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

Disruptive editing by Eff Won

This is not going anywhere; no blocks will be issued. Take the discussion to the article talk page, or consider dispute Resolution. Horologium (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the past two weeks, Eff Won has proven to be a serial problem on the Formula One pages. Here are some of his examples of his behaviour: Claiming that if people can't see his edits as being excellent contributions, then they're all idiots. [1], Multiple instances of edit-warring. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] Refusing to acknowledge consensus. ("Calendar table links - why not?", "Calendar table links again", "Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles") Claiming that any existing consensus was obtained fraudulently. [7] [8] Refusing any attempt to reason with him over his edits. [9] Consistently low-quality edits. [10], [11], [12] Demanding to be shown an existing consensus against any changes he wants to make. [13] Demanding that his edits be accepted without obtaining consensus. [14] Personal attacks (particularly after given some advice on how he presents himself). [15] Multiple instances of attempting to force edits through by rigidly interpreting Wikipedia policies. ("Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines") Despite having been told that the WikiProject: Formula One editors had adopted their own, acceptable manual of style. [16], [17] Refusing to allow any progress on a page until issues have been resolved to his satisfaction. ("Explanation", "Clarification of round 13 summary", "Prominent quotes at the end of race summaries") Reposting messages from his talk page to article talk pages without permission from the user(s) who originally posted said message. [18], [19] Aggressive behaviour, particularly in his edit summaries. [20], [21], [22] Claims that "others are throwing shit and making grossly exaggerated allegations of what I am supposed to have done, presumably in the hope that some of the shit will stick and my name will be smeared". [23] Furthermore, he is also the subject of an SPI as several editors believe him to be a sock of Lucy-marie, a serial sockpuppeteer. Should this be proven correct, there may be a case to take to long-term abuse by Lucy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Each and every point there is a shameless exaggeration or even misrepresentation of the events. I am a newbie, I made a few faux pas, but am a quick learner and am keen to learn the ropes. I've proactively raised discussions to help with this: [24] and [25] and have even been awarded a barnstar [26] for my efforts in that respect. I suggest a very careful examination of each point raised above, and with a thorough reading of the links provided and their context. I am trying to improve the articles here, not disrupt them, and recent edits replacing content I added, which had been summarily reverted, show I am succeeding. I believe Wikipedia needs to encourage new blood, not stifle it. Eff Won (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Comment: If it is such a "shameless exaggeration" or "misrepresentation of the events" and that every issue I have raised has been taken grossly out of context, then perhaps you would like to explain why each point that I have raised is so? It is my understanding that administrators following up on this will examine every point that I have raised, and so it is in your interests to at least address the issues at hand, rather than issuing a blanket denial and hoping that the administrators will overlook your transgressions because you asked nicely. For the record, I am taking Eff Won's comments as another attempt at bullying me into backing down, which he has done on several occasions in the past two weeks: [27], [28], [29], [30] Prisonermonkeys (talk) Well, I got as far as looking at the first diff... "Claiming that if people can't see his edits as being excellent contributions, then they're all idiots. [31]" And there's no claim of anything being "excellent" and nobody is being called an "idiot". I'll leave the rest for others to examine if they wish, but when I see blatant exaggeration in the very first diff, it reminds me I have better things to do with my time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Comment: I was paraphrasing. I draw your attention to this remark: What I'm finding so confusing is why you are looking for reasons to omit such a useful hyperlink, rather than saying "good idea Eff One!". The implication is pretty clear. Eff Won does not allow for a scenario where his edits could realistically be considered anything but good. Other editors can either acknowledge his edits as being useful or to the benefit of the page, or they can continue to invent excuses not to include his edits. The use of the word "excuse" is particularly telling, because it is defined as an attempt to lessen blame by attaching some kind of fault to it. It has a negative connotation, and he clearly does not think there are any good reasons why his edits should be reverted. So he wants us to recognise that his edits are all good; if we don't, then we're clearly making up reasons not to include them. Observe this edit, with the summary "the excuses don't stand up to scrutiny", or this one, with the summary "now read this slowly and carefully", and this one, with the edit summary "the truth hurts?", and this one, with the summary "high and mightily". He clearly thinks very little of people who disgree with him, and given how he characterises their edits as being excuses, I think implication is very clear: we either ackwonledge his edits as being good, or we're idiots for not seeing it. He does not allow for any situation where his edits do not improve the page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I'd have to agree with Boing. I actually had a read through the diffs. I see a lot of head biting of a newbie and no one looks to have spent any time at all explaining to Eff Won how things are done. Quite frankly, the treatment of Eff Won has been pretty appalling and shameful. Three editors, Prisonermonkeys, Bretonbanquet and The359, have not taken Eff Won's lack of familiarity with WP into account and quite frankly bullied them, not to mention taken to WP:SPI, which they weren't even notified about. The implication that is clear is that these three should be trouted repeatedly for failure to assume good faith of a new editor. I'll be dropping the other two a notification. Blackmane (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Was just about to post exact same cmt as Blackmane's. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC) We haven't taken his "lack of familiarity" with Wikipedia into account because we believe he is already very familiar with it. He displayed an in-depth knowledge of the Manual of Style three days after registering, which was noted as being rather suspect by a member who you do not name as being irresponsible in handling the situation. The SPI makes it pretty clear that we believe Eff Won is actually Lucy-marie, a serial sockpuppeteer. One of her favourite tricks was to play a newcomer to Wikipedia, and concentrate almost exclusively on minor details of the page. Eff Won was not notified that he was the subject of an SPI, because notification (while considered courteous) is not required, and based on previous experiences with Lucy, notifing any account she is using (assuming, of course, we are proven correct) that she has been referred to SPI is a very bad idea - one that is likely to result in constant disruptions to pages. If you read through this discussion, you will see that no action was taken before several members were in agreement that there was something to act upon. Just as a final note, I am aware that I am referring to Lucy-marie as "she" and Eff Won as "he", even though I believe them to be the same person. We never actually established whether or not Lucy was male or female; although "Lucy-Marie" is a female name, some of her socks used male names. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I largely agree with Boing! here. I went through the diffs over the "refusing to acknowledge consensus" and it seems to me like your talking about a previous consensus. Keep in mind that consensus can change, but it takes someone trying to change it for that to happen. Prisonermonkeys, I'm going to WP:AGF here that you think you made an honest report, but you've greatly misrepresented Eff Won and I expect next time there won't be any paraphrasing.--v/r - TP 12:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) I am aware consensus can change. However, at the time, it had not, and Eff Won's attempts to establish a new consensus had resulted in the previous consensus being upheld. Nevertheless, Eff Won continued to ignore that consensus and tried to force his edits through. Every time he was directed to the previous discussion establishing that consensus, he claimed there was no clear indication of consensus being established. Perhaps I have been my own worst enemy on this occasion. I did not intend to misrepresent Eff Won, but with almost every edit he has made being argumentative, stubborn and aggressive, it is possible that things were overlooked or mistaken as I tried to sift through the sheer weight of his edits looking for evidence. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC) The diffs show this to be a frivolous complaint richly deserving of WP:PETARD. The diffs don't illustrate what's claimed and sometimes they illustrate the opposite, as when Prisonermonkey virtously claims to have given "some advice on how [Eff Won] presents himself" (here's the "advice"]) and to have received "personal attacks" in return (and here are the "attacks"). At a minimum, Prisonermonkey needs to have WP:BATTLEGROUND explained to him. I suggest applying a wet Trout or even a dried Stockfish. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC). Not taken into account his lack of familiarity with WP? Bullshit. This is my second message directly to Eff Won, explaining why his edits were reverted and attempting to tell him not to edit war and to instead discuss the dispute on a talk page, and to discuss it in a manner that it does not become a win/loss scenario or that Eff Won is the only one with a "logical" and correct answer. In the end, I told him to calm down, and to recognize that he is in fact new to Wikipedia. The very next edit to that article talk page, Eff Won is accusing Prisonermonkeys of flat out lying and of "deliberate systematic destruction of content to the detriment of the articles". Now this is certainly not something one would expect from someone "new" to Wikipedia. I repeat Bretonbanquet's linking of WP:AGF and remind Eff Won that we cannot have baseless accusations thrown about. At the same time I make this entry on EffWon's talk page, attempting to further explain consensus and edits, to correct his notion that Prisonermonkey's is attempting to destroy articles and/or ignore consensus. I also point out that he has done the exact opposite of what I suggested he do, and has further edit warred the article in the exact same way because of his notion that Prisonermonkeys is being destructive. I also explain to him that edit warring will set him up for a possible block (a warning I also gave to Prisonermonkeys), as will attempting to accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. I also point him to the F1 WikiProject and tell him that it'd help to see where he is getting his interpretations of policies from. And his response is, simply put, not going to do it. He further believes that Prisonermonkeys is being destructive and this his edits are, despite everyone else's claims, correct and must remain. I finally tell him to take his accusations to WP:ANI, he wont because he doesn't want to be a snitch and suggests Bretonbanquet is a rat for also making the same suggestion. How exactly do you expect me to treat a new user who is given helpful advice and suggestion and does everything in his power to do the exact opposite, and has no problem accusing everyone around him of being out to get him and/or Wikipedia? Bullying my ass. Especially when that same user claims he's taken his time to read many of Wikipedia's guidelines, yet acts in this way. There has not been a single action taken by Eff Won that, in my mind, fits someone who is actually "new", and despite this I have attempted to give him every benefit of the doubt until it becomes clear that it is a waste of time. The359 (Talk) 18:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Amongst that lot, which does include misrepresentations of events and some blatant exaggeration (I did not accuse anyone of "of flat out lying" for example) the allegation that is particularly untrue and hurtful is that I suggested that "Bretonbanquet is a rat". The expression I used (which is very clear in the link) was: "I smell a rat." - which is a common idiom in English simply meaning that I suspected that someting was wrong. Check the dictionary definition here for confirmation of that. I do apologise though if it was possibly misunderstood by anyone unfamiliar with such usage. Eff Won (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Implying that someone is lying is just as bad as blatantly saying that someone is lying. It seems clear to me and to Prisonermonkeys that you were implying that he was lying. Claiming that you smell a rat is equally claiming someone is lying, and/or hiding something from you merely for the sake of causing trouble for you. The point is you were given a suggestion for where to take your accusations, and you've twisted it into a belief that people are conspiring to cause you problems. This is why people have lost their good faith in you. You were even told by others to seek outside help and you came up with any excuse you could to not do it. In fact Prisonermonkeys' bringing the issue is, quite frankly, overdue. The359 (Talk) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC) And my instincts were spot on, look what I've found! I thought I smelled a rat at 22:17 on 6 September, and since at least 22:34 on 4 September, all of this was going on behind my back!. And you yourself had made a contribution there at 08:48 on 6 September. And you, User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Bretonbanquet had been colluding and scheming over it on your personal talk pages ([32], [33] and [34]) - using the curious and secretive technique of splitting the conversation between the different pages. Eff Won (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC) *headdesk* No, your instincts are not even remotely spot on. The359 (Talk) 22:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC) Discussions that take place on user talk pages are between the users in question. You do not need to be copied in on each and every single discussion that takes place. Stop trying to make this about other people - this is about your behaviour. Whatever your intentions, the fact that your behaviour can be interpreted the way it has been is alarming, to say the least. For example, how is this in any way an appropriate way to address people? As for your spiteful tips at the end; you can shove them; I won't be taking any tips from someone like you. I admit, I was blunt in addressing you at the time, but you had ignored each and every single attempt to reason with you, such as this one. Nothing seemed to be getting through to you, so when I confronted you about it, I decided to blunt about it in the hopes that it might make you wake up to your own behaviour. It was intended to make you think about how you presented yourself. You claim that you want to be able to contribute to the articles. That's fine; I have no problem with that. You claim that you want to make bold edits to improve the page. Again, if you have genuinely good ideas, we're open to hearing them. But when your first edit was reverted and you started this discussion asking why, it had to be explained to you four or five times why your edits were reverted, and you usually ignored it, or termed out arguments "excuses". As I said before, this particular choice of word has some very negative connotations. Rather than posting messages with edit summaries like 'I still disagree with your argument', you instead made the edit summary 'the excuses don't stand up to scrutiny'. Where the former invites further discussion, the latter is an accusation of wrongdoing - and up until that point, all anyone had done was try to explain to you why your edits were reverted. Now that particular edit was made at 22:05 on 2 September when your very first edit on Wikipedia was made just over twelve hours previous to that at 09:07 on 2 September. Furthermore, the more we interacted with you, the more we noticed similarities between yourself as Lucy-marie, a former editor who was a known troublemaker. Can you at least understand how things may have played out in such a way that it got to the point where I felt that bluntly confronting you about your behaviour was the only way to get through to you? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC) The content disagreemtn aside, to which I had thought that Eff Won had a couple of good points and a compomise was probably possible but that's by-the-by and not something I'm involving myself in, the failure to notify Eff Won of an SPI is a fairly big lapse. After the first couple of days of this "serial problem", I'd have though seeking admin assistance would have been the first thing to do rather than let everything boil for 2 weeks. Also, I'm surprised that no one suggested that Eff Won consider an RFC on the changes they wanted to make, and seek to pursue the change in consensus that TParis mentioned. The359, you may call bullshit, but I call even more bullshit when all I see are the same 3 users going over the same point repeatedly without suggesting avenues for a new editor to toss out an idea for consideration. If even more users then shot the idea down after reasonable policy-driven discussion, I'm sure Eff Won would have seen that his suggestion didn't have any ground to stand on. If they didn't and still fought to have their ideas added in, then that would have been a different case. Blackmane (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) He brought his point up at a talk page, we pointed him to the WikiProject. He took his point up at the Teahouse, was given advice, and every single point he made about MOS guidelines, he was told he was wrong. He made accusations, we pointed him here. And yet he still argued his interpretation of the guidelines! He didn't even believe that the person who gave him answers at the Teahouse was correct at first. He made accusations of wrongdoing, we pointed him to ANI, he refused to take that opportunity. Where are we not suggesting outside help to him? Talk:2012 Formula One season is a heavily watched article by the WikiProject so as it is since it is the current season, the fact that only three editors bothered with him is not under our control. The359 (Talk) 17:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Yet more "creative interpretations" of the facts. The helpful editors at the teahouse offered varying advice. The first advised that the bold was okay, that the link contravention could be fixed with a "see also", that the color contravention was allowed in resilts tables, that MOS:FLAG wasn't strict, and that length has many contributing factors. A second respondent explained how projects can agree to overrule guidelines, and that WP:F1 had, for some situations. I thus modified the article, following the advice given about removing the links from the section headings, and explainig that in the edit summary, but this edit was swiftly reverted in another mass-reversion, with the edit summary: "please stop deliberately disrupting this page - it has been explained to you that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, not biblical commandments". Please try and stick to the facts. Eff Won (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC) As I did not address what happened after the Teahouse, exactly what facts are incorrect? The outside advice was that your interpretation of WP:BOLD was incorrect, yet you continued to argue in the response I posted that you believed it was correct. That is the only thing in the response that I posted that you were arguing. Where is the creative interpretation? The359 (Talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC) You said "and every single point he made about MOS guidelines, he was told he was wrong". I wasn't, it was as I explained above, with a variety of answers. Some points I made weren't considered worth worrying about, for another a fix was offered, so no, I was NOT told that every single point I made was wrong. Eff Won (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Which completely ignores the point of the whole thing in that your refuse to accept help and feel everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, either because you understand the guidelines better or because they are going behind your back/underhanded/whatever you want to imply. The359 (Talk) 20:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC) So, based on the fact that Eff Won is actually making stuff up, refusing to correct his mistakes, wrongly accusing others of wrongdoing, we either get him a mentor, or block him until he's willing to stop? dangerouspanda 20:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC) By the way: I'm not trying to be WP:BITEy, and I don't want them blocked. However, we expect editors to learn from their mistakes - not to keep justifying them. Show the learning, and we can all move on ... dangerouspanda 20:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC) Have you read any of the discussion on this above, or followed any of the links provided? It isn't me making stuff up, refusing to correct my mistakes or wrongly accusing others of wrongdoing. Eff Won (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I would suggest waiting for the outcome of the SPI before taking any further action. If Eff Won is a sock of Lucy-marie as suspected, then that should be dealt with first. If Eff Won is simply an editor who is unfortuante enough to share many of the behavioural traits of a known troublemaker, then a course of action should be discussed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You say "suspected" I say maliciously alleged. The allegations there are even more blatant misrepresentations than the ones already recognised as such here. You say "share many of the behavioural traits of a known troublemaker", yet have not backed up that allegation with any evidence (and no, your unsupported personal opinions are not evidence) either here or there. It is, I believe, nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, conjured up in your imagination because I, a lowly newbie, found fault with some of your contributions, and questioned your behavior in "dealing" with my contributions and the bluster you then produced when asked to backup your claims. Eff Won (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC) We've dealt with hundreds of newbies. Only a select few have started out like Lucy-Marie, and several turned out to be Lucy-Marie. This was a multiple editor agreement to open the case. If you think an SPI case was started simply to deal with your editing behaviour, then you're completely naive. Personal opinions are what is required to start an SPI, because one must in the very least suspect that they are the same person, based on evidence. ANI is for behaviour problems and issues with single editors, as was pointed out to you. We are dealing with your behaviour here after we failed to deal with it on article talk pages. We are dealing with the similarity of your behaviour to another blocked editor in SPI. The two are unrelated. The359 (Talk) 08:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Need to "suspect", yes - not just HOPE. And as for "behaviour", this section has rebounded and become more a reflection of the behaviour of the accusers than of the accused. And, no, that one contributor - who has obviously not read any of the detail - appears to support you, where numerous have condemned you, should not be taken as vindication of your actions. Eff Won (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Time will tell whether you are what you claim to be - a newcomer, or Lucy in disguise. It is, I believe, nothing more than wishful thinking on your part, conjured up in your imagination because I, a lowly newbie, found fault with some of your contributions, and questioned your behavior in "dealing" with my contributions and the bluster you then produced when asked to backup your claims. You are sorely mistaken. If I took issue with your contributions, it was because your contibutions did not contribute anything, and when you did not get your way, you tried to force them through. Case in point, this: you had been told that a consensus existed not to include links to specific Grands Prix in the calendar table. You attempted to see a new consensus, and were unsuccessful in doing so. Nevertheless, you went back and edited the 2010 and 2011 season pages as you saw fit, all the while denying that a consensus had been established. Note the first link. You were told that a consensus existed in an edit dated 20:31 on 2 September. You lobbied for a consensus to be re-established, which is something you are well within your rights to do. However, in the second link, which is dated 21:06 on 2 September, you were told that one person supported your idea, and two people opposed it. Although that comment was psoted half an hour after the first comment, it was based on the discussion to date. You were advised to wait until more people contributed to the discussion as only three people were participating, and in the meantime, the two opposed should be considered a preliminary consensus. However, in the third and fourth links, you went into the 2010 Formula One season and 2011 Formula One season pages and changed the links in the calendar table to lead to specific race articles, which was against both the established and preliminary consensus. These two edits are dated 06:42 on 5 September - two days after you were told that a consensus had been established, and that you appeal to establisha new consensus had not succeeded. Try as I might, I can find no evidence of a new consensus having been established in that time frame. It is conceiveable that I have overlooked it, and if so, then please direct me to where I might find it. Now, perhaps the original consensus was not supplied as soon as it should have been. This is the first mention that I can find of it, and it was posted at 07:53 on 5 September - over an hour after you made those changes to the 2010 and 2011 season pages. However, that does not change the fact that someone specifically told you that a new consensus had not been reached when you sought one, and yet you still saw fit to ignore it some forty-eight hours later. At the time (and still in the present), I believed that this was an attempt to force your edits onto the articles, as it had been made clear that a consensus existed, and that a new consensus agreed with the old. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You, Prisonermonkeys, in your abridged (and misleading) account of events, you seem to have missed the part of the story that occured between 2 September and 5 September. I hope that isn't because it is the part that betrays your version of events for what they are; a total misrepresentation. Eff Won (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You keep saying "it's a total misrepresentation!", but you haven't given a shred of proof as to how. What part of the story that took place between 2 and 5 September have I overlooked? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Firstly, in the comments from several others above, and from me both above and below, you can see confirmation that it is a total misrepresentation. Secondly, I wouldn't be surprised if you would prefer not to remember the part of the story that took place between 2 and 5 September. It was the sorry sequence of events in which you, The359 and Bretonbanquet first colluded in secretive, split dialog, exchanges on your talk pages ([35], [36], [37]), trying to decide which disgraced editor you were going to accuse my of being a reincarnation of. I note that, although it was Bretonbanquet who ultimately made the "SPI" report, that it was you who approached each of the other two first, and initiated the conversations, inciting them each to "draw their own conclusions", with your characteristic misrepresentations, exaggerations and unfounded allegations. Eff Won (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I've been away for a few days and I've only just seen this. Firstly, Blackmane - you see head biting of a newbie. I don't see a newbie. I do not accept that Eff Won is a new editor. He made a few edits to an article, edit-warred a bit, then made dozens and dozens of edits on talk pages complaining about being reverted, ignored, bullied etc. We've seen it all before. He patently has no "lack of familiarity" with Wikipedia, as he was extensively quoting guidelines right from the start. Furthermore, I see you banging on about not informing Eff Won of the SPI. It is not mandatory. Quote: "(Notification is courteous but isn't mandatory, and in some cases it may be sub-optimal. Use your best judgement.)" So reserve your trouting for yourself, and reserve your judgement for such time as you know what you're talking about. I did not inform Eff Won for the precise reason that he/she would consider it "colluding and scheming" as he/she did above, and has even tried to suggest that the way we have discussed it on our talk pages is "curious and secretive". Secretive? It's all there to be seen. Just typical of the way Eff Won obfuscates and twists a situation to prolong the drama. Had we informed Eff Won, the SPI report would have turned into the same old endless exchange that you see here, on the WT:F1 page, on the 2012 season talk page, on EW's talk page, on my talk page etc etc etc. All from an editor who has never added a single thing to Wikipedia. Why has this gone on so long? Because somebody makes an SPI report and it sits there for weeks. This ANI report has probably compromised it now anyway. Either close it as "guilty" and move on, or close it as inconclusive and we can find other ways to solve the problems. Avenues have been suggested, Blackmane, for Eff Won to work on different things and try different ways of working, but he/she ignored them. And this comment from you "I'm sure Eff Won would have seen that his suggestion didn't have any ground to stand on." just shows how little you understand of this problem. And, the reason why only three editors have bothered with this is because a number of others have tired of the same editor coming back under different names, causing the same old bloody problems. User:Pyrope used to deal with this a lot of the time, but, understandably, he's had enough. I know we're all being taken for mugs here, time and time again. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC) You are going back over old ground again, ground that has already been well and truly cleard. Revisiting it won't change things. Accept it, you got it badly wrong, and must now accept that, and move on. Eff Won (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC) I was notified of this ANI which involved me; editors (including you) have mentioned my name and I am entitled to comment. Not only have I said things that nobody else has said, rendering your above comment fatuous and ridiculous, I have answered false criticism of my contributions. You are not the arbiter of what I say or where I say it. You are also in no place to tell anyone to move on, something which you have proved unable to do on various pages, wasting a lot of people's time. It is now up to you to prove that you will not continue wasting people's time, regardless of who you actually are. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Indeed; you were complaining that your first edit had been reverted a week after it was removed. And despite your insistence that no explanation for the reversion was ever given, this entire discussion proves otherwise. You are in no position to tell people to move on, considering that you have demonstrated a complete inability to do so. This discussion will be closed when the administrators feel that it has been resolved, not when you have decided that you have had enough of it. If you want to expedite the process, then I suggest you start actually giving some reasons, rather than simply claiming that everything has been misrepresented. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) No, I was not complaining about my first edit in that link you give, as I pointed out when you first misrepresented that comment in that way, I am surpised you had forgotten my reply so soon. But the truth apparently doesn't align with your preconceptions about my motives and my actions, and you seem to filter is out - regularly. The same with your assertion that an "explanation" was given for the reversions - nothing but weak excuses and bluster were given, and I pointed that out in the discussion you referred us to - did you ever read it yourself, or is it another case of your filter not letting the truth interfere with your motives? Your repeated exaggerations and misrepresentations are fooling no-one - that is why it is time to move on, for you too. Whoever closes this will, if they read (as I'm sure they will) the associated discussions see, that what I have said is exactly what has happened. That your assertions are gross exaggerations is clear when the associated discussions are read. Do you really want me to go through them all - one by one? I'll pick a few at random, to help you get my drift... Boing! said Zebedee, above, dismissed the first one as: "... I see blatant exaggeration in the very first diff...". Let's try this one: "Refusing to acknowledge consensus. ("Calendar table links - why not?", "Calendar table links again", "Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles")"" I wasn't "Refusing to acknowledge consensus", I was asking for evidence of the consensuses claimed. That evidence still hasn't been produced. Or this one: "Claiming that any existing consensus was obtained fraudulently. [38] [39]" That was clearly pointing out that the discussion quoted did not deliver the claimed consensus. Or this one: "Demanding that his edits be accepted without obtaining consensus. [40]" That was me asking you for evidence of the consensus that you had claimed existed to justify your edit. And you still haven't managed to produce it. You see, it's like shooting fish in a barrel, they are so blatant. Your claims are all mistaken, or worse. Eff Won (talk) 17:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Plenty of evidence of consensus has been produced, consensus which everyone at the Wikiproject accepts, except you. Consensus which everyone at the Wikiproject follows, except you. Discussions were held at great length, in which nobody else questioned the consensus, thereby strengthening it. One editor, even you, cannot change a consensus on his own. Did you accept that? No. If this is just a case of a a couple of people ganging up on you (for reasons nobody has been able to provide), then maybe we should talk to the people at the Wikiproject who took your side? Oh wait... Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC) You can repeat that as often as you like; you may even believe it for all that I know - but no evidence that "the consensus" included a prohibition of hyperlinks from the specific race entry in the table to the specific race article has yet been prodeuced, despite it being asked for, despite it being asserted that it does and despite all the debate around it. My hunch is that there is a good reason why it has never been produced - that it simply DOES NOT exist. Eff Won (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC) It's exactly this kind of attitude that pissed everyone off. You think I'm pretending there's a consensus... give me one good reason why I would do that, given that I personally don't care either way whether these links are included. Someone asked before to add links and there was no consensus to do it. Now you appear out of nowhere and with your "first edit", you want links. We show you the previous discussion and say, "We've been through this, we decided not to have links" and two weeks later you still won't accept it. Nobody agrees with you. And you tell us to "move on". Jesus. And you know what? Imagine we'd never discussed these links before, and you'd brought the idea up for the very first time. You brought it up, and you got no support. That's it, it's over. But no, you bang on for two weeks about seeing a consensus. There doesn't even need to be a consensus because we've had the discussion about links now, you were involved in it, and there's no support for adding links. Or are you going to tell me that I'm making that up? And this time, try responding to what I'm saying, instead of repeating the same old BS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC) If there is a consensus to remove links to specific GPs from those tables in the 2010 and 2011 articles, why has no-one produced evidence of it? My first edit, as I have explained before, was made on the morning of the Belgian Grand Prix. I was trying to find the grid positions for the race, and I arrived at the 2012 Formula One season article after following a link from Google - but was frustrated by the lack of a hyperlink to the specific article for the 2012 Belgian GP from the row in the table detailing that GP, including its date. Please don't insinuate from that, that I have some ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Why, if I was A.N. Other, and with a track record of doing that, do you think I would draw attention to myself in such a way? If my edit had not been treated with such contempt, I would never have dug my heels in looking for an explanation. Eff Won (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) The discussion that you started IS evidence of the consensus, because most (if not all) the people in that discussion disagreed with you about adding the links. Why do you ask that we don't insinuate a hidden agenda, when that's exactly what you do with us? You've done it in this very discussion. One rule for you and another one for everyone else. Your edit was not "treated with contempt", it was just reverted. You still do not seem to be able to tell the difference, and you still think that your edits are unrevertable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) So do you now agree then, that there was no consensus before? You will have noticed too, that I haven't pursued the idea of adding those links since it became clear that, from me at least, they were not acceptable. There are polite, well reasoned, well summarised (in the edit summary) and well respected reversions, then there was the may the reversion of my contributions was handled - by people who, apparently, should have known better. Eff Won (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC) (Reply to the comment that was a separate item a few minutes ago) )I added links and was treated with contempt. I reacted by seeking justification. I got bluster, false claims, aggression and false accusations. I resisted and argued my corner, something which the self-appointed article owners could, apparently, not tolerate. So I had to be tought a lesson. Now it has turned into a fight for survival. A clumsy first edit and refusal to be intimidated has resulted in two weeks of acrimonious exchanges. Is this the kind of thing that the Wikipedia community should be proud of? Eff Won (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC) The false accusations were all yours, starting with this one [41]. You think we couldn't tolerate your edits and so we decided to "teach you a lesson"? You really think you're that special? A "fight for survival"?!! If anyone reading this is still in any doubt that Eff Won is simply here to be disruptive, then they should join this "discussion". Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC) There was no accusation there, just an observation of apparent skulduggery unfolding. Your tactics are getting ever more desperate now I see. Certainly more third-party reviews of the claims would be welcome, to supplement those already given by Boing! said Zebedee, DeCausa, TP (TParis), Bishonen and Blackmane early on in this discussion. I am (trying to) defend myself here against the, increasingly wild, allegations being made against me. Eff Won (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC) Is there really any point to this discussion? It seems to me it would come as a relief if all the main contributors were blocked from editing for a day or two. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC) What would you block us for, exactly? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC) A block for attempting to repel increasingly malicious accusations you mean? Is that how Wikipedia treats new editors? Eff Won (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I rest my case. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

IP 50.11.44.190

After listing him at WP:AVI, it was declined and recommended I go here. Editor refuses to explain/communicate his frequent/mass arbitrary MOS changes that are inconsistent and vary with each article. Includes unexplained content removal and incorrect changes to country name abbreviations; refuses to follow guideline for US and UK abbreviations (explained at his talk page). Ignored templated messages and personal message asking him to use edit summaries and explain his edits. Examples: 1, 2, 3. After final warning, he removed a comma from an article. The subject of these edits may be petty, but they are incorrect and either the editor doesnt know how to read [anyone's comments to him], or they are delibaretly making incorrect edits. How else should I go about with setting this user straight so he stops making disruptive edits? Numerous warnings over two months, two attempts at AVI (first wasnt considered vandalism) didnt work in stopping him from continuing changes that he should know are wrong. A block would definitely get his attention if the "new message" popping up doesnt. Dan56 (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Apparently even after another "last warning" by another user just now, the IP made the incorrect abbreviation change here. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit here replaced "and" with "&", while previous edit here vice versa. Constantly does this. Dan56 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify the IP of this topic; I've done it for you. Second, it's going to be really hard to get most admins to block an IP at WP:AIV based on style as it's not obvious vandalism. Third, I know these things can be frustrating, but the best thing you can do is spend more time on the IP's talk page explaining specifically what's wrong rather than templating the IP, particularly with vandalism templates. I know you did that in one paragraph, but it was swallowed up by the templates. Also, the thing you picked on ("US" vs. "U.S.") is hardly the stuff that makes or breaks an article, and, honestly, that table could be a bit clearer. There are lots of editors who use "US" - I don't like it, but it certainly isn't the end of the world. I'd focus on stylistic edits that you think are more "serious", and I'd open a separate section on the IP's talk page about it. If the IP still doesn't respond, you are more likely to find a sympathetic admin because of the trouble you went to to educate the IP and because of their apparent lack of collaboration.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I did notify him ([42]); you overlooked it. Dan56 (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right; it was sandwiched between two templates. :-) My apologies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If these templated messages dont count as effort, then why are they available? I'm not gonna waste time talking to someone who clearly ignores me. Forget it. I'll just keep reverting him. Dan56 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The templates are useful, but in these circumstances, if you went to just a little extra trouble and started a section (so things aren't buried in between templates) about the problems and they still didn't respond, an admin would be more inclined to block (at least this admin would).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan, I've added a comment of my own on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say if the IP continues doing the same without responding (which it seems like they haven't) then a short block would be acceptable. As Bbb said on their talk page, it's very difficult to work out issues when the one side isn't communicating at all. I glanced through the /16 and didn't see anything else blatantly obvious, but it's pretty active so I could have missed something too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the invitation here, the IP has continued with the unexplained MOS edits, reverting here, removing here. Didnt respond, continued with some of the same. Dan56 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted a bunch more MOS changes and dropped a warning for MOS and a notice for edit summaries on the editors talk page. This has now been going on for an extended period of time and the editor has still not made any effort to communicate with other editors. Andrew Kurish (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have brought this a week ago and on the advice of an Admin, one of the editors has taken it to the DRN and it was resolved. But User:Himesh84 is constantly pushing his Original Research as a single person. We need Admin intervention at this stage.Sudar123 (talk) 06:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the DRN volunteer in the case. Never been involved with Sri Lankan articles and I have no position on the civil war, but this was straightforward WP:OR. The statement that Himesh84 wants to include isn't explicitly mentioned in the source. Himesh argues that it's implied, but that's exactly what makes it OR. The other editors involved in the case (User:Jobberone, User:Obi2canibe, User:Sudar123, User:24.177.125.104, and myself) agreed that a source was needed that explicitly stated the claim. Instead of finding a new source, he's edit warred on the article. This is worrying, given how sensitive and controversial the topic is.--SGCM (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I've read over the DRN discussion and looked at the article's history. Even though a unanimous consensus was not reached (Himesh84 refused to budge), it seems clear to me that Himesh84's proposed changes are being objected to by several other editors and not supported by anyone else. And even though a DRN process "is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions", I would propose there is more than enough reason here to insist that Himesh84 should carefully explain (on the article's talk page, not via an edit war) his objections to the current wording of the article, and not make any more attempts to impose his changes on the text unless he can first convince other editors to agree with him.

My first impulse was to say that this looked like a content dispute / edit war between two factions (with neither one being right or wrong) — but on further reflection, it seems to me that it's a case of one editor against several, with an all-but-unanimous consensus being rejected by an individual who is argumentatively restating his position (as opposed to discussing it) and has been repeatedly edit-warring in defiance of consensus. Himesh84 needs to step back here and consider that even if he is convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong, he needs to do a much better job of explaining why there are problems with the existing text and why he believes certain changes need to be made. Drop, for the time being at least, any arguments based on dictionary definitions of common English words, and try instead to understand why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK, and focus your comments on why you believe there are major problems that require changes. If you think there is an NPOV problem with the current text, that may be a valid issue, but it needs to be discussed (and, if necessary, escalated through established dispute resolution procedures which do not involve repeatedly making changes which everyone else objects to). If Himesh84 refuses to change his behaviour, is unable to mould a revised consensus through a genuine give-and-take discussion, and insists on going back to edit warring, he needs to be blocked in order to prevent further disruption. — Richwales 04:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Nicely said, I strongly agree with your assessment of the dispute. DRN is an informal, not a binding, process, and serves as a noticeboard for building consensus. When consensus has been all but reached, with the exception of a single editor (the one making the edit in contention), then that editor needs to engage the other users by directly addressing the policy arguments. Edit warring and criticising others for not understanding the English language (example: "This is not something about wikipedia policy. This is about English. Even I have used my time to search meaning (sic) of the English words") are not conducive to consensus building. To be fair, it takes two to edit war, and Sudar123 should not have responded to Himesh84's behaviour.--SGCM (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this, and I concur. Both sides are already in edit-war-block territory and should desist, but it is clear that Himesh84 has failed to gain consensus for the change he wants to make, either at DRN or on the talk page, and any further attempt to make it would be disruptive. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan government officially rejected this report. It is clearly linked by Obi2canibe in his edits. UNHRC is the authorized entity and country's final official responses are come to the UNHRC. UNHRC officially asked to implement LLRC recommendations(refereced). After UNHRC officially selected and urged to implement LLRC implementations , process recommended in this report has no value. But when someone reading this article that person will definitely feel lot of countries currently supporting the implementation method specified in this report. It is completely wrong. Now they officially supporting and asking to implement LLRC recommendations. This wikipedia page tries to give a completely wrong bad impression about Sri Lanka. People (Obi2canibe) who likes Tamil Ealam (Tamil Ealam is a name proposed for the separated country within Sri Lanka) trying to use this rejected report(by Sri Lanka and UNHRC) to create bad impression on Sri Lanka. That's why current recognition to this report is highly important.

I tried to clarify things very clearly. Obi2canibe was in misunderstanding and write to the discussion. "They both contain similar, if not the same, recommendations". This is only where not using word over is correct. I clearly clarified that LLRC recommended local solution and UNSG's report recommended international solution and LLRC,UNSG's recommendations are completely opposite using facts linked in his version of the article. He didn't accept those are different when it is clearly visible. I asked from him "Are both recommended to resolve issue locally or internationally ?" Even he was in misunderstood, he didn't answered to clarify his statement. If so I could further clarified it. Instead answering they or him with multiple accounts closed the discussion. Wikipedia administrators must understand that it is very difficult to agree or gain consensus to a something by Sri Lankan and Tamil Ealam supporter. But correct thing should be in the Wikipedia without creating bad impressions on countries using not supported implementations by UNHRC. Obi2canibe said "Neither the draft resolution tabled by the USA nor the final resolution adopted by the UNHRC mentioned the UN panel's report". These logic are very much primitive. UNHRC selected LLRC implementations after tabling,voting.... Why to worry about a implementation mechanism not even considered to tabled ? They chose the best one to tabled.That's it. --Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to promote or defend any countries. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you want to include a claim, find a source that explicitly states the point you're trying to make. There is no conspiracy going on. I and the other volunteer, Jobberone, have never edited any of the Sri Lankan articles, and don't have any positions on squabbles between Tamil or Sri Lankan supporters. The DRN case was closed because you did not make any arguments on the applicability of policy, and failed to convince any of the other editors of your position, leading to filibustering.--SGCM (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

But is Wikipedia is to spread wrong image about countries using outdated reports ? --Himesh84 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You have missed the 2nd party involved in this edit war. It was between Himesh84,Obi2canibe and later Sudar123 joined to the edit war.--Himesh84 (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be edit warring.--SGCM (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Highly disagreed on that. Dispute solved means, all the parties involved in the dispute must agree on the solution. If all the persons except one person agreed to a solution it doesn't say it is the correct decision. Some of the Aristotle's observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the 19th century. Before that all said Aristotle is wrong. It is just an example. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Consensus. Consensus is not unanimity, which on Wikipedia is nearly impossible. When all the editors share a similar viewpoint, with the exception of one, and that one editor has failed to use policy arguments to support his position, then there's no need to continue filibustering a DRN case. My advice, which I honestly hope is helpful, is that you'll respond by directly addressing policy arguments, or by finding a new source that explicitly makes the claims you're arguing for. One of Wikipedia's core principles is that it is based on verifiability, not truth.--SGCM (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If a core principle says it is not about truth why/how the hell Wikipedia claiming it is an encyclopedia ?--Himesh84 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia like all encyclopedias is a tertiary source, not a secondary source. It does not have the resources or the editorial oversight to make claims, true or not, only to report claims made by others that are verifiable and reliable. This is why original research is not allowed, and why it is considered a core principle of the site.--SGCM (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

UNSG report has very dangerous recommendations which could severely affect sovereignty of Sri Lanka. UNSG's implementations suggest to bring Sri Lanka to an international court and give a solution in there. The final decision from the international court can be anything. Even creating new country "Tamil Ealam" is also possible. Ealam Tamils want to divide Sri Lanka and create new country with proposed name "Tamil Ealam". They tried to get the approval of the UNHRC to the report but failed. Still they used this report to spread bad impression saying this is the mostly accepted approach to solve the problem. But LLRC is the officially recognized and selected implementation. But still the Administrator approved version says there are lot of International recognition to the SG's implementations. Even it includes recognition of countries who voted to LLRC implementation in UNHRC. This version gives completely wrong idea. This wrong version can create very bad image on Sri Lanka which can later affect to tourism,... hit Sri Lankan economy and create a separated country. That's why this wrong and outdated version needed to correct.

I know why everyone else seems to feel the existing text is OK. Because they supporters of Tamil Ealam. They have a plan. That's why they refused to accept that UNHRC accepted LLRC implementaion over SG's implementations while even Sri Lankan government received a letter from UNHRC to asking implement of LLRC recommendations. --Himesh84 (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion on talk page --Himesh84 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh, please assume good faith and do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you is in a conspiracy or is on the other side in your political dispute. You have explained your position at length, on the article talk page, at DRN and here, but you have not convinced anybody. Wikipedia operates by consensus, and it is now time for you to accept that you do not have a consensus for the changes you want to make and drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. Wikipedia has failed to built a system so that it says it is. They have built a system which can gathered most number of users and way to get most number of hits. This report criticize Sri Lankan court system and law. But UNHRC asked to implemented LLRC which based on local court system. It is officially asked by a letter. UNHRC even didn't bothered to consider tabling UNSG's implementations. But your Wikipedia page showing a completely wrong picture to the world. Please admit that no one talking about this outdated report except Tamil Diaspora and Wikipedia company ( I don't know who funded this company). Even the person who created this report (UN secretary) now asking to implement LLRC recommendation. http://www.thesundayleader.lk/. I am not asking why Tamil diaspora not accepting LLRC. But why Wikipedia company not accepting LLRC over UNSG's report while Bank ki Moon , the person who created UNSG's report accepted LLRC is the correct approach ? I am not changing my position since all the countries and even UNSG's author had changed their positions and accepted LLRC recommendations are the correct approach. But your site trying to mislead readers. Please revisit your policies and try to implement a good policies to become encyclopedia over most popular view. If it is not possible at least drop the claim Wikipedia is a encyclopedia to prevent readers getting mislead --Himesh84 (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a place for The Truth, it is not a place to Right Great Wrongs, and as mentioned above you really should drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is more nuanced than simply "majority opinion rules". Wikipedia's policy is to seek a neutral point of view — which, to quote the policy, means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." We are not supposed to be deciding which viewpoint represents "the truth", presenting only that view and marginalizing or ignoring all other views. If there are two or more significant views represented in reliable sources, we are supposed to explain that there are differences of viewpoint and explain the different views.

There are, to be sure, sometimes still potential problems with implementing this policy. The available sources (particularly English-language sources, since most editors and readers here will be primarily familiar with English) may not cover the various aspects of a controversial foreign situation adequately. Certain kinds of sources — such as, in this case, statements by the Sri Lankan government, the LTTE, individual spokesmen or critics, other governments in the region, or even UN bodies or officials — could be inherently biased and not usable as reliable objective sources of information (except perhaps as information about what a given government, agency, or person thinks about the situation).

Additionally, we are forbidden here to engage in our own "original research" — including, in particular, synthesis of multiple separate sources to create a claim that isn't backed up by any one source on its own. Sometimes the line between OR/SYNTH and commonsense understanding of plain English can be hard to draw, but when lots of other editors are complaining about OR/SYNTH issues, chances are there is a real problem with the way someone is trying to use the source material in question. In such cases, the best answer is usually not to belabour the point by insisting that our reading of the materials is obviously correct and that everyone else is being dense.

The point of seeking consensus is not to determine "truth" by majority vote. Rather, if all (or at least most) editors are trying to follow the policies, we assume that a consensus (maybe not unanimous, but as close to unanimous as we can get) are most likely understanding how the policies apply to the situation at hand, and their collective judgment is probably the most suitable way to deal with the issue being worked on.

I would urge Himesh84 to very carefully study Wikipedia's core content policies (namely, "Neutral Point of View", "Verifiability", and "No Original Research"), and come back to the article under discussion here with a way to describe the UN report that acknowledges and explains all the various viewpoints — based on what as many different news sources and scholarly treatments say about the matter — but without taking sides, without injecting your own personal observations or opinions into your writing, and (if at all possible) writing in such a way that someone reading what you wrote (and knowing nothing else about you) would not be able to tell where you personally stand on the issues in question. Until you can do this, you are going to find contributing to Wikipedia to be frustrating, if not completely impossible. — Richwales 22:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Waacstats - AWB Abuse

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

---

This user has been warned about AWB abuse before about rule number 2 (editing too quickly), but continues to do dozens of edits per second with it. Therefore, I'm requesting that action is taken. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see the user contributions between 21:59 and 22:45 on the 14th Sept too Waacstats (talk · contribs) Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Err, have there been any actual problems with the edits? Jenks24 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Lugnuts - you conveniently forgot to state that the warning was from you - there have been no community warnings/sanctions. Waacstats' AWB edits frequently appear on my watchlist and I've never seen an issue with them. GiantSnowman 09:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

IP 95.9.73.143 at 2012 Pakistan garment factory fires

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

---

95.9.73.143 has made numerous POV and unsourced changes. Too many to list. Check the history. Requesting 48 hour block while story is on ITN. --IP98 (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

They are doing good-faith edits and are likely unaware of our sourcing requirements and policies. Their talk page is a red link - no one has tried to communicate with them at all. You did not even notify them of this discussion, which is required. Before you request a user to be blocked, you should tell them on their talk page what they are doing wrong and try to educate them. Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've gone ahead and placed a Welcome and some other linkage (including a Teahouse Invite) on the IP's talk page. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That works. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat against me

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

---

Before I begin, I'd like to preface this by saying that I'm fairly certain this issue can be resolved through simple dialogue and discussion. Since wikipedia policy is to report legal threats I'm doing so out of an abundance of caution. (Also I'm just a real stickler for following rules. :-)).

Background info: I removed several links that had been added by User:Morim madrichim. All of them were to the same website, which said user claims to be the executive director of.

• May 23: User:Morim madrichim adds three ELs, I revert: [43] [44] [45] and leave the following note on Morim madrichim's talk page: [46]
• Sept 10: New links were added to three other pages, I reverted [47] [48] [49] and left a second warning [50]
• Sept 14: User leaves this note on my talk page: [51], which includes a legal threat in the last paragraph. I will be responding to it shortly. I'm sure it can be worked out amicably, but I wanted to make sure appropriate notifications had been made. --Bachrach44 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Total overkill at this point. the editor is brand-spanking new to wikipedia (like <20 edits new). At least give him/her one chance to have things explained. Generally people resort to legal threats when they feel they're being treated unfairly. I hope that by explaining the EL guidelines and the rational behind them the editor will see the come around. A second threat and I'm right there with you, but for now it's unnecessary. --Bachrach44 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, the user can't be allowed to edit at all unless that legal threat is retracted, and since we don't know when, that leaves an indefinite block. If the user understands NLT, then they should post a retraction to be unblocked. Unfortunately, though, the vast majority of NLT cases come from new/unregistered users - a hard bite.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not overkill. Cut and dried: retract the legal threat or continue your legal actions (but not while editing here). Very simple. Being a new editor is not an excuse for a legal threat. Looks like a spammer trying to force an EL anyway. Doc talk 00:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see spamming for commercial purposes, but the WP:ORGNAME concerns are obvious.--Shirt58 (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a huge difference to me: not necessarily the dictionary definition of a "spammer", perhaps. My bad :) But whether it's "Buy our widget!" or "Go to our website!", it's all really about getting exposure instead of building an encyclopedia. Doc talk 01:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blade regarding the indef - legal threat yes, but it's also an organization's account to self-promote. --Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the member believed it within their right to make this legal threat, but it is clearly a full blown threat at a specific member over edits on Wikipedia. If the editor can retract the threat in an unambiguous statement he may well be unblocked, but we do these blocks for a very specific reason. I am unclear if the rest of his statement may or may not also be a problem with proclaiming an advocacy or promotional purpose.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Spamming can take many forms and it's not restricted to links to sites of organisations that exist for financial gain - promotion is promotion and our rules are clear enough. The legal threat is blatant and such a theat is not only against one user but against the entire community. Where I would probably have issued a stern warning with a demand for retraction, I see no reason to question Blade's admin discretion blocking immediately as a reaction to this being reported. While User:Bachrach44 is to be commended on his caution and neutrality, he must also understand that issues are reported here because they require admin action and that's what he got. He would be advised in future to issue more incremental warnings and wait for user response before filing for action. User:Morim madrichim is perfectly entitled to appeal the block in the normal way and could be unblocked if and when he both retracts his legal threat and understands that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In hopes that Morim will do so, I've left him a COI warning and a WP:NOBLECAUSE notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

• • • I don't disagree that this is spam (I did after all revert all his original EL additions). I guess I interpreted WP:NLT differently that others here (and I will know for next time). I understood "legal action" to be an action in a court - a lawsuit or something similar. I didn't think that legal threat was considered a legal action. Again, I understand now and will know for next time. --Bachrach44 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • That's why the policy is called No Legal Threats. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

DanielUmel on Syrian Civil War articles

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

---

DanielUmel (talk · contribs) has repeatedly edit warred, added glaringly one-sided info that misrepresents sources, and attacked other users on articles related to the Syrian Civil War.

On the article Battle of Al-Qusayr, he added this one-sided story which misrepresents what the source says and ignores key info. Myself and User:I7laseral reverted him twice each. For doing so, he accused us of supporting Islamists and trying to "hide the truth" (see here). I re-wrote what he had written to make it more neutral and in line with the source, but he reverted me. When I wrote to him about his behavior, he again simply accused me of supporting Islamist terrorists and trying to hide the truth (see here).

DanielUmel has also been edit warring on the articles Rif Dimashq offensive, Darayya massacre and Al-Nusra Front (in the latter he ignored WP:TERRORISM). He has been reported four times for edit warring since 26 July.
~Asarlaí 22:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the worst kind of edit warring — taking material that could be of use and making it useless. Obvious civility problems, to boot. DanielUmel could use a time-out from editing on articles related to the Syrian Civil War. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Add that to remarks as this (which win the "I don't even think you tried to keep your POV in check" award) and the bad-faithed, disparaging talk headings I changed here and here. See also any of 4 3RR reports filed against him: [52] [53] [54] [55]. Additionally, he has made virtually no edits whatsoever outside of this topic area since his explosion onto the scene at the end of June. An acronym beginning with S and ending with PA comes to mind here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DanielUmel is now removing reliably sourced info from Lijan militias and adding in his own spin on the story (see here). He's just doing more of the same thing on yet another article.
Note: I moved this topic back from the archives as the user's behavior is continuing and it is still being discussed. ~Asarlaí 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I am the creator of the Lijan militia page and I try to protect it against your manipulations. After manipulating the Qusayr page to make it look like christians were not expelled by muslims when it was clearly the case in the source, you are now completely making up a deal that the Syrian Army has made according to you but this "deal" is nowhere in the source you provided. Blabant manipulation.

Your first report was dismissed and now you try the same again for the exact same motive when you are desperately following me everywhere trying to spin pro rebel versions in sources that state the contrary. You never make any constructive edit by yourself, you just follow other people and try to sugarcoat and hide every sentence that could make rebels look like bad in your eyes --DanielUmel (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the talk page of Qusayr article. When Asarlai listed number of issues that is with his edit (OR, NPOV mainly) [56], Daniel repons was typical. He accused several editors of bad faith (defending radical extremists among others or saying how it is campaign of something) and never reacted on any of the point Asarlai listed. He never bothered to say what is wrong with the edit, defending his own version by reacting on issues which were pointed out, but rather simply attacked a whole group of editors. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And he managed to do it on ANI as well. That´s smart. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking through this editor's edits I see persistent edit-warring up to and including 3RR, insistence on including material in articles that isn't supported by the sources (i.e. Battle of Al-Qusayr), incivility, and (a minor point) poor writing degrading the content of articles. Previous block was 72 hours - I have blocked for a week. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Racist and unconstructive

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

---

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User:58.167.45.229 has made racist edits to a talk page here, calling Muslims "sand monkeys." The IP has been blocked in the past for racist comments like this, and has been warned repeatedly. Edit history also shows that edits are not constructive and are often either racist or stuff like "lol" in the middle of articles. <-- Activism1234 (talk · contribs) 05:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism instead? Blatant vandalism from an IP can be dealt with there, racist or not. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I already posted it there. We'll see who zaps him first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me (unless someone took my bet seriously). --Activism1234 06:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And it's been almost an hour and nobody's done anything about it, so you can see how effective it is to take it somewhere else for "faster action". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Unsubstantiated personal attack after disruptive Userpage posting.

Viriditas has begun a bit of a personal attack on me[57] by accusing me of "lend[ing] credence and legitimacy to this fake film by uploading a film poster to another film called Innocence of bin Laden" Which sources and the article itself, Innocence of Muslims have all reported as the same film with a "previouse" name. I see no reason that I have been singled out in this manner discussing me and not the edits, except to continue disruption begun earlier on my user talkpage where he became disruptive enough for me to tell him to stop further discussion.[58]--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. Personally, I'm sick of ANI. If anyone wants to block me, have at it. I could care less. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You are both experienced editors and good content contributors and know the rules about civility & PA, blah, blah. Beware of the bent piece of Australian wood and just get it sorted out between you or simply stop interacting with each other. Nothing to see here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually did forget to let the editor know of the discussion here. That is my fault. And yes, we should both know better, blah,blah, blah. But I should add I am really sick of coming here and getting the Boomarang mention as almost a threat for even bothering to respect this board...a mistake I can assure you I will never make again. But thanks for the reality check. This board is near worthless when you just seem to use your own awkward and disrespectful attitude to cut short any attempt of an editor to reach out. Now...did you also want to threaten a block for talking back? Perhaps a good tongue lashing. Please, show how much more this has become a place to ridicule those "experienced editors and good content contributors" with absolutely no help at all. Thanks and I guess you are already happy editing so no need to suggest it further.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a note about the incivility on the talk page of the article. These types of events always bring out the worst in people. No reason to go overboard with sanctions, but no reason to overlook the incivility either. More of a WP:WQA issue than ANI, but these articles are (and should be) under higher scrutiny due to them being current events, so extra eyes are A Good Thing®. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but thanks to shortsightedness, WQA no longer exists. This is only about 4 things this morning that belonged there dangerouspanda 14:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

An alternative account of an admin

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

---

There is a User who is using an alternative account that makes it clear on his main page to the wiki-community the following statement: "This user is an alternative account of someone with tens of thousands of edits, and they certify that it will not be used for sockpuppetry."

• The reference to "someone with tens of thousands of edits" refers to a legitimate wiki Admin.

Before I reveal any names of specific users, I would first like to open my case with this question:

Is the alternative account of an admin allowed to refer to oneself as an admin in order to influence the behavior of other editors?

Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 09:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Before you go any farther (and, by the way, AN/I is not a court of law): has the account you refer to been disrupting Wikipedia in any way? Is it editing against policy? Has it been used to create a false consensus with multiple accounts? Is its editing tendenitiously? Has it done anything to attract your attention other than to be an alternate account of an admin? Have you written to the account to find out if there's a valid reason that they're using an alternative account? Have you even talked to the editor before posting here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your edits, you're clearly referring to User: EatsShootsAndLeaves, an alternate account of User:Bwilkins, so why the bullshit buildup? If you got a "case" against this editor, present it, with evidence in the form of diffs, but if your entire case is about sockpuppetry, forget it, it ain't going to fly, and you're just going to waste your time and ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Are Administrators allowed more or less latitude in the use of multiple accounts? Or does that depend on how they are used? Perhaps these are inappropriate questions for this forum. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Many times, thanks. But perhaps you could confirm exactly where those two questions are answered. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, I know that AN/I is not a court of law. I expressed that wordage in quotes on the User's talk page as "court", which was a reference to User: EatsShootsAndLeaves's comment at User talk:Joefromrandb#ANI Notification on 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC): "If you'd like to explain why you took him to court before you even asked him about it, it might be helpful." So it seems to me that User: EatsShootsAndLeaves believes that ANI is court. I thought it would be cute to add the jasonasosa vrs. EatsShootsAndLeaves for that extra kick.
• Anyway, I must present my case here first to prepare my case for SPI because there is an unknown variable. I am seeking ANI to determine if User: EatsShootsAndLeaves is an admin, or if this account has admin rights. He has led me to believe that he is an admin or has admin rights who I feel is harassing me on my talkpage at User talk:Jasonasosa#Why are you being difficult after a dispute had been closed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. He has been harassing me on my talkpage all the way up until I posted a notice on his talkpage for ANI of which he closed. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure nobody here would want "two Admins for the price of one", would they? Or is that how it works? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves has no admin rights. Bwilkins does. What's the actual issue here? GiantSnowman 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Payback for some (real or imagined) slight? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is all rather pointless. Bwilkins must link the alt. account to his main account, which is an admin account. He was even more vague about it before, and got dragged to ANI for that. Now he is being dragged here because he is being more specific. I have alt accounts that link to my main account, and my main account clearly says I'm an admin. Is that abuse? For that matter, any time I edit an article as an editor, they can go to my page and see I'm an admin, which might "intimidate" them, so should I remove all references to the fact that I'm an admin? If you want to actually report some violation of policy, then open a new ANI but I suggest this be closed as being without a cause of action. I also don't see that the user has made a good faith effort to discuss this on the talk page, which is unfortunate. Speaking as someone who works at WP:SPI, to call this sockpuppetry is not only incorrect, but laughable, as clearly everyone knows that EatsShootsAndLeaves is Bwilkins. I'm confident that it will be closed as having no merit, so you are wasting your time with an SPI case as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I interpreted User: EatsShootsAndLeaves's statement on my talkpage, "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" as a threat in conjunction with the following threat "just answer the damned question" about why I posted to ANI without discussing it with User:Joefromrandb first... a case that I apologized to him for and the matter is now closed. User: EatsShootsAndLeaves wouldn't drop it and even posted comments outside of the closed space on thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive768#WP:RSN#Talk:Genesis creation narrative. He has a theme of learning me by saying: "to make sure we're not going to have this problem in the future" and "I'm trying to teach here". By what authority does he have to learn me? The bold statement that he made: "Just answer the damned question" suggests that if I don't answer his question, I am to expect something adverse. I'm sorry, but no matter how much he justifies this, I see this as a threat. Please consider my dilemma. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So you're here to force an apology? Good luck. Not only is a forced apology worthless, because coerced, but there's no way to require one editor to apologize to another. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm not an admin, just a rank-and-file editor with a considerable amount of experience, and "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" sounds like something I might say to another editor. It's not a threat, it's a 'prediction from experience. You're well within your rights to ignore the prediction, and make your own decisions about what to do -- but then you can hardly complain if things don't work out the way you want them to.

Ignoring experienced editors – whether admins or not – is probably not the best idea: survival on Wikipedia does involve a certain amount of understanding of how things work, and ignoring that seems foolhardy at best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As already explained to the editor (before this thread even existed, I think) "pushing it to ANI is the quick way to a block" meant "the intent of ANI is to deal with actions that require an immediate block of another party. An accidental removal (or even non-accidental removal) of text is not an immediately blockable issue". dangerouspanda 10:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not looking for an apology. According to User:GiantSnowman, "EatsShootsAndLeaves has no admin rights. Bwilkins does." However, according to User:Dennis Brown both are the same. Do you see the conflict of interest? As I asked initially opening up my case... which is it? Does the alt user have admin rights? Can he act as an Admin? Can he call himself an Admin? To really make this clear, should EatsShootsAndLeaves be viewed as an admin? and can he act the way he did on my talkpage to force me into learning by him? Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

On EatsShootsAndLeaves' user talk page, you wrote "I've taken you to AN/I for your action", but here, you're waxing philosphical: how many admins can dance on the head of a pin. What "actions" are you complaining about? What is your complaint? If you just want to kick around philosphical b.s., go somewhere else -- this board is for "incidents". What's your "incident"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ES&L is a legitimate alternative account. What conflict of interest is there? As I have already told you, ES&L has no admin rights. Either make an actual case here - soon - or I'll close this thread as pointless. GiantSnowman 10:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

A few points here to remember (and learn?)

1. Being an admin in and of itself holds no special weight in arguments (their knowledge of policy does)
2. All editors are equally accountable for helping other editors learn "how things work" around here
3. All editors are supposed to resolve issues at the lowest common denominator first - the other person's talkpage is that place

dangerouspanda 10:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, based on what I gather from this post, I've learned from everyone's comments here that:

1. An Admin and his alt account are one in the same.
2. After a dispute is closed, you may continue to harass others about the closed dispute.

Thanks all for your input. You may close it now.   — Jasonasosa 10:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by 107.6.114.84

I moved this over from WP:AN, because it's more of an immediate incident requiring admin attention. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

107.6.114.84 wrote " It is no surprise that this bias is present, given the Admin linked at the top of the talk page is "Nihonjoe", who is clearly pro-Japanese.".[59] After the post was removed by other admin, the user posted another section saying "I am sure payments from the Japanese Government are involved. "[60]. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need temporary semi-protection on Talk:Senkaku Islands. There's a lengthy story here, but the short version is, after the latest RfC on the name of that article earlier this year (which found, again, consensus for the current title), an admin decided that there could be no more discussion of the subject of the article title until 2013. This was done under the discretionary sanctions that apply to this issue, as issued by Arbcom. Since the IP has now hopped and refuses to leave off the issue, I don't see any other way to prevent the disruption other than temporary s-p. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And, while this is looked into, we could probably use semi-protection back on the article, since as soon as it fell off, an IP tried to change the name again. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd concur on using {{pp-vandalism}} for the article and suspect it should be permanent. It'll make it easier to topic-ban as needed. There's a dispute between the countries of Japan, China, and Taiwan about these islands resulting in strong feelings among some citizens.^[61] Those feelings have spilled into Wikipedia editors resulting in this ANI. It seems unlikely the dispute over the islands will ever be resolved to the full satisfaction of all parties which is why I suggested permanent protection.

I'd disagree on protection for the article's talk page. An IP editor was venting their feelings/opinions about the issue of a perceived bias in the article. Apparently the IP editor noticed that another editor and WP admin, user:Nihonjoe, was involved. Nihonjoe self-identifies on his user page as an expat who had lived for a time in Japan and also uses that self-identification in his name as "Nihon" is Japanese for Japan. The IP editor suggesting that a Chinese admin be involved in the article to bring balance. I did not see that as a "personal attack" on Nihonjoe. I suspect the IP editor is not aware that any regular user-name editor can make changes to the article assuming pp-vandalism is re-applied. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've indefinitely semiprotected the article, and I'll keep an eye on the talkpage. Despite my signature, I can assure you (and some people from Wikimedia NYC can confirm) that I'm a white American and have no reason to care one way or the other about this dispute in any capacity. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Please indefinitely semi-protect Senkaku Islands dispute too. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I got it. Horologium (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As the person who posted on the talk page, I still insist the article lacks a NPOV, and Wikipedia as a whole takes a stance antagonistic towards China on each and every issue. However, I've vented my frustration now, so I'm over it. I'll desist from using Wikipedia altogether until the article's title is revised to establish a NPOV (as has been done well with the Liancourt Rocks article). There's no point banging my head against a wall any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.6.117.247 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Catperson12

Catperson12 (talk · contribs)

Reported this user to AIV. Long term disruption, with many of their edits necessitating reversion. No doubt often well-intentioned, but persistent change of content, always unsourced, edit warring without engaging other editors' concerns, with no use of edit summaries to explain actions. History of warnings, some final, with a block. None of this has slowed the account's pattern, nor induced a desire to discuss their edits. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

As you've been here only a week, it would be best if you provided some diffs to show some specific disruptions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to trust me that I've been here, in fact, for more than seven years. Later I may have the time to assemble diffs, but is there a reason that reporting this as an IP requires more specific substantiation? For the moment, your warning of May 25 underscores that this account has been receiving negative feedback for a long time [62]. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to do with your being an IP, only a lack of context. Obviously, as you note, I had an issue with that editor also, some time back, and decided to quote Mike Ditka. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was Ditka--I've been watching baseball, in which,as we know, there's no crying. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I declined to block based on the AIV report, mainly because there had been no recent warnings. User:De728631 took the extra step of adding a warning. Catperson has madde no edits since that warning. The one block occurred three months ago. And, @76, the answer is no, the fact that you're an IP does not create a higher bar for a report here, but all editors who report misconduct here should provide diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Bbb23. I've been around long enough to know that you and Baseball Bugs are valued contributors, and I appreciate the rationale for not blocking. As well, diffs are helpful. I came here because I believe that this is a problematic user who has chosen neither to engage nor respect basic guidelines, and believe that numerous edits have been either inaccurate or original research, and haven't improved the articles. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If there's a continual problem with Catperson's edits, it would be good to document some of it, for the reasonable likelihood that this is not the end of this story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay. Here are some recent edits that were quickly reverted [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73]. These are invariably minor edits in terms of amount of content changed, but if they are not supported by references and require reversion, represent a greater nuisance than contribution. They're a time sink for those who have to trail along behind and check every edit, and for me, just to report this and list a few recent diffs. When I could be spending my precious time sampling ales. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

USER COMPLAINT: Jonat13

I got a user complaint against User: Jonat13, he's recently vandalize the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page and I had to revert his edits on friday and in the morning he still seemed to ignore the fact.

Yes making one related complaint regrading the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet, I made another one the last time, but it seems they did not do too much so I deleted the case last time but I will this time leave it like that.

Here's his recent edits from Friday on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet here at these links and he was very rude on his edit summary and vandalizing the page: [[74]] [[75]] [[76]] [[77]] [[78]].

I admit I did get really mad at him as seen as this recent edit I made reverting his edits and did curse two days ago: [[79]] but I have edit again and put a second summary for second administrators on this issue: [[80]]

Yes I know I myself did the wrong thing by using cap locks but I got made that this Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page kept being vandalized a lot now and with this recent one, I decided that it's time for action to be taken.

However this morning, the "Jonat13" user had made a reply to me on the edit summary and still ignored the fact that he was vandalizing the page: [[81]]

This user is wasting my time now and it looks like if he's trying to act like if he was not vandalizing the page when he is vandalizing the page.

I'm really start to get frustrated with User: Jonat13 and I would like a warning to be issued against this user on his (talk page) because whatever he's doing to the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page is unacceptable. In my opinion, I think user "Jonat13" should be watched, right along with User: DiasMi012 when editing the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet or other pages, or should be banned from this website.

• NOTE THAT User: DiasMi012 Has not edit on the Los Angeles Metro bus fleet page for at least a week now, but he anyways should be watched in case he comes back or at least warned.

I'm getting tired of this user, I hope this case resolves the problem and find a solution on what can we do to take action against this user and that other user is he comes back to the page editing the rosters. My request for action against this user: Jonat13 to get warned, blocked from editing or permanent ban from Wikipedia.

This time I'll leave the case open to see what the staff of wikipedia decides on what will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asloge (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, none of those edits are vandalism - please read WP:NOTVAND. Both of you are edit warring and need to discuss on the talk page, and I recommend page protection to make sure you two use the article talk page. It would also help if neither of you shouted at each other. More importantly, this isn't likely to go anywhere without the citation of reliable sources.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

These kinds of articles are often poorly sourced generally. Often lots of edits from editors who live in the area and then report their personal observations. I try to avoid these articles, always wondering why Wikipedia is an alternative website for transportation services.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Asloge, looking at your previous comments from the past week, including all of the edit warring, I'm surprised that you have not yet been blocked. The same goes to Jonat13.

Los Angeles Metro bus fleet has been full-protected for 2 weeks. Use Talk:Los Angeles Metro bus fleet or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to discuss content-related disagreements. Any further hostilities can result in users being blocked altogether. --MuZemike 19:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

User Jagged_85 and abuse of sources

For those not aware of the background to this, Jagged_85 was previously the subject of an April 2010 RFC regarding his abuse of sources: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85#Summary. It was agreed that Jagged_85 had been making unacceptable edits, using references which did not support the claims made. As one of the outside views noted: "the user has misinterpreted the sources, provided extremely unreliable sources, and cherry picked the information in the sources". Jagged_85 essentially did not contest the case but used as his defence that he had been rushed and careless.

The conclusion of the RFC was that: Jagged_85 would stop abusing sources and would stop making such bad edits; Jagged_85 would help in the cleanup (to put this in perspective he is currently 253 in terms number of edits on Wikipedia, and has previously been much higher; a significant proportion of his edits have serious problems); and he was told to: "avoid any questionable, inappropriate and unreliable sources, and in particular, avoiding edits which add exceptional claims, unless these have received strong confirmation from several reliable sources". Finally, Jagged_85 was warned: "if such problematic behaviour were to occur again, further action will be taken against him. Such an action would be a request for some sort of ban."

No further action was taken; Jagged_85 has made only a marginal effort to help clear-up the mess left behind him, but he stopped editing the Muslim history related articles where he had caused so much damage, and everyone was essentially happy to assume good faith and let him get on with editing other parts of the encyclopedia.

I came to the problem after the original RFC, when I got quite heavily involved in trying to clean some of the extraordinary mess left in articles such as Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Avicenna. As such I was watching the Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85 page. I then saw that a couple of editors in Jagged_85's new chosen topic area, computer games, were concerned with his use of sources and editing style. When I looked into it further I was frankly horrified, as Jagged_85 was making exactly the same sort of exceptional claims regarding computer game X being the first to have 3D polygonal graphics that he used to make about Muslim scholars inventing various surgical instruments that had existed for centuries, or suggesting Muslim scholars came up with Newton's first law of motion before Newton did.

With the help of users bridies and Indrian, who are editors in the computer games area, I have been looking into this further over the course of about a week, and the further I dig, the worse it seems. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85/Computer_Games_Evidence, which is the page where we've been collecting the evidence.

The list of provably false claims made on that page is staggering. And we really weren't trying very hard to collect examples. Over the course of investigating I looked into one article, Gun Fight; almost every substantial edit Jagged made to that article is problematic, trying to make what is undoubtedly an important game sound even more groundbreaking that it was. He makes wild, exceptional claims about things which he doesn't seem to understand and which are certainly not supported by the references he gives. I even found one edit so bad that it was specifically rubbished by a computer website: 'Even today, Wikipedia, that bastion of poor research, triumphantly declares Silpheed was "notable for its early use of real-time 3D polygonal graphics." No, Wikipedia, it really was not.'

I am of course happy to hear other people's views, but my personal opinion is that, given the previous RFC (which specifically mentioned a ban if he did not mend his ways), and given the sheer amount of damage he has done to the encyclopedia, by making so many referenced, exceptional claims which are simply not supported by the reference (sometimes directly contradicted by the reference), it must be time to consider a community ban. My personal opinion is that it needs to be a permanent one; we are surely way beyond second chances now.--Merlinme (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wowser. So, after peddling anti-Western Muslim propaganda in math and science articles for years, he now does the same for Asian videogame manufacturers usually at the expense of Western ones? And using the exact same methods? Who'd have seen that one coming? 86.121.137.227 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support a community ban. His editing is still very problematic as shown by that evidence, and he shows no sign of accepting the assessment of the previous RfC/U. Fences&Windows 22:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that diff. In it, Jagged_85 accuses anyone exposing him of having a "very explicitly obvious Eurocentric agenda". It figures. 86.121.137.227 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this constitutes outright lying in Wikipedia articles. With such a long history of it, this guy needs to be permanently banned.

Also, crap, I had no idea there was a Starglider 2! (I played the first game for a few years.) —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  23:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why WP coddles those who intentionally misrepresent sources to push their POV. Should have been banned long ago. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps to attract new editors? "Hi, I'm Jagged 85. I've been rewriting world history on Wikipedia since 2005 (and so can you!)" 86.121.137.227 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Donfarberman

Donfarberman (talk · contribs)

This new (or 'new') contributor seems to be convinced that Wikipedia is some sort of leftist conspiracy, and that this somehow justifies (a) repeatedly deleting talk page comments at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik, (b) making unsourced POV-pushing edits regarding the recent 2012 diplomatic missions attacks, (c) marking such edits as 'minor' - holding the opinion is of course entirely legitimate, but violating policy to 'fix' it isn't. Interestingly, the topics edited coincide very closely with another 'new' account User:Bobinisrael, and the two accounts are now 'conversing' on Donfarberman's talk page - Bob writes: "I initially thought you were an account created in order to caricature me in a negative light, because you're using some of the exact same language I've used". [82] Personally, at this point, my 'AGF' has run out, and I'm inclined to draw a more obvious conclusion regarding the textual similarities, topics edited etc, and it thus seems to me that neither contributor (if indeed there are two of them) is here to do anything but cause trouble. I may be entirely wrong (It wouldn't be the first time), but I think it might be useful for an uninvolved admin to take a look, and whack me firmly with a trout if I'm being paranoid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Yet another leftist conspiracy. Right, two editors can't agree so I must be Bobinisrael.