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

Administrative review of Valkyrie Red

Valkyrie Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valkyrie Red/Archive
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Valkyrie Red

Although his prior ANI reports and block log would appear to be history, this is the kind of editing that he has been doing recently:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• 5
• 6

Since I have been in conflict with this editor in the past, I'll just leave this here for review and leave it to others to describe the editing that they see and determine the actions (if any) that should be taken.

I will notify the editor of this review.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a long-term pattern of vandalism, any fresh instances? Max Semenik (talk) 07:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All of your diffs are old. Really old. Caden ^cool 07:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A diff from November 9 is not "really old".--Atlan (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I did some digging to see if there was anything else that cropped up and found these which are much older diffs and are pretty much the first acts of vandalism that I could find from when the account was first created in 2009 and are in addition to the ones that Berean Hunter posted above.

• BLP violation
• another BLP violation
• random vandalism

There's not a consistent history of vandalism, so I imagine that the very most anyone can do in this case is a final vandalism warning, although how they couldn't know that this isn't tolerated is beyond me considering they've been here for 3 years.Blackmane (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

At least 5 cases of vandalism in the last year. I'd suggest he be blocked until he can convince an unblocking admin he won't do it again. He's being disruptive, and there is no possibly legitimate excuse for it. More vandalism, strange edits: [1][2][3]. A large fraction of his edits in the last year that weren't redirects were vandalism or dubious. IRWolfie- (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

How are those last 3 edits vandalism? The first was removing obvious vandalism, the second was establishing a truth since most reviewers negatively received Edge of Time, and the last was also establishing a truth since those 3 actors have not been referred to as King Khan.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake about one, the other is less black and white. And what about the rest of your edits highlighted above? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That last one looks clean too. The articles show no sources that say anything about the removed actors being referred to as King Khan. But yes, Valkyrie Red needs to explain the rest though. Blackmane (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Noting this accusation that I would like to see substantiated by diffs.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/North8000_Discussion NE Ent 14:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Why was this moved to a subpage? That seems far out of the usual norms. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/North8000 Discussion NE Ent 14:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Somehow this section should be tagged so the bot doesn't archive it before the sub thread is closed.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, I'm adding {{DNAU}} for 30 days. NE Ent 14:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe a comment with a date into the future might do it. I'll give it a try: IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see someone has beat me to it with {{subst:DNAU}} IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Deonis 2012

This user has consistently made POV edits in Syria related articles for a while now. Multiple editors have tried to warn him many times. He doesn't seem to listen. I think a temporary block may be necessary here. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be warning enough, he came only this summer and what bothers me probably most is amount of general discussion he produces on talk pages. It made loading talk page to battle of Aleppo 5 minutes affair. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree, I would also like for someone to checkuser scan him to see if he is ChronicalUsual. He's probably not but it should be checked just in case. Sopher99 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual.--Shirt58 (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:oops, my mistake--Shirt58 (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Already happened, it was discussed on ChronicalUsual report page. Silvio found no match. Though I admit when I first saw him this exact though popped into my mind. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

C/U and Deonis have literally nothing in common behaviourally. C/U actually understood how to Wikipedia fairly damn well, whereas Deonis seems slow to gain any understanding of anything. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

C/U and DanielUmel were one and the same and Daniel understanding of wiki was about as big as my understanding of rise of shitty music popularity in recent years. I mean he broke 3RR about dozen times or so. Reported every second week. The only difference between him and Deonius is that Denius does not go to whiny mode about how everyone is against him and biased when opposed. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Deonis does not seem to understand how edit summaries work, how talk pages work, how user talk pages work, or really anything like that. He's also uploaded a picture of himself to Commons, a very un-C/U thing to do. Additionally, Deonis is from Russia. C/U was almost certainly not Russian—French more likely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't remember ever checkusering Deonis 2012 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

So far, the user in question haven't responded to this yet, despite the notification added on his talk page. He has continued to engage in edit-warring with multiple editors. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to understand copyright either. Boud (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Politically Motivated Editor in BLP Violation

TawsifSalam (talk · contribs)

This editor from a highly charged developing country in turbulence have been editing posts and inserting grossly inaccurate comments about a living individual in BLP violation. Previously, the Wikipedia page on Bangladeshi Political Families (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_Political_Families) was deleted after many months of debate and serious BLP violations by this same politically motivated individual from the same country. The page where the BLP violation is now occuring is about a living individual who was an entry in the page that was deleted. This person is using Wikipedia as a political weapon in a hostile country, just as they did to encourage riots in Bengazi that took the life of the US Ambassador there. It is therefore recommended to ban this editor or delete these page. We do not want to see riots on the street and the dwindling credibility of Wikipedia for encouraging political violence through serious BLP violations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.44.205 (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious charge. You're the one removing sourced information. Do the sources not support the content given? If they don't, explain so here. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply # 1: There is a difference between a serious BLP violation and a "serious charge". The term "charge" that you use is a vague, defensive and negative rationalization of the actual BLP violation whose magnitude you are neither able to fathom nor imagine based on the fact that you are not a subject associated with the incident who is perfectly informed about the magnitude of the BLP violation. Therefore my initial objection is about kinu's (talk · contribs)blissful and defensive trivialization of a serious misconduct that is only possible in Wikipedia at the cost of Wikipedia's reputation and credibility by BLP violators. The edits by M. Tawsif Salam are not sourced as per Wikipedia guidelines as he uses unreliable Bangladeshi tabloids as a weapon of character assasination of a living individual in serious BLP violation. This explains my reverts and I am requesting semi-protection of that page. Thank you.83.81.44.205 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply # 2:The link cited byTawsifSalam (talk · contribs) does not exist. Using an inactive link for purposes of defamation is a crime in itself. Wikipedia is only allowing the erosion of its credibility by inviting BLP violators to engage in defamation with non-existent or inactive links. Secondly, the unsubstantiated piece of defamation is about a subject who is writing this reply and would prefer to remain anonymous for all Wikipedia purposes. TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes "In March 2009, Tanbir Siddiky went to meet BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia with his son Irad Ahmed Siddiky allegedly to secure the party mayoral ticket for the latter to contest in Dhaka city elections." Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky is a founder of a political party and the senior most politician of the country in question who is normally visited by Begum Khaleda Zia, the current party chief, to whom Mr. Tanbir Siddiky is both senior in age, social status and seniority in politics. Mr. Siddiky founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party as its founding treasurer along with the slained military dictator turned President of that country, late General Ziaur Rahman, who was the husband of Khaleda Zia. Khaleda Zia.

TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes unsubstantiatedly,"Failing to convince the party chair, the pair came out and threw a press conference where an enraged Irad Siddiky accused Begum Khaleda Zia to have demanded 50 million Bangladesh taka in exchange of giving him the party ticket for mayoral polls."

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky was a candidate for the mayor of Dhaka for an election that has been deferred 10 times since 2007 when the tenure of the last mayor expired. Elections are never held on time in Bangladesh, a politically unstable country where all franchise is kept hostage to the whims of the political party in power. Local governments are managed by puppets of the regime in power by deferring indefinitely local elections. When Mr. Irad Siddiky, a Bangladeshi economist and the son of Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky declared his candidature, a group of hostile journalists attacked him and misrepresented the facts by coloring his candidature as a renegade of the party who is challenging the party chief Khaleda Zia. A simple declaration of mayoral candidature of an individual in a local election was misrepresented by popular tabloids and some yellow journalists as Mr. Irad Siddiky's challenging of the dynastic political authority of the Military dictator's wife turned dynastic politician on sympathy vote, Khaleda Zia. In Bangladesh, characterized by Henry Kissinger as the world's most unstable "bottomless basket" the vindictive culture of character assassination and defamation is very fluid and ungovernable. Individuals from that country are known throughout the world to commit crimes of both international terrorism and information terrorism and identity theft is a widely practiced social norm where anyone with access to information as an editor whether it is digital or analog or manual format, is bound to fraudulent and misinformation generating activities. As a matter of fact, half of all citizens of Bangladesh have false passports and are routinely deported by airports all over the world. Therefore when Wikipedia is allowing users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) to edit without any bar, Wikipedia is only committing itself to a misinformational campaign of defamation and hate speech that is fully punishable in any court of law in the real world. I am really surprised that Wikipedia is still surviving without any major legal challenges of the scale faced by Facebook and Google. This will very soon change when Wikipedia continues to invite with open arms users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs). Perhaps it would be better if you call this Wiki-Defamation instead of Wikipedia so that the public online know exactly what Wikipedia is doing. Thanks.83.81.44.205 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, please notify the editor whom you are accusing of this thread. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, the user in question is TawsifSalam (talk · contribs). You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion here. I've notified them for you. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply: I have gone through the accusations made in this part and find them thoroughly offending, untrue and personally motivated.

The author of the accusation who is detected to have come from the IP 83.81.44.205, I confronted him for the first and the last time in the biographical article of a politician- Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. The politician three years ago was expelled from the party which he belonged to throughout his political career. Such expulsion is very usually assumed to be a significant part of a living politician’s biography, which is why I simply added that information to the article.

The first edit I made was on 1 July, 2012, where inserted information was supported with a number of news articles. But all changes made were abruptly reverted on 8 August, 2012 by 83.81.44.205 with just saying 'citation correction'. I revisited the article on 18 November, 2012, found out the abrupt removal, undid it and left a message at 83.81.44.205’s talk page to familiarize with more information on New contributors' help page, Citing sources and Vandalism in Wikipedia. Since then 83.81.44.205 twice undid my final edits in the article and later both the actions have been reverted by Kinu. The two even held an exchange of talks in the talk page of 83.81.44.205 where the latter was challenged for his edits. There 83.81.44.205 accused me of citing from 'unreliable tabloid', which maybe at the user's surprise is the ranked 2 among all Bangladeshi websites according to Alexa. Moreover, 83.81.44.205 failed to provide a single piece of external source to support any of his actions those brought the issue to here.

I am also surprised by the mention of the Benghazi terrorist attack killing the US Ambassador and find it as a desperate stunt attempted by 83.81.44.205. The case is pretty simple in here- I did add information with citations to the article that 83.81.44.205 frequents, 83.81.44.205 removed it hastily, I undid the removal and now 83.81.44.205 wants me banned from Wikipedia! I am not used to insert words in Wikipedia based on my assumption, but I will not be surprised if 83.81.44.205's accusation and demand regarding my edits potentially seem to be motivated by personal causes to anyone. I have made 1,146 successful edits in 388 articles and created 7 new articles since April 2009 in Wikipedia. I also contribute in Bengali Wikipedia where I made 348 successful edits in 114 articles and created 20 new articles. I have studies to deal with and works to do in my life that I have to live. I work harder in this case just to spare time for Wikipedia and I indeed feel good in spending as much as possible of that time behind this noble project. The commotions created by the actions of 83.81.44.205 are definitely a sort of hazard that I accept as usual to belong to places like Wikipedia those are open to all kinds of people.

I want to finish my explanation with a humble request to everyone coming by this to have a look into the talk page of 83.81.44.205, just to understand the manner of this user's journey in Wikipedia and responses of other fellow users and administrators to that interesting manner.

• I just want to say that I appreciate the level of decorum adopted in this particular thread. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply # 3:The link cited byTawsifSalam (talk · contribs) does not exist. Using an inactive link for purposes of defamation is a crime in itself. Wikipedia is only allowing the erosion of its credibility by inviting BLP violators to engage in defamation with non-existent or inactive links. Secondly, the unsubstantiated piece of defamation is about a subject who is writing this reply and would prefer to remain anonymous for all Wikipedia purposes. TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes "In March 2009, Tanbir Siddiky went to meet BNP chairperson Begum Khaleda Zia with his son Irad Ahmed Siddiky allegedly to secure the party mayoral ticket for the latter to contest in Dhaka city elections." Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky is a founder of a political party and the senior most politician of the country in question who is normally visited by Begum Khaleda Zia, the current party chief, to whom Mr. Tanbir Siddiky is both senior in age, social status and seniority in politics. Mr. Siddiky founded the Bangladesh Nationalist Party as its founding treasurer along with the slained military dictator turned President of that country, late General Ziaur Rahman, who was the husband of Khaleda Zia. Khaleda Zia.

TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) writes unsubstantiatedly,"Failing to convince the party chair, the pair came out and threw a press conference where an enraged Irad Siddiky accused Begum Khaleda Zia to have demanded 50 million Bangladesh taka in exchange of giving him the party ticket for mayoral polls."

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky was a candidate for the mayor of Dhaka for an election that has been deferred 10 times since 2007 when the tenure of the last mayor expired. Elections are never held on time in Bangladesh, a politically unstable country where all franchise is kept hostage to the whims of the political party in power. Local governments are managed by puppets of the regime in power by deferring indefinitely local elections. When Mr. Irad Siddiky, a Bangladeshi economist and the son of Mr. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky declared his candidature, a group of hostile journalists attacked him and misrepresented the facts by coloring his candidature as a renegade of the party who is challenging the party chief Khaleda Zia. A simple declaration of mayoral candidature of an individual in a local election was misrepresented by popular tabloids and some yellow journalists as Mr. Irad Siddiky's challenging of the dynastic political authority of the Military dictator's wife turned dynastic politician on sympathy vote, Khaleda Zia. In Bangladesh, characterized by Henry Kissinger as the world's most unstable "bottomless basket" the vindictive culture of character assassination and defamation is very fluid and ungovernable. Individuals from that country are known throughout the world to commit crimes of both international terrorism and information terrorism and identity theft is a widely practiced social norm where anyone with access to information as an editor whether it is digital or analog or manual format, is bound to fraudulent and misinformation generating activities. As a matter of fact, half of all citizens of Bangladesh have false passports and are routinely deported by airports all over the world. Therefore when Wikipedia is allowing users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) to edit without any bar, Wikipedia is only committing itself to a misinformational campaign of defamation and hate speech that is fully punishable in any court of law in the real world. I am really surprised that Wikipedia is still surviving without any major legal challenges of the scale faced by Facebook and Google. This will very soon change when Wikipedia continues to invite with open arms users like TawsifSalam (talk · contribs). Perhaps it would be better if you call this Wiki-Defamation instead of Wikipedia so that the public online know exactly what Wikipedia is doing. Thanks.83.81.44.205 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: This link does not exist which TawsifSalam (talk · contribs) used in his misinformational and defamatory contents http://dev.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=127008&cid=3

• I've blocked the IP for 2 weeks for disruptive editing and legal threats - other reasons come to mind, but ... BTW, the link that doesn't exist does exist.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor/lurker, I would think the best solution to these BLP problems is to require an administrator in good standing who is also uninvolved in the BLP article to sign off on changes like these. Just my two cents. SapiensIngentis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.97.131 (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Admin don't decide content, the community does. Our job is solely to facilitate those changes when needed. We are janitors, not judges. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Though every information 83.81.44.205 presented regarding Bangladesh should be precisely challenged asking the author to cite every of its pieces and should be removed if the user fails to do so, I would refuse to linger the issue because 83.81.44.205 has now been blocked by the administrators for two weeks, on which too I do not want to make any comment. Hoping that this mention might amuse or raise some eyebrows- my LinkedIn profile today was visited by a user called Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky. I could not confirm if it was really the person from the centre of all these or has been a result of identity theft.

At conclusion, I was honestly anxious if my behaviour in Wikipedia really gives impression of that of a politically motivated editor as 83.81.44.205 had accused. So I thoroughly went through my list of contributions and what I found out is that most of them to the English Wikipedia so far are about current affairs, places I use to live in or visit and biographies, the latter mostly consisting of trivial information cited from news events rather than detailed information about the persons’ lives. Contributions in Bengali Wikipedia are mostly about translating a wide range of articles and those I work on in the English Wikipedia. I am literally in nowhere thinking about that accusation. Perhaps 83.81.44.205 encountered my activities only in political issues, those I found out to comprise not a significant part of my contributions to Wikipedia. -M. Tawsif Salam 00:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

CSS vandalism on today's featured article

Resolved

 – Everything that can be done has been done. Graham87 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I appear to have found some CSS vandalism by 220.163.44.188 to Luke P. Blackburn, today's featured article. I copyedited it then checked its page history for any monkey business and found the edits (in the contribs linked above). Because I use a screen reader, I didn't notice anything untoward on the page when I opened it. I've undid the edits and blocked the IP for a week; does anything else need to be done? Graham87 02:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• That is a proxy server behind the Great Wall, but it isn't an open proxy. I've revdel'ed the edits, as even looking through the history redirected you via the malicious code. Unless someone wants to oversight them, that is all we can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, I thought we semi-protected articles while they are on the front page? Maybe not.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've revdel'ed the remaining revisions and blacklisted the URL since the link was to a malicious website. I may write a bot to detect and remove future attempts to do this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, not unless there are unusually large spouts of vandalism on Today's Featured Article; otherwise, we normally don't. That is mainly so that we can demonstrate, at least to the best of our ability, the "anyone can edit" mantra. Though that mantra is a double-edged sword, as it also implies that anyone can vandalize. --MuZemike 07:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I considered RevDel on the edits but I didn't want to remove my copyediting edit ... in hindsight the fact that the edit summaries are still visible makes it clear what happened. @Dennis: I suppose the link only gets triggered when you are *viewing* the history when you're using popups. Also, see Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. I'll check the history of TFA's *before* copyediting them rather than afterwards from now on! Graham87 10:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why mediawiki allows unrestricted CSS editing on wiki. We have a "house style" that shouldn't in general be changed (except by user javascript if the user desires), and we have formatting magic like wikitables to do stuff that was historically done with handwritten HTML. We should not have to take this vandalism and clean it up after the fact, whether with a bot or anything else. Can someone open a VPT or bugzilla item to not allow CSS in edits, except possibly by admins? It wouldn't surprise me if other sorts of exploits would also be stopped by this. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional question

I often use popups to check history, for example to ensure that rollback won't miss vandalism. Is there a serious risk of non-TFA articles being vandalized with this code?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Commonly the vandalism is done to templates so that many, many pages are affected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, there was a template like this earlier today, on this very page, I closed it ie: "Clever spam" above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Djfullmoon

User:Djfullmoon has made no contributions other than

• Writing an apparent autobiography Djfullmoon which was deleted under WP:CSD#A7
• Recreating this autobiography at their user page
• Replacing WP:CSD with what appears to be a contact list [4]

and possibly other deleted contributions.

It seems to me that they are still using Wikipedia as their personal webspace. They appear active on youtube, twitter and myspace [5].

What is the best procedure here? Andrewa (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Page deleted as advert and warning given about using Wikipedia as a social network--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! On reflection I have also added a warning concerning the vandalism of WP:CSD.

I wonder whether the account is already borderline for indefinite blocking, in that while it hasn't been used exclusively for vandalism, it has been used for vandalism and has not shown any intention to contribute. Is creating the two now-speedied pages, one in article space and one in user space, disruption? Maybe...

It probably doesn't fall within the letter of the policy on blocking (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption-only), but may fall well within its intent. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive, aggressive and insufficient English

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

---

An editor who was recently blocked from the German wikipedia Widescreen (WSC) [6] has started to edit here more frequently. The editor has an insufficient level of English to directly edit articles (see any of his contributions where he adds content or adds talk page material). When he does make edits it is to insert very controversial material: [7]. The editor is very aggressive and appears to have made personal attacks in a number of locations. Some aggression here: [8][9]. Talk:Psychoanalysis#To_help_update.2Frevise_Evaluation_of_effectiveness_etc_per_WP:MEDRS[10][11][[12]] Attacks whilst ignoring the arguments that were made (WP:IDHT of [13]): [14][15]. This unblock thread is also illuminating: [16] IRWolfie- (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the totality of the user's edits (113 article edits out of a total of 697 edits), I would favor indeffing based on incompetence, inability to express themself sufficiently well in English, and poor interaction with other editors. I see little if anything on the positive side to warrant permitting them to continue editing here. The user admits to having called admins Nazis on the German wikipedia, and my guess is it's only a matter of time before they cross the line into gross incivility here rather than oblique, often incoherent jabs. Criticizing User:EdJohnston as clueless is as preposterous as criticizing User:Dennis Brown for being mean (the user did the former, not the latter).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He has an extensive block log on de.wiki, and seems to edit over here when he's blocked over there. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to have a second home. I wonder where they'll go if blocked here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

WSC is a bit hot-headed. But his edits at Hans Eysenck, although they required some copy-editing, were essentially correct and brought up material that, until then, was unduly ignored/excluded from the article by some COI editors who were lording over that page since forever (ok, since 2006 or so). I don't know enough about the other issue (psychotherapies controversy) to comment. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

He knows his subject, but is not so good on how to do things on Wikipedia. Agree with Tijfo098 on the COI article, where s/he was vindicated. I think an admin jumped into a ban too quickly there by the way without checking up on the long term provocative behaviour of the other party. I'd suggest a mentor as the best way forward if WSC was prepared to accept as a condition of being allowed back. ----Snowded ^TALK 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the editor has been on wiki projects for 6 years. I'm a little doubtful about how well mentorship would work. Do you think they are suddenly going to change now? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should monitor themselves, and how things go from here will possibly decide their future here. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• They were accused of incivility on Talk:Psychoanalysis--I don't see anything there that warrants blocking. I do see an editor who enjoys vigorous debate, probably to a fault, and who doesn't seem to enjoy collaboration--but I don't see anyone who needs to be blocked yet. I also see MistyMorn thrown around accusations of incivility without cause, which often indicates a person is on the losing side of the argument--very irritating, such accusations. Widescreen, if you're reading this, it's probably time to adjust behavior: you may not care that people are upset with how you interact with them, but if you wish to stay here you're going to have to start caring. Now, I don't see much need for us admins to get involved with this at this moment, unless this is about to get out of hand. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

...insufficient English... --WSC ^® 06:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo is spot-on in relation to Hans Eysenck. Widescreen drives me up the wall but just might respond to mentoring. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I could help out if some translating/commenting in German is needed here. Lectonar (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is more than Eysenck article. It wasn't what was happening at the Eysenck article (which I wasn't involved in) that has led to this ANI thread but his aggressiveness in several places, which makes this editor impossible to work with. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems like my "insufficient English" last out for violating WP:CIVIL and personal attacks. But I argee that my article-edits should reviewed. --WSC ^® 15:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"It seems like my "insufficient English" last out for violating WP:CIVIL and personal attacks" What does that even mean? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, what do you make of comments like of "Ok, I think I understand your point now. (1) You ain't joking when you say (2) only three journals are relevant for psychotherapie research. You ment this really serious. Sorry. I thought such a nonsense couln't ment serious. Sorry for that. But you are see the problem in your own argumentation. Scientiffic Literatur is scientiffic literature. You can't discuss a high quality journal of psychology away. Sorry. This is wat I called sophistery. Your agressive revert-procedre makes me think I got some sceptics here. I know this kind of users. " If someone wants to mentor this editor fire ahead, but currently he's disruptive; it's impossible to discuss things with him due to a language barrier and the incivility. On his description of german wiki admins: "Not only nazi. I'm really creative to describe their behaviour. ;o)". What do you make of [17]? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, after MistyMorny reverted my last changes in the article, twice [18] [19] and trys to tell me, that excellent scientiffic psychological journals like American Psychologist (in this case) arn't a reliable source, my first thaught was, hes kidding me. Thats AGF at it's best. You know, I don't thaught, MistyMorny is a POV-Pusher, trys to argue excellent sources away or he is one of these sceptic mythbusters trys to fight against pseudoscientiffic psychoanalysis, or something like that. No, I tought: This guy has humor. Do you want to allege me this AGF? --WSC ^® 16:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, that's not flawless English by a long shot, but I can understand the argument they're making. This is certainly not poor enough to warrant blocking, in my opinion. Flawed English combined with an occasionally brusque manner seems like a serious enough offense if one is involved in an argument, but viewed from my (outsider's) perspective it's not blockable. Widescreen, between you and me--it's worth your while copyediting your responses; I don't get everything you say in this last comment.

Now, I think we should move on. Let's all try to be nice and more patient, on all sides. Civility blocks suck and whether something in these discussions is uncivil or not is a matter of dispute (it's cultural manners as well that are at stake), and Widescreen's language is nowhere near bad enough for them to qualify as incompetent. Referring to admins as nazis is of course never a good thing and, Widescreen, I suggest that you don't use your talk page to gossip about anyone, especially not in German since there is no doubt that that will piss other people off. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent administration. --WSC ^® 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Pattern of poor edits an no communication by User:Historylover123

User:Historylover123 registered an account in 2007, barely used it for years, and suddenly turned up making a large number of small edits and new page creations, primarily on topics of Maharastra state in India.

• Nearly a dozen of his new article starts in the last week have been proposed for deletion by five different editors, generally for a total lack of formatting, non-notable topics, etc.
• In response to the editor piling non-notable films into Shivaji, I created what is now Shivaji in popular culture to help compile a list. HL123 has created multiple forks Filmography of Shivaji and Films about Shivaji Maharaj; the latter both has an inappropriate honorific he's been warned against putting in titles ("Maharaj"), and also tripped the copyvio bot since it was a clear cut-paste from an existing article.
• This editor absolutely refuses to communicate: note in his Contribs[20] that he's made maybe 2 edits out of 400 with any kind of manual Edit Summary (which he's been repeatedly asked to include), and has never replied to the 22 warnings on his talk page from just the last 10 days.

Fundamentally, this editor refuses to communicate or collaborate, and he's wasting other editors time following him around and cleaning up after him. I don't so much request a block for a period of time, as an indef block to be lifted once said author manages to actually communicate on Talk and express a willingness to listen to others and share ideas. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, I also left them a note about a week ago, but they seem to be unresponsive. May be a short block could show whether they read their talk page at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's beat the men until moral improves, Ymblanter. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

    I noticed that you left a message at their talk page, let us see whether it helps. If they ignore this message as well, I would not know what to do. An indefinite block does not seem to me the optimal solution, since this is a good faith editor. May be sending an e-mail via the e-mail interface, hopefully they read e-mails.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what to say. Yes, Matthew is absolutely correct in their assessment. But Historylover seems to be good-faith editor who aims to improve Wikipedia. I don't believe in the short attention-getting block, though I know some admins do. It may well be that Matthew's proposed indefinite block is the way to go, and as a side note, I guess that one more inappropriate article, copyvio, etc., should be reason for a block. I'm going to reluctantly support an indef block, but I want another admin to look at this discussion and hopefully propose something smarter. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree HL123 appears to be a good faith editor, but metaphorically he's a guy who's joined our basketball team, but is wearing earplugs and can't hear the other player's shouting or the ref's whistle. If he would actually show evidence of awareness of other editors, this would be 90% a non-problem, but until then we're literally following him around either prod'ing or copyediting practically everything he does. The article Shivaji gets 800 hits per hour, so not a good place for someone to be "feeling out" how to bullet a list, or how WP:Notability works. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • If somebody wants to send him a "hey, check your dang Talk page" poke on email, please feel free. There has to be some suitable way to make people communicate, and letting someone just wander around blindly as they receive 26 warning messages is not fair to the other editors who have to follow behind him wherever he goes. EDIT: if folks are reluctant to block for non-communication, then we should have a admin-launched widget that puts a huge banner across most of his screen while logged-in, saying "HEY, GO READ YOUR TALK PAGE AND RESPOND!!!".MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • They don't have their email enabled. Let's wait and see what their next edits are. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Okay, in the last 10-15 minutes (diffs) he's jamming more unlinked/NN names into an article, citing some non-RSs, etc. So again, it's not vandalism, but because we can't even talk to him about WP:N and WP:RS, we can't do anything about it except delete his work. Plus, since he's not using edit summaries, other editors are forced to open all of his edits to make sure he has not (yet again) made an improper edit. The complete lack of communication really outweighs any partial benefit he's providing. Barring any easier way to make him listen, I don't see a better option than a temporary block which he can end by simply visiting Talk and discussing his intentions. Why let someone just ignore their big yellow "Messages!" banner for weeks on end? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Block with really apologetic message -- if the editor doesn't respond to every other good faith effort to communicate, and continues to cause disruption, what other choice is there? NE Ent 20:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Let me try one last ditch effort to get their attention in my own special way, pointing them here. Otherwise, a block is due. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Sorry Dennis--you typed this while I blocked. Please feel free to write the message: you are nicer than I am. Yes, this block is indefinite but comes with an offer, that it be lifted the moment the editor starts communicating. Of course, part of the block rationale is that not all their edits were productive--those chunks of trivia are not. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • Never mind. I was going to blank the page and put up a full page sized stop sign and a note pointing to here, but Drmies was already cutting their phone line. You would be surprised at how often a 600x600 pixel stop sign gets their attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                • Both methods are versions of the Glasgow kiss. I've been watching this user for a while & MV has been remarkably tolerant. - Sitush (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • No problem with the block, it was the normal and expected response. I'm just not normal and have an appreciation for trying something highly annoying to get their attention, ie: the giant stop sign filling their entire page, with a polite link saying "come to ANI". It does work sometimes with non-communicative editors because they can't just overlook it like they can another templated warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I do think that a widget, under control of admins, that covers a whole chunk of their screen with a banner saying "No, seriously go check your Talk page, and then I'll remove this" might honestly be less intrusive overall, be a bit less harsh than a block and so easier to jump to rather than spend a week and lots of ANI attention dealing with incommunicado editors. I've run across several that looked like decent folks, but had to be blocked for sheer heedlessness, and left me wondering if they literally just didn't understand the small orange "Message" banner was trying to communicate with them... MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That orange banner occasionally also goes AWOL. We had a spell of that not too long ago, presumably because of some Javascript issue. No idea if it affected everyone or just those using a certain subset of tools. Obviously, something like MV suggests will only work if the user has Javascript etc enabled, but how many do not nowadays? One for the Village Pump, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe this editor had 22 warnings, so I'm not likely to blame the javascript each time :) This is why blanking and changing the whole page color, the silly stop sign, or something really drastic has worked before. It isn't just words on a page. Maybe I need to make a giant flashing red warning light GIF and upload it just for stuff like this. The more annoying, the better. I would rather annoy than block if there is a chance they will get the message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Or user status that would only allow edits on talk pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean article talk pages. TRPoD? The block limits them to their own talk page, unless even that access is revoked (a relatively rare situation). If I'm right in reading your mind, that seems like an interesting idea. I've not really thought it through but, yes, interesting. Dennis, I got no orange notification for something like three weeks ... and now it has gone the other way & I get a notification telling me that X number of users have left messages, most of which are Sinebot and typo fixes etc. In any event, I do think this is one for the Pump and if someone fancies raising it there then I would appreciate a nudge. - Sitush (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just to note that the user finally responded.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

edit summary

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

---

could someone take care of this edit summary if appropriate [21]- thanks -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, so he's mad. Pissed off indeed. Don't think there's any more to be done here, it's not rev-deletable, it's just expressing his general pissed offness with the project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Cole Sprouse-related vandalism on multiple pages

I've been noticing vandalism related to Cole Sprouse from multiple IPs and new users on the following pages:

• The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
• Cole Sprouse
• Deception
• Betrayal

From what I can tell, it's because he used Tumblr as a sociology experiment, or something like that. Could somebody look into this? Lugia2453 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Gimmetrow has semi-protected Dylan and Cole Sprouse (to which Cole Sprouse redirects); I have semi-protected Cole Sprouse and the other three for a week, let's see if it dies down by then. JohnCD (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • … and I've just hidden a whole load of similar vandalism in Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Dylan and Cole Sprouse. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Uncle, what a pleasure it is to see you here in the cloaca of en:Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • No, no, no. This is what comes of sitting at the back of the room and mucking about with your field rations during the orientation briefing. You mis-heard. This is the cloakroom of Wikipedia, where people are often handed their hats. If you are looking for the cloaca of Wikipedia, where what has been all of the way through a lengthy process is finally pushed out to the world as an ultimate product of the system, that is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wii U Wikipedia Page Vandelized

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

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_U

The offending picture in the top right of the page is from old Nickelodeon show, Keenan and Kel, is clearly not jemaine to the page. So is the caption under the page. I don't see any other offending things on the page, but you should probably check thoroughly. This page was clearly vandalized, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.117.29 (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed by bot immediately after the edits in question.  7  05:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

'New' User creating inappropriate content

WP:DENY - checkuser has already been run. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Offensive username contest has just created an account, with the sole edit being to create an inappropriate page (already tagged for CSD) with the content "My checkuser block expired and wiki admins have become fatter and grown longer neckbeards lol.". I think another block is probably in order here. Could an admin take a look please? Thanks — sparklism hey! 10:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Ah, I see someone has indeffed the user in question. Hurrah. — sparklism hey! 10:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Any connection to SmashTheState (talk · contribs) and/or TurtleMelody (talk · contribs)? bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC) Checkuser requested, to look for sleepers. Why do you suspect a connexion to those accounts? Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fake Armenian population statistics, again

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

---

Hello all,
I lately stumbled across Sevomaritsa20 (talk · contribs), who had changed some population numbers in Armenian-diaspora articles; typically the old number matched what an inline ref said and Sevomaritsa20's new number did not. Examples: [22] [23] [24]. They've had some warnings for related but not identical problems (adding unsourced content, removing maintenance tags). However, looking at the pattern of articles edited, I suspect this is the same editor as 46.19.99.6 (talk · contribs) who got blocked (by Richwales) for the same mischief in May 2012, following this ANI thread. Not much point in opening an SPI (and sockpuppetry is not actually the issue here) but if an editor's main purpose here is to insert false information, and if they've had prior warnings, perhaps we should stop it... bobrayner (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I agree. Go Phightins! 20:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. I have indef-blocked Sevomaritsa20 and left a (hopefully) clear explanation of the problem on their talk page. — Richwales 07:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Autoarbitaster replacing redirects with propaganda

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

---

Autoarbitaster (talk · contribs) is engaging in political propaganda by replacing the redirects at Grad missile and Qassam missile with a pro-Palestinian blurb (see [25], [26]), edit warring whenever some editor tries to revert the redirect to its normal state (e.g. [27]). She/he also wrote on the talk pages that this is "a form of protest until all erroneous, bad faith references to Qassam missiles, Grad missiles, etc. are removed from the multifariously disproportionate number of articles devoted to the murder of civilians by Palestinians, compared to Israeli terror, apartheid ethnic cleansing and aggression (war crime)." (see Talk:Qassam missile , Talk:Grad missile). I feel some admin intervention is in order. Thanks. --Cyclopia^talk 10:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Also some edits on IP as User:220.233.78.32 (talk). 99.5%-positivity WP:DUCK case. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 10:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Just violated 3RR. Four reverts in 8 hours. That's if you count the sock, and don't count the legitimate revert of another editor's non-constructive edit. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's blocked now, thanks to De728631. --Cyclopia^talk 11:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've blocked Autoarbitaster for one week and the IP for 48 hours. That's a really weird pattern coming out of the blue from an otherwise fairly inactive user. Especially this repeated edit summary showed a combative attitude that is clearly not constructive. De728631 (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Zhonghua Secondary School

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

---

Zhonghua Secondary School is being vandalised on a daily basis by an IP. The vandalistic edit is always the same, i.e. reversing the boys and girls uniform to make it read that boys have to wear skirts. I keep on reverting this. Each of the edits is from a different IP in the same range block, 218.212.xx.xxx. I have put vandalism warnings on the relevant pages. Is it possible to block that group of IPs or alternatively protect the article? -- Alarics (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

For WP:AIV? DeCausa (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for 10 days. Next time please use WP:RFPP for protection requests or WP:AIV for reporting vandalism. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Abuse of Twinkle {{TW}} tool

Dear Admin, I would like to draw your immediate attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirmal_Baba BLP. This BLP was reviewed by admins and modified and there on all the edits have been made as per BLP guidelines. Please verify my facts.

User Noopur28 has been continuously using Twinkle tool to {{TW}} revert this back to very old version without any valid reason. I have sent Noopur28 a message and requested to initiate talk, however the user has refused and continue to do the same edit again and again. Can you please intervene and see why this is being reverted.

You can also follow the the whole article. All the sources are valid and edits as per consensus.

This user is infact commining Vandalism and acusing me of Vandalizing the page. Can you please take a look urgently into this matter ?

Thanks & Regards Rastongi

• Honestly, upon looking at the article and past revisions I'd have to say that both versions suck in equal measure. One lambasts the man for being a fraud and charlatan, only to be reverted to a version that praises him as the Second Coming. Blow it up, start with a basic article of facts and rebuild from there. Tarc (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • They're not quite on an equal footing. Only one of the twain is has false titles in its citations, it's worth noting. Uncle G (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If the page is brings 2 opposite views, can this page be deleted for good ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastongi (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This account, as well as Raj9272 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and Rajanbala (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), appear to be making promotional edits to this article. I would not be surprised if there is some sockpuppetry involved here as well given a similarity in editing habits. For instance, Rastongi and Raj9272 refer to Noopur acting "under pretext of vandalism" and, similar to Rajanbala, appear to be trying to sign their edit summaries by adding four tildes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive/Bullying editor

I am an occasional editor, and not sure what to do about this issue. User:Anupam‎ made mass edits to the article United Methodist Church by copying an old version of the article over the new version. He made no attempt to discuss his changes. In making the mass edit he removed valued and well thought out edits by many users, including himself. He does not have a collegial approach, but rather an approach which suggests he owns the pages he edits. When I read his Talk page, it is clear that this is a problem throughout his editing history. He has been warned by many users and has been blocked previously by wikipedia administrators. I am open to discussing edits, but he places his own point of view in his edits without any discussion. Can you advise me how to proceed?--Revmqo (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I see there's been discussion on Anupam's and Revmqo's talk pages, which is good. Seeing as there appear to be two editors who just disagree on content, the best option would be to ask for help at WP:DRN NE Ent 23:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This problem is appropriate for ANI. Anupam's editing restrictions can be viewed at User talk:Anupam#Notice of restrictions. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did not know that. If my finger counting is correct, Anupam's six months 1rr just expired, but if this is a resumption of prior behavior concur that further discussion is appropriate. NE Ent 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dropped an ANI notification on their page for you. Blackmane (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI is one location which can address this matter. Another option is the mandatory editor review option ArbCom has recently instituted in other cases, which requires that an editor subject to those conditions receive consent from other editors on the article talk page for edits before making them. That might be an option which some involved here might wish to consider as well. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Neither Revmqo nor Anupam has discussed this at the article Talk page, which was stale. I just cleared it by archiving, including old discussions started in 2009 there. Revmqo opened discussion at Anupam's Talk page with suggestion, easily seen as offensive, that Anupam must have been drinking and editing, and Revmqo repeated that suggestion after Anupam objected to it. And, discussion at Revmqo's page has led to Revmqo stating "Now by all means, make the edits you desire, but let's use the talk page if they are major edits." The editors should discuss the article at its Talk page; it would be nice if Revmqo would take care not to be insulting and if both would discuss the article at its Talk page. Great, all done here. --doncram 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks from Till

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

---

Till (talk · contribs) committed a deliberate personal attack at me, calling me an "asshole" while removing a comment I left at his talk page. See the diff here: [28] I consider that a sanction should be enacted on this user, who has proven to be very disruptive lately, to me and also fellow users such as Status and Hahc21. Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• If an admin can undelete User:Status/track they can see a series of personal attacks this user has made. This might also be of assistance. Statυs (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Restored.  7  23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Info contained in User:Status/track

• "do you release that the sentence was not grammatically correct?" --> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. And accusing me of sockpuppetry? Oh honey, I really feel bad for you....my IP address begins with a 1.
• WE DON'T USE DISCOGS FOR THE LAST TIME.
• fail vote
• stupid
• And why on earth are you taking note of my edit summaries in your userspace page? I now see why so many people on this project dislike you.
• Honestly I don't think you know how creepy and socially awkward you sound right now.
• ugh
• nope
• Good grief, they should have banned you from Afd altogether.
• removing an asshole's comment
• Removing our comments from his talk archives: Remove junk, Remove unnecessary junk
• WikiLove isn't valid when you're going to be two-faced.)
• WikiLove and being fake are not compatible

• • • Thank you. I will update it with some new diffs. Statυs (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • New diffs included. Statυs (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• This all comes back to WP:OWN because Tomica (talk · contribs) is upset that I Afd'd "his" article. User in question has also used explicits in his edit summary. And quite frankly I'm sick of the user above continually commenting on everything that isn't his business. Till 23:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • This all comes back to the fact that you can't help but attack other users. This has nothing to do with an AfD. You called him an asshole right before listing the article for AfD. Statυs (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, this is something totally different from the AfD. Really we used explicit words? Did you or me used spuke shit on (me of course), called me a pig, asshole and etc. All of that can be seen in the link Status provided in the upper text. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Sigh... this dead horse has been beaten over and over. Your inability to understand colloquialism and other phrases in the English language is frustrating, to say the least. None of these comments are personal attacks to you. If you actually comprehended those statements properly you'd understand. Till 00:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I am not stupid. Also not to mention that you told me (indirectly) to fuck myself. And don't try telling that they are words from a song, yeah they are, but they were forwarded to me. I am not stupid. Meh. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • When did I call you stupid??? Till 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

When someone is rude on their talk page, the best thing to do is not post on their talk page when you don't need to (there was no necessity to post [29]). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Really? There was not necessity to post it? "I thought Tomica wrote that". Am I stupid or what? Do you know what he wanted to tell with that? "I re-worded the note so I can bully and degrade Tomica" of course. So should I just shut up until the time he calls me an asshole, pig or tells me to go and fuck myself. Such a disappointment in you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Many of those diffs aren't particularly problematic, mostly just a little childish like [30], or using all caps [31] etc. Others seem to show edit warring by both Tomica and Till: [32][33][34][35][36]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I know, he is nit-picking to make me look like some bully when the majority of the "uncivil" remarks etc. actually aren't. This was already pointed out in the previous ANI they filed on me. It's quite pathetic actually. Till 00:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • But you are a bully. It's quite pathetic that you feel the need to call others "stupid", "fake", "assholes", "creepy", "socially awkward", etc. and think that's OK. Tomica and Till have also been involved in edit warring, yes, but this isn't what this is about. This is about the attacks that Till puts onto other people. Statυs (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree that "asshole" is pretty uncivil, but seriously if you think all these others that you have listed are, then I really feel sorry for you :/. Till 00:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Status, being uncivil towards an editor you accuse of making personal attacks doesn't help anyone, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We have passed the lines on civility a long time ago. If you check out my userpage, you can see that we all tried to actually make up and put everything behind us. I thought it was over, and then, out of nowhere, Till begins removing all presence of us in his talk page, calling us "fake". I asked him why, what had happened, and he just removed my comments. Statυs (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone is being a bit of a jerk on their user talk page, 9 times out of 10 the best thing to do is just ignore his talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Some of the diffs do show issues (just not all). You are still uncivil with comments like "It's quite pathetic actually" and you have also made unwarranted personal attacks. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Saying it's pathetic isn't uncivil, it's a fact. This dead horse has been repeatedly beaten already. Till 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do admins not enforce CIVIL? It's easy. Hint - saying "removing an asshole's comment" is a breach. Stomp on it, so people know it's not acceptable. Block it, to prevent disruption to this project. Then move along merrily, with no malice. Easy enough. Shaz0t (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Things are never that simple. It encourages people to goad others into making uncivil remarks before racing to ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. I've seen ADMINS attack other users and get away with it. Statυs (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Block them too. Shaz0t (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC

• Can I propose an interaction ban between myself, Tomica (talk · contribs), Hahc21 (talk · contribs) and Status (talk · contribs), please? I am absolutely sick of these editors contantly following me and everything that I do on Wikipedia. Perhaps if they left me alone for once, we wouldn't have these problems. Till 00:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • We wouldn't have these problems if you didn't attack other users. Nobody forced you to write ANYTHING. Last time I checked, we were cool, and then you went all "you fake" on me, with no reason provided. I wanted to be your friend, but you just can't stop yourself. Statυs (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the ANI notifications by Tomica are rather odd: User_talk:Status#ANI User_talk:Hahc21#ANI in that it's not editors who are directly involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Read the text I wrote. They are mentioned! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • How? You're supposed to notify anybody who is mentiond. Statυs (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Shouting things loudly does not make them true Shaz0t (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • These are T's best friends, of course he would notify them. Till 00:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • How about the fact that it is guidelines for this noticeboard? Does that sound logical to you? Statυs (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • No, but canvassing sounds logical to me. Till 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• I don't understand why Till asks for an interaction ban including me, when I already ignore him at olympic levels? He was proven not worthy of my attention, or my response, unless he comes as a good user like he was when I met him in May. Otherwise, I am not interested in having any kind of discussion with him, not today, or anytime soon. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I really wish I could be like you Hahc, when people do things that I find to be wrong, I have to do something about it. I'm not the type of person who can just flick something off. Statυs (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's why next time you mind your own business and don't get involved with something that doesn't involve you. Till 00:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • It does involve me. I was mentioned. If you want an interaction ban so much, you can stop talking to us. Statυs (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• @Status, it looks like selectively mentioning people because they are on "your side" so to speak, so you can notify them. No evidence was provided for his assertion. If anyone was to be blocked, there is probably sufficient ground towards a BOOMERANG as well. Till isn't the only one with removals rejecting olive branches: "An aplogoy and being fake are not compatible" [37], "my talk, my shit" [38]. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, there isn't anyone else involved in this, if I'm not mistaken? As for those comments, they are clearly responses to things that Till had originally stated. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying. Statυs (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • What's wrong with the first one? He said the same thing to Hahc21 too, look at the history on Till's talk, I was just making a replica of it. What's wrong with the second? Wikipedia:EXPLISM? Did I called him shit, like he called me asshole or pig? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Children, please, be calm. Admins, get a grip, [39] Shaz0t (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Someone, please create an interaction ban. I am begging here. Till 00:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Collect diffs like this in your userspace for the purposes of pouring them out at ANI seems User:Status/track divisive per WP:UP#POLEMIC. I suggest it be speedily deleted. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • It was deleted, I asked an admin to restore it so I could get the diffs from it, to show more personal attacks. It's already been CSD'd. Statυs (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If it fits a CSD cat, csd it. If not, take it to MFD if you like. Shaz0t (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I did. Hahc21 removed the CSD IRWolfie- (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the page should bet deleted, but not yet. Well, now that Status CSD'd himself, it doesn't matter... — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm not interested in entertaining an interaction ban. History has shown that enforcing them is as disruptive as the behavior that led up to them. I'm more the type to assume the best of faith, then indef block someone when I run out of faith. So obviously, I'm going to oppose any interaction ban here. That leaves us with the question: what is the solution here? Do we walk away? Block some or all? Something in between? Why grown adults act like this is beyond me, we all have bad days, but does the community really need to come here and set some kind of rules or spell out what "good behavior" means, like we are middle school principals? Without equivocating or picking sides, do you really need admin intervention or is this something you can figure out on your own? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I second Dennis here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not post in the same discussion using two accounts. I shouldn't have to explain what policy that violates, Hahc21. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my signature to avoid confusion... It was by mistake... — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If they could figure it out on their own, they wouldn't be on AN/I. Someone needs sending to the naughty step. Sad, but true. Shaz0t (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • We have tried to figure this out on our own, but we just can't. And just for the record, I'm not an adult. It's quite obvious that Till can't control himself from making personal attacks against other users. I would love to just walk away from all this, I tried to, and then Till started some drama again with no stated reason as to why. Statυs (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it as is, the other party has unclean hands. Either that or a block and a possible BOOMERANG. The editors can avoid each other of their own volition. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

How about, if this issue has to be brought up once again, action must be taken place. Third strike, you're out! For now, everybody just backs away and tries to not get in each other's way. We tried mending fences, but Till didn't like that very much, I guess. For whatever reason that may be. Statυs (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• My gut instinct is to use the "dick solution", which means one of two possible solutions. Blocks for everyone participating, or lots of silence and everyone simply silently agrees to avoid each other like you owe each other money. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry but I don't find this fair, at all. I am sick and tired of being followed every single time I make an edit to an article or discussion page. I am sick and tired of logging on to Wikipedia to find a 'You have new messages' directing me to yet another notification at ANI. I am sick of them leaving 'notes' on someone's talk page or a discussion page about all the flaws that I have made during my edits. And quite frankly I'm sick of having my edits and edit summaries looked at under a microscope and added to their userspace. It is only so much a person can put up with. Till 01:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ec. I don't think it is fair either, but for a quite different reason. I agree with Denis Browne re no interaction ban, but that was beside the stated point of this AnI, which was that you called someone an asshole. Tomica filed the AnI at 23.33 and here we are more than an hour and a half later, and despite making a dozen edits to this thread, you have not said "oh, I was out of line" or even, heaven forbid, an "I'm sorry". And now I see you have the gall to insult Dennis Browne who was trying to smooth troubled waters here. I was about to block you from editing for a short period, but that would mean you couldn't edit this page. You are very lucky.. Moriori (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • And do you think this justifies calling someone an asshole or other rude summaries? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • When did I say that it does? I have already acknowledged above that 'asshole' was uncivil, so build a bridge and get over it. Quite frankly, no one cares what you have to say in this thread. Till 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetically, would saying "aah, diddums" here be a personal attack? Shaz0t (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest not antagonizing the situation, or involving yourself if you are not already involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Point taken; but I'm no more-or-less involved than you, but you're commenting. Shaz0t (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• • • • The only reason anybody "follows you around" is because you are involving yourself in other's edits. Of course, anybody can edit freely, but I mean things like this. You didn't even notify Tomica you nominated his GA for reassessment. You've made yourself known as a user who attacks others, so users will look over your edits with a microscope. Statυs (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • That, and the 3 CD Collector's Set AfD are examples of this. You've had issues with Tomica, but you insist on making yourself present in his work. You may have a legit concern, but your reasoning behind is underhanded. Statυs (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
          • Rather than make generalizations, do you have other diffs that politely demonstrate your concern? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
            • Here's another example. Till says he wants to not be involved with any of us, but yet he turns to our GA and FA/FL nominations and leaves his oppose. On that particular example, he opposes due to prose in the lead, I fix all the issues that he pointed out, and copyedit the whole article, and his oppose remains there. Statυs (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
              • • Is it just the two, or can you demonstrate a pattern? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                  • There is 1) The FA of Tomica 2) The GAR of an article Tomica got to GA 2) The AfD of an article Tomica (and I) got to GA. I will go fishing for a few more, these are just a few on the top of my head. Statυs (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                    • 4) Hahc and I's FLC, in which his issues were resolved, apart from the use of the word "atop". His oppose still remains there as well. Statυs (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                      • This is why I'm asking for diffs, I can't just accept someone else's interpretation, I need to look at the actual situation, and I'm willing, but it must be supplied in the form of diffs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                        • I'm not sure you are asking specifically for diffs, when I am proving you the entire discussions. You can come to your own interpretation of the whole discussion. Statυs (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                          • I did, I was expecting there be even more diffs. I will admit there is a very antagonistic tone in all the diffs you provided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                            • He nominated Rihanna's discography for FLR, also. In which he stated: "The article looks like it has been written by an over-zealous fan". Tomica being one of the main contributors to the article. Also in an AfD for Personal (album), which I expanded to prove notability, several non-album closures were made, in which Till reverted both of them. I proved the theory of the album being non-notable as being wrong, but he going on strong about it, instead of just quietly withdrawing. He then got into an argument with the closing admin about the closure of the AfD. It appeared, to me, as if he was upset that I had expanded the article and it was kept. But that's just my opinion. Then came the "two-faced" comments and removal of our existence on his talk. Statυs (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
                              • I remember him reverting the AfD, which was improper, and arguing about it with Bwilkins. Completely improper, and quite tolerant of Bwilkins, I might add. I almost left him a sharp message the other day because of that, but since Bwilkins was involved, I stayed out of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
• BYE! I have had enough of wikipedia. Statυs (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So Till left? Sigh. I don't see a retired banner, so I am not inclined to request a close simply because I don't know if he is venting or really leaving. Because of that, nothing has changed except I can't ask him to provide diffs, making my job that much harder, but I would say to continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
    • He'll be back. He left from the other ANI report filed against, and came back a few days later. It really annoys me when users just leave when they are so involved in something, such as this. Statυs (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I'm now combing through a great deal of diffs, the hard way. This means I haven't ruled out a block on anyone, and at ANI, everyone's behavior is examined. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Shocking article ownership behaviour and inappropriate GA fail

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

---

Moments ago, I nominated Diamonds (Rihanna song) for GA, having made around 40 edits to the article including major expansions and copyedits. I was later reverted by Tomica (talk · contribs) with the rationale "Too early to nominate it, the song it's charting still so the chart performance is likely to change, also live performances section." As far as the WP:GAN page is concerned, nowhere does it say that it can be "too early" to nominate an article for GAN (the article is complete and aeppars to meet the criteria by the way). I reverted Tomica's edit, stating that I am in fact entitled to nominate the article for GA. I was soon reverted with a very decisive WP:OWN-style statement, saying "actually i am the major contributor with more than 250 edits and everyone who is experienced with GA's would note that". I reverted him and explained to him that anyone can nominate the article, regardless of how many edits they have made. I expressed my interest in working with him on his talk page with no response. I then received a rather abrupt message declaring "..how can you nominate it without telling me about the plan? Btw, that's not the only reason.It's too early... WE already explained you"— a clear violation of WP:OWN.

Out of nowhere, Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) comes and accuses me of making no significant contributions to the article, and quick fails the article for absolutely no reason. I then receive a shockingly abusive message on my talk page from him, saying: "In case you didn't come to the conclusion, I looked over the edit summaries for the last 2 months. You've done literally nothing. Don't try and pass off crap with me. And no, Tommy and Aaron are friends of mine and I was shocked when I saw the BS you pulled. Lastly, hate to burst your bubble of confusion, but it's kind of a well known fact that you don't nominate or represent an article in GA/FA if you are not a main contributor (which you are far from)." Till 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem referred to in your first paragraph is that GANs need to be stable otherwise they are a quick fail. - Sitush (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was stable though, adding a few more sentences and updating chart positions don't affect the article's status, to my knowledge. Till 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that an article concerning a charting recording can be considered stable, the very fact that you made umpteen edits to it shortly before nomination amounts to "instability". This really is one to be discussed at the GAN talk page, I think, although I've not looked at the contribution history/relationships etc. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

One might be interested in seeing #Personal attacks from Till for a related issue. Statυs (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Till, it's usually left to the main writers to nominate articles for GA and FA for the simple reason that they are assumed to be most familiar with the topic, and with the improvements that still need to be made. It's more a question of stewardship than ownership. Perhaps you could start helping to get it to GA standard along with the other editors there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is not stable: lot of IP's are editing it because everyday new information is coming. That's exactly what I wanted to tell to Till, it's way to early, cause new information is coming and its GA status can be later be ruined as a reason of un-controled adding of information. I made 260 edits on the article, that's not WP:OWN, actually he is the one that makes WP:OWN. He totally plagiarized my work as Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) told. And It should be noted that the User:Till was at ANI yesterday, you can see it here, when Till said he is leaving Wikipedia, but in fact he is here again. And SlimVirgin you can go through Diamonds (Rihanna song) history and see what kind of edit summaries he wrote there. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 00:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not an issue of ownership, although I understand Till's point: I nominated I Am... Sasha Fierce for GAN without being the main controbutor. Of course, I did it as a co-nom with the main contributor, Jivesh, who was, at that time, on an extended wikibreak. I'd recommend Till to stay out of controversies for some time, even when an admin explicitly showcased his willingness to block him for his actions, and another one did the same hours before because of his behaviour. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and explain this quickly, in hopes of ending this ridiculous thread. User: Till constantly berates, threatens and throws shade at several editors. Let's set that straight. Next, he nominated an article for GA (without having done anything for the article). This just shows a lack of class. Not that this was the only issue, the article in question is still very recent, and several editors had already told Till they thought it was premature (aside from the fact that he's falsely misrepresenting an article he had nothing to do with). Lastly, we have good ole TBradley shoving his nose where it doesn't belong, slapping me with a warning against personal attacks because I wrote "I can't believe some people". Yup, for that. As you can see, we either have some sock-puppetry going on here (because I can't understand how two separate editors can be so mislead), or they are just wasting everyone's time.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether or not the article was nominated too quickly given how recent the song was released, but there's no question the reviewer's tone was, and still is above, utterly ridiculous. Till's edit summaries in the article are unacceptable as well. Perhaps we should just trout both editors. Wizardman 00:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More personal attacks on me, I see. Can someone please stop this user from these personal attacks. Third strike. More is listed at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations about nominating and everything. I just said no personal attacks, and it doesn't qualify for quick-fail, I've never read the article, so I wouldn't know if it met the criteria or anything. I was just doing those things. TBrandley 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If you've never read the article then how do you know it doesn't qualify for quick fail? Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant I have never read the article in depth, but due to this on my watchlist, looking through it quickly and there were no obvious reasons to fail, as said in the quick-fail in criteria. Regards, TBrandley 00:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Please note there is an ANI on this very page that was "suspended" as Till had said he was leaving Wikipedia. If Till is back, then those issues may be relevant here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My impression of the first thread was that both parties were at fault due to a lack of assuming good faith (and cases where olive branches were thrown back in peoples faces). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Our impressions differ slightly. As usual, there was plenty of blame to go around, but it was in equal shares. It is all quite fresh in my mind. I'm not interested in distributing the blame, however, only in preventing it from happening again. Preferably by the least aggressive means, but not at all costs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Reading all the previous pages, everyone needs to tone it back, this isn't going to turn into a battleground. And I don't care who started it at this point, I care about solutions and moving on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Till, let me be frank: You left in the middle of an ANI, which was suspended while one admin wanted to block you, and I decided to extend a last bit of rope. Your first edits when you come back were directly in the path of Tomica. You aren't a fool, Till. You know how that looks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Having reviewed comments from editors far more familiar with the GA process than I am, it's difficult to see any legitimate reason for Till to have nominated the song article (or open an ANI). Wikipedia is a pretty big place. NE Ent 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've waited long enough for an answer, which was asked in multiple places [40] [41]. Till was taken to ANI yesterday, which was suspended because he left Wikipedia, assumably forever.[42] At that time, another admin was recommending a block. Then the first edits he makes when he comes back is to prematurely submit an article that he should have known was not ready for GA, that was primarily edited by the person that brought him to ANI to begin with. Good faith only can be extended so far, and I just can't extend any more good faith here. Your own 24 hour break didn't seem to change much, so I'm forced to block you for a week, and hope when you come back you will simply avoid editors that you are constantly getting in disputes with. I just don't see any other option.

Additionally, Tomica and Status need to avoid Till in the future, and Till needs to avoid them. There is plenty of blame to go around, but Till managed to cross the threshold first demonstrating that the only way to prevent further disruption was to prevent him from editing for a while. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Administrator note: He is saying we should make it an indef, which I will leave to the judgement of another administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• User self-request for indef block has been struck/stricken or whatever legalese people prefer. Crossed out, I guess. - Sitush (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Why isn't this a personal attack?

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

---

Moved from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to accuse me on his talk page of using sockpuppets (Demiurge10 and Demiurge100) to abuse him, and claimed that I have an admin account that I can "use at will".[44] When I asked him earlier to provide some evidence for these wild allegations he instead chose to delete my request.[45] This is exactly the kind of incivility and personal attack that so often goes unremarked here, but it's time it was stopped. I'm quite happy to discuss the allegations in whatever robust terms suit Demiurge1000, but I'm not prepared to see serious and unsubstantiated allegations of wrong-doing allowed to stand without rebuttal. Isn't that what you folks call a "personal attack"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is a violation of NPA and CIVIL. Just don't expect anything to be done about it. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge100 was created a few years before Demiurge1000, although Demiurge10 was created a year afterward. I'd like to see more context for what's going on, but I'm rather surprised by the "delete my request" link. Note that the edit summary refers exclusively to someone else's comments; I'm wondering if perhaps it might be a reversion of the other person's comments and not particularly aimed at you. You failed to notify him, so I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to notify him when he deletes anything I post on his talk page. Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The normal reply to unsubstantiated accusations of socking is File an WP:SPI with your evidence or shut the fuck up. I would suggest that that is all this accusation deserves. With the number of enemies Mal has I think it is highly unlikely he could be operating a secret admin account. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that I'm not, and never have. And if anyone thinks differently I'd like to see the proof. Malleus Fatuorum 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to see more as well, although the claim that Malleus has a secret admin account is rather bizarre, to say the least. Looking at that one post, it is indeed incivil (in particular the passive-aggressive "coward" comment), but I'm not one to get block happy over a singular incident of incivility. I don't get the indignation over Malleus's comment, and I'm guessing accidental leaving out one of the zeros in his name. And yes, please notify next time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Have you asked Demiurge1000 to notify next time he launches one of his absurd personal attacks? Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the frustration Malleus, but the bureaucracy demands we notify when we file. I don't make the rules, I just try to make sure they are enforced equally. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I know, it was just the frustration speaking. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't object to being confronted with things that I've actually done, such as calling an arbitrator a "dishonest fucker", but I draw the line at being accused without evidence of things I haven't done. Malleus Fatuorum 02:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, User:Demiurge100 was created 5/25/2006 and has never had an edit, deleted or otherwise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

If Dem is so certain, then he should've opened an SPI. Merely accusing an editor of sockery, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Demiurge1000's self-post reads like an attack, occasionally direct, occasionally sly, and nothing to back any of it up except his own beliefs. I can't figure out the edit summary when he deleted Malleus's post. I agree with Dennis about the zero. I agree with Beeblebrox about filing an SPI. This whole thing reads more like "I don't like Malleus and I'm gonna say whatever I please against him".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  The edit summary that Demiurge1000 made when deleting Malleus's post makes much more sense in the context of the thread by PRDISTORTION (talk · contribs), which is immediately below Malleus's. Note that Demiurge is replying to that thread at the same time as deleting Malleus's message. In that thread PRDISTORTION said to Demiurge "I trust you will be fair (you seem to be a reasonable person)", which seems to be the particular thing that Demiurge is replying to in his edit summary. I don't think that Demiurge deleted Malleus's message by accident, however, as there is a gap of more than four hours since the previous edit to the page. I see this as equivalent to Demiurge deleting Malleus's message without any comment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Am I missing somewhere where Demiurge1000 gave a hint of where he's getting these seemingly unfounded accusations. The diff on his talk page seems to have been taken out of context, so unless I'm missing something, this seems like borderline libel. Go Phightins! 02:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Libel, eh? That's an impressive choice of word. If the diff you're thinking of is this one, though, I think you should read it more carefully. (You might legitimately wonder why I would direct someone to that website, but don't worry, I have my reasons.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see User:Demiurge10 registered 8/5/2011, recreated a now revdel'ed anti-Palistinian rant article and was blocked as a sock of an unnamed editor. Doesn't sound like Malleus to me. I know Malleus's style pretty well, so from a SPI Clerk trainee's perspective, consider this an investigation that shows no linkage to Malleus. Now that this is out of the way, is Demiurge1000 going to voluntarily remove the attack? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Anyone who seriously believes that the Demiurges of whatever number are my sockpuppets is very welcome to ask for whatever investigation they like. They're absolutely nothing to do with me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've already done an informal investigation, not because I thought there was any merit, but to understand why he would have said this. Zero, nada, nothing could possibly even give anyone any impression that either editor was you. I have deleted the personal attack on the talk page as well. I will leave a message on his talk page. He's never been blocked, so I would prefer to at least attempt to resolve this without any further drama. It is inexcusable, and hopefully he will realize that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I don't want Demiurge1000 blocked, or anyone else for that matter. I just want to see a level playing field. Malleus Fatuorum 02:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. I've left a fairly clear message on his talk page after deleting the attack. We all screw up every now and then, hopefully he will realize (and perhaps even admit) that this was his mistake. I strongly prefer to try reasoning and clear notification for one off events, and that is what I have attempted here. Time will tell. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus may do/say some things that are not always appreciated by the community, but I am very sure that sockpuppetry and especially masquerading as an admin are not among them. I think Demiurge1000 should calm down a bit - there is enough constant drama surrounding Malleus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

@Kudpung - fancy you showing up here, I was just thinking of you actually. Specifically in that, like Malleus, you're one of three people who've gone to the trouble of barring me from your talk page. (Although in your case you haven't done so and then proceeded to discuss me there.) The other two have been blocked multiple times for personal attacks. You should take the time to re-read WP:BOOMERANG, as your comment suggests that you've misunderstood it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• If I actually had a secret admin account I probably wouldn't get in half the pickles I do, and I wouldn't constantly have to be asking admins to move or delete stuff for me. I really fail to see how anyone could seriously believe that I have access to an admin account. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, but if you used your secret sock admin account to bail you out of problems, it would eventually raise suspicions, so you can't use it for that -- which raises the question of why you would need a secret admin account that you couldn't use to do the most obvious thing you would need an admin account to do? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC))

  True. But if people keep going on about it for long enough maybe even I'll start to believe that I've got a secret admin account. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• All right, boys and girls, clap your hands if you believe in Malleus' secret admin account! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken - that is indeed the major problem with secret admin accounts :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Neither allegation -- that Malleus has an admin account or would sock is remotely credible. Dennis beat me to dumping the attack page portion of Demiurge1000's user talk page. Seems like it's time to close the thread. NE Ent 03:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

  Seems to have been dealt with now I agree. I don't have a secret admin account and I never have nor ever would use sockpuppets. I'm by no means perfect, obviously, but those are things I simply wouldn't do. Malleus Fatuorum 03:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In their totally misguided comment (removed by Dennis Brown), Demiurge1000 apparently takes mention of "Demiurge100s" (with a missing 0) as a sign that Malleus was related to Demiurge100 (talk · contribs). That is an absurd conclusion, particularly since it is quite obvious that the missing 0 was just a typo as it is quite easy to omit a trailing character of that nature. Possibly a high level of emotion has clouded Demiurge1000's judgment—that is the AGF interpretation. Whatever the reason, my guess is that the community would have very little tolerance for any further poking of bears, and Demiurge1000 should not comment on Malleus unless at a suitable noticeboard, and any comment should be accompanied with clear evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Since it's clear Malleus isn't behind any of the accounts suggested and Demiurge1000 has been admonished for making the allegations without any proper evidence, it's probably safe to close this thread to avoid further unnecessary drama. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've re-opened this after boldly deciding that I have a right of reply. ANI reports about me being closed without my even seeing them happens a little too often - this is the second in just a week.

I'm greatly reassured to be informed by no less than a trainee SPI clerk (as Dennis modestly describes himself) that Malleus doesn't, in fact, have access to an administrator account. I was told of that claim by someone with rather greater stature, but I'll not raise it again unless that person wants to comment themselves, or unless any further evidence comes to light.

As for the impersonation account, when I have some time I'll dig out the diff of the threat (assuming no-one has had the foresight to memory hole it), and those interested can decide whether the timing was an interesting coincidence or not. You'll have to drop by my talk page for that, though, as dramah boards bore me. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

I have blocked Demiurge1000 for 24 hours for personal attacks. After all the above, his reply/defense is "I know of the secret admin account from "someone with rather greater stature", but I'm not going to tell you who", and "I have the diff for the impersonation claim, but I can't be bothered to post it". Basically, I'll repeat my accusation which everyone else dismisses as out of character and unfounded, but I am not willing or able to provie any evidence for them. That's basically the textbook definition of a personal attack, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." Fram (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Feeling a little stalked...

I can't seem to post any information to the page about Al Gordon (Just to be clear, I am Al Gordon) without having a certain Miss Tenebrae "adjust" everything I do. She seems to have a personal interest in me that's devolved into a bit of a vendetta towards me... and she feels it her responsibility to adjust anything I add to the Al Gordon page and even my User page. She's removing factual information I post. This has been an ongoing situation and this User has been following me around for over a year.

Is there a way to have this negotiated?  Maybe a Wiki Restraining Order of sorts?

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at our policy on editing with a conflict of interest, which you obviously have about yourself. As far as I can see, Tenebrae's edits have generally been to bring your contributions into accord with our policies and practices, which is a good thing, and is not "stalking". No "restraining order" is necessary. On the other hand, you might want to re-acquaint yourself with the concept that everything you post on Wikipedia is subject to being changed by other editors. If you have problems with those changes, the thing to do is to engage them in dialogue on the article talk page, or on their use talk page, and I see that you did so once, and were told by another editor that you were attempting to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes, which is also against our policy. In short, I see much more of a potential problem with your contributions than I see with Tenebrae's.

Finally, you are required to notify any editor you file a report about here, and I don't believe you've done that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have notified Tenebrae about this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi:

No offense, but.... If you're referring to Guerillero's comment - that comment was directed at Tenebrae "throwing around self promotion far too easily..." not me.

Also... I also notified Tenebrae... but you beat me to it.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I corrected my statement. I still don't see anything wrong with Tenebrae's corrections and adjustments to your edits, and you should still read WP:COI and WP:PROMO, neither of which you seem to have taken onboard, to judge from your edits and the discussion on Talk:Al Gordon (comics). It's good that you have an interest in contributing to our article and improving it, but it's not your article, and your edits are subject to the same requirements as everybody else's, and, indeed, some additional ones because of the potential problems being the subject of the article creates. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again... I have indeed read the COI guidelines and have been very very careful to only add factual, cited information. You can look back further and see what's been going on between her and I for over a year. I do however feel stalked by Tenebrae, and again this is only the latest in a string of incidents from this user, who has often been needlessly rude and bullying. I assumed Tenebrae asked for a source proving that I actually wrote the Tarzan book, and when I provided a source she removed it, citing guidelines that don't seem to back up the removal of the source. I'm only asking for some breathing room here.

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 03:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Tenebrae, but I see that he or she has been here for over 7 years, has made over 71K edits, has a visible talk page full of cookies and barnstars, and has only been blocked once, in 2006. It seems somewhat out of character for an editor with that kind of profile to "stalk" someone and to be "rude and bullying". Are you sure that you're not interpreting attempts to bring your edits into alignment with Wikipedia's policies as personal attacks? Is it possible that when you're asking for "breathing room", you're actually asking that your edits be allowed to violate policies? Would the end result be any different if 12 different editors made the changes that Tenebrae did, instead of one person? Would they all, then, be "stalking" you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Beyond My Ken:

Again, no offense… really… but I'm confused that you would equate barnstars and cookies and edit-count as an example of good behavior.

Re: "12 Editors…" Of course not… but that's not the case. I've never had a problem with anyone editing me… ever. Except Tenebrae. But there is a pattern of behavior here of someone constantly picking nits with some very innocent edits by me. You can look at my edits to the Al Gordon page and see the harassment.

And there aren't 12 Editors doing what Tenebrae is doing. I'm not being bullied by "12 Editors." It is, unfortunately, obvious that this Editor is personally and consistently editing me…

I'm willing to post examples if you don't see any.

Her behavior is obvious as you can see from Guerillero's comments about how very eager Tenebrae is to label my edits as "self promotion."

albabe - The Writer/Artist Formally Known as Al Gordon 05:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll see. I've added Al Gordon (comics) to my watchlist, and if you make edits which violate WP:COI or WP:PROMO or any other policy you can be certain I will delete or adjust them. If Tenebrae make edits which go against policy, I will delete or adjust them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A neutral editor has pointed out that Al Gordon has been indulging in WP:COI edits and that my editing at Al Gordon has been reasonable.

I'd also point out a certain dishonesty in Gordon's own edits on his article's page: Here I removed a link he had added to a page where you could buy his comic, a blatant vio of WP:ELNO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. In my edit summary, I wrote, "Find a review or some other neutral, 3rd-party source unrelated to selling your product."

Well, he did so, here, and indeed found a different and neutral source. Yet he wrote in his edit summary, "Undid revision 522490608 by Tenebrae" even though he did exactly what I'd asked him to do: find a review in a neutral source. So even he seems to be agreeing with my edits.

I think his own behavior and his own statements say more eloquently than I what kind of person we're dealing with. I wish he could take a step back and see that not everyone views Wikipedia the same way that he does.

I would, however, ask that he not make the false accusation that I am Wiki-stalking him. That is a serious, serious allegation, and anyone looking at my edit history can see I'm not following this editor around to whatever page he edits — I'm editing a single page on my watch list, and one to which he should not be adding commercials sales links to his products. So, Al, I'd appreciate your removing "stalk" and its equivalents or this ANI is going to be about you and your defamatory and false accusations. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More competence

Resolved

 – Windows.dll blocked indefinitely for disruption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I really suspect that Windows.dll (talk · contribs) has major WP:COMPETENCE issues. In their time here, they have:

• Uploaded two unfree images mistagged as free
• Made improper pagemoves such as iPad (4th generation) to iPad with Retina display, (note the stray comma) and Verizon Wireless to Cellco Partnership d.b.a. Verizon Wireless
• Made sockpuppet edits via User:Christy Walton, then created their own sockpuppet category
• Vandalized Bram Stoker via IP, then reverted their own vandalism while logged in
• Crapflooded their user page with a billion userboxes
• Made a WP:PUTEFFORT-failing AFC submission (‪Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/First National Innovation Brokers‬)
• Created the now-speedied article Bluebird (walmart). I strongly suspect the article was nonsense, as the edit to Bluebird (disambiguation) suggests that the article was on a type of car sold at Walmart, and we all know that Walmart doesn't sell cars.

The user has also poked around at a few "in" venues such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist. Between this and the userbox-spamming on their userpage, I strongly suspect that the user is also trying to treat Wikipedia as a social network. The lack of improvement in edits over a 6-month period suggests that the user is perhaps not fit to edit. In particular, the most recent edit with Bluebird (walmart) has me more than convinced that this user just isn't ready for the big time — if you've been here 6 months and are still vandalizing, you're cleraly not cut out for the job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to ask how you knew he was the IP, but looking at this [46] makes it pretty clear, then the SPI archive [47] made it more clear. Looking at all the bizarre stuff, it is either subtle trolling or CIR. I've indef blocked at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• I've been watching this user fumble about for a few weeks now, wondering what to do, and I can't say that I disagree with the indefinite block. Once the unblock request is inevitably declined, I would suggest giving the IP an extended hardblock. – Steel 03:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Some time back I responded to an unblock request from 65.175.243.48 (talk · contribs), an IP operated by Windows.dll. His behavior was so strange it was hard to know if he was pulling our leg or was just very confused. Agree that at present he does not have the ability to make useful contributions to Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Bluebird was not nonsense; it was easy to read. Here are the first couple of sentences and the last: "Bluebird is a Checking & Debit Alternative Loaded with features. Not fees...It feels good to Bluebird." Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • … or, in other words, it was a straight copy of the advertisement, written in the first person and "©2012 American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. All rights reserved.", on American Express' own WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, I missed the copyright notice. Yes, definitely spam; I was attempting to exhibit its problems, not to defend it. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• The user also made protection requests with a strange experimenting bent, not just flat-out incompetence. Indef is the right call. --87.78.22.200 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)