underreacted. Homunq (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was a single, reasonable edit used as an excuse for a topic ban?

That's the bottom-line question. What, precisely, about the single edit was so horrible that it deserves a topic ban for making it? Be specfic, TP. Show us that you're being reasonable, not banning everyone in sight to make up for the edit war you caused by your own ruling. I'm sure we all want to hear your reasoning. Go for it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think the point is that it wasn't just about the article edit, it was about the environment there. Look, some admins would have done what he did, some would not. Was what he did within the sanctions allowed? Yes. Discretionary sanctions are typically harsh by design. I sincerely suggest just giving it a day, discussing it with him on his talk page, and everyone keeping calm. Dis. sanctions tend to be very reactionary (go visit the Israel articles....) but things just need to cool out a day or two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Would a neutral and competent admin have done this? Explain why. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a neutral and competent admin would have done the same; I do so with some frequency in other topic areas. The reason is because it sometimes gets to the point where we have to shit or get off the pot when it comes to imposing some kind of standard in these discussions; the only ways to do it in such an acrimonious environment are to block or ban. You haven't been an overall disruptive editor, but your edit was clearly disruptive in the context of the article, so the most logical choice would have been to ban you from the article. If I thought you had any case regarding TParis' involvement, I would gladly impose the same restrictions under my username. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• That isn't the question we ask here, and adding competent is a loaded question. The question is "is it allowable under current policy?" Yes it is. Is he the only one that would have done that? No. Would I? Doesn't matter. Everyone knows I'm off the reservation when it comes to sanctions anyway. TParis and I don't work in the same areas, but I have crossed paths with him several times and found him to be pretty reasonable. I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true. This is why I'm suggesting you wait a day or two, let everyone calm down, we can talk about it on his talk page. If you want, I will get in the loop, I really don't mind. But on a technical level, yes, he was authorized to do this. So taking my advice is the best possible chance of making it a short topic ban rather than a long one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no "short"; the election is coming. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article won't be going anywhere once the election is over. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What Blade says is correct, and that is the perspective we have to take. I would really doubt this article will give or take away any votes for anyone. We aren't a news site, and the goal of protecting the page is to try to get it neutral, not to advantage anyone. You overestimate the importance of this one article, I fear, and the statement itself isn't making you look neutral. Sleep on it, tomorrow is a new day. It is already an hour passed my bed time on the east coast. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What Blade said is obviously false. The neutrality of Paul Ryan will mean next to nothing the day after the election. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now that's just losing sight of our goal here. Setting aside for the moment that Paul Ryan is likely (for better or worse) to be a notable politician for years to come (seriously, do you think people stopped reading the article on Sarah Palin after the 2008 elections, and do you think neutrality no longer matters there?), the goal of Wikipedia is to build and maintain articles for the long haul. And finally, I'll expand a bit on something Dennis said above; Wikipedia is just a website. You're not going to influence anyone using Wikipedia, and when you start getting more drawn into the debates on the article than you are the RL debates, it's a sign you need to step back. Editing areas you're emotionally attached to is hard; this was far and away the hardest thing I've ever written because the book never stops tugging at my heartstrings. I was able to do it because I always remembered the book is far more important and impactful than anything I'm writing on some website; same concept here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, why don't you show the way by editing only articles concerning badminton or perhaps some other topic that you have zero interest in? In the meantime, I am still waiting for an answer. Am I going to get it or are we not even going to pretend that there is one? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're missing my point; I didn't say it couldn't be done, only that it's difficult to do and very easy to get caught up in things. As to the reason, it's been given to you; that you don't like it isn't really something anyone can do anything about, because I've never seen someone happy about being topic banned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If I had done something vaguely wrong, I might feel better about it. But, as I've asked repeatedly, what exactly was so horrible about this edit that it's the basis for a ban?! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

All right, let me put this in the simplest terms I can (outside perspective, but I've done this enough times in other venues that I think I know what I'm doing). The Paul Ryan article has been overrun with edit warring, as is typical for these sorts of articles around this time, and one particularly large fight in the article regards the mountain built up around the marathon time. Instead of using the talkpage to discuss the wording/sourcing, you, among other editors, went in and reverted, which one could reasonably conclude would incite further edit warring. On a typical article, this probably wouldn't be a major problem, but on very contentious articles like this it's akin to attempting to put out a fire with a hose attached to a gas line; it's just about guaranteed to make the problem worse. The sanctions were designed to prevent that cycle from repeating itself; I did this not very long ago myself for an article plagued with similar bickering over neutrality. That's why. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, do you really have zero interest in any topics other than Paul Ryan? I haven't even read the Paul Ryan article since I've read enough other such articles to have decided long ago that they are worthless due to partisan editing. Paul Ryan in particular is so high-profile that Blade is right that the contents of the Ryan article won't affect much of anything. Dennis Brown's suggestion of disengaging for (at least) a few days is good. I think we all know that there are serious problems with Wikipedia's handling of this type of issue, but people like TP are doing their best to put out fires where they arise. Ideas for more substantive solutions have been debated endlessly for many years so I don't think any sudden improvements are in sight. It's something one simply gets used to after a while. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This has little to do with Paul Ryan; the ban extends to all articles involving the 2012 election. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Blade) You only removed, rather than seeking compromise or discussing. So though your edit was far from horrible — in fact it made the article fit BLP better — you're not blameless, because you could have achieved that while being less contentious.

And then, also, you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So you got banned. If you were truly 100% innocent here, you'd have a case; but you're not.

By the way, I totally agree with you that the article is more important now than it will be after the election, and that there's nothing in policy to prevent us from taking that into consideration in our actions. But there are a lot of other articles that are the same way. You're capable of doing good work within 1rr so I'm sure you can help on them. Just give this one a rest.

Although I absolutely support you getting your talk page privileges back.

Anyway: don't take it personally. You really can't know TP's motives, and assuming the worst only hurts yourself; only gets you less sympathy not more. Homunq (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(post edit conflict, responding to SS): You are on 1rr on all the 2012 election articles. You are only banned from Paul Ryan. If you had been banned from all 2012 election articles, that would indeed have been completely out of line of TP. Homunq (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

With TP around, 1RR is equivalent to a ban. And the issue isn't whether I'm perfectly innocent; nobody is. The issue is whether I'm guilty of doing anything worthy of a topic ban. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was about continued edit warring. A warning, then a topic ban after continuing the dispute?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This time, you got caught in the crossfire. If TP starts chasing you around and banning you, that would be out of line of them, and I (and I expect others) will pursue de-adminning them.

You're pretty good at doing what you think is right regardless of the consequences. So, ignore TP, and do that on any article but Paul Ryan.

Also: just as 3rr means you get slapped on the 4th, 1rr means you don't get slapped until the 2nd. Unless you jump into an existing edit war as in this case. Homunq (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Amadscientist, look for yourself; I didn't edit-war. I reverted exactly once because of BLP. TP has yet to even offer a pretense for banning me, other than being peripheral to the edit war he created.

Homunq, 1RR is not like 3RR. As it is, I restrict myself to 2RR, because of the lesson Lionelt taught me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"A "one-revert rule" is often analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". " It also means you should discuss the first reversion on talk, but you are not obligated to wait for a response. Homunq (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason you (ISS) and others got topic banned is not because of a single edit, but a pattern of disruption. Despite TP's urging, the participants did their talking in edit summaries instead of the talk page. And you really should be more careful with your choice of words above. Implying that someone is incompetent without evidence is a personal attack.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a single thing you said has merit. TP did not cite a pattern of disruption; that's just your story to cover for his goof. As for the talking on the discussion page instead of edit comments, this is my first edit to the article in days, while I've continued to participate on the discussion page. As for incompetence, he's showing it in spades by creating an edit war and then punishing everyone who was anywhere near it. So, as I said, no merit whatsover. But thanks for trying. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You became an editor on 22 July 2012, and the first admin warning to you came 39 hours later.  By 18 September, you had racked up 15 admin warnings.  On 9 September you were being discussed before ANI for a topic ban, I was involved with you at Wikiquette, and editors on your talk page were discussing an RFC/U for you.  On 17 September, TP reported that you were edit warring on the 2012 Presidential Election articles, and instead of blocking or banning issued a "final warning" regarding your editing, and said, "do not take my warning for granted."  You scoffed and said, "In which case I'll curse you out and delete my account."  As per WP:CIR and WP:NOTTHERAPY, you need a four-month vacation from Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can only echo what I said above about users I've sanctioned and recommend someone close this down before we end up with a WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ignore the piling on from the usual suspects and don't let it distract you from the bottom line: TP has yet to explain what was so horrible about my one edit that earned me a topic ban. I don't think he will because I don't think he can. I'm calling his bluff. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's the bottom-line answer: admins do not have to explain themselves. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

this (edit summary) is completely unacceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Our standards of acceptability must be vastly different. I find the statement "admins do not have to explain themselves" completely unacceptable, and frankly, intolerable. There was and continues to be no justification nor any rationale for a topic ban. There you go, I just explained it. Viriditas (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have any comment towards the situation, but admins are accountable for what they do, that's a Wikipedia policy: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." So yes, admins do have to explain themselves. - SudoGhost 07:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, for the record, I asked TP hours ago and have yet to hear a clear explanation of how my single revert to support WP:BLP merits a long, broad topic ban and 1RR. I look forward to his response. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, what's unacceptable is to ban someone for no good reason. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to "get" it. Admins don't need a reason nor do they need to explain their actions. Move along, citizen. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I opened this report because I questioned the wisdom of TP's ban. TP has refused to address my concerns at any level. He made one comment, which was both false and irrelevant. He has not shown himself since I refuted that comment.

Contrary to what some people think, admins are obligated to explain themselves. They are servants of the community; janitors armed with mops, not kings with scepters. If TP will not offer any basis for this ban, I politely request that a more reasonable admin overturn it. TP made a mess again; use your mop to clean it up. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment This is the second time in as many months that TP has been shown to make a mistake then attempt to blunder his way through instead of apologising and reversing his error. He decides to issue punitive punishments (as in the case with the Rollback privileges being revoked) and then starts changing his reasonings. Admins are here to serve not subjugate. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While I understand the topic is controversial, I do not see that the administrator has provided sufficient reasons for the topic ban (1RR in thirteen days and no claim that talk page editing was disruptive). TFD (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TP seems to have invented a new rule where discussing things properly on the talk pages can get you topic banned, and as he is a personality round here the admin-corral has hitched up the wagons to defend him. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TP is grossly violating WP:ADMINACCT by refusing to explain his ruling. I can't imagine why any admin would support that sort of refusal to take personal responsibility. TP's actions make all admins look like dictators, since their silence is tacit support. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Formal request

I've formally requested that TP return here to explain himself, as Wikipedia policy requires, so please leave this report open to give him a chance to clear his name. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no policy that requires TP to continue to participate in an ANI. He's already explained his reasoning, in general, to the community; he's not required to explain it to every editor's personal satisfaction. Nobody Ent 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Has he really explained his reasoning? Unless I've missed something (very possible; this debate has become quite lengthy) it doesn't seem as if TP has given a straight-forward explanation as to why he topic-banned SS. – Richard BB 11:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The broad ruling of the general sanctions state that any edit which "broadly construed" is viewed as contributing to an edit war is subject to blocking. By that rule SS could have been banned along with the rest of us. However, TP could have resolved the situation from the beginning by not letting Homunq make contentious edits to the page while the RfC was ongoing. Basically Homunq personally ruled that the RfC currently was such and made an edit based off his current view of what consensus was. I have never been involved in an RfC where this was a standard. By this action alone, TP has allowed this sequence of events, worse yet he is defending Homunq creating a bad precedent going forward. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Final

StillStanding, no one is happy when they are topic banned, so I tend to be patient to a large degree in these discussions, but at this point you have to realize that a number of administrators and non-administrators alike have come in and supported TParis's right to institute the ban. This doesn't mean they would have done the same thing, but they realize that the sanction is consistent with the discretionary sanctions passed, and was done in good faith. There is a lot of jumping to conclusions here and it isn't benefiting anyone doing the jumping. If anything, the bias in your comments about the election and persistence is saying he hasn't explained when in fact he has might be actually demonstrating a pattern that validates his decision. I've tried to give you a path forward, tried to explain that discretionary sanctions are by their nature strong and quick and that if you would simply calm down and demonstrate that your intention is to work on the article in a fair and unbiased way, that it would be fairly easy to talk him into lifting the sanctions after a day or two. I've offered to participate in that very discussion. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, only tolerate it, as it has been brought here and a consensus reached. Bludgeoning this after a consensus has been established only hurts your credibility here. Admins serve at the pleasure of the greater community and are accountable to that community, but not to individual editors. If the community is satisfied as to his explanation and participation, then he has fulfilled his obligation. If I've learned anything from having the bit, it is that no matter what you do, someone isn't going to like it and there is no way to take action that everyone will approve of. Instead, and admin must do what is allowed within policy, what they think is right, and what the community accepts as being within the range of acceptable actions for each circumstance, which he has. I won't repeat my previous advice on your talk page, and only say that it serves you best to consider it. It spite of the fighting and debates, for all reasonable purposes, this review is over. Now we move forward, hopefully in a positive fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this should be closed as WP:DEADHORSE now. If StillStanding is still unhappy, he can appeal to ArbCom. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Dennis is, as usual, very well put. However, I'll be shorter to make it clear. Tom's actions have been reviewed by the community and not found improper. Continuing to challenge them at this point is disruptive. StillStanding's remaining courses of action are to accept the sanction, appeal to Arbcom or be blocked to prevent further disruption. This is the only warning I will be giving to him to stop being disruptive regarding his sanction. MBisanz ^talk 13:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Account encouraging illicit sockpuppetry, edit warring, and POV-pushing

Snowy26 (talk · contribs)

Snowy26 has been encouraging another (thankfully inactive) user to edit war and POV-push against the accepted scientific fact of evolution, saying that he will do so once he's autoconfirmed, and encouraging the illicit use of sockpuppets and off-site correspondence to do this. Dennis Brown has explained that this is not acceptable behavior.

Snowy26 has stated that the purpose of his account is to edit-war and POV-push fringe and anti-science material. It needs to be made perfectly clear that this is unacceptable, and I know that me simply telling him that is only going to encourage him. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reason this doesn't end "Indef, abusing Wikipedia as a battleground and disruptive editing?"--Tznkai (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really, figured that'd be understood. Although, come to think of it, a checkuser might be a good idea, as he's at least implied the existence of sleeper accounts. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks on the block, Tznkai. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to check in atWP:SPI. If Snowy26 shows some semblance of getting a clue, someone can go ahead and unblock him/her/whatever.--Tznkai (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll. Sædon^talk 06:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zrdragon12's edit warring and personal attacks

User:Zrdragon12 just reverted User:Nguyen1310 7 times in History of Vietnam since 1945 to restore excessive prose in the lead, after I went out of my way to propose a compromise. (His sources are copied and pasted last names from books he never read). As can be seen here, after I proposed this compromised version of Phoenix Program, Zrdragon12 reverted me 4 times. His changes were based entirely on original research: "The sources state that people were murdered,thrown from helicopters, raped so pretty much arbitrary." I had earlier asked him to take it to the talk page, but he refused. He has previously accused Nguyen of running a "hate campaign", stated that I was "wrong as usual", claimed that "They really should not let Americans write anything on wikipedia", mocked Nguyen and referred to him as "your buddy", told me that "no one really cares what you think", and called User:Philip Cross "touched", "delusional", and "paranoid" on his talk page. Just to harass me, he followed me to War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and reverted me three times, only to admit he was wrong when challenged by another editor. Frankly, I find his behavior to be rather irrational; there have been cases where I have asked him to be more polite, and he has openly said that he will not; on other occasions, he has edit warred over minor issues to prove some kind of point about how biased other editors are. Nguyen1310 could also be blocked for edit warring; heck, I'm skating on thin ice given the amount of times I've battled with Zrdragon these last few days--although I tried hard to propose compromise versions or mediation. But regardless of the consequences, I cannot hold back any longer. I've tried reaching out to Zdragon on his talk page, but I stopped after he accused me of "harassment". Zrdragon's edits are based almost entirely on original research. Virtually every article Zrdragon has touched (if not literally all of them) has devolved into edit warring-- first, with Philip Cross; now, with Nguyen and I. These pages are becoming a circus, yet the more he is reverted, the more he is convinced that everyone else is out to get him. Zrdragon is just not doing things the way they are supposed to be done here at Wikipedia, and I feel as though ANI is my only option--he truly does not seem to understand that he is doing anything wrong! Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While writing this, it appears that another massive edit war involving Zrdragon and Nguyen broke out at North Vietnam.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon apparently feels confident that he can get away with it because Nguyen has been blocked several times, and I was just topic banned over an edit I made to Paul Ryan. He has accordingly tried to threaten and intimidate us. As mentioned, however, I believe the circus has gone on long enough.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Zrdragon also wages wording wars on numerous articles, like changing the word "communist" to something else, when referring to communists themselves, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War_casualties&action=history. Zrdragon goes on viscious attacks on other editors on her edit summaries, against myself, TimesAChanging, Philip Cross. Zrdragon also deletes sourced, valid content that she doesn't approve of, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War_casualties&action=history, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Vietnam&action=history, and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Vietnam_since_1945&action=history. Myself and TimesAChanging, in efforts to try to curb all this, have done several reverts to try to undo the POV content being added (in the articles i already provided links to), and all the deletions going on, and thus unintentionally and unwillingly engaged in edit wars with Zrdragon. Zrdragonengages in the removal of sourced content, removal of sorces themselves, and other users had to put up with stringent attacks from Zrdragon, none that i have ever seen before during my whole tenure at Wikipedia. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I was only blocked once, by the way, for similar causes with another user, like here. Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging and his buddy User:‎Nguyen1310 have been running a campaign against my sourced edits for over a week now. Just this one page shows what is going on.Edit Waring.User:‎Nguyen1310 has constantly deleted my sourced material for no good reason as can be seen by just that one page link.He does it on other pages as well with his mate User:TheTimesAreAChanging, as can be seen here edit waring and here edit waring. and here edit waring. This has gone on for a while now and I am not happy about it, I agree that I have also been edited waring but mostly just to get my sourced material into the article.Also User:TheTimesAreAChanging keeps leaving me messages accusing me of all sorts of things but does not put in that he himself is edit waring with feeble excuses as can be seen here [59] These two editors are upset that the pages they work are not kept to their biased line as far as I can work out and do not like truthful sourced items to appear on them,User:‎Nguyen1310 more so than User:TheTimesAreAChanging .Here is where Nguyen runs off to the others talkpage to ask for help and then his mate turns up and starts reverting my sourced edits, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging&action=history] I would like someone to go thru all the edits and see what feeble excuses are used to delete things by these two. It is pretty much laughable but again I have also been guilty of edit waring.Zrdragon12 (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, i went to other users in requests for mediation and intervention. That's it, plain and simple. I encourage any admin to go through ALL of Zrdragon's edits in her edit history, as well as the differences in versions btw her's and mine's and TimesAChanging, they will be very, very self-explanatory. Also look at the talk pages of the articles she's been on. These will all give you a clear picture of her mission here. Oh i forgot to say, Zrdragon is discriminatory against Americans, like when she said that "They really should not let Americans write anything on wikipedia" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Vietnam_since_1945&offset=20121001045011&action=history, and against Vietnamese from South Vietnam, like when she called Ngo Dinh Diem "your man Diem as the corrupt dictator he was" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Vietnam_since_1945&action=history, or how historian Hoang Van Chi, also from the South, was called "a proven liar", or how you kept discriminating South VN for being capitalist here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zrdragon12&offset=&limit=500&target=Zrdragon12. There's also an ongoing investigation on Zrdragon, who was supposedly banned indefinitely for also violent POV editorship under the username "citylightsgirl" and has now created an another account under another IP, both definitely from Europe.Nguyen1310 (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a he btw, told you that before but for some reason only known to yourself you call me a her, is that supposed to be an insult.I really do not know what you are on about by me being against people from South Vietnam because I called Diem a dictator, he was a dictator.What on going investigation are you on about? I think you have been reading too much gossip.Just like to add why has User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported me for edit waring but not his mate Nguyen1310 . Anyone???? Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledged that some of Nguyen's edits have been problematic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, in all due fairness he did. This whole week has been a complete nightmare, i'll be frank, and i'm very exhausted about this whole rut. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, keep WP:NOTTHEM in mind. It appears Zrdragon's only defense is that if he should be blocked, so should Nguyen. Regardless of the soundness of that position, I take his stance to mean that even he acknowledges his behavior was indefensible (which is, admittedly, a good sign).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you are reporting me first off for edit waring but not your mate? Also I have made no defence, I have just stated what happened. You sure like to makes things up. I admitted what I have done. Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So you agree that you should be blocked, with or without Nguyen?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Because you are the center and cause for all these edit wars and disputes that have been going on, on content that never had problems before. Your deletions of things inputting of POV, editor attacks have caused this whole mess in the first place, otherwise I and TimesAChanging would never engage in edit wars. Why the hell do you keep referring to myself and TimesAChanging as mates?? I see Zdragon fabricating content and being dishonest about her activities, and stalking editors' edit histories to revert their changes. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen and I are not "mates". There's nothing "suspicious" about him coming to my talk page to ask for help and advice.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This all very amusing. You started off your report here mentioning that I reverted your mate 7 times not one mention that your mate was deleting sourced material as were you. Removal of sourced material09:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs)

I "removed" nothing. I bent over backwards to try to discuss the issue and then moved the excessive text to the appropriate section. I also asked you why you were citing random last names; you replied that since you had copied them from Wikipedia, they were valid. I can't speak for Nguyen, but since you apparently agree that you should be banned for reverting him 7 times, I guess that's settled. We'll just have to let an admin decide if anyone else should be punished.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Here you are actually reverting it not once but twice Removing sentenceRemoving sources. One of the sources there is Stanley Karnow's book A History of Vietnam which you consider not worthy.You said and I quote "Obviously not valid sources ".I did copy them from wikipedia,they are used in the Diem page to source the exact quote I used,so they are perfectly fine on that page but not according to you on the other page.You then reverted it yet again Reverted and again Reverted and again Reverted and again Reverted It is funny how your links and claims of not doing anything are very easily turned over by going to the exact place where you reverted it. Zrdragon12 (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Did any of you notice that so far nobody uninvolved has reacted to this at all, and that as you go on discussing in your little fishbowl, you quickly exceed WP:TLDR limits? What about taking a breather for half a day? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:: Here's a semi-involved comment. While looking at his edits for a possible sockpuppetry case (which turned out not to involve him) Zrdragon12 did strike me as a tendentious far-left editor, FWTW. It seems there's no shortage of those in Wikipedia, so carry on like nothing happened. And I can also confirm that Zrdragon12 has been editing as various IPs for quite some time. I don't know if that's a violation of any previous sanctions on his putative previous named account as alleged by others above. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (Incorrect statement by me, let's not drag this any further. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

And History of Vietnam since 1945 looks like it hit 12RR or so. I don't understand why it hasn't been protected. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Protected now. It probably wasn't because nobody noticed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You can confirm that I have been editing as various IP's for some time now? Well lets see your evidence then. You got it, show it.You are just making stuff up.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you denying that Special:Contributions/88.104.219.158, Special:Contributions/88.104.218.11, Special:Contributions/88.104.220.15, and Special:Contributions/88.104.213.87 are you? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (I was wrong about that. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Well being as none of them are my IP address I guess it is not me. Is that really the total evidence for your dubious claims? I mean really? You are obviously on a mission and not a moral one. Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected on that. I see you've been reverting [60] Special:Contributions/88.104.221.99, so the set of IPs is probably someone else. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

...something that even a casual reading of some of the diffs seem to confirm. Or he/she has a bad case of split personality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Misread/Deleted. Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Aberdeen/Tiscali IPs are editing disruptively at times, e.g. implying that the CIA bombed the Marines barracks in Beirut [61]. The sudden appearance on Sep 12 of a high-edit-volume account (Zrdragon12) in the Vietnam area (another stomping ground of the 88.104's) did cause some confusion. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (Let's avoid further tangents here, this thread is long enough as it is. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

Just face it you rolled up here claiming that you can confirm that I have been editing with a list of IP addresses and you were wrong. You should not make claims that you cannot prove. 11:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs)

Everybody can make mistakes. He has fixed his. No need to rub it in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry, the guy comes on here and accuses me of doing something I have not and then when proven wrong does not even apologise and I am the one who is not supposed to rub it in? Is this how things work where you come from? Sorry but they do not work like that where I come from, we apologise to people when we are wrong.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring diffs

Zrdragon12 vs Nguyen1310 reverts: [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] (last one is a revert of [70])

Wrong. If you cannot even get all the reverts why bother stated that number 70 is the last one when it is not 7172 Nguyen1310 and there are more from me and more from him. If you are going to do a job at least do it well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen1310 reverts: [71][72][73][74][75][76][77] [[78] -- Tijfo098 (talk) 11:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

TTAAC: [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] (revert of [85]) [86] ([87] + [88]) [89] [90] [91] [92]

Zrdragon12 vs TTAAC reverts: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103]. -- Tijfo098 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You missed one..Nguyen1310 reverts..Glad to see you taking an interest.. lol..btw I should just point out that there are already links to those pages in the above thread. Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the lists, thanks. You guys are the most prolific edit warriors I've seen in recent times. Is that 16RR in a day? I lost count. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice but they are already link to in the complaint and responses from me and another editor.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not so neatly laid out. And those are in just one article, History of Vietnam since 1945. There is more of the same in Phoenix Program, albeit fewer. You guys should really read WP:3RR. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

and why should they be so neatly laid out? Any admin can click on the ones already provided in the original complaint and replies and just lick thru them backwards and forwards or do you think they should click on each individual one you have posted? That is click,then close and then click on another one then close and then click on another etc etc..Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

More edit warring at Phoenix Program:

• 88.104: [104] (revert of [105]) [106] [107]

• TTAC [108] [109] [110] [111]

• Zrdragon12 vs. TTAC, 88.104 and Stumink ([112] + [113]) [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]

I think 88.104 should be checkuser'd given their clear involvement in an edit war with other registered accounts. I notified the IP and Stumink of this discussion. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is more of the same at North Vietnam as well (Zrdragon12 vs Nguyen1310 mostly) and at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (Zrdragon12 vs TTAAC). Vietnam War casualties is another massive edit war (Zrdragon12 vs. Nguyen1310 plus TheTimesAreAChanging and occasionally 88.104) The last 50 changes there are mostly reverts, and even among the 50 edits before those there are plenty of reverts. The last 100 edits there are since Sep 30. I'm not paid enough to list all the diffs. I thought those graphs about admin numbers declining were bollocks, but apparently not. (Is there an 100RR prize somewhere? It reminds me of "100 missions to be flown Mm Hmm Mm Hmm 100 bridges to be blown Mm Hmm Mm".) Tijfo098 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Stillstanding

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

---

calls me a troll. repeats accusation in response to warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And what should the admin response be? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly tell him that this is unacceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to bait me by saying that admins don't need to give reasons?[122] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Baiting? I merely told you how I interpret "discretionary". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I note that this is not a denial. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Still responded to your comment, "Here's the bottom-line answer: admins do not have to explain themselves. That's why they're called discretionary sanctions." Neither comment was elegant. However neither rises to a level that it requires administrative action and I suggest we close this discussion thread. TFD (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

So "troll" is OK. I thought it was on the level of "asshole" or "motherfucker". But OK, I'll keep that in mind. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I redacted my comment, unasked. Seb retaliated by coming to my talk page and threatening to abuse his sysop bit by blocking me. Now he's doing this. So, yes, it's well worth closing. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, enough is enough. It's time to put this issue to bed as it's obvious that it's starting to get out of hand. Check your talkpages. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Unless I'm mistaken (and it's certainly happened before) User:Seb az86556 is not an admin. [123]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

you're not mistaken. Does that mean I can be called a troll? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to apologize for accusing me of baiting and "drama-whoring" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I posted my response to that here Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow... one of them did not take it well... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 08:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.[124] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Barts, you were previously topic banned from ANI for unhelpful commentary and only recently has that been rescinded, please reconsider your commentary as it is only inflaming the situation. Your postings on Seb's and StilStanding's talk pages are proceeding along the same vein as what Worm warned you for a mere 2 weeks ago. You do not need, nor is it up to you, to police issues. Dare I suggest that liberal helpings of tea a couple of gracious apologies to each other, a hand shake and letting this storm in a tea cup subside? Blackmane (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blackmane, it's ok. I didn't take offense at Barts1a's posts. He was trying to help. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And I appreciate that you were able to see that I was trying to help. It's a trait that surprisingly few have! (As I am finding out...) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 09:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User page hijacked?

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

---

I've been helping a new editor, RomfordReject (talk · contribs), who seems to be genuinely contributing in good faith to articles related to a small British football club. Today, I found that his user page appears to have been hijacked by another user, Mauris Griffin, who posted a copy of the deleted article Brandon Vee [125]. This is completely outside RomfordReject's editing area. By following various "what links here" pages, up pops the following editors who have created (now deleted) articles on various subects relating to Mauris Griffin and the companies he owns:

• MaurisGriffin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Bevgould (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BMXE1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now blocked
• Zekel Health (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) now blocked

Between them they have created (and re-created):

• Mauris Griffin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zekel Healthcare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (owned by Mauris Griffin)
• BMX Entertainment Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)(owned by Mauris Griffin)
• Brandon Vee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (a BMX Entertainment artist)

The deleted article Zekel Healthcare is still posted at User:MaurisGriffin/sandbox, User:Bevgould/sandbox and User:Bevgould. I emphasise that I do not think RomfordReject has anything to do with this. I know "SPI is thataway", but this also entails possible user page hijacking and WP:FAKEARTICLE. The Brandon Vee article also had a fair amount of copyvio in it. I will notify all the users mentioned here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that RomfordReject doesn't match the other accounts and I'm not sure why MaurisGriffin hijacked his userpage. Anyway... I've blocked MaurisGriffin and Bevgould as obvious sockpuppets of Zekel Health (the oldest account) and deleted the remaining sandboxes/userpages with the promotional/copyvio draft article. Bencherlite^Talk 11:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Voceditenore (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

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

POV editing re Akanland / Ghana by User:MarkMysoe

Akanland is not a country, but a region in Africa. This editor is systematically editing articles relating to this area to remove or reduce mentions of Ghana. He has been asked not to do so, and his only response is to remove the messages from his talk page. There has been some discussion at WikiProject Africa. He is continuing - [126] (removes all mention of Ghana from infobox). There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Akan, which he founded on 5th September. His removal of the mention of the country from so many articles seems disruptive. PamD 12:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

University of Melbourne

Engaged in prolonged reversion of apparent copyright violations, which had previously been discussed at the article's talk page. I attempted dialogue and warned the primary user of the issues, to no avail and, until lately, with no response. I've requested page protection and user blocking, and received a 3rr warning from an admin for my troubles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As well, my takeaway is that we don't mean what we say re: copyright violation [127]. Silly of me to take the guidelines at face value. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I might have misunderstood the extent of the copyright violations - will reassess now. For next time, a note on my talk page would probably be enough to make me look twice. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)