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

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

---

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)

There has been a distinct lack of admin interest on this, apart from Elen – Incnis tried giving her one of his typical brow beatings yesterday without success, as he seems to becoming despondent due to lack of support for his RFC and behaviour. I'm not sure where this is even going to end up, myself... he seems keen to stand his futile ground. Though from where I'm standing, he might as well be facing a firing squad, the amount of opinion he has drawn against him, standing solo. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let me get something out of the way first: he's still not getting the message, as seen in an exchange today on an article's Talk [6]:

Incorrect Molar Mass The reported molar mass of the "hydron" is 1.00794 g/mol. Isn't that the molar mass of the hydrogen atom? The molar masses are based on the mass of a proton, so the molar mass of the hydrogen cation should be exactly one. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just Learn Physics Better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in all seriousness I'm beginning to wonder if the reason he's not getting the message is that he quite literally can't understand it. Consider this recent post by I.M. to another editor's Talk [7]:

I reverted your edit except its only part which was substantiated: removal of {{pi}}. I know that this was rude, but discarding a legitimate improvement, namely √2, by your edit, was silly. If you want to know, why I behave rude and do attack (you), then ask on my user_talk, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I submit there are two possibilities. Either

hypothesis (a) (the uncharitable interpretation) I.M. revels in the practice of what might be called "open and gross rudeness", or

hypothesis (b) (the charitable interpretation) he does not comprehend basic English words such as rude, attack, and silly.

If the answer is (b) then perhaps the controlling principle needed here is WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty:

If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.

EEng (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

He won't per this:

"The stranglehold of double standards was the main reason why I ceased to contribute to Russian Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"

I suspect that means he pulled the same stunts there as here and became outcast for not being civil or cooperative. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, English Wikipedia has its double standards too ☺ although these are quite different. My comment "user:… makes waste" was immediately obstructed, but most of blatantly disruptive and flame-provoking comments were not. And you all know, why these disruptive comments were not obstructed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I.M.'s response gives further weight to my hypothesis (b) above. In addition to, perhaps, trying again at the Russian WP (do they have WP:CLEANSTART?), I suggest in all seriousness that perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia might be a great place for his contributions -- they seem in dire need of help in the mathematics and sciences. I don't know what that idea means in terms of a proposal for what should happen here at en, but he certainly can't be allowed to continue the way he's going, and since he can tread water in an ocean of criticism for weeks on end yet emerge absolutely unwetted, it seems like mentoring is a nonstarter. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Simple Wiki is designed to present information in Basic English and suggests that there are only 2,000 common English words. You probably have to be good at English in order to determine how to select the right words for a non-English speaker to understand.. people like Incnis use broken English, with common and comples words, but quite muddled.. that's not Simple English Wiki's aim, and he would easily become more frustrated there than here, because a non-native speaker is less likely to be a walking thesaurus and know Simple English alternatives. I expect the maths and physics aren't up to his level either. He may be Russian, but he's not Aleksandr Orlov ("Simples!").Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And an advice to users who are upset with me, such as Andy Dingley, JBL and StringTheory11: try to give me a positive view of the etiquette, instead of participating in flamewars. Of course, I know that I should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate my point, myself, but with this bashing campaign I am already not sure, what I may do and what I must not do. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. But you'd do better to take it, before you give it. In fact, that would be the best place for to start.. by taking advice and stop knocking those who offer it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marcus! I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source. I am sure in the good faith of e.g. Andy Dingley despite his hectic attitude and direct breaches of AGF towards me. Sorry that I see here so few users experienced in content creation and a topical (damn!) interaction. My impression about users depends first on their own conduct, and only after that on my prejudices. I do not discard an other guy's opinion only because I do not like it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source." is also not AGF.. surely you see that? When people give advice you are supposed to either acknowledge it (mean you neither accept not refuse it), or respond positively.. "thanks for the advice.." you don't attack the advisor out of paranoia, distrust, or for any reason, it's uncivil, rude, not AGF, and not likely to make other people offer you good advice, because you turn them off giving it. You don't have to accept anyone's advice.. but when you don't, you don't have to tell them that. Better to say nothing, than give a seemingly "nasty" response. Understand? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble that people are having with you, I.M, is that all that people have been telling you is that your interaction style (or lack of) is exactly the problem. Your "paranoia" causes you to refuse "advices from every source" even from those of us who have never interacted with you. Experience in content creation does not give you a blank check to insult, attack or dismiss others. Unfortunately, you even acknowledge that you are rude and attack others that was posted above. It looks like what you need isn't a sanction or anything, but a mentor on the expected culture here, and maybe the western world in general, and how to get your point across without being insulting. Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's virtually what I've proposed below.. a short period of mentoring in interaction. I though you opposed it though, or were not in full agreement with the idea that he might be mentor-able? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was me that said that ( I may be wrong, I say or write a lot of things that I subsequently forget) Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just below you suggested a 1RR and block if this returns to ANI, and no need for mentoring. Not sure what would be best, though. He's got a new message put up on his userpage. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Struck the last part of my post else I'd be contradicting myself. Blackmane (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the message is something. Will be interesting to see what comes of it. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 3 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)

Wrap this up?

Given that Incnis Mrsi has voluntarily chosen to enact an interaction ban between himself and, well, pretty much everyone (with an exception) for the next 2 months, I'd say that more or less closes out the above proposal as enacted. I guess it's wait and see what happens in 2 months time. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes – if there's repeat uncivil behaviour over the next few months, give him a block and then he'll have to expect greater sanctions; I'm not too sure anyone can enforce his non-interaction, given that it's voluntary, and the lack of bold admin-interest or support over this sizeable week+ long discussion disgusts me. He'll be known and closer watched now though. Thanks to Elen for trying, however. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:55, 4 October 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)

To me it appears that Zaiger is actually a pretty standard example of a COI editor frustrated by misrepresentation on Wikipedia. His largest recent contributions recently have been talk page debate in which he (correctly) emphasizes that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not defunct, but has continued at a new site. Opposition to this viewpoint is predicated on the erroneous philosophy that ED is narrowly classified as a "web site", and a web site is defined solely by the holder of the original DNS record; but in fact it is a publication and a community foremost. It is not unusual for frustrated COIs to start lashing out more and more, and indeed not unusual for admins to single them out for extraordinarily harsh and unreasonable penalties, but Zaiger and the admins here, respectively, still have the power to do better.

I should emphasize very clearly - whether a user chooses the same name, or another name, to edit resources elsewhere on the web or in print, he should not be subject to any persecution based on ad hominem evaluations of his overall character by people who have read a line or two. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one in which editors are "vetted" for political reliability. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming all of this is correct, this could not possibly be an excuse for blatant trolling, surely? Not to mention that Encyclopedia Dramatica now shows Zaiger's preferred version, anyhow, and still the trolling ensued. Personally, I very much doubt one had to do with the other, but it really doesn't matter in the end. Trolling like that gets you blocked, simple as that.

As for your second paragraph, I'm honestly not sure I understand your point. I shouldn't use Zaiger's contributions on other sites to show that his comments here are just an act/trolling? Huh? Why not? --Conti|✉ 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

the current version is the result of a lot of talk page discussion and consensus, not "Zaiger's preferred version". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Zaiger's preferred version was the wrong one. I fully agree with you that his preferred one is the one that has consensus currently, and as such is the one the article is based on. --Conti|✉ 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting contributions from this IP address [8] [9]. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on those links, it appears this whole "homophobia" charade was a "clever" imitation of the User:Fæ affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indef

• I agree with Salvio. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not okay with the way this went. Zaiger has made good edits, and some bad edits. Now, he's been blocked indef on a first block, with vague allusions to 'trolling', even though a SPI case was returned as negative. Last I checked BADSITES was not in effect, and editors here on WP should not be blocked based on their alleged actions elsewhere. Furthermore, I'm really not seeing consensus to block here. The big issue here, of course, is that both LiteralKa and Zaiger have been editing the GNAA article in a manner that is disagreeable to User:Cupco, hence the SPI case that fell through, and the subsequent block - Alison ^❤ 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (and as CU who ran the aforementioned case, I fully welcome any other CU to review my analysis and act accordingly)

I didn't block him because he's involved with ED. I blocked him because his on-wiki show is entirely inconsistent with his off-wiki behavior, and strongly suggests that his on-wiki conduct is intended to disrupt rather than out of a good-faith concern. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't right. An editor should not be compelled to be one thing or another on a third-party site - nor should he be compelled to always be the same way on that site as here. The fact is, Wikipedia is a serious endeavor and ED is a humorous one. There's a difference between using a word in the context of a humorous sketch and using it in some other discussion. Mind you, I haven't even looked at Zaiger's case in any real detail - what bothers me here is the logic being used by others in considering it. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

After you get elected to ArbCom we'll talk about that. In the meantime, perusing the talk pages of badmnachine (what hasn't been revdeleted, that is) I see that User:Michaeldsuarez has also been given an indefinite vacation. WP:BADSITES may be a failed policy on Wikipedia, but WP:NOTHERE is applied pretty often. And it was correctly applied in this case to Zaiger, who vandalized a few articles and screamed bloody murder about perceived insults that he regularly tosses at people elsewhere. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obvious troll is obvious. May I suggest that Alison spends too much time in such company, such as User:badmachine—another blocked troll, for whom she also vouched personally at one point? She may have lost sense of what level of trolling is acceptable on enwp. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is *not* obvious, to quote a well-worn meme. I've no problem with indefblocking persistent trolls and have done so many times myself, but I'm not seeing the justification here. I do see Zaiger making an effort to modify his behaviour on request, yet that was rebuffed. And I see a unilateral indef block being handed down for the flimsiest of reasons. It's more of that ED/GNAA/Trolling//b/ third rail effect; associate an adversary 'opposing editor' with any of these groups, file a somewhat unwarranted SPI case, then run to ANI to have them banhammered. The point I'm making here is that not all people are being treated the same here, and that's simply not okay. Then when someone (as I am) questions it, you go on to smear them with the same accusations. I don't care who keeps company with who; what matters is solely their behaviour here, and that they be given fair opportunity to address that properly before they are sanctioned. This hasn't happened here, and it smacks of vendetta - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Riiiight. Look how well badmachine turned out as a Wikipedia editor. WP:AGF and all that while Zaiger pulls off bad-taste jokes about Jews in article space. No thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

In my observation Alison treats other Wikipedians with respect and dignity and good faith and refrains from demonizing other human beings because of one or more actions that aren't Wiki-correct. I don't think any of that is ever a bad thing. Nobody Ent 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to be fair with everyone - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the indef. Wikipedia can do with fewer trolls, and this case is rather obvious. Rklawton (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block; I have just logged in and I intended to block Zaiger myself, but I see I was beaten to it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alison, the SPI case was not the reason for the indef block. It was Zaiger's behavior during that case, not the allegations made in that case, that led to the block. As such, the results of the case are irrelevant here (And I have no doubts about the results you posted on the SPI, by the way). You write that "what matters is solely their behaviour here", and I fully agree with that. And, no matter how I look at it, Zaiger's behavior here was blatant trolling for the sake of causing disruption. Either that, or he really is genuinely offended by the most vague allusions that could possibly be interpreted as homophobic (while at the same time having words like "faggot" in his everyday vocabulary). I'm sure you know much better than me which of the two is more likely. I find it interesting that neither you nor anyone else defending him has actually tried to defend the very edits that led to his block. All you offer are platitudes and allegations that he is being singled out. It's hard to respond to vague statements like that, but I can assure you that my motivation for all this was solely his trolling that led to the block, and nothing else. I did not even know that he was an ED bigwig until I looked a bit closer at the issue. --Conti|✉ 21:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

to quote from above: "Riiiight". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that those edits are totally right, but they're not that wrong. The ad hominem argument used against him was indeed where things started going off the rails. Crying "homophobe" was not great, no, but right now, today, we have on Jimbo Wales' page a defense of editors calling people "arsehole" and "dishonest idiot" [10] so why not 'homophobe' too? Or if this is the one sole solitary Bad Word a person can use on Wikipedia, does it have to lead to an indef block? Wnt (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here wasn't the use of the word "homophobe", the problem was that the outrage over the perceived (and non-existent) homophobia was a blatant fake. --Conti|✉ 09:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You're drawing that conclusion based solely on activity on another site, which means that you're blocking him solely based on his participation in that site. This is the reason why Wikipedia ends up being composed of "anonymous cowards" - because any information you give can and will be used against you. In addition, this deduction is not even correct - for example, just because someone freely uses "faggot" in a humor site doesn't mean he would think it is right to call people that, or want to be called that in a dispute about article content or here at AN/I, because it's a totally different context. I would consider that it is actually because ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue, where gay editors feel comfortable that they are not going to have their work deleted or their accounts blocked by those with the so-called conservative agenda, that the use of such words over there is not seen as disruptive. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take someone seriously who writes that "ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue". The "conservative agenda" bit was particularly amusing, though. --Conti|✉ 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have relates to the double-standards I'm seeing here. One editor files a largely unsubstantiated SPI case (which I rejected), and it gets erased surreptitiously and the filer gets a week-long block. The second SPI case is also largely unsubstantiated. I run that to the best of my ability and, though it comes back clear, the accused gets indef'd and the filer pretty-much gets a pat on the back.

By all means, ban all the trolls or whatever (for whichever definition of 'trolls' you determine) but please do so in an even-handed manner across the board. I don't see that happening here. And because there are ED and GNAA connections, it should be demonstrably fair, and done 'by the book'. Because it will be questioned - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that someone who is part of a trolling organization is trolling when their behavior can reasonably be interpreted as trolling seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. If a KKK member makes statements that appear to be racist I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just really like the robes and hoods. It is unreasonable to not consider intentional membership in a group dedicated to committing the same transgression of which one is accused, especially when said transgression is literally the raison d'etre of the organization. I'm sorry Allison, I think you're a fine administrator but you seem to have much too high a threshold for trolling. Sædon^talk 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well no, frankly. Because that's taking off-wiki behaviour into account and that's just not fair. That's without even getting into the whole impersonation/cross-linking business. And if we applied that rule across the board, there would be a whole lot less editors here. Also, making KKK comparisons is grossly unfair - seriously. Look I've been an ED sysop myself at one time. And a WP sysop. Concurrently, even. I'm somehow still here. Yet these days, I'm seeing editors with any sort of remote connection to ED being indef blocked, largely so someone else can have their way with whatever article is in dispute (usually ED/GNAA or MLP stuff). Seriously - that's just not okay - Alison ^❤ 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES links to a failed proposal, and one that doesn't address this situation at that. You're asserting that it's not fair but you're not giving an argument as to why it wouldn't be fair. If someone is known to be part of organization X, the purpose of which is to engage in behavior Y, and then that person engages in what can be reasonably interpreted to be behavior Y, we would be foolish to pretend that this linkage is outside of the bounds of consideration. In murder trials of gang members, for instance, gang affiliation can be presented as evidence - even though it is prejudicial - because gangs are organizations known for engaging in murder.

Your other two arguments are either strawmen or tangential: (i) I did not make that claim that all editors who are also ED editors are trolling WP, only that when someone appears to be trolling and is part of a trolling organization it is reasonable to take said affiliation into account and (ii) this isn't an editor with a "remote" connection to ED randomly getting indeffed - it's an editor who appeared to be trolling to uninvolved, [presumably] reasonable editors, and who is more than a "remote" player at ED. Lastly, you make the assertion that a KKK comparison is grossly unfair but have not offered an argument demonstrating that the fundamentals of the analogy are false(namely that both groups can be seen to exist for the purpose of deviance and that if it were reasonable to consider the affiliation of a member of one group the same argument stands for a member of the other group. In no way does the analogy carry the insinuation that ED members are like the KKK in regards to their morality, nor that ED members are racist. It is a common mistake for people to focus on non-fundamental aspects of an analogy as a means to dismiss the analogy as a whole, but I think you will find after consideration that the fundamentals are congruent). Sædon^talk 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about doing it 'by the book' and are concerned that things will be questioned, should you have been the one to have done the SPI both times since you personally know the individuals named in the SPI?. - SudoGhost 00:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I personally know them, I pointed out that I know who they are IRL (in real life). That's very different - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you see a huge distinction there, but I'm not seeing it. That's still very questionable, you being the one to handle both SPIs when you know and have had previous extensive off-wiki involvement with the individuals in the SPI. If you're going to claim "by the book" wasn't happening, next time perhaps you should take a look at your own actions, because you aren't exactly in any position to be claiming things weren't handled correctly. Perhaps there is no WP:INVOLVED-equivalent for CUs, but either way you shouldn't be handling the SPI for your former associates. - SudoGhost 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - I have not had "previous extensive off-wiki involvement" with anyone mentioned in either of those cases. Please point out evidence to support this assertion, or withdraw it. In fact, I've run plenty of cases here over the years involving Wikipedians with whom I've had involvement; it's an inevitability here. As it happens, this is now being handled by AUSC so they can decide accordingly. But statements like this are utterly unfair - Alison ^❤ 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more unfair than you accusing others of being unfair and of not going "by the book" if you're going to put yourself in a position where you actions are just as questionable. Someone who says "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets" shouldn't be the one to run the SPI on "those guys", especially if you were concerned about the appearance of being fair and avoid questionable actions. - SudoGhost 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting words into my mouth that I did not utter is unfair. I did not say "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets". I suggested that two of them are unrelated based on my knowledge of who they both were IRL. I did not say that nobody was socking; that had yet to be determined. At this point, I'm not going to comment any further - Alison ^❤ 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for paraphrasing, your exact words were "I can say that I know who both {{user|LiteralKa}} and {{User:Zaiger}} are IRL and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated." If you're going to vouch for two editors in an SPI, you shouldn't then be the one that runs the CU and then ask others to take your word on the results. Is this something actionable? Probably not. However it is very questionable activity, especially when you then complain that others might be doing questionable things regarding the same situation. - SudoGhost 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this line of discussion is productive. I suspect that many of our veteran checkusers could say something like "I can say that I know who both Grawp and who Bambifan101 are IRL, and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated". That doesn't mean that they'd be vouching for either Grawp or Bambifan. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a situation where some checkuser gained knowledge of the editors due to their experience as a checkuser/admin, as Zaiger's talk page indicates. I'm not suggesting that something inappropriate happened here, but when an editor points out that something should be done carefully since it would be questioned, their own actions in that situation shouldn't be just as questionable. - SudoGhost 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a related concern: Zaiger's location is identical to that of the IP which made a (now revision-deleted) edit to the SPI case against me which Basedircrory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) quickly blanked and then replaced with identical text and his signature instead of the IP signature after he logged in. So how can they "geolocate to very different places"? —Cupco 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have seen all their IP addresses and you have not. As I've already stated, I welcome any other CU to recheck my result, and I see one has already - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is a witch-hunt --Polmas (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. COI trolls are needed here so badly for their "excruciating anal devastation" line of comments. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

trolling? you forget about Comet Egypt who was obviously a troll, and you want trolling? "Is it my fault, that i'm better than you? even though i'm a jew.

everybody just loves me. 

they just come to see,

how hot and amazing i am,
they just need to stay calm.
i just wanna be left be,
but everyone wants to touch me, inappropriately.

I'm hot really hot and you're just super not. i'm cool you're fat so i treat you like a household mat. everybody wants to be me, i think it's cuz they can see, that i'm just so super cool..."(jared milton, who is a real troll)- that is trolling, it is made clear to me that this person Zaiger has said that he will not repeat his actions of calling the user in question a homophobe, so i see no point to the indef block. I support alison fully. instead of blocking somebody who has stated that they will sease and desist, you should be looking for people who post worthless shit like the quote i gave. and to me, it appears that you're basing this on his account on encyclopedia Dramatica, that's how things look anyway. I'm not attempting to accuse anyone here, but put it this way, you're flimzy reason for blocking this user after he has clearly stated that he will not do it again, is as dumb as the song i quoted above. maybe try that on for size. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where did he say he won't do what again? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

here: "I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do." Previously he said he would not retract his statements, however, nor did he ever even attempt to substantiate his claims. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Subsequently. Since Alison says Zaiger's address doesn't geolocate to the same place as Basedircrory, but the IP address which Basedircrory tried to hide in their deleted contributions geolocates to where Zaiger says he is located on his blog (in multiple and his most recent posts, I should add) then I suggest (1) Basedircrory was probably using a proxy until they slipped up by making a non-logged in edit, and (2) another checkuser should look at whether the sources are from proxies or consumer IPs. —Cupco 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to put up an unblock request he should explain what he plans to contribute to Wikipedia, not just give assurances that he won't behave like a troll. Insofar he turned out to be the prototypical WP:COI editor we don't want here. His main focus here was the article of the website (ED) he is associated with. His style of argumentation on Wikipedia was a mirror of the style that ED promotes and not just in that last incident (see the unrelated "excruciating anal devastation" comment linked above.) Besides that, he vandalized a couple of other articles here with his ED-style "jokes" about Jews and made inconsequential minor edits to a few more. [11] [12] That was essentially his four-year career here. It's hard to escape the conclusion that his participation to Wikiepdia was a net negative up to now. Yes, we do coddle other potty mouthed editors (cf. latest ArbCom request on "Professionalism and civility"), but at least they contribute something besides trivial edits and bad jokes. The indef block imposed on Zaiger is not at all unusual. See the case of 7mike5000 for comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like some low-level and mild issues over a period of time being built up into a massive troll conspiracy based on who he is and what website he is primarily associated with. Not a good block at all, certainly not an indef. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Having reviewed the information here, I think this is a clear case of someone with an axe to grind and not someone with a serious commitment to the growth and betterment of Wikipedia as a project. This appears to be someone who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia as their primary motivation for contributing, so I'm not sure we need to keep their distractions around for much longer. I'm afraid of all of the collateral choking should we grant someone like this too much WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just because someone refuses to retract their statement doesn't mean that they are going to continue harassing people over it. I agree that we should kdeep wikipedia free of trolls, but even with the sources you gave, it still looks like you're blocking him based on his connection with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why don't you tell me that i can't edit here because of my bulbapedia account (Christian woods), that would not be fair, would it? in any case, i do acknowledge that he stated that he will not retract what he said before, but you refuse to acknowledge that he has stated clear as day that he will not repeat his actions regarding fear of homosexual people. Again, worry about those people who repeat their disruptive actions, and not those who dispite their refusal to retract the statement, has made it clear that there will be no repeats of such things in the future. I don't have an account here nor do i wish to create one, but i can say this. maybe i can talk to him a little bit, i am jewish after all and i have actually made jew jokes before on a couple websites. maybe if you allow him to use his talk page i can speak with him and find out what's going on, i have a thing with trolls, how do you think i got Jared Milton to stop making videos on youtube, at least for the present time anyway? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Has Zaiger made any actual good article contributions? That's the main thing I want to know. Silverseren^C 04:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a grand total of 20 edits to mainspace, the majority of which apparently deal with Encyclopedia Dramatica. In short: it would seem not. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with encyclopedia dramatica? i don't remember there being anything oh so bad about comedy, ooh! heavin forbid someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica dare help edit an article on this site about it, because that's the biggest crime ever commited! ooh, why don't you do a spi to find out where he lives again, arrest him and launch the jail cell with him/her into space so he/she will either burn up in the thurmosphere or die due to lack of oxygin. note the sarcasm. what exactly is wrong with being from encyclopedia dramatica anyway, i mean you shouldn't give people from that site the status of troll automaticly, allison, help me. I'm not saying that he can do jew jokes, i stated above that i'm jewish, but i'm saying that using encyclopedia dramatica as part of your basis to block zaiger is not only asanine and shit headed, but it's also unjust and unreasonable. What's next, you gonna block me now because i have a bulbapedia account? look up Christian Woods, i'm also on bulbagarden and Serebii, gonna block me for being from there? the way you guies act, i could just as easily be a troll because i have an account on a site related to pokemon, i mean really. understand? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BLOCK STRONGLY. - i made that all caps to show my sincerity. reason: The basis of the block as i can see has shit to do with the contribution for the encyclopedia, and everything to do with his status on encyclopedia dramatica. I'm not promoting the website or anything, i just wish to see a little bit of fairness here, this block is not justified, and Encyclopedia Dramatica should never have been brought into this. i'm sensing something that appears suspiciously like an attack campaign, and it is the reason why i didn't make that edit i wanted to make in the article about Zoroark master of elusions. You guys are making it look like you're automaticly a troll and it's the biggest crime on earth as i said above to have a minor minor connection with something or someone. So, i oppose and curse this block, and its basis, in the name of fairness and in the name of wikipedia! (throws out chest bairing wikipedia's logo on the front of shirt. then proclaims loudly:) No Attack campaigns.

You make this look like an unfair battle from super smash brothers in which link, samas and Pikachu are ganging up on a level 2 luigi, and luigi can't attack or defend himself. that's my analogy of most of you guies here. sorry, that's how i'm seeing it, i'm sure i'm not the only one who notices tha attack campaign format of this, not only against zaiger, but against encyclopedia dramatica, which is a COMEDY website, "for the lols" (meaning it's supposed to make one laugh.) thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You've made your point in this thread amply enough already. Now please drop the WP:STICK. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sticks have two ends, and I've found it's often hard for a single editor to carry one by themselves from very long. Nobody Ent 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not untill i see some fairness here, and besides, you're doing the attacking anyway. you oppose my views, so i will don't think i've made my point clear to all people here yet. you don't even acknowledge what i'm saying. and again, i don't support trolling, but i believe that the block should have been for a better reason than encyclopedia dramatica, and leave my contribs out of this. you've all proven to me that i am not welcome here, but i shall sease when i see some fairness here. this isn't about tijfo or myself anyway, it's about zaiger as you can clearly see. i don't see the fairness, andand also leave my status out of this please tijfo, i don't take to such things that well. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Can we have more poems then? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters much (being eponymously a nobody) but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome here. However, if you need or expect fairness from Wikipedia I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed -- not because of maliciousness but a host of reasons too long to iterate here. Nobody Ent 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just think that things should be handled different, and i'm shitty at poetry, ask my english teacher. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Also if you're refering to the quote i gave tifjo, it's super super cool by jared milton. please youtube if you like, but warning, it's a little strange to say the least. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Although he clearly did not display the civil behavior required to be a productive Wikipedian, I feel that an indef block is far too much for his comments on a superfluous SPI case that he was only named in for editing an article in a NPOV manner that someone didn't find productive. I feel a short-term block would benefit more, as well as possible wiki-mentorship or whatever it's called. Maractus (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

possible idea

Now here's a suggestion that should seem fair to all parties concirned: yes it does involve unblocking him.

• step 1: unblock him but monitor his edits (but don't be all creepy stalky about it)
• step 2: rather than punnishing him for editing ED articles, you can maybe encourage him to do civil disgussions on the ED article's talk page on how he can word his contributions so they don't seem like promos.
• step 3: someone have a conversation either via e-mail or on his talk page on how some ideas of things to help contribute to. it worked for me on bulbapedia, which is similar to this but about pokemon. nevertheless, that idea should be considered.

If he persists then maybe a week or month long block would be ideal, an indef should never be a first time block, it gives a bad impression on people, not just Zaiger him/herself. also, it's not right to make assumtions that because of his status on encyclopedia dramatica, he's a troll. as stated in the previous section here, ED is humorous while this is serious. I know i don't have status on Wikipedia here, but i don't care, i just think that maybe my suggestion should be considered before you finalize this disgussion. and no, i don't support him making jew jokes on serious websites, i am jewish after all. thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, so why is everyone saying ED instead of just saying erectile dysfunction like adults? Also, I think it was very insensitive for the previous poster to refer to ED as "humorous" when sufferers often find themselves feeling powerless -- even impotent (though admittedly the neurological signs are often soft). EEng (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's an alternate suggestion: go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For the love of Kirsty Hawkshaw i'm trying to help out here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly do you want to help? What connection do you have to Zaiger? Silverseren^C 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i have a connection to him. I think that the block is unfair because of what it's based off of. quite a few of these people are letting this ED shit get to them, and i'm trying to the best of my ability to see this as a reasonable block, but i'm at the point where it will litteraly take this spaciffic someone to help me out, because i don't see it as a reasonable basis at all.

• even though he refuses to retract his homophobe acusations, he has clearly stated that he will not repeat the statement in the future.
• His status (pronounced stay-tuhs, the propper way) on encyclopedia dramatica is being brought into this when it has as much to do with this as the way i pronounce status does.
• and finally, assumtions of trolling because of said status on Encyclopedia Dramatica being used as arguments to rationalize his block

are not ways that a block should be imposed on someone. we can't read minds, and i'm sure some good faith has been assumed, but let's not show that we make those kinds of assumtions please, it brings Wikipedia a bad immage. This is coming from someone who wishes every once in a while to find things to edit on this encyclopedia. I'm uninvolved, and though i oppose the block, i don't promote trolling at all. But i also know not to assume he's trolling or not. i'm trying to put this nutrally but it's hard when i get told to go away by Andy the Grump, and when Tifjo tries to status push here. Again, let's leave my status out of this, we're not here to talk about my status, we're here on this notice board to help make a rational decision based on a good reason and not based on views on a sertain websight that makes attempts at humour. so let's just stick to trying to keep things as reasonable as possible here. mkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling your stay-tuhs here may change soon enough [13]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please define what you maen by saing my status will change, and Hopefully he did stop making videos. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, i'm much moe concerned about the fact that he doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. A complete and almost utter lack of mainspace edits shows that he's really not making any constructive worthwhile edits. Combine that with past and present negative actions and I see no reason for him to be unblocked. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you're not here for that purpose, then you shouldn't be here. Silverseren^C 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh i do have a few article edits i wish to make, i'm just currently attempting to find sources for them, such as the fact that Kirsty Hawkshaw was active in 1989. i just don't have a completely reliable source yet, so i'm not putting that untill i do. and i take it my suggestion won't be considered at all? my Status better not be the reason, and i ask again, what does tifjo mean by saying my status here will change soon enough? clairify that please and thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean you as in you, I was just speaking in general. And it seems to me that he's being "punished" because he really doesn't seem to be a constructive editor. Combine that with the unconstructive things he's done and I don't see why he should be allowed to stay here. And, yeah, it might be better if you make an actual account. Silverseren^C 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What's done is done, but i won't create an account, odds are it'll be inactive for long periods of time, i spend most of my time on bulbapedia. but i'd still like clairification on Tifjo's statement on "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." what exactly is that supposed to mean? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you "quoting" this guy on your talk page? Someone you know or wish to emulate? Doc talk 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Catch me if you can? For someone "not trolling" he is surely well acquainted with plenty of trolls. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i was acquainted with trolls, i said i got a spaciffic troll to stop on a different website for the time being. again, i do not support trolling at all, and rather wish that it never began at all. But alass, there's nothing i can do about that. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

user: Tifjo089 and irrational deletion

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

---

Hello, i am an ip user in Manitoba who is attempting to speak with Tifjo but every time i attempt to do so, my edits keep getting undone, by someone. I had a message on my talkpage presumably poasted by mdan052 saying that he's the one doing this, yet on Tifjo's page, Tifjo states that they are the one doing this,. I am askng him for clairification on a statement he made above in the section regarding Zaiger in which he says "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." I do not know if he means that he believes me to be Jared Milton, who is a well known youtube user who has made controvercial and just lane dumb statements. I've asked him once about an hour ago, the edit got deleted. i tried again, edit got deleted, message from Mdan052 on my ip talk page. Asked Mdan052 to quit undoing my edits and told him why i'm making them, repoasted my clairification request to tifjo's talk page, only for it to pull a Houdini again. I then see a section in tifjo's page about me falsly accusing Mdan052 of undoing my edits, then i post a message saying why i believed him/her to have done it. it disappears again. I repeated the message on Mdann052's talkpage and so far it is still there. I do not think that it is right for Tifjo to avoic me the way he is when i'm trying to get him to explain a statement he's saying to me. is it a threat? does he think i'm a troll? i am completely clueless as to what is going on here, and would ask that someone gets him to stop his behavior twards me. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't speculate on Tijfo's reasons, but the edit history of their talk page makes clear (esp. this summary) that your comments are not welcome there, and they have a perfect right to remove them. It would be nice if that had been made clear in an actual response, but that doesn't alter the fact: please refrain from posting on Tijfo's talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So what do they do? Post on the talk page again.[14]. Not a competent editor here to contribute positively. Doc talk 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Eh, plain talking doesn't seem to work with him: [15]. And by the way, he misquoted me in his ANI statement above. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "I have a feeling" isn't plain talking. Nobody Ent 19:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You tell me that you have a feeling that my "stay-tuhs will change" soon enough here, ("i have a feeling that your stay-tuhs here may change here soon enough") i want to know what you mean by that. and where else am i going to ask you, and in future, please let me know that you don't want to disguss it there, and tell me where i can ask you if not on your user talk page. and sorry for the misquote, i stand slightly corrected. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I fess up: I think you'll be made admin pretty soon. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey, sarcasm is my gig, lol. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) a friend of mine for some reason told me to "leave wikipedia alone" for some reason, so this is my last message for a long while untill he flies home. I am not a troll, i do not promote trolling, and i wanted to only see fareness. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about this; Tijfo098, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK, hinting/insinuating/quasi-threatening that another editor will be blocked when you lack any sort of admin ability to actually carry such a thing out. Mr. 199.101.61.190, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK and repeatedly posting on someone's talk page when they have made it clear that they do not wish to talk to you. There, my daily let's-make-peace duties are done. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

Actually, I would say the difference there is fine, its substantially different circumstance when not a single editor but the nominator supports deletion then it is when there is a 2:1 split in favor of deletion. Regarding Advance Romance, The nominator makes a good WP:MUSIC deletion argument. The delete !voter makes a generic deletion argument that does not address whether or not this particular song meets the notability guidelines, if it were agreed the article did pass, the argument made would probably not carry much if any weight. The keep !voter makes a general notability argument without clearly labeling it as such and points to the fact the article is well cited, and it does in fact have 2 citations that support general notability, though the first is questionably reliable, the second one clearly is. So we have one good delete argument, one very weak delete, and one moderately good keep argument. Could it have been relisted? Yes, but after a week with no comments, to close it seems reasonable, and it would be a big stretch to argue it should have been deleted on the close. Monty₈₄₅ 15:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say not really, in a 3 person vote 1 voter is often the article creator or a prominent editor of the article, 1 voter is the nominator and we would hope that third would be impartial. Giving the nominators argument less weight in a 2:1 split implies a bias to the article creator no matter what their argument, it's exactly the kind of bias that consensus should eliminate during the discussion process. On Advance Romance if the second source made more than a passing mention of "Advance Romance" the point might have been valid, but as it is the mention was only passing so does not constitute "Significant coverage" per the GNG and as the first source is self published then the GNG was not met and the keep voter's claim fails to answer the deletion reasoning and should be considered accordingly. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Advance Romance was open two weeks, not a single person participated after it was relisted. Apathy itself demonstrates a lack of consensus, since most votes at AfD are to delete, by a 2 to 1 margin. In a case like this, defaulting to a no consensus conclusion (which means you can renominate it tomorrow) is less destructive than deleting it with a questionable consensus. So as far as this one AfD, it was a reasonable judgment call that many would have made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:NONADMINCLOSURE "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." When the difference is 1 !vote, that would seem to be a "close call". -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the close itself is procedurally defective. It is prudential advice to avoid controversy such as this. While we should all aspire to follow best practices, failing to do so is not in and of itself a reason to revert. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that most closes should be left to an admin but since we do allow them I can't help but to ignore the bit and not look at it as a "non-admin" closure, but just as a closure. As such, my impression is that most people would have closed it this way, so I don't see this as particularly contentious, nor a cause of alarm. This doesn't mean that everyone will agree with the close, but that most would or at least see the logic and utility in it. In general, I believe "no consensus" closes are less contentious to begin with, as it amounts to a punt to a state that existed before the AFD, not a declaration that the community has spoken to keep or delete. For an AfD that fails to draw a crowd that cares enough one way or another, that is probably the best solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't actually said the close on "Advance Romance" was bad - in fact I said that it was perfectly valid, though I questioned why "No Consensus" wasn't being equally in the Island Province when the nominator was strongly challenging the keep rationale and the voting was equally marginal. Dennis' points about apathy and Advance Romance being a reasonable judgement actually question the whole process of deletion in the case of low profile subjects as the AfD that fails to generate enough discussion becomes only as useful as a PROD - even if strongly valid rationales for deleting are made and weakly challenged.though the latter is a question for the village pump rather than here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Although this is a report of RCS actions in a series of issues concerning a single feature of Wikipedia processes, I feel that in the light of his editing history, we need to look at the bigger picture. While obviously acting in GF, in spite of some more serious issues and the advice in a recently failed RfA, he is still constantly having brushes with policies.

I think it would be a very good idea if RCS were to agree to stay away for a while (6 months?) from anywhere that needs a !vote or a carefully considered judgement or opinion. While the technical side of Wikipedia can be learned, maturity is something particular to the individual that only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI is not very well suited for bigger picture discussions -- I'd suggest RFC/U if you feel such an action is appropriate. Nobody Ent 12:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good idea, and fair, but with the exception of RfAs, please. Stating my opinion on a candidate oughtn't to be restricted. Six months. Rcsprinter (speak) @ 22:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

As Dennis said, the only time a NAC is appropriate is when the consensus is clear and when the closure does not require an action that requires certain user rights that the user does not have (Admins closing XFDs, Bureaucrats closing RFAs, etc.). An exception to this might be WP: AN/RFC, an area where I help out and Dennis helps run, where non-admins help close many of the RFCs that don't require the admin tools. I'd like to draw some attention to this closure of an RFA. You won't see it because RCS never listed it at WP: RFAU. Anyways, that's just my 2 cents. Additionally, it would be best if RCS didn't make any NACs for the next 6 months, but he should be allowed to vote in RFXs, XFDs, RFCs, etc. He's a member of the community, just as we all are, and he should be allowed to have a say in the community processes, despite his inappropriate closures. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I disagree. While there have been lapses in judgment, there has not been a pattern of disruption or unwillingness / inability to improve--not to mention the fact that he has been less disruptive than many editors who are (rightfully) under no restriction. While Rcsprinter should exercise more caution in closing things (and indeed, consider leaving it to others), and more eyes on his work would help, saying he shouldn't take part in discussions seems more humiliating than anything. I am willing to trust that he'll learn from this, as he has from other incidents, and be able to make better considered decisions for himself in the future. wctaiwan (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP deletion of Timeline of the Enron scandal, eyeball request

Link to this item also posted at BLP noticeboard.

Disclosure - I have expanded a few other Enron articles missing information, however no axe to grind, nor any editorial disputes. I noticed this article today and have never edited it. "Just in case" I give immediate consent to reverse my action.

Eyeballs appreciated on this page, just deleted under WP:BLPDEL. Considerable review and reluctance went into the action as it's a "last resort" to delete an encyclopedic article.

The problem is that the page is egregiously riddled with unsourced BLP vios and tone issues. There's no BLP violation in describing actions as fraudulent or criminal, provided this is sourced and neutrally described, but in this article the tone is also poor, one-sided, mostly uncited, and comes over as POV as well. So it isn't just a matter of adding cites, it's quite likely to need a near-total cleanup and stripping out BLP/NPOV vios - my impression is this implies virtually rewriting the article. The few cites it does have are completely inadequate; they support a few specific (often minor) points leaving the vast majority unreferenced. Even if it became cited it's not clear whether any of the text is sufficiently salvageable to keep a viable article due to the tone issues and negative one-sided views (and omission of balancing or necessary/salient information) which abounds.

Enron's case is also impossible to untangle from the individuals infamous for their role in the scandal. Numerous claims were made. Some were proven, some merely alleged, and a few matters may involve individuals never actually indicted with an offense or to whom "mud may stick"; the Enron articles can impact individuals linked to the case through untested or poor sourced claims, or failure to ensure NPOV, regardless of merit; BLP/NPOV is therefore even more crucial so we do not promulgate hearsay or hints as fact.

Examples

"Under NAME there was a long succession of business failures and missteps and according to many financial analysts, the company was swimming in debt." - cites? "Long succession" says whom? which "many" analysts? Any other views or was this the only significant view? "Several high level Enron execs "fall on their swords" for NAME" - a quote, but where from, how reliable, any other views on this characterization? "NAME seizes funds from the employee stock ownership program to buy back stock giving NAME2 a huge profit" - facts, not opinions. Cite? Other views? "Enron begins to make plans to have the computer processing brought back into house so they have more control." - says who? Control for/over what? As it stands, negative tone hinting at wrong but not giving details. "NAME is involved in the scandal and later is accused of cooking the books at Enron Energy Services and lying to Congress" - involved in what way? Or just generically "involved"? Who accused, was there a case, was he found innocent, according to whom "lying to congress"? Cites, other views, all missing. "NAME creates [company] (managed by NAME2) in an effort to hide debt and inflate profits" - according to whom was this done for that purpose? Exclusively for that purpose, or other purposes too (presumably a ruling will exist)? Cite? "NAME files a fraudulent [XYZ filing]" - numerous entries of this form, all uncited. Even if well attested these need citing. "NAME commits securities fraud by omitting bad news and lying to investors" - omitting what "bad news"? Lying in what way to investors? Lying according to whom? Other views? "NAME makes false presentation to investors" - false in what way, according to whom? Other views? "Enron executives get bonus checks for millions of dollars" - every one of them, or are we tarring some with brushes that are undeserved. Presumably this suggests every last executive? All wrongful? I have no idea, it's not cited.

And so on. The article is a list of points in this style, almost from first to last, and doesn't seem to have much or any context to explain the nuances, context or other salient information of the claims it makes. Several people are mentioned briefly, and often only for their negative acts or assertions, mostly uncited and no context or underlying facts or sources, and seemingly unbalanced. If I were writing "IHateEnron.com", this is how my timeline might look.

WP:BLP states: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion". WP:CSD covers deletion on "negative unsourced" grounds where needed. WP:DP lists BLP but doesn't offer useful alternatives or a set process where WP:BLP specifically does. WP:DGFA has little to offer.

I can't find any comfortable way to handle less than "delete and seek community discussion of what to do next". While it is arguable no harm is done, people were all guilty, page has been there ages etc, none of those are really very compelling BLP arguments. The page (as said) is primarily a list of negatives only, with minimal cites and a distinctly one sided very broad brush. At least one negative unsourced claim refers to person/s uncharged and nominally still in good standing. It's not being actively improved. It's hard to see how it is fixable without considerable work. It is also wrong to leave it up during that work as it stands, if ever done.

Options seem to be reverse and restore, formal discussion here or at AFD/DRV, or leave deleted. Whatever consensus says is fine by me. My concern is that it gets eyeballs, and that the article shouldn't be hanging round as a BLP matter until we know what we're doing with it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, what? I spot checked a few of the items, and the information is all referenced in other articles. This seems like a bit of a stretch to delete this per BLPPROD. If you really want to, AFD would be a better venue; at least that would spur people to migrate the references over to the article. The article seems like a reasonable article, which serves its purpose, which is to lay out the timeline of the Enron thingy. I'm at a loss as to why this was so dangerous that it had to go NOW. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"In other articles". The cites need migrating over... and the tone, the balance, is that "in other articles too"? Sorry, but as it stands, it's just too far below par to simply decide the cites are in some other article somewhere else in Wikipedia, where the reader can also see what's accurate and NPOV if they care to look for it. They need to be got right in this article (slightly more concern may be appropriate due to the high profile of Enron, scope for conspiracy theories/hearsay to gain oxygen "from WIkipedia" if facts are one sided/POV, and importance of BLP), and this article isn't so easy to "quick fix" because it's the tone, POV and factual balance, not just citing, that's a problem.

Delete and seek eyeballs (per BLPDEL exactly) is more appropriate and useful than 10 days discussion and exposure. It has to be fixed one way or another, and AFD isn't for obviously notable topics with gross BLP issues. It cannot easily remain in mainspace "as is". Stubbing is often an option, but when an entire timeline article is a problem there wasn't anything less to stub to. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

But this wasn't unreferencable nor was it beyond the pale. Nothing I am seeing in the deleted article is particularly contentious, per se. The material seems mostly to be verifiable, rather easily, and let's face it, this is a timeline of some rather unseemly behavior. It isn't on the same scale, but I wouldn't expect the article about the Rwandan Genocide to be all warm fuzzies and butterflies either. Yes, I know this isn't murder, but it is a description of a scandal which put a lot of people in jail. It isn't a perfect article, but little at Wikipedia is, and it stands zero chance of being fixed while it is deleted. I really disagree, after looking it all over again, that anything there really stands out as BLP-violating material. I'm just not seeing it. Yes, it describes people who are a) alive and who b) did bad things. I'm not sure how else the article could be written. It could be better in many places, but we aren't going to include pictures of Ken Lay at his kids birthday party or singing karaoke just for balance... --Jayron32 05:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the biographical articles of individuals in this issue, you'll find them almost uniformly cited to the hilt, and any claims, allegations and statements carefully worded to ensure balance and context, and when facts are stated as facts, they are stated in an appropriate tone and cited. Now compare this article. The difference is great. We can do far better, we've done it on most Enron articles. Not this one. I think people pay a lot of attention to BLP in biographical articles, and sometimes forget the same is expected elsewhere when a living person is discussed - especially in the context of one of the largest financial criminal conspiracies of all time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, how can anyone fix the referencing problems now that you've deleted it. Wikipedia is not better off without a decent article under the above title, and if the primary problem is referencing, that can be fixed, but not after you've deleted everything. I agree that attention needs to be brought in, and I also agree that WP:BLP applies everywhere. However, the problem doesn't get fixed if we delete the entire history of the article and simultaneously demand that it is fixed up to standards. It's completely impossible to solve any problems there may be while the article stands deleted. --Jayron32 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Pages deleted at AFD are at times userfied this way and for this exact purpose, by request of anyone willing to fix it, with the aim of reinstating once suitable, so it's quite common. 1/ Userfy the entire page history or copy the latest revision (1000+ admins) and NOINDEX it, 2/ fix issues taking any time needed, 3/ restore mainspace and update latest text or history merge as needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (Crossref WP:USERFY#NO and my comment) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated - one editor (User:Legoktm) has already asked to get involved and has got a copy of the last revision to work on. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember of the news at the time, those are fairly mild statements compared to what the media was reporting. I can't really answer these questions while the "NAME"s are redacted, but I can tell you that there were people at Arthur Andersen ordering hundreds of file boxes shredded to hide auditor collusion, an infamous earnings call where an analyst was called an "asshole" because he complained Enron wasn't publishing their balance sheet, several people went to jail and tens of thousands at Enron and Arthur Andersen lost their jobs. None of those statements seem at all out of line with that magnitude of a scandal. —Cupco 05:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The actions of AA, and the media and public outrage, are just citable information to consider covering in relevant articles and from reliable sources; no less, no more. None of these things gives us an excuse to provide uncited and one sided statements on Wikipedia, nor to tell the world "that's the timeline" or miss out significant balance or context unless there were no other significant views or context meriting mention. It's not an excuse for us to say "executives" got paid unless we're willing to say which executives, or whether it means all executives (cited). We don't say a person did something unethical unless we both cite a high quality source backing the claim, and also consider what other context and views might merit brief mention (with due weight) to ensure a balanced NPOV impression is given of what they actually did. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

FT2, perhaps your objection then is to the fact that this is an additional article on the series of events, and you think the undue emphasis. This is not something for you alone to decide, or at worst, it can do not more harm than the rest of our coverage. It is quite usual for summary or timeline or list articles to provide a lower density of citations than our primary articles--if anyone is unhappy with that they can do ahead and add the missing citations easily enough. You could have done so, Apparently the claims struck you as so extreme that they could not be allowed to exist ere even for a few minutes in the meanwhile. well, in my judgement, they're pretty straightforward and direct statements that fairly represent the historical record. None of this is hearsay, none of it goes beyond what i remember as the record. Some of it is not even BLP, "Enron executives get bonus checks for millions of dollars" needs checking whether it refers to every executive, but it probably does refer to everyone over a certain level. And it is not a BLP--it makes no allegations against anyone at all. You refer to tone: the tone os hard to judge from selective quotations of individual sentences--if you picked a random sample, it seems fair & appropriate; if what you picked was the worst of it, then the average would probably not be not as harsh about the company as the general judgment. BLP is not a magic wand for individual admins to do what they want to in any article where people are mentioned.FT2, would you rather restore it on the basis of a discussion here, or at deletion review? Or would you have any objection if I or someone else just does so, and cites it? Or do you want to simplify things by restoring it yourself, and, since you appear interested in he subject, cite it yourself to make up for the trouble you are causing? Unfortunately, such is the rigor of the rulers adopted at the time of the BLP hysteria that i can not do what I would ordinarily do at such a flagrant idiosyncratic use of admin power, and just go ahead and revert it. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to guess, or suggest bad faith motives that I have any issue with the topic, the case, or any views on extremity of any issue you might guess at, beyond 1/ it is egregiously below WP:BLP, 2/ it needs improvement to comply with BLP to the point it would be ok to reintroduce to mainspace (ref: WP:BLPDEL), 3/ it's too substandard to leave lying around on the hope of eventualism. If BLP to you is "trouble others are causing" then we aren't on the same page here so no need to respond. If you want to check my contribs or deletions, you'll find almost none of this kind - this is a carefully considered concern, not a flamboyant whatever-bad-faith-DGG-thinks.

My concern is exactly what I said it was ("It has to be fixed one way or another, and AFD isn't for obviously notable topics with gross BLP issues" and "[BLP/NPOV] need to be got right in this article" and "[Other Enron articles] are almost uniformly cited to the hilt, and any claims, allegations and statements carefully worded to ensure balance and context... We can do far better [here]"). The rest of your comment is bad faith that I must have a POV, bad motive, want a magic wand, or be "causing trouble" by whatever. Reading first means you don't need to make bad faith guesses. If today, you or anyone else uses ancilliary Enron articles or otherwise improves what's there, so it meets BLPDEL, then this is a closed issue. So long as it isn't fixed, it's an open issue. Eventualism doesn't cut it here. Egregious BLP concerns don't linger indefinitely - fix or remove. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you're preparing for an ArbCom case over this. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not shaking too much. I expect they (and most of the community) would accept it's good faith and BLP-reasonable, not part of any pattern in any way inappropriate, and appropriately worded. Any good-faith user or admin wishing to help has full and ready access to improve it, my (and any other admin's) fullest support and appreciation for doing so, and examples of perceived BLP points so they know exactly what sort of concerns to fix. Most sources surely exist elsewhere or are easily found, and someone who knows more than I do about it might be able to quickly identify if there are omitted significant views, balancing/nuancing information, or essential context or detail needed for NPV/BLP, and source those too. If it's improved today, it wouldn't have any reason not to go back into mainspace today.

As it happens one editor (User:Legoktm) has already asked for and been sent (WP:USERFY#NO) a copy to start fixing it - supplied to him/her with thanks as soon as request seen. Hopefully others will also do likewise/liaise, and it'll be back in just a day or so in good or at least minimal reasonable quality.

Deleted revision link 2012-08-17 01:47 for admin convenience FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at cached version. The NAME redacted in the first several examples is the famous former Enron CEO who was convicted in 2006. He died of a heart attack while awaiting sentencing, so BLP doesn't apply to him. A lot of other stuff mentioned isn't sourced in the article, but has sourcing in other articles, so some cross-referencing could be added. I would agree that the article's tone is a bit more "energetic" than the Wikipedia norm. It might be sufficient to do a light referencing pass off-wiki, then restore to a talk page sandbox with {{noindex}} for collaborative editing until it's deemed ready for mainspace. I don't see anything that obviously needs to stay out of the history. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Something along those lines, yes. It needs a go-over for balancing/contexting material, missing cites, and copyediting to usual encyclopedic tone. There's nothing per se needing "removal". Its an improve not a remove. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP doesn't apply? That never stopped admins in recent times. You see, they ran out of BLP material to arbitrarily delete a while back. The itch is still there though. Anyway, this looks resolved as someone is working on it in userspace. I suggest closing this WP:DRAMA thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Since this page was quite ancient (over ten years old), there is no way that it should be left a redlink, so I've recreated it as a redirect to Enron scandal. I would strongly suggest that some of the deleted edits be restored; see The Cunctator's edits in the earliest version, for example. Nyttend (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Numerous Problems with User:12.153.112.21

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

Since September 18, the anon user has repeatedly vandalized the List of AT&T U-verse channels article with incorrect and inaccurate information. My warning to the user was met with a snarky response that their edits were sourced. The source they were using was dated May of 2007. The user would later admit that "maybe true that I restored outdated information". The user continued to state that the "05/07" on the source was "not necessarily a date". The source information listed networks like Fox Reality Channel, The-N, AZN Television and others that are either under a new name or completely out of business. The "05/07" is clearly the month of May (05) and the year 2007 (07). Finally, I asked an admin to step in, that admin was User:A. B. who posted on the anon's talk page:

"Please make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus for them on the article talk pages (such as Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels) from other, established editors. Otherwise, I or another administrator may block this account without further warning."

The user responded to this with a statement that showed that either the user clearly didn't understand what he was being told or didn't care (my case is the later). After I asked for page protection (and didn't receive) on the [[]] page, the user stated he would "merely get an account" to continue editing. He was warned of this by User:Gogo Dodo.

After User:A. B.'s warning to cease editing and seek consensus, the anon would several more inaccurate vandalism edits to the List of AT&T U-verse channels page, all of which were (again) reverted.

The user is now engaged in violations of WP:TPO by removing someone else's comments because they contain information about the company the IP is registered to. For the record, the IP 12.153.112.21 is registered to "The Answer Group" of North Lauderdale, Florida. The company is an outsourcing company for AT&T (among others).

It is also worth noting the user created the pseudo-IP sign-in account User:IP 12.153.112.21 (which has been blocked indef) and when called on this the anon responded "Whoop, sorry, missed that one."

This all adds up to a user who vandalizes articles, edit wars well beyond 3RR, deletes other user's posts, edits disruptively and refuses to respond to admin's calls for them to stop editing. I am requesting that the IP 12.153.112.21 be blocked for the long term and a range block is introduced. Since this is a company IP, the collaterial damage will be very minimal. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The users mentioned by name have been notified. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Um, read WP:VANDAL. The edits concerned don't look like "addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" to me - I'd suggest that WP:COMPETENCE is more of an issue here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I know WP:VANDAL pretty well (read it a couple times), but I agree with you that WP:COMPETENCE is waaay more of an issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer and this IP have been engaged in a long-running content dispute regarding sourcing for channels listed at

• List of AT&T U-verse channels

That article is now under consideration for deletion at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels

My feelings about this whole dispute are summed up in this comment at the AfD:

"Delete - Masem beat me to it in nominating this article for deletion. As an administrator, I was recently drawn into a running dispute between 12.153.112.21 and Neutralhomer over what the current lineup was and what the sources should be. See Talk:List of AT&T U-verse channels, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Channel lineups in Wikipedia, User talk:A. B.#12.153.112.21, and User talk:12.153.112.21 (starting at September 2012). When I last signed off, I left wondering, "Isn't this what cable system online channel listings are for?" and "how can we have these articles when my own provider requires I enter my postal code to see my lineup since it changes as you go across town?" I'm sure there are guidelines and policies both to justify keeping and to justify deleting (WP:NOT vs we're not paper and we're the sum of all knowledge). As for me, I'm basing my comment on exasperation, common sense and sheer wonder at the energy invested in fighting over this stuff. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)"

I gather more has transpired in the last week but I have not kept up with it.

If you delete that stupid article, that may be the end of it. Note, that's not a reason to delete the article; I'm just making an observation.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

As I have stated at the AfD and will state here, I would like the article kept (even though I changed my !vote to "Delete" cause of the anon problems) and feel it could be made NOT#DIR appropriate, but I won't be upset if it is deleted. I have asked that the article be moved to my userspace so that maybe I can find a way to make it NOT#DIR appropriate and then reintroduce it, to which a couple admins have had no problem in doing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This user is gaming the system. He has an IP, then has another id that is a near copy of his first IP id. Second, if you check his history(s) he shows signs of gaming the unblock requests and yet more gaming by re-creating the article in his workspace. Yes he removed my comments twice and yes I' advised him that wasn't allowed.

He was actually blocked at one point today, then unblocked by a different admin.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss any of these issues, which largely arise from misunderstandings and may thereby contain inaccurate statements. Incidentally, I have also reported Neutralhomer for edit warring because of constant pressing of the undo button without recognizing attempts to negotiate over content. I believe my report, like any of my edits, was presented in good faith. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you 'discuss the issue' of why you have continued to ignore admin A. B.'s instruction to "...make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus for them on the article talk pages"? [16]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• My initial edits did not note the historical nature of the source (which was the only static source I found in the article), but I have always affirmed that it should be included both because Wikipedia takes a historical approach and because it has had consensus to be in the article all this time. So I did misread a source.
• Wikipedia is about editing boldly. Yes, I took the admin's warning as a general counsel rather than a hard and fast rule, because good edits should speak for themselves. I made a few good edits to other articles and attempted to find a middle ground with Neutralhomer by inserting wholly unobjectionable edits to the disputed article, but these too were undo-button reverted. If taken literally, the warning would decide the content dispute by default, because Neutralhomer has stated that even simple addition of commented text for discussion is also vandalism. I don't believe a content dispute should be settled by automatically excluding one party from constructive edit cycles when the other party is not cooperating; so I took reasonable latitude with this warning, including my own self-restraint at the time in lieu of block. I could have taken this warning more literally but I don't believe that fits the spirit of Wikipedia. However, if an established editor reviews the content dispute and can demonstrate that my edits themselves are vandalism or anything other than an attempt to resolve a content dispute appropriately, I will heed such a warning more closely.
• I see nothing wrong with getting and using an account openly if an interesting page becomes semiprotected. The problem was that semiprotection was yet another invalid solution to a content dispute, which is why it didn't happen.
• I pursued ordinary oversight approaches for edits that took liberties with or made speculations about my identity, which include deleting the offending portion of the edit without comment. This approach has now been questioned, even though my first request for oversight was granted and the offending editor (Neutralhomer) warned not to waste oversighters' time by making such speculations.
• Yes, I also missed compliance with username policies on my first username attempts.
• I don't believe that userspace recreation of an article pending AFD is invalid; even Neutralhomer has asked for userfication.
• In short, a few good-faith errors do not amount to sanctionable activity. However I grant that I still have a lot to learn. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Since some users apparently still do not understand this and continue to bring up the earlier block, please allow me to clarify for any newcomers or those who seem to have trouble grasping the specifics. This user opened an account with an IP number as a username. As this is not permitted they were blocked from editing under that name. They came up with a few alternatives that were very silly and so were declined. The block was a username only soft block, meaning the blocking admin chose not to issue an autoblock on the underlying IP when blocking the named account. Earlier today, an admin missed this detail and blocked the IP for socking. When this was pointed out to them they acknowledged the block as an error and thanked me for rectifying it. I have no comment on the other issues but the previous block on the IP should not be held against them in any way as it was the result of an error. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• The previous erroneous block should not be held against this individual clearly - but what about their admission above to have ignored A. B.'s instruction to "...make no further edits to any Wikipedia articles for now without first gaining consensus"? The statement above from the IP that "I could have taken this warning more literally but I don't believe that fits the spirit of Wikipedia" basically amounts to an assertion that they can ignore instructions if they think they are in the right, from what I can see. "seek consensus for edits" is hardly an unreasonable instruction - it is basic Wikipedia practice. The IP is either incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works, or is gaming the system - either way, we'd be better off without them until this whole ridiculous saga is over and the article in question is deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy, "seek consensus before any mainspace edits", if taken literally, is a block. Making straightforward bold edits to unrelated articles, and attempting to seek consensus with recalcitrant editors by determining if even whitespace can be standardized without undo-button reversion, is in fact how Wikipedia works. A content dispute should not start by blocking an editor based on the other disputant's characterization of the editor, without independent content review. Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

"seek consensus before any mainspace edits", is an instruction to "seek consensus before any mainspace edits". That is all it is. It isn't an instruction to carry on without consensus because you don't like it. Anyway, I've said my piece - we are better off without this 'contributor', and hopefully we'll soon be rid of the article in question too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

...And then it was gone. List of AT&T U-verse channels has now been deleted as the obvious violation of WP:NOTDIR that it always was. Consensus has settled the matter. Can I suggest that this section now be closed, with no further action beyond pointing out to the IP and to any others edit-warring over the list that they have all been wasting their time - and that they would be well advised to avoid doing the same in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This matter is nowhere near settled. The AfD is a-whole-nother story. The Anon's action at the article that was the subject of that AfD is the matter and we need deal with 12.153.112.21, this outright ignoring of Wikipedia rules and policies and constant and consistent misunderstanding of those rules and policies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I see no evidence that the IP is softblocked, even in the block logs, it just says he's blocked. (With respect, I realize you can see more than I can , your a sysop, I'm not :) ). Far as I can tell he's blocked for edit warring, which he tried to evade by creating a similar name to his IP address. Further, even if he was blocked on that name only why use a name similar to his IP address. Further, his edit warring was a strong case in and of itself for a block. He's definetly not a new editor and is most definitely gaming the system. He's got a copy of the AT&T u-verse in his userspace as well as a sub-page right here .

I realize you stepped in when you thought a block was wrong, however, there was no consensus for overturning the block. In fact, just the opposite, that the unblock was inappropriate.. Any other unblock I've seen involves a discussion with consensus reached that the block can be un-done (NO policy anywhere states it has to be done that way, but it usually is, or at the very least the blocking admin is consulted and allowed time to respond. ) This didn't happen either . I'd suggest that the soft block is irrelevant. His behavior, then and now, shows that the block was warranted. Just my two cents  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The user is still waiting for a request for a name change: User talk:IP 12.153.112.21. Is that being held up while discussion about block status is being determined or is it just that the block discussion has pushed the request from the radar? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you TheRedPenOfDoom. KoshVorlon, I received an account block for invalid username that has been properly appealed to a proper username, and I also received the brief erratic block in question, which was not for warring but for "Abusing multiple accounts: editing while named account is blocked". My appeal was properly accepted because an editor who has mischosen his first username is given a good-faith presumption and allowed to continue editing. (There was also a hasty, probably mistaken 1-day block for disruptive editing that I hardly noticed, but that was based on the allegations of the same one editor and expired without either appeal or review.) As I understand it a softblock means the account is blocked but not the IP, which is the case and is public information. I did not try to evade anything by creating an account, in fact I created it to be able to request an Oversight, which was granted (my later requests are still pending and are probably now mooted). My mistakes in creating the username were caused by not reading the username guide.

The channel guide's contortions, to which KoshVorlon has contributed, currently stand as resulting in a proper userfication, part of the history of another page, and a copypaste to a third page by another editor, all three of which are being debated for deletion. As noted in that discussion, several editors and two admins have accepted userfication of the original article history, which is sufficient for a userspace keep of that history. The other contortions will clear themselves out in time.

A simple unblock request does not need consensus, just a fresh admin. The AN thread linked does not show consensus to block either before or after the invalid block occurred; after the block and unblock, I grant that consensus could reinstate the block, but it didn't. In a case where the second admin sees an obvious logic flaw and the first admin immediately thanks the second one for unblocking, I believe any lack of interim consultation is irrelevant.

Charges of not being new and of gaming the system are unanswerable by definition; they are a double bind because either answer can be construed as entrenching oneself in proof of the charge (as can a nonanswer, or this answer itself). I only note that my actions (including a few admitted errors) are consistent with a good-faith belief that the content should be preserved at least in userspace and the content dispute should be heard on its merits. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

::: You're still evading the actual question , and you seem to be quite familiar with Wiki Markup and proceedure,despite being fairly new (and you edit as an IP addres only ), which leads to the most obvious question: Who's sock are you ?  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• @Kosh: I have outlined the chronology of what happened both here and at AN yet it is clear you still are not getting it. The account with a name similar to an IP was blocked on September 25. The erroneous socking block on the actual IP happened yesterday. This kind of confusion is in fact one of the reasons we do not allow users to use IP numbers as their account name, but I would have thought the repeated detailed explanations would have clarified the issue by now. Here is the actual block entry: 10:26, 21 September 2012 The Anome (talk | contribs | block) blocked IP 12.153.112.21 (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{uw-ublock}}) As you can see autoblock was disabled. This is not the default setting, the admin has to turn it off. In any event they have finally posted a username change request that is acceptable so the named account's block is being lifted. Again, I am only dealing with that end of it and have not reviewed the other issues. Any admin who finds them to be valid concerns is welcome to issue whatever blocks they feel are needed without worrying about appearing to overturn my actions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks Beeblebrox! All, I have also presented evidence that Neutralhomer was edit warring to WP:AN3 (inviting review of my own edits as well of course), but that decision was deferred to this board. I'd appreciate a formal answer on either board please.
• I don't believe I've evaded KoshVorlon's question because I haven't been asked it. I have not edited with any accounts other than "12.153.112.21" or "IP 12.153.112.21" since I got here 2 months ago. I suppose it is possible I've edited previously on other topics, but neither confirming nor denying that would be helpful; policy explicitly permits alternate accounts to exist without accusations of socking and we assume good faith in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Any other questions? 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Beeblebrox - ok.. I admitt the "sock " bit was a bit much, I have nothing other than my own suspicions, and per WP:SOCK, that isn't enough, so I retract my sock comment. However, both his IP name and his name similar to an IP have worked on exactly the same article, both have moved that article to either a subpage a subpage on another user page, both have not made any changes in the article. Also, I'm not the only person that's expressed concerns about this IP's behavior.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks KoshVorlon. I have attempted to use the account only for segregated maintenance unusable by the IP, but I do see that the account itself did make a comment on the article's talk, and also restored the temporary copypaste draft of the article, which should not have been done by the account but by the IP. Neither account nor IP has moved anything; the IP made a temporary copypaste of the article (the use of which is now pretty much complete), and also requested the userfication. The IP has also made significant changes to the article now userfied, almost all of which have been reverted as vandalism (even whitespace edits), and has also made significant changes to the copypaste after copying it, which were used for syncing. If the content dispute itself can be settled with Neutralhomer, which has caused eight undo-button reverts of my content, all these workarounds would be unnecessary.

Oh, is now a good time to ask about the status on my reporting Neutralhomer for edit warring, or to call attention to Beeblebrox's response on AN that Neutralhomer's attempts to call my alleged employer were way over the top? I would really appreciate some suggestions, but as I've always said I wouldn't want anything that inappropriately excludes either editor from resolving the content dispute on its merits. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

is the redirection from User:the "good guy" to the IP user page appropriate? the user apparently has decided that they want to continue to edit pseudonymously from the IP on a normal basis, but will use a clearly identified alternate account to make maintainance edits that an IP cannot? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Caster Semenya

I believe this IP edit is a BLP violation. I'll delete. I don't know the procedures to hide it. Trackinfo (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is simply an anagram. RevDel isn't required. Not particularly helpful nor harmful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, unless you look at the controversies surrounding that woman's life, you'll see where even an anagram can be a BLP violation. Not to say one way or another if this is REVDELETE-able, but you can't base the decision on whether or not a gross insult is not also an anagram of the person's name --Jayron32 13:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying it was someone attempting to be clever with an anagram, no worse than the history of other BLPs. (take a gander at the history of Barak Obama for a reference point) Reverting was a perfectly valid action, I just don't think revdel is necessary. I certainly won't labor it if someone does, even if I don't see the need. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. If this is okay, there are some nice anagrams of “Ronald Wilson Reagan” I'd like to add.  :-) —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  13:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Google the name and the anagram and you'll discover it's been around since at least 2009, when presumably someone good with anagrams first noticed it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Old disgusting insults are still disgusting insults. --Jayron32 05:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources all seem to be blogs or other user input. The closest thing to a possibly usable source that I found is this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:KoreanSentry

KoreanSentry (talk · contribs) wrote "devious Japanese troll", "the userid is well-known troll", and "This is Wikipedia not some right wing Japanese movement site." in the Talk:Northeast Asia#Japanese trolls are editing map without approval.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I've already given the user a final warning, as well as a clear statement that the next such outburst will result in an indefinite block, since the user has a history of edit warring and POV pushing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Long-term pattern of battleground behavior. And the only editor I've ever seen award themselves the anti-vandalism barnstar (twice!). NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. I would support indefinite block on that grounds. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I prefer ROPE. One more "troll" comment (or the like) and it's an indefinite block. I do wonder, though--Qwyrxian, what nationality/ethnicity/political affiliation/etc are you, with your clear admin abuse POV? But there is a definite pattern here of claims of trollishness, a battleground mentality, and a bunch of stalking edits of Phoenix7777. That was last year, and hope springs eternal, but if there are more voices here for an indefinite block I wouldn't stick my neck out for this user--I'm not sure I have seen a productive edit yet among their contributions. Drmies (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a world citizen. Or maybe just a Wikipedian. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Supposing you got deported... Where would you go? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we'll moon him. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
forcemeat  05:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Meeso

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

---

User:Meeso has recently added external links to our articles on The Zeitgeist Movement, Peter Joseph, Jacque Fresco and The Venus Project from an essay (entitled The Twilight of Capitalism: On the Future of Revolutionary Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movement) on a personal website belonging to one 'Maysara Omar' [[17]. Having reverted this (twice) on WP:EL grounds, and then raised the matter on Meeso's talk page, I then received the following posting on my talk page:

i am really surprised to see this, several years ago we used to motivate one another and celebrate addition of new material here. but maybe the times have changed. Do you not have a brain of your own to see whether the essay to which the link leads, is relevant or not. i can understand if you went there, had a look, and then decided that it was irrelevant. but you did not even do that, simply because the essay is written by someone who is not as famous as Peter Joseph or Madonna or Obama, you decided that it is irrelevant. There was a time when jimmy wales was equally unknown or not so famous :) - in short, you are no more behaving with common sense or employing any degree of judgement, other than that which is ordained by WP policies that are used to regulate problematic content or behaviour. But what i want you to understand is that there is no problem here in the first place; it is you who is simply creating the problem in the first place, rejecting a source, an essay, without even having a look on it, simply because the name of the author is unknown to you. here is the link for others to see whether this is relevant or not:

Omar, Maysara. The Twilight of Capitalism: On the Future of Revolutionary Socialism and the Zeitgeist Movement, October 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeso (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC) [18]

This seems to be a clear assertion that Meeso does not wish to conform to policy. I see that Meeso is now reverting deletion of the links by User:Ian.thomson too - time for a block? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Meeso used to sign as 'Maysara'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The link he adds and the drive in adding them fails WP:ELNO 4 and 11. I was just going to file a report over at WP:AIV the way I would with a spamming SPA, because that's almost what he's starting to become. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's been blocked, but in light of ATG's PS, I'm seeing less of a reason to consider an unblock. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• maysarathustra.wordpress.com (*|search current)
  

Clearly spamming with a great dose of I didn't hear that. He has also used IPs to add this in places. If he keeps trying then we can see about getting the link blacklisted.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Creation question

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

---

I have a question: How to create an article in english Wikipedia about Polandball without risk of deletion? Thanks.--Babelia (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:WIZARD. Nobody Ent 16:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You would have to take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball to WP:DRV -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid a non-admin closure of this section which erroneously directed the user to the help desk. Since this article has such a tendentious history and was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polandball, and is protected from recreation, WP:DRV is the only solution. Although, I believe the ultimate answer is: you cannot create an article on Polandball until you can prove it is notable, with sources. Otherwise, there is little chance of the article being recreated. Sorry. --64.85.215.243 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This item may be of interest. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Gun Powder Ma

Moved to WP:AN § Gun Powder Ma

 – Nobody Ent 20:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Frammis4242

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

---

Frammis4242 (talk · contribs) is a textbook example of a genre warrior. His every edit consists of changing genres in music articles to suit his own point of view. He removes sourced material en masse based solely on his own opinion of musical artists (see his edits to List of screamo bands on 24 August and today, and to List of emo artists today), changes genres in infoboxes without explanation or with nothing but POV rants, and inserts inappropriate personal commentary into articles ([19] [20]). His edits have been reverted by multiple editors including myself, and he has received numerous warnings on his talk page. In response he vandalized my userpage, left this little gem on my talk page, and created his userpage as an attack on me. In the first warning I gave him, I invited him to discuss the issues on article talk pages. Yet he has not done so, nor responded to any of the notices left on his talk page. In fact the only talk space edit he's made was to insult me on my talk page. It's pretty clear that this guy is not here to make constructive contributions, and isn't interested in any sort of reasonable discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm contemplating indeffing them for disruptive editing - the attacks and unwillingness to collaborate or respond to warnings all lead me to believe that there's a WP:COMPETENCE issue here and that this person in not able to edit in a constructive manner. Any thoughts from any others? – Connormah (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say, the trophy was pretty creative. If only Frammis4242 used their time for actual productive content. They actually did add two very important and formative bands to the list of screamo bands. The only problem was that they cited a user review on Sputnikmusic, but I replaced that with some decent sources. So they are capable of constructive content, they just seem unwilling to work with people. I can understand why they are upset, and the bureaucratic process of Wikipedia (yes, it is bureaucratic!) is often hard to work with, but that doesn't excuse vandalism and personal attacks. I think this user has had enough warnings, they know full well what they are doing now.

Although after this incident, I think Frammis4242's problem is that they are a disruptive troll, not a constructive editor and admin, otherwise their personal attacks could be excused. But I editorialize.--¿3family6 _contribs 20:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support blocking as they haven't responded in any constructive way to the warnings and messages on his talk page. His behavior needs reigned in before he could collaborate here in a meaningful way.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say this isn't a new editor showing good faith as they show discontent for Wikipedia's policies within this edit, I think they have just proved themselves to be a Vandal. Jonjonjohny (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jonjonjohny, it's "vandal," not "Vandal." Let's not equate the behavior of reasonable barbarians with such low tactics as those of a genre warrior. --¿3family6 _contribs 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The block can be lifted if the user understands the reasoning for the block and makes an attempt to contribute constructively and collaboratively. – Connormah (talk) 22:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

We have a user continuing to go against consensus in the Bitcoin article.

He continues to change the symbols and abbreviations to non-verifiable ones.

Bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It is considered standard procedure to notify anyone who is involved in an ANI discussion that their name has popped up. Can I assume you mean User:Luke-Jr? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

He's talking about himself. ;) --Luke-Jr (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both of you need to stop and read Wikipedia:Edit warring, you are both clearly engaged in an edit war, and have both violated the WP:3RR rule. Monty₈₄₅ 22:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are two reports against these two editors brought by a third editor at WP:ANEW. There's obviously problems with the editors and the article, but the reports themselves are malformed and incomplete, e.g., counting consecutive edits as reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears they have reached a compromise and resolved the matter between themselves on the article talk page, which is always the goal. I suggest we leave it at that for now. Monty₈₄₅ 23:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, isn't that nice/unusual? :-) Let's hope it sticks. I suppose I can decline the reports at ANEW based on the agreement reached.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It didn't stick, and I've commented on the article talk page and at ANEW. Based on the sequence, I'm inclined to block Howard but not Luke, but perhaps it's still possible not to block either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm about to go off-wiki shortly. Luke proposed a precise change to the article. Howard agreed to it. Luke implemented the change exactly as proposed. Howard changed it. I've pointed this out to Howard, and his "excuse" effectively was he didn't look at the citations Luke proposed, even though they were right there on the talk page. The last comment I made on the article talk page was to "urge" Howard to self-revert and discuss. Howard hasn't commented, even though he was quick to comment before. However, he also hasn't made any other contributions to Wikipedia, so I can't be sure he's seen my last comment. Despite Howard breaching the agreement, Luke has left the article alone. Any admin can take any action they feel appropriate, now or later, but if Howard doesn't respond, I won't take any action myself now.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations by User:Uriahdan

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

---

• Uriahdan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A few days ago, I opened a WP:CCI on this user (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Uriahdan) and issued a final warning for copyright violations. The user's latest major addition is almost certainly a copyvio. The user is completely unresponsive to talk page messages. MER-C 00:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely—at least until he requests unblocking and demonstrates that he understands why he was blocked and won't do it again. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Beat me to the punch here, good call. – Connormah (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Delete broken archives in my userspace

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

---

[21], first page. I would tag for U1 (all relevant revisions are on main talk page, text is in archives), but it's a total of 8 pages, a fair bit of tagging. ⁓ Hello71 01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Dianna (talk) 03:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Slow edit war

Can someone please look into this slow edit war on 1911. Some reverts seem to be done using Rollback tool. There are some more articles with the same edit war going on: 1910, 1909, 1908, 1907, 1906, 1912. --SMS ^Talk 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried stopping the edit war and discussing the issue? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

SMS isn't involved in the edit war; he just happened to see it. From glancing at both users' talk pages, User:Keith D left each of them a friendly prod on 11 Sept to stop the blind reverting and discuss it. Apparently that message was completely ignored because they're still going at it. Also, this edit war is pretty damn lame. Ishdarian 06:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on User talk:Keith D/Archive 35#Re:1907 I have given up trying to get more constructive responses from the other editor involved (who, btw, did not respond to Keith D's request for input) and, given the other user's past history (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#CalendarWatcher, User talk:CalendarWatcher#Previous account(s)?, User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 4#Previous account(s)?, I did not really expect anything useful. I'd appreciate neutral input on this matter. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You should stop removing valid information. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING behaviour by User:Antidiskriminator

I report this issue reluctantly, but I can see no other option given the situation. User:Antidiskriminator and I initially had a large amount of interaction on Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, which I had moved to its current title on 11 April 2012 [22]. We first interacted on 4 May 2012 in relation to a wikiquette issue [23], but didn't really start interacting until a Request for Move for that article was lodged on 1 August 2012 [24], which was closed on 12 August with the result Not Moved. Both User:DIREKTOR and I opposed the move. Before that RM was closed, User:Antidiskriminator commenced further threads on the talkpage here [25] on 6 August 2012, and simultaneously here at WikiProject Serbia [26].

On the same day as the previous RM closed (12 August 2012), User:Antidiskriminator lodged a further RM with the same intent move to German-occupied Serbia. It was closed on 21 August 2012 with the result Not Moved. Both User:DIREKTOR and I opposed the move. Starting on 15 August 2012, User:Antidiskriminator and I started to have a lot of interaction at Talk:Pavle Đurišić which User:PRODUCER and I had recently helped get to MILHIST A Class. On 29 August another editor started a further discussion of the article title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia,[27] which was quickly dominated by User:Antidiskriminator who focused on what they considered to be the behaviour of "other editors", clearly including myself and User:DIREKTOR. On 10 September 2012, User:Antidiskriminator started another thread about the title [28], and again on 14 September 2012 [29] and again on 18 September 2012 [30]. These latter threads focused on User:Antidiskriminator's issues with the behaviour of editors that were opposing the move of the article.

In June 2012, User:DIREKTOR and I had a discussion about the naming of the various articles that make up the Seven Enemy Offensives. This was the culmination of a number of discussions we had about this topic over the previous few months. The discussion occurred here [31], but the resultant moves of all but one of the articles were linked on all the relevant talk pages prior to the moves being made. No-one opposed those moves, and the articles have been stable at those titles since then. The one remaining article was Second Enemy Offensive. On 29 September 2012, I moved [32] this article to Operation Southeast Croatia per the talk page here [33] and the previous discussion User:DIREKTOR and I had at Battle of Kozara. I have been editing articles within the Seven Enemy Offensives pretty much since I started on WP late last year, and to my knowledge, User:Antidiskriminator had not edited any of those articles or talk pages in that time.

Almost immediately after the move, User:Antidiskriminator commented on the talk page of Operation Southeast Croatia saying that he opposed the move and that it should be returned to its previous title as User:DIREKTOR and I had not gained consensus for the move [34]. Both User:DIREKTOR and I expressed our concerns that User:Antidiskriminator's appearance at the article was suspicious, and said so. I even cautioned User:Antidiskriminator about my concerns about him WP:WIKIHOUNDING me at his user talk page here [35], where I stated

Your decision to oppose the recent move there (in retrospect after consensus had been achieved for the move, which is consistent with the approach User:DIREKTOR and myself have taken to the Seven Enemy Offensives articles over several months), appears on face value to be an attempt to follow my edits to cause me distress, and gives rise to the suspicion it is being done out of revenge for a perceived slight because you have not been able to gain consensus for your preferred move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The move of Operation Southeast Croatia is not clearly a violation of WP policy, which would be your only possible excuse for following my edits (and move) at that article. Your behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason that is acceptable on WP.

However, User:Antidiskriminator has not acknowledged my request on his talk page, and has continued to act aggressively on Operation Southeast Croatia, including returning the article to the previous title,[36] and tellingly, using as a justification for their involvement what clearly they perceive to have been an illegitimate move of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia by myself on 11 April 2012 [37].

I consider User:Antidiskriminator's decision to oppose my recent move at Operation Southeast Croatia (in retrospect ie after consensus had been achieved for the move by the only involved editors (User:DIREKTOR and I), which is consistent with the approach User:DIREKTOR and myself have taken to the Seven Enemy Offensives articles over several months), appears on face value to be an attempt to follow my edits to cause me distress. It gives rise to the suspicion it is being done out of revenge for a perceived slight because User:Antidiskriminator has not been able to gain consensus for their preferred move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The move of Operation Southeast Croatia was not clearly a violation of WP policy, which would be the only possible excuse for following my edits (and move) at that article. User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason that is acceptable on WP, and I request admin intervention to stop this behaviour. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much response you'll get to an initial post as long as that. On one of the initial points raised - I was briefly involved in discussing it some months later - I'm confused as to why you thought the April move of the page re German-occupied Serbia was appropriate in the first place. That - or some variation of it - is rather obviously the clear, common and consistent-with-similar-pages title for the page in question. When I came in to argue in favour of a move to such a title, I wasn't aware that it had only recently been unilaterally moved away from that to the current cumbersome, obscure and unclear "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". If that move had been subject to a formal RM - as the later, failed bid to return to the more obvious title was - it would never have been moved in the first place. You had virtually no talk page support for making the move in April and since then there has been regular discussion in favour of moving it back, all stymied by "no consensus" RM results, even though it is clearly the preferred title in the real world and among editors here, and even though there was no consensus to move it in the first place. That might, as you acknowledge, be part of the problem here (I make no comment on whether subsequent behaviour by others is appropriate or not). N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is surely an irrelevant side discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You raised it yourself as a possibly contributing factor. I agree with the suggestion that the dispute at that page is relevant - although I disagree with your assessment as to where consensus about that page title lies - and thought it worth expanding on why that issue is problematic in itself. N-HH talk/edits 11:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH, perhaps you did not look into the matter quite thoroughly. You've expressed some of your positions in your recent post on the article talkpage, and, as I have stated there, you've certainly gotten a few things rather wrong. Its a long discussion and an even longer story.

@Peacemaker, I think this might be a matter for WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AE. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing more then a organised and insidious traveling circus with the only goal to eliminate all opposing sides from relevant discussions. Exactly the same fabricated "reports" already happened with several other disagreeing editors, who are not masters of GAMING THE SYSTEM like some of you here. Deliberate misrepresentation of entire situation, misguiding of other newly included editors, partial informing, and all for defending questionable, and wrong POV, while using wiki to push some personal agenda. Stunning. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WW it'd be prudent to avoid such decorum breaches as your unsubstantiated accusations against other users (FutureP) have already been noticed and commented. That being said, Peacemaker you should take your concerns to AE without sections that focus on content disputes and have no proposed sanctions and evidence (3RR/ARBMAC warnings) as they aren't ANI/AE material.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Nationalistic disruption

Masanori Asami (talk · contribs) has been disrupting Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in an attempt to push a Chinese nationalistic point of view. The 1951 Treaty of San Francisco is constantly being brought up by the editor when challenged, and it is this Treaty that Chinese nationalists have been using to try to say that they have claims over the embattled Senkaku Islands and other parts of Okinawa Prefecture. Masanori Asami has also been disrupting the Chinese Wikipedia, forcing the administrators there to lock down the Ryukyu Islands page.

It is clear that Masanori Asami is not here to constructively build an encyclopedia anymore and will only try to push his/her point of view on the Ryukyu Islands and their relation to China.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

By what reason, did Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) labels me a nationalist? I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) lacks the ability of reading, and I think I am far from a nationalist or a patriot of Japan. After I had requested Ryulong(琉竜) to show the reliable source on the talk page of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ryulong(琉竜) began to make actions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 4 and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here. These must be the bothering tactics of Ryulong(琉竜), Ryulong(琉竜) must show the reliable source that my definition of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is synonymous with "Ryukyu Islands".(Masanori Asami (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Ryulong stated that you were pushing a Chinese nationalist PoV, not Japanese. – Richard BB

WP:DISCSANC may be applicable here under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, though there has been some confusion as to how the wording of the remedy applies. This may be WP:AE material. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe so. For I have not classified the Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) into the Ryukyu Islands of Japan. I think Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) belongs to Taiwan China.(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

But my nationality is Japanese, so it is not correct that even if Ryulong(琉竜) had called me a nationalist for short instead of a Chinese nationalist. (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

I find it odd that someone who claims to be a Japanese citizen believes that the embattled islands belong to the Republic of China rather than their own nation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But Masanori Asami can communicate in Japanese Does that erase your suspicion? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The definition of Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) is same to an article of People's Daily in 1953, and is almost same to the arrticle of Baidu(百度百科) edited by the Chinese nationalist in Mainland China. They want to make Ryukyu independent from Japan, and classify Ōsumi Islands (大隅諸島) which have never belonged to Ryukyu Kingdom into Ryukyu Islands, such that to make the area of Ryukyu wider. For they think the land of Ryukyu belongs to China. If you can understand chinese, please see "琉球群岛" in Baidu(百度百科) below.

http://baike.baidu.com/view/68665.htm

(Masanori Asami (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC))

Masanori Asami, the definition on Wikipedia is the common definition for the English speaking world. The Americans referred to the entirety of the chain as the "Ryukyus" during their occupation. Up until sometime last year, the article was solely about the islands that comprise Okinawa Prefecture, but upon further research several editors discovered that Encyclopedia Britanica and other publications refer to everything in the "Arc" as the Ryukyu Islands. You have for reasons unknown seen fit to disrupt the page on not only the English Wikipedia but the Chinese Wikipedia. You removed valid sources, removed anything regarding the Osumi and Tokara chains, removed content regarding Japanese rule, the Japanese name for the whole chain, and some other nomenclature information and a free photo. On top of that you have been fighting over the content fork at Ryukyu Arc as well as insisting that content be added to the main page that the Amami Islands are not part of the Japanese definition, even though that information is already covered. You are not here to constructively edit. You are here to push a point of view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Alice in Chains - Possible intervention needed

First off, I sincerely hope this is the right place to bring this up. If not, I apologize and hope a kind admin can move it to where it needs to go. There is a long discussion (almost like an informal RfC) going at Talk: Alice in Chains - Proposal regarding changes made to this article, which is a featured article. In further review it almost looks like it could be 3-4 people going in circles over changes to the article. But I am having a hard time trying to figure out if there is any violations or anything of important to the administrator's community here, and am thinking this is something that needs to be looked at by an admin or two, as it seems to be going around in circles, and going nowhere fast. Thank you for your time. (Because this matter involves an article's talk page, I didn't place the ANI-notice template there, as it doesn't apply to any one specific person.) NECRAT^{Plates On} 07:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I see some mild incivility, but nothing requiring admin intervention. Sounds like a job for WP:DRN. Bobby Tables (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

IP section blanking header; long term pattern

24.147.80.78 (talk · contribs) has been continuously removing level 1 headers in articles if there are level 2 headers below them. This has been going on since September of this year. There are broader issues and warnings, none of which have been responded to, from this IP from June of this year. There appears to be good edits within the IP's history, and the subject matter suggests the same individual has been using the same IP since at least June. Yet as far as I can tell they have not responded to any inquiries about this behavior. In fact, before the section blanking started the IP had been contacted by editors about other issues, and blocked for them August 31. Not long after that block expired the editor started again, and that included removing section headers. The header blanking picked up about a month ago.

I, among others, have warned the IP multiple times, and been explicit about the reason. Yet just now the trend has continued again. I would post a list of diffs but a quick look at the history and the diffs with "section blanking" tags are pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The IP has already been blocked for vandalism only a month ago. I've now blocked again for one week. It's a dynamic IP so if this type of disruption resumes we may consider longer blocks. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Move of draft into mainspace

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

---

A user has moved a sandbox rewriting of French Valley Airport into the mainspace as French Valley Airport/draft and then had the sandbox deleted by an admin. I don't want to CSD this article as duplicating an existing article topic (since valuable information might be lost), I can't merge the content into the existing article and have the page deleted (since the attribution of the merged content would be lost), and to the best of my knowledge such "subpages" are not permitted in mainspace. Whatever the right way to handle this is, it will surely involve admin tools, so I'll leave the matter to you folks. Deor (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, as Wikipedia:Subpages states, "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace is disallowed" but an option is to move the article in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. The redirect would need to be deleted though of course. The reason subpages in the article mainspace are disallowed is because the subpages could be found using Special:Random and can appear as the main article. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing as this was my mistake, I have moved the draft from French Valley Airport/draft to Talk:French Valley Airport/draft in compliance with WP:SUB. I see Riley has requested CSD already. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect has been deleted. but same with the draft itself.. Left a message for the deleting administrator. (Recreated) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I have a question for the administators.I have placed a copy of my fathers 2 presidential unit citations in the air corps/air force page as there was no listing for the 320th Bomb Group which recieved 2 citations during world war II. I have typed the exact citations as they are written froma copy of my fathers orders for both citations into the edit page. My question is how do I get this information into the catagoriy which it should be posted? There is a 330th BG listing but none for the 320th? So what I am asking is how do I get this article to show up on the page like the others so when someone looks at the air corps/air force presidential unit citations they will see the listing for the 320th Bomb Group just like the others on the page? I am very new to wikipedia and I looked at the help pages but did not see a how to place the article into the correct listing page where it should go?

Please let me know how to insert the 2 orders atricles in to the page wher it should be or can you do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitrdone1957 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)