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

Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina

• Original title of this thread: Further WikiProject banner-related disruption of Talk:History of Vojvodina from WP:SPAs evading semi-protection & suspected creation of new WikiProject as part of the disruption

G'day all, back in December there was significant disruption to a number of article talk pages relating to Vojvodina by a new user User:Oldhouse2012. This resulted in a report here [1] specifically about the editors behaviour at Talk:History of Vojvodina, and an ARBMAC warning was issued to User:Oldhouse2012 by User:EdJohnston here [2]. User:Oldhouse2012 then fell off the face of the earth. The disruption to the article (this time by two IPs) re-commenced in mid-January [3], [4] and [5] and User:EdJohnston protected the page on 23 January here [6]. User:Brianyoumans was subjected to some personal attacks and abuse by these IPs here [7]

On 31 January a new user User:Baća bez gaća registered, joined a number of WikiProjects that had previously been subject to the banner disruption on Talk:History of Vojvodina (a total of ten edits), waited four days then began the same disruption of the talkpage as User:Oldhouse2012. During early discussion with this new editor by User:Brianyoumans (who was involved in dealing with the disruption earlier) another new account User:Foodsupply appeared to support User:Baća bez gaća. A quick look shows that User:Foodsupply was created on 29 January and did ten edits that day. When four days had expired this new editor's first edit was to support User:Baća bez gaća at Talk:History of Vojvodina here [8].

The two new accounts appear to be either new WP:SPAs created by the disruptive IPs to continue that activity or socks/meat of User:Oldhouse2012. In particular, User:Baća bez gaća's behaviour and comments are highly reminiscent of Oldhouse2012.

Could I please get some admin attention on this? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said!Brianyoumans (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I hear ducks quacking. Two new registered accounts miraculously sprang up when semi was imposed, and are now making the same silly reverts. They are removing certain WikiProject banners from the talk page, apparently as a sort of nationalist turf-marking behavior. Unclear whether an SPI would have much to go on. We might have to go ahead and block new registered accounts on behavior. One option might be to open an WP:RFC on the talk page about the WikiProject banners and then block anyone who reverted before the RfC reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea Ed. Could we block these characters while I get the RFC up and running? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC done [9]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have another potential sock to add to the pile: User:AnyWay5000. Created on January 30th, the very first edit on the account was to create a WP:Kingdom of Hungary.Brianyoumans (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Brian. I thought it was highly convenient that WikiProject was created just as this was happening. I'm just offended that these people think we're THAT dumb. :-) Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should add the creation of WP:Kingdom of Hungary by User:AnyWay5000 to the report (per Brianyoumans). This really needs some attention. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can a CU please take a look and give a verdict on the Sockpuppetry issue please? Mdann52 (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

I just would like to add that this distruption may be much deeper than it first looks. For the record, it was me who first added the project banners at first to articles like history of ... , battle of ... and so (territories that were ruled by Hungary or battles it participated in, etc.) a long time ago. For a good long period it was okay, however, when I started to add to articles that are some way related to Serbia, Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) popped up from nowhere and began its action. At first removed the banners, then, after realized that it won't work, started to overtag the articles. S/he was not shy to stalk me and come after me even into the category space (how else could you answer this). Recently, IPs started to remove the overtags paying special attention to inculde WP:HU into these removal actions (in the category space or in the article space).

Not much later, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs) - most of them looked to have created to prove his/her point. (interestingly s/he came up from nowhere, and as a brand new account started quite "mature" actions like creating categories, despite s/he was supposed to be a complete newcomer - sockpuppet?).

As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these new categories were found improper. I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles in the list, however, just after a short while these were also arbitrarily removed (most of them by an IP (79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). I brought the issue to ANI that time, even went to the DRN, however, Account2013 and the IPs who countinued his/her action after s/he stepped down, remained silent and even the DRN was dropped because of the lack of interest. While I cannot force the other side to participate in a discussion (actually probably could do if I would re-add those, though it would generate an edit war or whatever, which i don't want), it is kind of suspicious that I have a "fan" who tries to prevent everything I do. I don't know how much possible it is, but would like to draw someone's attention on these, if I did not manage to do earlier, and get a solution on these (renaming the category/adding it to articles/re-add the list article to the related settlement articles) and ask some experienced users to have an eye on these as it's likely that further actions will be necessary.

Thanks for your time and just drop a line for further details if needed — Thehoboclown (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Thehoboclown for the new data. It looks to me that this will be a long-running issue and a filing at WP:Sockpuppet investigations may be best. For convenience I would suggest Oldhouse2012 as the master. I hope that one of the parties will have the patience to create an SPI report. If blocks turn out to be needed, a link to the SPI will provide a guide for further review. For the overall pattern of ethnic warring, a report at WP:Long term abuse is another option. Though it would be hard to show if all these guys are socks or meats, they do have a well-defined common interest -- erasing the significance of the current or historical non-Serbian minorities in Vojvodina. I shortened the header of this thread to simplify future reference to it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny. There is just one question: if I have so many sockpuppets (and listed accounts are not blocked) then why I had to wait 4 days to edit semi-locked page with this user name? Why I simply haven't used one of mine supposed sockpuppets? There are 6 million people in Serbia and you suggest that one person operates all Serbian accounts in Wikipedia. Besides this, both Peacemaker67 and Thehoboclown are nationalist POV pushers themselves. I suggest that their behavior is examined too. Baća bez gaća (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

@Ed. Thanks again for the advice. I'll handle the actions you've suggested. And @Thehoboclown, thanks very much for the info. I completely understand your frustration, I'll be in touch if I need any more data. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Great advice Ed. SPI checks out per [10]. I have already WP:MFD'd WP:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary. I suppose we can resume normal operations, sans our new friends. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your great efforts, Peacemaker! Too bad it took one minute (!) to remove the info you reinserted. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked all the CU-confirmed socks who had accounts per the SPI case. But due to the section below about Srbobran, there may be more to do. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, EdJohnston, there is something more you can do. you can examine pattern of behaviour of editors like Thehoboclown or Peacemaker67 and you will see that they are agressive POV-pushers too and they waste large amount of their time in Wikipedia in POV revert wars. they try not to make any page better or neutral but they revert war because they want that they POV prevail over POV of others. if sanctions arent imposed on them too, I affraid, this war in Wikipedia will never stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.127.0.177 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I ask an admin to consider closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kingdom of Hungary early? It is directly related to this report and the related SPI. Thanks very much! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all the admins that have dropped in and helped out with this one. The dark (Balkan) corners of en WP need a bit of sunshine to cut through the mould every now and again. I know I'm a bit rough and "old school" sometimes but... I loveyoozall. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruption and threats on Srbobran

This might or might not be the same clique, but the topic is the same: 113.193.187.226 (talk · contribs) first tried to erase official Hungarian name of Vojvodinian town of Srbobran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and when I reverted and warned him under WP:ARBMAC, I got this nice tirade [11]. Google translate with my fixes:

What the fuck? Srbobran is the Serbian city. Why are you supporting the Hungarian fascists who killed Serbs and threw them under the ice. This here is a real Hungarian fascist whose account is blocked on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srbobran&diff=535767619&oldid=532170630 Why are you doing this? And besides, do you think you'll be able to keep this article to the end of life there ? You're pushing the stone up the hill, but will certainly fall down. Understand that you can not do anything, they can block this IP or temporarily lock the article, but it does not help. You have no idea who I am and who I work for, and so I say it's better that you do not interfere in such a way. 113.193.187.226 ( talk) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess a permanent semi-protection and a heavy block is in order. No such user (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is very similar to the language used on my talk page by an IP, except that they used English. See User_talk:Brianyoumans#Notification (Serbia). (I added (Serbia) to make it unique.) Brianyoumans (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we please get some admin help here? This is the same bunch of loonies all over the place. I feel like I'm playing Whac-A-Mole at the moment... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy days, SPI checked out. Not sure about your IP though, Nsu. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Now Nado158 (talk · contribs) has stepped into the revert game [12]. Sorry, but I don't think that this is a mere content dispute: it is pure nationalist POV-pushing. Can an admin hand out a WP:ARBMAC warning, I don't want to play a defender. I might be close to 3RR. No such user (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• • No such user: I have proposed a compromise at Talk:Srbobran. I'm not sure the Hungarian name needs to be in the infobox, or even should be, but it deserves to be prominent. You are definitely in an editing war and have probably violated 3RR yourself; maybe you should have called for help sooner? Brianyoumans (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As a small addition, Nado158 was active in this "removing-game" in the Subotica article (check the article history focusing on early December), however, that time it was solved quickly thanks to Iadrian yu (talk · contribs), who was there to patrol the article, re-add the name which was countinously removed, and even gave an explanation for the inclusion. That time it looked that Nado158 understood it and after a few tries he dropped the action.

The next time his/her name appeared on my watchlist came when s/he, hand in hand with one of the above mentioned IP started to remove the links to the communitly list article. ([13], [14], [15]). This was the time when I went on to submit an ANI report, pointing out that his/her actions might fall under WP:ARBEE (so his latest action was not his first when s/he went probably too far). However, I got only a dismissive answer, subsequently Nado158 did not even bother to participate in a discussion. As mentioned above, after received no admin reaction, I went to DRN as well to bring them out, however they played it out by simply ignoring it. Seems like s/he did not want to participate and understand the things and don't even mind to learn from his past actions. Thehoboclown (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest Mentorship, if the user who was doing this would be willing to create an account so that we could track their edits more easily and have a way to communicate with them more quickly as well, but I"ve seen quite a few failed mentorship arrangements so said idea might not work out too well if this persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.101.25 (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Himesh84

Himesh84 and myself have been involved in a number of disputes over the last 8 months the most recent of which was over my placement of a number tags on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. The dispute has been discussed at length on the article's talk page. Three DRN threads were also opened (October 2012, January 2013, January 2013) but all were closed early. About three weeks ago an admin, Qwyrxian, joined in the discussion and offered his opinion and advice on how to resolve the dispute. In Qwyrxian's opinion the factual accuracy and lack of references were justified and self-evident. Qwyrxian asked me to justify the neutrality tag. The other tags were unnecessary. Qwyrxian then reverted WelupillaisOb's (a sockpuppet of Himesh84) removal of the tag.

Himesh84 ignored this and reverted Qwyrxian's edit, removing all the tags. A few days ago I a started a separate section on the talk page to justify the neutrality tag and re-inserted the neutrality and the factual accuracy tag. Himesh84 once again removed the tags stating was needed to add tags (this is a deliberate misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works).

In his relatively short time on Wikipedia Himesh84 has been involved in a number of disputes. The main reason for this is his unwillingness to abide by the core policies on content (neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research). He has also shown an inability accept he is wrong, choosing instead to prolong the dispute in the hope that other editors will give up or lose interest - see protracted discussions here, here and here. In November 2012 he refused to accept the outcome of a DRN mediation, created two POV forks which were speedily deleted (here and here) and ended up being blocked. He has also shown that he is prepared to use underhand tactics such as using sockpuppets and lying to admins in order to get his own way.

I am aware that I should probably take this to DRN but given how the three DRNs on the latest dispute ended and how Himesh84 reacts to DRN's I ask for admin intervention.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is something non-ideal with Himesh84's edits, but I don't know that we're at a point requiring administrative intervention (i.e., a block). Himesh84 seems to always want to jump to dispute resolution--as in, one person reverts him, and he thinks it's time to go to DRN. But I kind of understand that attitude, because he was previously scolded for edit warring without using dispute resolution. Having said all that, I haven't looked into the sockpuppetry and other problems that Obi2canibe raises. It would be great if someone could look into the details; I'm off for the day. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Disappointing on case you bring the issue here. At least read what is in the talk page before disturbing to Administrators.

If DRN was closed too early it is not my fault. You either needed to participated on time ( on 2 occasions) like other people did or report 2 users who closed the 2 DRNs too early clarifying your busy lifestyles. But not me. Anyway you could open new DRN when you visited Wikipedia rather finding reasons to skip DRNs and justifying the skip.

You didn't justified neutrality tag. You explain your stand on neutrality tag and inserted two tags (both neutrality and factual errors (why?)). factual errors (if any) are not self evident. They needed to be shown. But two major concerns(start point of the conflict,no mentioned about Tamil presence on the island prior to the 13th century) you stated without any references are referred in the article.

• see the reference number 1 for start point of the conflict.
• Tamil present before 13th century - Tamils came during kingdom of Rajarata era had mixed with the Sinhalese community. Era of Kingdom of rajarata is 537BC to 1215

You have not been able to justify rest of the incidents you mentioned has any effect to Tamils to resorting to militancy. You have mentioned Ceylon Citizenship Act; Colonization; Standardization . But I am 100% sure you didn't know anything about these things. CC act only affected to Indian Tamils ( 4th largest ethnic group in SL) not to Sri Lankan Tamils. If it is not affected on SLT how it is a reason for them to resorting to militancy? You needed to explain this since I feel it crazy and silly reason. Also I have proved how Tamils get advantages from standardization using 2011 official cutoff marks. Colonisation - This is some selfish mentality from SL Tamils. They can live anywhere in Sri Lanka ( 30% of urban Colombo population are SLTamils came from Jaffna) but object same right for other ethnic groups and saying a reason to wear arms. Anyway I added those information to the article since many Tamils (including you) saying it is an reason - find it in Traditional homelands claim by Tamils section.

WelupillaisOb is not a sockpuppet. It is an alternative account ( I am not the only one who using different account on public networks).

Earlier I was blocked for sock-puppet case. Not for forking or anything else. It is over but still I refuse the sock puppet charges. WP admin did early conclusions and went on with it after the heated discussions. Also about lying it was angry respond to my block reason specified by admin. I just gave an example to show that the admin was wrong. That's all. Everyone except Obi2canibe understood that.

Still I think I am correct on past disputes. You trying to use Wikipedia to promote propaganda. You not allow to include criticism against what favor on you (UNSG) and include any criticism on what not favor to you (LLRC). I have state my opinion in | here. Still no one clarified what are the specific policies for two structures for competitive reports. Himesh84 (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

About edit waring, here are best examples about my friend's behavior.

He removed citation required tags without providing facts | 1. |2. References for native, relationship between Tamils lived in Rajarata with present ethnic group called as 'Sri Lankan Tamils' was raised in |talk page.

This is the only relative answer by him but it doesn't answer the raised concerns.

> This is a good article. It has 168 in line citations. And yet you place these tags?

In all other answers he has questioned the users behavior rather answering to the questions but continuing with reverting the article.

> This and your other behviour over the last week has shown your true character - childish and unimaginative. Please grow up

> You still haven't learned Himesh84. Wikipedia has no place for your games. Please edit using your registered account rather than dynamic IP addresses.

Still do administrators things above answers by obi2canibet could make consensus for his changes and above answers can save him not involved in edit waring without making constructive comments for repetitive reverts he made ?

Here is confession of another edit waring. He had been edit waring for very long about tags ( most of the his reasons for tags are intangible ( as reasons he using self evident and doesn't needed to pin pointed). But when he confessed he was not knowing factual errors, but edit repeatedly edit waring. He said he can't provide reasons now. Will provide later. Himesh84 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• obi2canibe, You was asked and you promised to justify factual errors tag but you claiming something else (neutrality) and start reverting and reporting. This is what administrator recommended.

> Neutrality - Administrator recommend you to start by section wise.

This is your answer.

< This leaves three tags:"Lack of references", "Neutrality" and "Factual errors". You have asked me to explain the last in detail and I will do this, though it may not happen immediately.

I couldn't participate to DRN because I was blocked at that time. Why did you skip following latest DRN 1 ? Himesh84 (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have added the tags which were removed by Himesh84 on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

The lead para states on the artcile as follow;

"The ethnic conflict of Sri Lanka is a conflict mainly between Sinhalese and Tamils and conflict between Tamils and Muslims. The conflict started to appear when Kalinga Magha, a Tamil invader claiming Kalinga (Orissa) lineage invaded Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215."

But when I went through the first citation, I found on the Page 24 the following;

"Yet, racial and religious motives are attributed to the Dutugamunu-Elara conflict, and some Sinhalese scholars even regards the defeat of Elara by Dutugemmunu as the beginning of Sinhala nationalism."

"Thus, although Dutugemmunu may have been viewed as the savior of the Sinhalese race, his victory over Elara did not put an end to Tamil Sinhalese conflict nor did it deter Sinhalese rulers from having contact with South Indian rulers."

So according to the Citation provided by Himesh84 himself states the Ethnic Conflict started with Dutugamunu-Elara conflict which happened in the Pre-Christian era.

And my question to Himesh84 is what made him to assume, "The conflict started to appear when Kalinga Magha, a Tamil invader claiming Kalinga (Orissa) lineage invaded Kingdom of Rajarata in 1215."???

And to the Administrators who are perplexed of the conflict; please note the conflict in Sri Lanka is thousands of years old and developed among many tribes in the island and South India. But over the years these tribes assimilated into the ethnic identification of Tamils and Sinhalese.

Why I have re-added the tag is, if the first para itself very shallow in describing the thousands of years old conflict, how the entire article will be neutral. The entire article is Himesh84's POV and should be re-written jointly by editors who take interest of this conflict.

Hope some Europeans and American and other neutral editors will get involved on this project; some of the lost civilizations and kingdoms in South and Southeast Asia were re-discovered by European amatuer historians.Hillcountries (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

About start point of the conflict - see the following section in page 25.

• Reference in the Rajavaliya to the plundering of buddhist shryne, forced conversion of buddhist to hindusm, burning of rajarata the king's country by invading army from south India have had great impact on Sinhalese national consciousness.

Rajaravilya ( Sinhalese) is the primary source and the book is the secondary source state what is the time Sinhalese consider it as the starting point of the conflict. That is the possible earliest point of the conflict between Sinhalese and ethnic group called as Sri Lankan Tamil who are descendants of the Jaffna kindom which established by Magha and his army invaded Sri Lanka in 1215. I can't find where you find your quote. But first please verify relationship between Tamils in your sentence and present ethnic group called as SLT. Because identification for SLT today is they are descendants of Magha's army. Also article has verified sentence which verified Tamils( in your claim) mixed with Sinhalese. If you said conflict between Sinhalese and SLT are earlier than SLT came to Sri Lanka you specially needs to show us how a conflict can start when Sinhalese(present) in Sri Lanka and SLT are in South India in a era with no Internet facilities and satellite phones

Are you saying that Europian found lost civilization other than Anuradhapura,Pollonnaruwa bellow to Jaffna peninsular ? Can you please share findings with us because I feel it is very very interesting. Himesh84 (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Himesh, since you have started something attacking South Indian pillage, I am starting with the following;(please refer page 24[16])

"...Elara, the Chola general from South India who ruled Anuradhapura for forty-four years, and for thereby rescuing Buddhism. It is surprising to note, however, that Elara is portrayed in the Pali Chronicles as a benevolent king who extended patronage to Buddhism. There were also other Tamil rulers who assumed the traditional role of protecting and fostering the state religion while "Sinhalese kings sometimes pillaged temples and monasteries of their wealth."

So, Himesh, you should understand the fact that South Indians are always not destructive. And Sinhalese kings involved in geo-political-military war fare in the medieval time supporting Pandian Empire of South India in their Wars against Cholas; so Cholas also retaliated Sinhalese kings and invaded into their kingdoms time to time.

I disagree with your point, "earliest point of the conflict between Sinhalese and ethnic group called as Sri Lankan Tamil who are descendants of the Jaffna kindom which established by Magha and his army invaded Sri Lanka in 1215."

How sure there were no Tamils(who were there for Centuries) in the Northern Sri Lanka when Magha invaded. The Tamils who came with Magha might have been mixed with those Tamils who were already there. Otherwise what happened to those Tamils who were there in the Northern Sri Lanka. How it could be possible those who were there in the North being Sinhalese while the Tamil coast in South India is only 30 KM away from the Northern Sri Lanka.

What you refer as Sri Lankan Tamils today are a Mixture of Tamils who migrated towards Sri Lanka in different waves since several thousands of years.

What I mentioned about the European re-discovery is about Srivijaya - "After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten and historians had not even considered that a large united kingdom could have been present in Southeast Asia. The existence of Srivijaya was only formally suspected in 1918, when French historian George Coedès of the École française d'Extrême-Orient postulated its existence. The aerial photograph taken in 1984 revealed the remnants of man-made ancient canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands in Karanganyar site in Palembang suggested the location as Srivijaya urban center."

Hope you will understand above facts.Hillcountries (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

you saying 'The Tamils who came with Magha might have been mixed with those Tamils who were already there.'.On the other hand there are several Shiva temples within castle of Pollonnaruwa. Also cow had been removed from [[17]] due to Tamil concerns. Cow is a deity in Hindusm. Also adopted son of king parakramabahu VI who invaded Jaffna kingdom was a Tamil (During kotte era). So it is evident that Tamils came before Magha had good relationship with Sinhalese. Sinhalese names like Kulasekara,kulasekara, .. are derived from Tamils. The distance between Anuradhapura and Jaffna peninsula is only 80 miles away. Ruhuna which was about 160 milles away from Anuradhapura was a part of the Anuradhapura. It is hard to believe Tamils lived separate from Sinhalese as a separate kingdom. Without having kingdom Tamils can't resists to power of Anuradhapura. Having a conflict with Anuradhapura it is impossible to survive. Also there is no sign ( see ruins of Anuradhapura, pollonnaruwa) of any civilization except Jaffna kingdom. Unfortunately Sri Lanka don't have find anything like Srivijaya. Northern province is not a big area if some thing is there to find it must be already found by both LTTE and SL army because they know any place in the region. After king Parakramabahu I (1180 ? ) , the king unified Ruhuna, Rajarata, Mayarata for last time by serious of wars there can be new Tamil settlements. But it wasn't come as big army which threaten to power of Rajarata. Himesh84 (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There were Tamils mixed with those Tamils who came with Magha and the same time there were Tamils who mixed with Sinhalese.

If you could see the current ethnic conflict which is actually nothing to do with any of those Conflicts of Tamils and Sinhalese in the different time periods of the history of Sri Lanka. Because the Tamils in the Pre-Christian era and the Sinhalese in the Pre-Christian era are nothing to do with the ethnic identities of the modern Tamils and the modern Sinhalese. Because there were a lot of admixtures happened in between these ethnic groups over the centuries. That is why User:Blackknight12, a Sinhalese Wikipedian himself wanted to delete the article[18].

What I tried to say by my initial,"Hope some Europeans and American and other neutral editors will get involved on this project; some of the lost civilizations and kingdoms in South and Southeast Asia were re-discovered by European amatuer historians.", is, there could be some neutral editors will find a lasting solution for this issue on Ethnic Conflict article on Wikipedia like the interest shown by some European historians in the lost Southeast Asian kingdom like Srivijaya.Hillcountries (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if independent editors contributed to the article but for the moment I would like to focus on Himesh84's behaviour rather than the specific content that is the subject of the dispute. During the November dispute Himesh84 steadfastly refused to accept the core policies on content - neutrality, verifiability and no original research - despite a number of editors pointing them out (as exemplified by this discussion). The current dispute shows that Himesh84 still doesn't accept the core policies. Numerous editors (User:Richwales, User:So God created Manchester, User:Mike Rosoft, User:Qworty, Qwyrxian and myself) have spent a lot of time trying to educate Himesh84 but he is unable, or more probably unwilling, to change. Himesh84's attitude is that he is right and everyone else is wrong. Even when Himesh84 is forced to back down he won't accept that he is wrong: I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake; I am correct on past disputes; I refuse the sock puppet charges.

I don't believe Himesh84 is afraid of edit warring if he believes he can get his own way. In a recent dispute on Sri Lanka Himesh84's preference was opposed by everyone else but this didn't prevent him from reverting once, twice, thrice, four times. Indeed, Himesh84 has used strawman socks to create the appearance of an edit war. It was spotted in November that Himesh84 was using dynamic IP accounts in the 61.245.xxx.xx range. Here are some of the many edits by Himesh84 using the 61.245.xxx.xx range: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Recently a number of 61.245.xxx.xx accounts have engaged in "edit wars" with Himesh84: 61.245.165.24 v Himesh84 v 61.245.163.56 v Himesh84. This was in fact a lousy attempt at framing me.

I'm afraid Himesh84's excuse that WelupillaisOb is a public network account is lame. On 15 January WelupillaisOb was editing between 4.53 and 5.34 whilst Himesh84 was editing between 6.32 and 7.37. On 25 January Himesh84 was editing between 16.40 and 16.43 whilst WelupillaisOb was editing at 17.21. A check user will show that both accounts use the same computer. And if it's a public network account why try to hide it twice: 1 and 2? (BTW, the name WelupillaisOb is an insinuation that I'm a supporter of Velupillai Prabhakaran).

I'm not concerned about what sanction is taken against Himesh84 (blocked, topic ban etc). I just want some action taken that will make Himesh84 realise that his behaviour is unacceptable.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest someone to take action against Obi2canibe. He was supposed to justify neutrality tag. Not to do some joke comments under topic 'neutrality tag' in talk page and re insert neutrality tags. No consensus made Obi2canibe next explanation (even he said neutrality tag must restored since he is supporter of prabakaran) eligible to restore neutrality tag.

• He was joking in here. He saying SLT resorting to militancy due to their sympathy on Indian Tamils and Sinhalese by some government cruel action against Indian Tamils and Sinhalese ( Indian Tamils - CC Act, Sinhalese - standardization). Anyone can understand this is an joke even I am out numbered with votes.
• He has to show Tamil heritage out side of Sinhalese kingdom(With SLT). I have given lot of references to Tamil heritage within Sinhalese (ruins of Shiva temples,Sandakadapahana,..) and I can't believe his opinion unless it is come with verified sources. First these Tamils needs come to Sri Lanka from Canada and find long lost their heritages outside Sinhalese kingdoms. If someone can show that I can accept.
• Also colonization (based on 'Traditional home land claim') is one of the major fact they say as key reason to the last civil war. It is already is in the Obi2canibe's comment which he used to insert neutrality tags . This Land conflict is there since Sinhalese expelled in 1215. The war was for fertilized land in Rajarata. Now it is same story and come it as Traditional home lands. Still Tamils resists Sinhalese settlements in North and East (even after the war). I will withdraw the conflict has relationship to 1215 when Obi2canibe showed me Tamils and Obi2canibe withdrawn traditional home land issue with Sinhalese. Even Obi2canibe saying traditional home land issue has major reason how I can withdraw first incident about Lands.
• 61.245.xxx.xx belonged to Mobitel. One of the Largest mobile provider in SL. Tamils also logged from them. If I did I say it was me. Please see my confession in my home page.
• I haven't misused WelupillaisOb account. Verify I have misused the account after I recovered himesh account.
• Letting you to do your changes as you mentioned in [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASri_Lanka&diff=535499563&oldid=535352496 I will wait until non participants realizing the mistake] is one thing , but accepting it is another thing. I again say it in here. I don't accept what you did was correct. It is my opinion. If you need to change my personal opinion you must show why ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka article not fit in to Sri Lanka page rather voting counts. You start this because your previous attempt to introduce 'orphan' tag to 'ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka' page in here. The sentence could be rewritten in many different ways which could keep both ECSL and intuitive.
• Until richwales bought the issue to talk page in here no one participate in the talk page to include changes. Why only me wrong ? All were wrong.
• >> I would like to focus on Himesh84's behaviour rather than the specific content that is the subject of the dispute

I think you need to clarify content rather my previous behaviors as reasons to insert tags. Otherwise please withdraw your tags that currently in the page. Most of the time you question my behavior as a reason to revert my edits specially in Here. If some one allowed to questioned behaviors rather content to include changes there is no point been in WP. Himesh84 (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing orphan tag since it is referred from Vanni forest Himesh84 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This looks like an extended content dispute that is not going to get resolved here. For now, I'm going to put a "tag removal ban on all articles related to Sri Lanka" on Himesh84 (citing the arbcom decision on Indian subcontinent related articles) though he/she is welcome to argue (non-tendentiously) about particular tags on the article talk page.--regentspark (comment) 16:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for your decision ? Himesh84 (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I support your decision. Himesh84 is pushing POV on Wikipedia based on certain ethnically based POV epics and literatures. He will find if there any content to support to his pre-conceived POV theories from various sources; but if there are any counter arguments mentioned in those sources, he won't mention those. If some one refer the counter arguments; he will ask where you have found the content. My first question on this ANI thread was responded by Himesh84 similar way.Hillcountries (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Regentspark, can you please ask obi2canibe to withdraw tags. As you can see in the article I have fixed issues mentioned by him and I promise to insert rest of the things when I got list of war crimes and genocides by SLA from him. Until I received information (not arguments) little I can do to improve article Himesh84 (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To 2 Tamils,

• Showing Tamil's stupidity in a discussion and showing it on a article is different. First only see few audience, later will see every body. But both are stupid. Some people will see it. I have insert your concerns about colonization, standardization, CC act . Now go Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and see(Major disputed areas) how stupid the Tamil reasons to resorting to militancy looks like.
• Neutrality is not something which allows counter argument rather counter facts. I was reluctant to insert those things because Tamil concerns ( colonization (land issue), standardization, CC act ) looks extremely stupid. Hiding stupidity, en-education helped to preserve the neutrality. But if they claims they need their true identity to be mentioned I will insert them. But don't insert cn tags for counter arguments since those things are just counter arguments rather counter facts. It is there simply because Tamils says so.
• I will insert details about war crimes by both parties , genocides by both parties,... I have LTTE's list and don't know genocides done by SLA. I will wait until I got your list (with names and references) since it is non neutral to insert LTTE's list is alone.
• obi2canibe, I have fixed your concerns and I will insert rest when I got your help. Can you please withdraw your tag until you provide facts ? There is nothing I can do until I am receiving your lists Himesh84 (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have re-added the Multiple issues tag on Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Till the issues are resolved with the help of some neutral editors, the tags should be remained. Himesh84 is trying to show to the world Sri Lankan Tamils has got a short history in Sri Lanka and their presence in Sri Lanka is only after 1215. I have already pointed out, that is not true. Tamils who were there in Jaffna and the North and elsewhere have got mixed with Tamils who came with Magha and even thereafter in number of waves from South India. The lead para is itself problematic and POV and there is no need to say about the rest of the article with the edits of Himesh84 who is highly biased of Sri Lankan Tamils and their history.Hillcountries (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This id*t can't understand that I have work to do rather visiting north and east and finding your lost heritage. But I included your concerns in the land section. go and see.

What is till resolved? I have insert your concerns and already resolved. Neutral editors can't find your lost heritages.

orphan tag is pure technical. No need to take votes on that Himesh84 (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've given Himesh84 a final warning for talking about "Tamil's stupidity" and calling Hillcountries an idiot just above. While I'm probably WP:INVOLVED, I hope another admin will block Himesh84 if there is any more behavior like this. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I will not talk any more about "Tamil's stupidity" . Excuse me non-stupid Tamils, if you got hurt from above facts. I will never express opinions. Himesh84 (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that Himesh's response on his talk page was "If they are idiots why I can't say so ?", I think it's clear that a block is warranted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Before things are getting worst, I must say Qwyrxian has misunderstand what I said in the ANI discussion may be due to my bad English. Himesh84 (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Banning removing tags may resolve the immediate dispute but it won't change Himesh84's behaviour.

Reaction to being blocked:

• November 2012 - You are such a stupid. ... But I strongly believe you wont do that since stupid can't have that much brain....final decisions are taking by few idiots in here(I only talking about you, scientic guy, and the one who wrote stupid comment on Sinha's page)...Yes. Idiot. ...Did you take this long to get it understand ? ...Still your program hasn't concluded Jimmy is a sock puppet of me. It is concluded by sceintis stupid. I believe your program is not an idiot like you or scenitic guy. ...May be your boss(who gave your admin badge) will believe you but not experts on this subject.
• February 2013 - fu*** Materialscientist. I think WP administrators clearly supporting Tamils and have a problems with Sinhalese. First in ANI comment, I didn't said Tamils or anyone is stupid. I blamed tamils in ANI (obni**, hillcountries) for making Tamils who resorting to militancy as stupids by forcing me to add stupid reasons to wear arms (sorry. but honestly the reasons are stupid) into the article. If reasons are stupid first administrators should block 2 Tamils and other administrators who forced me to add content to the article. .

Calling other editors idiots/stupid:

• November 2012 - Idiot, if you want to block me only block or delete me...What a stupid administrators you people; But seems like some stupid called as Materialscientist...This is what that stupid idiot wrote on my page...I asked it from some Ealam idiot...seems like Ealam idiots don't know anything useful.
• February 2013 - This id*t can't understand that I have work to do; If they are idiots why I can't say so ?.

Racism:

• November 2012 - That's may be the reason they are called as barbarian and rest of them are Aryan. I am guaranteed that you can find lot of interesting things on aryan invasion over barbarians in India around 1210. Then these barbarians come Sri Lanka in 1215..
• February 2013 - * Better you can say You were hurt by Aryan Barbarian discrimination in India and since SLT unable to reach Aryan in India, SLT raised arms against Sinhalese who are also Aryan section.

Has Himesh84's behaviour changed? No. Is he willing to change? No. How many more chances is he going to get.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Leighperson and "punctuation errors"

Leighperson (talk · contribs) has, for his/her fairly short editing history, been "fixing" what Leighperson describes as "punctuation errors", despite them not actually being errors. In particular, Leighperson appears to remove all m-dashes and n-dashes from articles as "punctuation errors" (e.g. [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]), despite being requested not to do so.[27] As Leighperson does not appear to be responding to his Talk: page, and continues to edit in this way, I've brought the issue here for discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not that they are errors as such but the dashes are ugly and what purpose do they serve? The sentence I looked at is the same without them. Britmax (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Dashes are ugly" is way into WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory and not any good reason to replace correct punctuation with something erroneous. - SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of commas and dashes is often a stylistic preference, but they do allow writers to indicate different levels of parenthesis and separation of list clauses; as does the much-neglected semi-colon - even if some think anything more than a comma is ugly. Unless there is a MOS requirement, we should not change styles to suit our personal preferences - and we should definitely not label such changes "punctuation errors". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They are all pretty much interchangeable, but help to introduce subtle differences when used consistently throughout a written work. In the spirit of WP:RETAIN, grammatically correct punctuation shouldn't be altered for the sole purpose of changing the punctuation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many editors overuse dashes, and quite a few of Leighperson's edits are real improvements. But I see him/her also removing quite a lot of dashes in quotations, and also removing carefully inserted ellipses in quotations, in Ian Fleming (a featured article), presumably not understanding their function. Those edits are seriously erroneous. It's worrying that they don't respond on their talk. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC).

SchroCat, Boing! said Zebedee, Betty Logan, and Bishonen have all made good points. So, what to do? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The editor has continued to edit in the same vein (with only one edit) since this thread was opened. I've put a more clear comment on their talk page, urging them to come here before they edit again. - SchroCat (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In the event that the last message doesn't sink in, a final warning should be issued, as at that point the introduction of errors can be assumed to be deliberate. If the disruptive edits continue after the warning, then a competence block is in order. Beware of bricks, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat, Betty Logan, et al. Further the user's latest edit that SchroCat links to does not remove a puncutation error and in fact worsens an already unwieldy sentence. - Fantr (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately he hasn't returned to editing just yet. - SchroCat (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

HIDECCHI001

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

---

HIDECCHI001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked several times on his talk page, over several months, to use edit summaries and to refrain from editing wikilinks just to avoid a redirect (per WP:NOTBROKEN). As far as I can see from his talk page, he has never responded to these requests and he still never uses edit summaries and makes large numbers of edits that do nothing but link around redirects, e.g. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] in the last two days alone. There has also been at least one removal of a legitimate-looking redlink [35].

Note that there are also constructive edits (e.g., [36] [37]) so I'm satisfied that the editor is acting in good faith but the persistent failure to respond or modify behaviour is a concern. Dricherby (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I have also encountered this persons edits many many times (about icons and linking you tube). For the most part they are positive in nature based on redirects and typos. However and a big howsoever the user does not respond in any manner whats so ever be it by talking or changing edit habits to concerns raised (however Idont see you tube spammed anymore - so some sort of acknowledgment there I guess). No need for a block - just some sort of acknowledgment of concerns raised and what they plan to do next about those concerns . We have to be fair here - look at his talk page - Not much of a welcome did he receive - I would also be inclined to ignore all after all the bites (I am guilty of bites here as-well).Moxy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

In my view, a concerted effort should be made to communicate with the user before any action is taken (not that nobody's tried before). The fact that they've made all of two edits each to User talk and Wikipedia talk each, this is almost certainly a communication issue. It is possible that the user does not understand English, based on their userpage, so if anyone has decent Japanese.... If they fail to respond, then a short WP:COMPETENCE block is probably necessary. —Rutebega (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Two thoughts: (1) There is no actual requirement to use edit summaries, so if an editor doesn't use them that's up to them. (2) WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and is not policy, and an editor cannot be forced to follow it. (In fact, judging by the number of times I see people editing a Wikilink to bypass a redirect, I'd say that part of it is controversial). So, as there are no policy breaches reported here, I see no need for admin action. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  PS: Looking at the editor's talk page, I see a mass of bitey warnings, and I'm not at all surprised that you're not getting the responses you want - I don't see a single one of you extending a friendly and helpful hand to a new editor here! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't notice until I went back to their talk page, but the user was also not notified about this discussion. I'll try to take care of that after I post this. —Rutebega (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had actually notified him (in the section Bypassing redirects) but I should probably have done so in a separate section, as you did. Dricherby (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its clear that the editor has no plans on talking to anyone - Perhaps Rutebega was right in that a WP:COMPETENCE block is probably necessary. What are we to do if editros refuse to engage with others.Moxy (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What, a block for not having done anything wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the pillars is "Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner". This user is failing to interact and is being disrespectful and incivil by not discussing the concerns that other users have repeatedly raised on his talk page. He is also making edits that are at least slightly controversial (several editors have explicitly disagreed with them) and ignoring all attempts to discuss them. There are many of guidelines and essays and, I think, even policies that advocate not doing what this user is doing. WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:CIVIL and WP:COMPETENCE have already been mentioned. WP:CONSENSUS says that "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page." WP:EP says "Try to use an appropriate edit summary"; WP:FIES says "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit" (boldface, in the original, even). WP:ETIQ says that, "If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate." WP:NOTHERE includes "Extreme lack of interest in working... in a cooperative manner" and "extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns" as signs of a user who is not here to build the encyclopaedia. So I wouldn't say that he's done nothing wrong. Dricherby (talk) 09:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a fair point that edit summaries and WP:NOTBROKEN are just guidelines and I'll try to be less bitey next time. However, while nobody extended a welcoming hand to the new editor, he's now been around for 18 months and has made over two thousand edits in the last three months alone. I would contend that he probably does understand English to a reasonable degree. First, I can't see any motivation for putting in so much time to an encyclopaedia in a langauge one doesn't speak. Second, this edit [38] requires an understanding that, in that particular context, the phrase "Republic of China" refers to a period in the government of mainland China, rather than the territory now normally called Taiwan: that suggests a decent level of comprehension, to me. Dricherby (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(third notice) - I have left the editor a last note to join us - Lets hope.Moxy (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not sure I understand this - if the editor hasn't done anything wrong, what are people demanding an answer for? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Its pretty simple and clear cut - people are trying to talk to him to no avail. Ignoring others is a problem - we have basic conduct expectations here. We have this basic expectation even from young children let alone adult editors here.Moxy (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why should he be obliged to respond to you when he hasn't done anything wrong? He doesn't have to join in chat if he doesn't want to, and he's perfectly entitled to completely ignore inappropriate warnings (for example, warnings relating to edit summaries). While he isn't doing anything wrong, can't you just leave the poor guy alone instead of hounding him like this? If you can show some repeated genuine policy breaches by this editor and a refusal to stop, then there might be some admin action applicable here - but at the moment I don't see where anyone has shown that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)WP:NOTBROKEN is not a policy, but when users go around piping huge numbers of links just to avoid redirects it is a little disruptive. I've seen RMs where a rationale for not moving the page over its own redirect was a relative lack of incoming links that used that redirect, but on further investing most of the direct links were actually piped. That's just one reason why it's disruptive to have users who go around piping links in their free time. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So if piped links are such a problem, why do we have them? Surely they're either good and we can use them, or they're bad and we can't? I don't see why they're especially bad when this particular editor uses them and when it's done "in their free time" - don't we all work here in our free time? As for incoming links, that RM rationale is not relevant here - RM reviewers should be more careful. Also, I can see two sides of the "incoming links" issue, and it's not unambiguously obvious whether it's better to have the links appearing incoming at the redirect or appearing incoming at the target. But all this is moot anyway - there is no prohibition on piping links to bypass redirects, and until there is, or until someone identifies some actual policy breaches, there is no admin action needed to stop it. If you want to make it a policy to ban piped links, you need to take it elsewhere. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Without piped links, it would be impossible to wikilink the words "the president" in an article about the USA, since there is no such article and a redirect to President of the United States would be inappropriate. Dricherby (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I will NOT revise indirect links. HIDECCHI001 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal Attack by User:Peacemaker67

Here is what he was say to me: "fuck off you pissant little cretin". And he threat that he will revert all my changes as sort of personal vendetta: "I will track down every edit you do and revert them. That's just the kind of guy I am". 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

lol. From the self-confessed sockmaster User:Oldhouse2012... Good luck sunshine. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So? You still have no right to insult me like this. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice, in the diffs the ip editor provided, they addressed Peacemaker67 by saying You are totally pathetic, you pity little man. and then came here to report a personal attack. Nice :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Can hand it out, but can't take it. Sensitive soul. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not point. My personal attack was in limits of civil behavior. He used words "fuck" and "cretin". That is big personal attack. You can punish us both for insults, no? 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"My personal attack": this says it all. You do not have to use obscenities or expletives for it not to be personal. The rule is NO PERSONAL ATTACKS regardless. Both of you are outside the limits of civil behaviour here. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First, we do not punish; that's not the purpose of blocks. I'm almost prepared to ignore the NPA by Peacemaker: the IP is a blocked editor who is evading a valid block, and is therefore trolling Wikipedia. They themselves appear to have initiated the NPA-fest. Since they should not be editing Wikipedia whatsoever, their edits could be considered to not exist. That said, someone else's incivility may explain your incivility, but it can never excuse them. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you at lest warn Peacemaker67 or block him for one day or something? That is just symbolic punishment, but suitable for what he was saying. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I offer no excuse, tender Oldhouse2012's NPA (and significant disruption to WP over the last few months) as my explanation, and apologise for my ill-considered retort. I will strike out the NPA on my talk page. I would apologise on Oldhouse2012's talk page, but it changes every few minutes, so I wouldn't know where to put it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I still think that you should be blocked for a day, just to be sure that you will not repeat this ever again. Today you insult me, tomorrow you will insult others and then you will go to street to beat innocent people. You will never learn without symbolic punishment. 177.47.116.74 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the loudly quacking block evasion and the equally obvious trolling above, the IP has been blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Peacemaker67, you have lived up to your moniker by apologizing and striking, here. Very well done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Oldhouse2012

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

---

Oldhouse2012 (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked for WP:SOCK as per this SPI report. It's obvious, as per the above, that Oldhouse2012 fails to understand that they may not edit Wikipedia, and that they are evading a valid block due to their further edits post-block. Indeed, it's clear that their intent is to "stir up shit" by re-immersing themself back into the same issues/problems that they have always been involved in. The kerfluffle above shows another editor being provoked into NPA's - actions that would not have occurred if Oldhouse's socks were merely reverted on-sight.

Accoordingly, I propose an indef site-ban from the English Wikipedia for User:Oldhouse2012, with no chance of review for a minimum of 6 months. This de facto ban will hopefully reduce friction on the project, and is therefore preventative in nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support: the above pushing to punish another editor, despite the comment "First, we do not punish", show that this editor does not actually listen to what is being told to them in the plainest terms possible. A site ban may be the only way of actually getting the message through, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, especially considering (what with the, "I still think you should block him," comments) that this looks remarkably like an attempt at retaliation against Peacemaker67 for his work on the SPI case. Since Oldhouse2012 has expressed a clear intent to continue evading the block, a site ban seems like an appropriate step, if only to make stamping out his future incarnations a quicker process. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support based on his clear intent to continue to sock, as demonstrated by his words and deeds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - has threatened to evade blocks, so a ban will make it easier to deal with them in future. GiantSnowman 14:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - obviously, yes, for the socky trolly stuff. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per Dennis. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Somebody set him up the bomb Blackmane (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Sockpuppetry makes this an easy call. This pattern of disruption cannot be tolerated and he has exhausted the community's patience. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per Dennis. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
• This proposal doesn't make sense; de facto means "indef blocked and no admin will unblock," and we can't impose a definite time limit on an"indefinite" ban. NE Ent 12:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• OK, so what is it then? In 3 hrs 30mins we had ten ayes and no nay's. 18 hours later same same. What constitutes a quorum here? You all know what I think (ie terminate with extreme prejudice). There is still a huge amount of cleaning up to do behind this character, let alone the Whac-a-mole we'll be doing for however long it takes for him to get the message (which clearly isn't getting through). WP isn't benefiting from the presence of our friend, so let's mark time in his in-tray, hey? Waddayareckon? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• The editor is already indef blocked; there's nothing stopping anyone from beginning a clean up. It's appropriate to let the earth rotate at least once before determining consensus on a non-urgent matter allow a large cross-section of the worldwide Wikipedia community to comment. NE Ent 12:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

*Okazay... As you would be aware if you had bothered to look, your supposedly "indef blocked" editor has made numerous edits in the last 18 hours using IP socks, as you would naturally expect given he/she IP-hops all over the globe to evade the all-powerful "block". It would be nice to be able to freely revert his/her crap without having to cover my arse on every single revert, but never mind, I'll just get a kitchen sink and put my plates of meat up. You crack on son. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Whatever you call it, ban or indef, we just need to make this obnoxious socking stop by all means. Bwilkins is in the right of it; if the terminology behind the action needs to be tweaked, just do it. Jusdafax 18:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a de facto ban because the user is already de facto banned and the usage of the term de facto in the ban proposal is de facto stupid. I'm neutral on a de jure ban though. There's no evidence that bans actually reduce socking, but if it warms your cockles to formally ban someone, I have no moral problems with it. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm...maybe I meant "de jure" not "de facto", but either way, "de bullshit" has to stop :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - it couldn't be any more evident that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User targetting my edits

User: Ysfan has been blindly reverting all my edits. This is apparent not just from the fact that all of Ysfan's recent edits are unexplained reverts of my edits (see contributions log), but that most of the edits he's reverted are uncontroversial edits such as code fixes, grammatical corrections, and filling out of bare link refs. On Script (comics) I placed a merger discussion tag, then removed it once the discussion was closed. Ysfan reverted both the removal of the tag and its original placement. I couldn't guess what this behavior is all about, but I'm confident that any attempt I make to communicate with Ysfan would only make things worse, as would simply reverting all these reverts. Please help.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, let me show you what this appears to be all about: you were bold and made an edit to the article Ys (series) right here (I haven't checked if you ever edited it before). User:Ysfan - who clearly has a fixation on Ys-related articles, seeing as from May 2012 until January 2013 they only edited those articles - obviously took offense to your change. He then reverted (without explanation ... but still within WP:BRD), and went on a childish rampage against you on Feb 5. He then went back to normal editing on Feb 6. If you had approached them I bet they'd tell you that they were pissed off at your edit. This doesn't excuse their behaviour, nor does it excuse your failure to approach them directly, but now you probably have the story. So, what's your plan next? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should just avoid editing the Ys-related articles from now on. If he indeed "took offense" at an edit which fixed some atrocious grammar and removed obviously inappropriate phrasing, that suggests to me that Ysfan is at least somewhat unreasonable, and editors far more experienced with Wikipedia than I have warned me that attempting to open discussion with such editors will always, always make things worse: the editor will either step up his personal attacks, assume the debating techniques of a brick wall, or perhaps the worst scenario, not respond at all, and after weeks of waiting in vain for a reply, attempting to reinstate your edits will be considered by moderators to be edit warring. It stinks, but it is consistent with what I've observed on WP myself. Anyways, thanks for illuminating the situation for me.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody suggests that you stop editing that article...I do see that you had made the almost-identical change in January, and it was effectively reverted. You should not have made the same edit without getting new consensus on the article talkpage, even though your edit does look "correct" in face. If that consensus discussion proved to be fruitless, then dispute resolution processes can kick in in lieu of edit-warring. Nothing on Wikipedia is time-sensitive, so delays happen. However, if you attempt communication/consensus and the other party acts like a jerk, then you've taken the high road and will always have the stronger leg to stand on. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. NukeofEarl is a WikiVandal that was well aware of why this occurred having wanted to start an editing war with me. Him feigning ignorance and claiming he couldn't guess what this was all about is completely dishonest, but that is what you get from a lying hack! The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me (yes, without explanation) before it caught his attention, before he decided to monitor it like a hawk ever since and keep swooping down to excise and edit it... At least 3 times he excised several sentences from it and his "atrocious" grammar/spelling fix was to lowercase a job title and selectively declare comments "inappropriate" and self-references along with excising relevant links. Even his description in his edits were subtle insults. He waited a few weeks this time before reimposing his 3rd edit, hoping to sneak it by me would be the only explanation. Not exactly somebody that wanted to communicate with me to resolve it civilly. Since he was mostly excising the aspect of what fan translators have felt in terms of legality and what it means that a corporation actually purchased fan translated scripts, that was relevant/interesting information and history he kept trying to excise, not edit for improvement, so I don't see how I could've "worked" with him on that particular issue. Declaring yourself by implication to having superior writing/grammar skills doesn't exactly help either.

Mr. NukeofEarl, poor fella, claims pessimism in that if he had communicated with me, that it would've never led to a resolution. If the only resolution was him imposing his edits and mostly excises on my paragraph, and ignoring all other problems with the article, showing particular bias and animus against me and what I said in particular, yeah, I'm probably not going to be willing to let him have his way. But, having said that, how does insulting me here (declaring me unreasonable, a brick wall, even before ever speaking to me, and that I'd be the one to make personal attacks when he already made them here before I even got here!) and getting an admin to insult me as well, how was that ever going to "solve" the issue which he instigated to begin with? It's laughable. He only used this opportunity to report the incident and add further insults in addition to the subtle ones he made with his first edit.

You say that I would "step up" the personal insults, when you've making them from the very beginning! That's cute cause I have never spoken to you before, this is the 1st time I've returned your insults, so that's a rather convenient prediction, that I'd insult you back... You go on to thank an admin for "illuminating" the situation which is also insulting! Please, you knew full well you started this, NukeofEarl, ~3 times you swooped down on *just* that paragraph to impose your excises/edits to it. You've been monitoring just my paragraph like a hawk ever since you saw it and I guess you don't like a taste of your own medicine, so you ran running to an admin to waste more of my time on something that was rather minor frankly to begin with (not to someone with a grudge of course, as in your case)! Anyway, you might fool somebody else with the innocent routine, but you don't fool me for a second... Ysfan (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, perhaps NukeofEarl should have attempted to talk to you about the changes after you kept reverting it. Vandalism, no. Not even close. Just because someone makes an edit that you don't agree with (which was made in good faith and done boldly), that doesn't make it vandalism. However, when you also could have taken the chance to attempt to talk to him about it when he hadn't, you instead blindly reverted all of his following edits to other articles for no reason, which you have avoid addressing or acknowledging it as you shove the entire blame on NukeofEarl. Also, it takes at least two to editwar. SassyLilNugget (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Ysfan, please calm down. The situation was improving until you came around, with your personal attacks (calling NukeOfEarl a vandal, a "lying hack", etc.), WP: CANVASSing (here), WP: OR ("The paragraph in question in the Ys article was original and entirely written by me") and WP: SPADE. I suggest that you strike those offensive comments before the admins start handing out blocks. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins - Nobody suggests it, but it's the sensible thing to do. It's true that if I did waste hours of my life trying to get Ysfan to engage in reasonable discussion I would "always have the stronger leg to stand on", but my time, my peace of mind, and my freedom to continue making improvements to other Wikipedia articles are far more important to me than my pride. If my walking away makes everyone think I'm the smaller man, they're all welcome to that belief.

I'm sure everyone's asking "If you're walking away, then why are you still posting here?" Well, I had no intention of doing so, but Ysfan just dropped a novel's worth of flame-baiting on my talk page. I've clearly stated my intention to ignore the Ys-related articles from now on, nor have I sent any private communications to Ysfan, so my guess is that someone in this topic is provoking him. Would it be too much to ask that he or she stop? I'm just trying to resume my regular WP editing, and if Ysfan decides to go back to random reverting that's going to really slow me down.--NukeofEarl (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Actually, that message YSfan posted on your page is the exact same one he posted here on AN/I (an obvious case of WP: CANVASS. Regardless of what conflict Nuke and YS got into, WP: HOUNDING Nuke is unacceptable and has to stop. Not only is the user WP: HARASSing Nuke, but also WP: FILIBUSTERs and makes accusations of personal attacks (of which, Nuke made none). This user should seriously think about their edits before they become blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur and would hope that an admin gives Ysfan a politely worded talking too. I also see Nukes edit as an improvement and intend to restore it.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the insinuation of Alles Klar is; the comment I pasted in Nuke's talk page was the same one as here. How that is being declared harassment I find bizarre. Whether here or there, made no difference to me. He called me into this discussion by dropping the tag in my account and had insults waiting for me here, so I don't think you get to cry fowl at that - I simply made sure he saw my response (and he gets to excise it out, so!). NukeofEarl, I don't care that you will cease to edit/excise that particular article (you've been mostly excising it it seems), I only cared about the particular paragraph I wrote that you kept trying to edit/excise down. Anyhow, I don't want my time wasted any longer with this either, so I have nothing further to say if you're making your intentions known to leave my original content alone. Ysfan (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Ysfan's above accusation of vandalism on NukeofEarl's part is ridiculous. Ysfan's contributions, as far as I can see, have thus far consisted of adding links to fansites, adding poorly-referenced, unencyclopedic prose, deleting perfectly valid "citation needed" tags with no explanation, and basically reverting anything that interferes with what he/she has written. NukeofEarl was not "bold" in editing the Ys article; he was restoring a small portion of the article to some semblance of good encyclopedia content. Ysfan seems to have serious WP:OWN issues with the article Ys (series), and is now harassing another user who tried to edit that article in good faith. His/her entire edit history consists of around 40 edits, of which half are either harassment or unexplained reversions. elvenscout742 (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)Elvenscout742 tries to entirely negatively generalize my account over the issue claiming all I do is revert anything that interferes with what I wrote among other things. That happens to be the case with NukeofEarl and the paragraph in question that he targeted, but that would be the only case. Claiming that half of all my edits have been harassment is nothing short of slander. I was able to recall/find ONE citation needed tag, that's hardly plural ("tags") so again, an attempted generalization on his part (The purchases of fan translated scripts are verifiable on the company's website that bought them on that issue). I reject his claim that Nuke saught to edit the article in "good faith" given his approach as already mentioned above. He has mostly been excising from what I can tell, not adding new or informative content as far as just that article is concerned. I have not been in any further communication with NukeofEarl, neither has he, and claiming that I am *now* harassing him indicates you're rather late to the party. Finally, I don't claim I "OWN" the article nor is that somehow implied just because I reject Nuke's 3 attempts to excise some sentences that I wrote. Ysfan (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

How do you explain this, then? NukeofEarl's "excising" was, as far as I can see, fixing the tone of the article and removing questionable material that was unreferenced. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ysfan is starting to dig deeper, now accusing me of meatpuppetry for restoring Nukes (IMO) improved edit. There are some serious ownership issues here.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Little_green_rosetta just made good on his/her editing war harassment threat on behalf of NukeOfEarl's excises/edits and has twice so far tried to reimpose Nuke's revision - Just in the last minute. It would appear Nuke succeeded since he gained a previously uninterested party's interest in my paragraph who is now monitoring it like a hawk on his behalf. Dear rosetta, YOU don't own the article and just because you want Nuke's revision to stand to harass me given this context, doesn't mean I nor anybody else can't edit it back. FYI! Your ownership argument goes both ways. Ysfan (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a dispute that was very similar to this one a few months back. Another user suggested we both take a TBAN and IBAN voluntarily, to prove we were both good faith editors working in the best interests of the Project. That solution worked out fantastically. How about both user take a voluntary TBAN on the Ys video games, and agree not to interact with each other at all? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I opened an RfC since I get the feeling that Ysfan has the bit between his teeth on this issue. Let others chime in in this important issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems Ysfan has removed my RfC. I've restored it. If he removes it again, can someone please block him and then restore the RfC?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

LittleGreenRosetta, emphasis on the little, has continued his/her harassment campaign with multiple posts on my own account's Talk page (I responded a few times back on his/hers as a result) and apparently demands a ban for removal of a RFC that was opened for no other reason than to heckle/harass me on NukeOfEarl's behalf with regards to his revised version of my original paragraph. I thought everyone was free to edit at any time? LittleGreenRosetta demands his/her posts be free from editing or removal evidently and that anyone that would dare to do so should be banned. Interesting... Well, I made it very clear to LittleGreenRosetta that any further posts on my account's Talk page I consider harassment and that I find this individual rather disturbed. If he/she posts on my account yet again, can I report this somewhere? Can somebody be banned for this form of continued harassment ? Also, is there a simple ignore or block feature against a troublesome user like LittleGreenRosetta in the meantime? Ysfan (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Ysfan's removal of the RfC and given a clear warning that any further ownership attitude, removal of other people's comments, or attacks will result in a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have given Ysfan a 48 hours rest from editing the project. Their personal attacks here, on their talkpage, and in edit summaries have escalated beyond what is acceptable. Having read the original series of edits, now having seen the responses above, I would say that Ysfan simply hates any suggestion that their edit/editing is wrong. When Nuke made a change, Ysfan took it personally. Now Ysfan has a number of people telling him that their editing is wrong, and everyone is being attacked. This is not a positive sign for growth in the Community, so I fear the worst instead of better (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban and topic ban (plus mentorship)

After the discussion continued on YSfan's talk page, resulting in several heated arguments, I propose a solution to the problem: that YSfan have an interaction ban with nuke; and be topic banned from any articles relating to Ys. Along with mentorship, YSfan can cool his heels working on another project. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the topic ban support mentoring as mentoring would hopefully solve the collaboration issue.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic and interaction bans because that doesn't even address the issue. The simple and obvious issue is that Ysfan cannot handle any criticism of their edits; period. He went on a vandalism streak against Nuke, is calling LGR a harasser, and has gone off on me. Let him be an SPA, but he has to be a civil and open to criticism SPA - mentoring could be the resolution for that (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - as a WP:SPA, the topic ban would probably just stop them editing, other than to attack people. I think they should get a longer block, considering they appear to be lacking in competence and have written several personal attacks - the latter of which kinda makes me think that mentoring would be ineffective. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Long term POV problem and user in breach of topic ban agreement

User:HighKing was the subject of a topic ban concerning the removal of the term British Isles. Here are the details: [39]. He was un-banned after agreeing to certain conditions but is now apparently in breach of them again. This problem seems to go back five years, during which time the user has made repeated attempts to remove the term from articles right across the piece. Here is the latest batch, all from this year: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. The clear intention of each of these edits is to remove the term, but this is not stated in the edit summary. This one from this year: [46] is a repeat attmept from way back in 2008, shown here [47]. This is obviously a very long term problem where a user simply won't be told. There is much other material in connection with these removals. I just present a sample here, and urge action to be taken to deal with this matter once and for all. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef blocking, anyone? Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hold the fort just a second. Is he in breach of his current restrictions? RashersTierney (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

BlackPrinceDave, what were you doing between these 2 diffs in your contribution history, did you use a different account ?

• 2013-01-08T23:43:29 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles ‎ (→‎Suggestion v5)
• 2012-07-13T11:48:44 Orange Order ‎ (Rv. Discuss this major change first)

How did you come across the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles page ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. Just lost interest. What's your point, and what's the relevance of your questions? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevance is that when an editor with few edits, gaps in the editing history, an apparent knowledge of the history of a topic area under sanctions and the existence of relatively obscure pages, files a compliant like this that relates to issues covered by sanctions, there is a high probability that the visible editing history is not the entire editing history. This can occur because they edited logged out, used a different account or are a sockpuppet of a topic banned user for example. That is why I asked. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

When an editor resumes edits that resulted in a topic ban, that editor is subject to sanctions ranging from topic ban to site ban regardless of whether or not the topic ban is still in place. Since this case is unambiguous (removing the term "British Isles" from articles), I'm not in the least bit hesitant to ban the user and be done with it. Rklawton (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of lifting the ban is that he was no longer restricted from removing the term "British Isles" from the articles, as long as he did so within reason and policy, as he promised. Frankly, the diffs listed above don't show that he's disrupting Wikipedia, they just show that he's removing "British Isles" from articles, which is not enough for a site ban and certainly not enough for "Indef blocking, anyone?". The only diff that I would view as nonconstructive is this one, since Great Britain refers to only one island, not including the many others. Pretty much all the other articles were improved by his edits, and if you have a problem with that then AN/I can't help you. —Rutebega (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rklawton - I'm not sure how your logic works. What is the point of lifting a ban if they are still banned from doing it? Does it mean we remove their name from WP:CBAN but they can still be blocked? I don't understand how that makes sense.--v/r - TP 13:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Quack.

Jesus, not this again. Let's recap: When not topic banned from doing so, HighKing likes to wander around Wikipedia systematically finding articles that contain the term British Isles, and edit them to either remove the term entirely, or replace it with some other term or terms that he thinks is better. There are many reasons why this wouldn't ordinarily be an issue for administrators, namely: If the term was clearly not being used correctly in the articles (c.f. thefreedictionary.com) If HighKing is recognised on Wikipedia as a good copy editor or creator of high quality prose/articles If he was ensuring adherence to some established Manual of Style or other Wikipedia policy If he was restoring text originally written by him (WP:OWN not withstanding) However, there are many reasons why it should be an issue for administrators: If, to a dispassionate observer, HighKing cannot be considered an objective judge as to the appropriateness of the term or not If he had never edited any of these articles either before or since If he is not being upfront with other editors about the primary purpose of the edits If the changes reduced/obfuscated the intended meaning of the original text (c.f. the less accurate 'Britain and Ireland') If the changes are being reverted and then re-imposed by HighKing through edit warring If HighKing has a record of wasting a lot of community time with disputes arising from edits like this Even after the ban was lifted, it's clear that HighKing's behaviour is still a cause for concern with respect to Wikipedia's strict stance on the neutrality of articles and the motives of editors. Restoring the topic ban and upgrading it to indefinite is more than justified. Martin911 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the section above has been closed up, because it gives and excellent summary of the problem at hand. I find it very odd that, a) this user has been allowed to get away with the disruption for so long, and b) no one here seems interested enough to do anything about it. I've spent a bit of time today looking further into this matter and it's fair to say the disruption could be described as "low level", but it is persistent. I can find examples of it going back to April 2008, and during the five years since then there have been many attempts to deal with it, only one of which has been partially successful (see above). Over the five year period there have been hundreds, maybe over a thousand, removals of British Isles, much wasted time and a lot of aggravation. I take the point about the user impoving articles; he generally does, but with every improvement comes a removal of British Isles, and that removal is not the improvement. It's as though the user is going to great lengths to hide what's going on here. Primarily he is at Wikipedia to remove British Isles, and if, along the way he can improve an article then so much the better. Where to go? Given the low level nature of the disruption we could forget about it. I would prefer something be done about it, because it diminishes the status of Wikipedia to have this sort of thing going on. Any other thoughts? BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a breach of the sanctions. I have reviewed all of the edits listed above, and there is only one that I would want to correct: this one to Peerage of Ireland. In that case, neither the previous version nor High King's edits are strictly accurate, because there has never been a "peerage of the British Isles"; the peerages concerned related to the Kingdoms of England, Ireland, Scotland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. High King's reference to the United Kingdom is more accurate in scope, but it is anachronistic: when the United Kingdom was created, Peerages of Ireland ceased to be created (with a few rare exceptions). A better wording would be "refer to places in Great Britain".

None of this merits rebuke, let alone sanction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Current sanctions, applicable to everyone, state that British Isles can't be removed (or added) without justification and proper referencing. He's in breach of this. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else in the last 12 months who has added (or removed) 'British Isles' that you would like to report? RashersTierney (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User Norden1990

User:Norden1990 made several personal attacks against me, here are some examples: "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak"[48], "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Wikipedia is not should be the scene of the falsification of history..."[49] - this post is absurd false personal attack so I wrote here [50]. Some anti-Slovak POVs: "Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family. Slovaks had not yet existed."[51], this is interesting edit [52] and facts: 1437 Trnawsky (adjective), 1451 Trnawie, 1483 w Trnawie, 1512 Trnawie, 1512 miesta Trnawy etc., Bernolak codified the Slovak language standard etc. and now important thing - I used English term Magyar (see Hungarian people: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars"), but User:Norden1990 used Hungarian term Tóts, which has a pejorative meaning. User:Norden1990 mentioned my name also in his comment in Hungarian language [53] and his translation [54]. I wrote on his Talk page the Warning [55] according to his battleground behavior and this was his strange response [56]. Unfortunately he broke again 3RR in this article [57]. And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." [58] and here deleted name Oradea [59]. So what is the definition of "quality" for him? --Omen1229 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Omen, when you run out of arguments, you always report me. So, let's see. 1, Your source is invalid because it does not contain primary sources, and contains Slovak POV. You know, one of the main pillars of the Wikipedia is the NPOV.

2, Omen, you said about yourself in your user page that you are nationalist. Don't blame me for that, true, since this information is already deleted by you. Sibiu was called "Szeben" or "Hermannstadt" until the end of WW1. It is a historical fact.

3, Slovakia really did not exist until 1993. Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family which provided famous members to the Hungarian nation. For example, Géza Jeszenszky, foreign minister of Hungary between 1990 and 1994. What is the problem?

4, I did not call you as "tót". Magyar is a pejorative meaning in Slovakia.

5, My edits show that I write articles in the spirit of neutrality. I give the city and municipality names in many languages when warranted. Giglovce was part of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920, so your edit deleted an important information.

6, You can calmly reported, my conscience is clear. You are an extremist editor who are incapable of the slightest consensus. Your talk page proves I'm not the person with whom have occured problems. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

7, Yes, I deleted "Oradea", because that disrupted the integrity of article (anyway this edit was done by a sockpuppet). Since then the modern names were add to the other towns (Kassa, Kolozsvár etc.), so there is no problem. You also broke the 3RR rule in the article of Giglovce. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Norden - I don't understand your argument. Are you aware that Wikipedia prefers third party sources over primary sources for controversial topics?--v/r - TP 23:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that statement has only 1 (one) GB hits here. None of Hungarian, Slovak or English publications mentione John Zapolya as "Slovak king". The source says "contemporaries" called him "Slovak king", but does not mention anyone by name. There are no footnotes. I would not call it a good source (see also: Talk:John Zápolya). --Norden1990 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that even en.wp uses the "pejorative" term "Magyar" that is invoked by Norden1990: "Hungarians, also known as Magyars" (Hungarian people) 202.29.238.193 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was pejorative in that sense. But the point is that I did not use the term "tót", I said exactly that I will not use such a term for Omen, while he did this. Anway, who are you? (Although I have a hunch.) If you have problem with me, please register and discuss. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

2. "strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration", "falsification of history" is normal vocabulary and behavior of User:Norden1990 - no problem for him with these claims. Norden has also strange Hungarian POV called "historical fact". Norden, do you have any source about etymology of Sibiu? In fact: 1191 - entioned for the first time in a document of the Vatican, under the name "Cibinium"[60] etc - something about this name with this user is also here [61].

There is no Hungarian POV in my edits. You're trying to reinforce the misconception that the Kingdom of Hungary was not the country of Hungarians. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

3. You did not write about Slovakia. In fact you wrote about Slovaks.[62] We are not stupid here. Your arguments are strange. This sentence "Jeszenszky is a Hungarian noble family which provided famous members to the Hungarian nation" is like from the 19th century. In fact: family of Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary, as you did here [63]. No Hungary, but Kingdom of Hungary - multilingual and multiethnic Kingdom country and with the official language Latin until the 19th century [64][65] ("Hungary used to be a polyglot country with Latin as the official language until 1844." and "Hungarian: it was minority language up to 1844"). Kingdom of Hungary was never homogeneous Hungarian structure and this debate ended in 1920.

I hold my position. The Slovaks did not develop to as a nation in the Middle Ages. There were many Slav groups in Upper Hungary. Do not try to separate the history of the Kingdom of Hungary and current Hungary. The official language was the Latin, of course, but this was everywhere in the Middle Ages. However the people used Hungarian language, do you think each person spoke in Latin? Absurd assumption. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

5. spirit of neutrality - of course Norden :-D "Giglovce was part of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920, so your edit deleted an important information." Do you have some reliable source for this statement? Your last edits are very dubious POV[66]. In fact: It was not Hungary. In historical records the village was first mentioned in 1408. (So what do you think from 10th century?). Czechoslovakia existed from October 1918, when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire (so what do you think "to 1920"?). The Hungarian name Giglóc was used 1863-1913 (100 years ago!)> it was period of Magyarization + there are also other names + Hungarian ethnicity-0,00%[67]. You edited very sensitive issue, so please stop with your provocative behavior and original research.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was not Hungary? Then what was it? Giglovce (Giglóc) was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 10th century to 1920. As well as the entire Felvidék, today's Slovakia. I think nothing wrong with that previously used Hungarian name appears in the article. Since it has not bothered anyone except you. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

De facto 1918, de jure 1920, the Treaty of Trianon. All the same. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 has no reliable source, because it is total nationalistic nonsense, as I wrote above. His last posts are very dubious POV. Note: User:Norden1990 used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. In the article about Jobbik politician Elod Novak from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) is also used "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia).[68] And who created the article about nationalist politician Elod Novak from Jobbik?[69] --Omen1229 (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh my god, I'am a chauvinist, because I created an article about the far-right politician Előd Novák. Oh... wait, I'am also a green liberal because I created the András Schiffer article. Probably I am also a Nazi, because I made several articles on Arrow Cross Party members. I'll see what articles I wrote. I am also a Communist because I wrote about some People's Commissars from the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Felvidék means "Upper Hungary" in Hungarian. I could not say that "the entire Slovakia, today's Slovakia". It's just like the "Hungary before the Hungarians". This argument is very embarrassing for you. Please, don't hate. :) I recommend a quote from Miklós Zrínyi (Nikola Zrinski) to you: "Don't hurt the Hungarian!" --Norden1990 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

AE

I checked the archives and it seems there is not the first dispute between these 2 editors. Admin User:Sandstein talked a month ago about the necessity of WP:ARBEE sanctions against User:Norden1990. Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive781#AE.3F. Maybe an initial step can be to place User:Norden1990 on notice. In this moment Omen1229's name appears at Wikipedia:ARBEE#List_of_editors_placed_on_notice, but Norden1990 is missing 202.29.238.193 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

These anonymous, IP editors without any edits are very interesting. If you look at my edit, no reason to punish me. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 is an excellent wiki contributor. Just look at his contributions in connection with biographies. His work is high-class in every way. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Fakirbakir, Norden1990 is a valuable editor and he made several excellent contributions to Wikipedia. User 202.29.238.193 is *very* dubious (likely a banned user), his comments should be disregarded. It seems to me that users Omen1229 and Norden1990 have some content disputes, which is an absolutely normal thing. On the other hand, these disputes should be resolved on the appropriate Talk pages, instead of wasting the time by bringing the issue to ANI. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pejoratives

Could someone explain "Magyar is a pejorative meaning in Slovakia"? "Magyar" is used on millions of web sites, sometimes used to refer to the ethnic group, sometimes the language, and sometimes generally related to Hungary or the Kingdom of Hungary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Magyar is a synonym of "extremist Hungarian" in Slovakia. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. However, this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Slovak language Wikipedia, and it is not necessarily the case that the use of Magyar is intended as pejorative. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This is false disinformation, Magyar (or Maďar in Slovak language) is totally normal neutral word for HungariansMagyars in Slovakia. This term is also used HungarianMagyar politicians in Slovakia[70], also in official census was used adjective for nationality - "maďarská"/Magyar[71] etc. --Omen1229 (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Hungary in Slovak language is Maďarsko, Kingdom of Hungary in Slovak language is Uhorsko, the slovak term "Uhor" is similar to latin term "Hungarus"[72], it was a geographic category, regardless of language or ethnicity so in Slovak language: "Uhorský Maďar" is "Magyar from Kingdom of Hungary", "Uhorský Slovák" is Slovak from Kingdom of Hungary. The ethnic structure in Kingdom of Hungary[73] and in Hungary[74]. User:Norden1990 wrote above "However the people used Hungarian language" and facts: "it was minority language up to 1844... Between 1867 and 1920, Hungarian was majority language in the area of present-day Hungary... but not in the Hungarian Kingdom"[75]. --Omen1229 (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the context. However the bottom line is that I did not call Omen as "Tót" (former name of the Slav people in Upper Hungary, nowadays it's a mostly pejorative word), so this "pejorative problem" is meaningless. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the word Jew. Neutral in meaning, can be used as a pejorative.--v/r - TP 03:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

IP Stalker and Vandal

I have had an IP Stalker and Vandal attack my user pageUser:I am One of Many and talk page User talk:I am One of Many for the last several days using different IPs. Bencherlite has been semi-protcting my pages for the last few days, but now he is under attack and the IP stalker claims to be running an automated script and will never stop and perhaps expand his attacks against Wikipedia (see Protection).--I am One of Many (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Trolls say lots of things. I wouldn't worry about it too much. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not going to worry about it. He must have a sad life to spend it trolling.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Haha, how do you say, "look who's talking" in a more classy way? Some people spend all day manually adding intrusive welcome notes to the user pages of new members to inflate his "edit count", and go about drive-by tagging without thinking and then feel sorry for someone else. Fun! By the way, does the word Duke ring a bell to you? Monpoo (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed the contents of User:Monpoo? Voceditenore (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Right. Suggest sending this on to SPI to determine the sockmaster, then take it from there. This appears to be more than trolling. Jusdafax 17:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I just received a large number of emails via Wikipedia to my personal email account from sock puppet User:Dougie Bowser signed "~ The Duke" with other derogatory content.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is King of Zeroes (talk · contribs). I ran a CU and found a couple of socks, which I blocked; unfortunately, a rangeblock is not possible at the moment, due to the collateral damage. As a side note: admins, when you block a sock of this guy, please remember to disallow them from sending e-mails. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I expect most Wikipedians to be adults ... who knew they were "that kinda guy"? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've heard Bambifan101 was a kid, but yeah, most of the people who vandalize, from my personal guess, are people with too much freetime or they are really pissed at Wikipedia for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.101.25 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu

Hey, I'm a single purpose account for just this post, sorry, but I would like to point this out without getting my primary real life-traceable account involved:

Ping Fu has been attacked this week for her recent book Bend, Not Break which details her exile from China for her study of infantacide during the Cultural Revolution, here, on Amazon (forum), Twitter, and elsewhere. I suggest that this might need a few more eyes than a typical RPP, but her article would certainly qualify for semi-protection now as it stands. Among other things, the fact that she hired Mark Andressen at the lab where he developed Mosaic has been scrubbed. Thanks; over and out. ExtraInCase (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected. Some additional BLP-savvy watchers would be good. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears like the same folks who swarmed Amazon with one star reviews for her book have also done the same with the Wikipedia page ratings at the bottom of our article. First Light (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And this is why "page ratings" are a bad idea...the only people who pay any attention to them are the vandals. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, we should just go ahead and call them "votes." First Light (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'll put this article in my watch list and keep an eye on it, this seems like a massive vandalism magnet. I fear a full-protect may be needed before too long... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring sock

User:Chowhonwai, duck sock of User:Chowkatsun kelvin, has introduced what look to be deliberate errors at several articles, including George Harrison, Jimi Hendrix, and Paul McCartney (including, but not limited to, pointless violations of the MoS contravening consensus on infobox listings, and disruptive insertion of personal comments into hidden text) and has repeatedly refused to discuss the edits on talk pages or on his own user talk page. He has done this in the past, and has edit warred to reinstate his erroneous version of the articles. Last October he was blocked one week for this, and I now believe it is time for indef. While I believe he is a sock, I would prefer to have him blocked on edit warring grounds, as I have neither the time nor the energy for SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Both of his accounts should be indef blocked for socking Blackmane (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Chowhonwai (talk · contribs) and Chowkatsun kelvin (talk · contribs) should be indef blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9/Archive. This is probably the same person who was active in July as an IP at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 27#MoS vandal IPs. The common element is changes to infoboxes of famous musicians, especially The Beatles, that are contrary to the MOS. The edits appear to to be whimsical insertion of personal preference and churning of small details. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like time to clean out the sock drawer again. I'll post the results of my investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9 when it's complete. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC) ...and  Done ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys!. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Community ban proposal of User: Chowkatsun9

• OK, this editor is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, and is just as clearly using multiple socks, per the SPI. I would like to submit that the point has been reached for consideration of a community ban, to avoid further needless consumption of good editor time. Jusdafax 17:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per JustDaFax above, the user is clearly WP: NOTHERE and should be banned until he can show that he can contribute to the encyclopedia. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, of course. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, clearly a case of WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support – This person is here only to waste others' time. EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - EdJohnston and JustDaFax are correct, whoever this guy is, they're here to waste valuable time and they aren't here for good purposes. If this guy wants a spot on the List of Banned Users, then I'd say he's earned it. The last thing that Wikipedia needs is another Bambifan101. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.101.25 (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandal with (possibly massive) sockpuppet collection

I'm having an issue with an editor persistently re-adding incorrect and fictitious information to articles. I first became aware of the disruptive behaviour a couple of months back at So You Think You Can Dance. At first I took the additions to be simple good-faith mistakes of adding content which simply incorrect (or even that the information was correct and I simply was unable to locate an appropriate source, though I have since been able to discount this), but after watching the continued behaviour of the editor (adding the content back in from seven different accounts and making no effort at discussion) I no longer believe this to be a case of simple overzealousness. Rather this seems to be some sort of bizarre vandalism (though I can't fathom the motive) and likely not contained to that single article -- though it is conceivable they are simply oblivious or unconcerned with WP:Verifiability and WP:Consensus and the Wikipedia process in general. Regardless, after four attempts to communicate with them on the talk pages of the various socks and IP's they operate from over the last two months -- all with no response -- my patience is up with their disruptive editing and I think it's time an admin becomes involved. The various socks and IPs I have observed the user employing include:

User:Victor0209
User:Haodilolo
User:61.165.184.26
User:114.95.208.255
User:118.88.154.224
User:183.71.176.252
User:183.71.154.51

Because the above were all used to re-introduce a nearly identical edit to So You Think You Can Dance, I can say with some certainty that these are the same person for sure, but I highly doubt, given the user's willingness to create a sock to force edits on a single article, that this the full extent of their vandalism and in fact I've been able to locate similar goings-on for other articles which I am not typically involved with, mostly for reality shows with an international franchise (for example, various articles for the The X-Factor and Dancing With the Stars franchises). Of course, because the editor seems to change their account with each new edit and to have a non-static IP, I can't confirm any of this with certainty, but by tracing back some of the contributions of the above accounts, I have observed similar behaviour on those articles (most notably, a constant stream of edits by new users with only a handful of edits each). It is also notable that some of these articles have cross-over with the contributions of a well known sockmaster, User:TVFAN24, who was banned some months ago for prolific sockpuppetry and constantly disruptive/uncooperative editing, but I haven't been able to create a solid link just yet. Thanks in advance to anyone who can look into this matter. The sad fact of the matter is, given this user's apparent ability to change IPs on a whim, I'm not sure what all can be done, short of protecting the pages they are operating on and squashing the socks as they appear, but I figured someone should be aware of this person, if only to add these socks to the list (as I'm sure they're already known to admins under some name or another). Please note that I will also be adding a report on this user's activities to the sockpuppet investigation forum.Snow (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: After two months of searching, I've ironically finally turned up a source which confirms the content the above user wished to add, so it would seem that, at least insofar as So You Think You Can Dance is concerned, the changes were good faith. All the same, the editor's use of sockpuppets and lack of discussion while continually reverting are real issues, though I dare say that I'd not have posted this notice if I had found that source just a little sooner. Given that the page no longer seems to need protection I don't think admin involvement will be necessary, beyond addressing the sockpuppet issue and that issue can be addressed by the sockpuppet investigation forum. It's still possible that this user is responsible for other disruptive editing, but until the socks can be sorted out, I am withdrawing my request for action here. Snow (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Proposal Protect the article, block the socks as they appear and get a checkuser on the case as soon as possible. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Range block for Rovers Forever

Rovers Forever (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts - yet he continues to sock, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rovers Forever. Today he has been exclusively using '178.167.254.xxx' - is a range block possible based on this? GiantSnowman 20:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Still at it...think we've had half-a-dozen IPs in less than an hour? GiantSnowman 22:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Done--v/r - TP 22:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll learn to do them one day...! GiantSnowman 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking at this guy's socks's, I don't think this is proper use of one's talkpage while blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Good spot, I've reverted (after it crashed my browser half-a-dozen times!). GiantSnowman 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

And I have disabled his talk page access to prevent this sort of nonsense from happening again. De728631 (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Backlog of protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests has a backlog again. Could someone with template editing skills take a look, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Unknown IP edit warring

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

---

There is an unknown editor (see here) who has reverted at least four times other users in the last hours:

• Reverted User:Yopie: [76]
• Reverted User:FactStraight: [77]
• Reverted User:Cristiano Tomás: [78]
• Reverted Lecen (me): [79]

Every one of them for the same reason. --Lecen (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor hasn't reverted since being made aware of the three revert rule at 22:56, 8 February 2013. The editor appears to have taken the issue to the article's talk page (00:08 9 February 2013). Unless another revert is made, it would seem the warning did the trick and no further action is needed. --auburnpilot talk 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he hasn't stopped.[80] He has simply created an account (check the history log of both). Could someone doe something about it? --Lecen (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

How can you be sure the new user is the ip? Probably just easier to issue the new user a 3RR warning.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This new user hasn't crossed 3RR. I don't see what the problem is.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Because it's obvious that they are both the same person and someone who is offensive toward other editors. Isn't a single administrator who can actually do something here to resolve this problem? --Lecen (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just be patient. Either this user will clean up their act, or they will get blocked. And now that an account has been created, any new users that exhibit the same behavior can be reported as sockpuppets.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

In other words: you're telling me to wait for further edit warring in that article. Are you serious? Isn't there aynoe else in here who can do something to stop the madness going on there? --Lecen (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the page for a week. -- Dianna (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Dianna. --Lecen (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Rochdale sex trafficking gang

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

---

Resolved

 – by block as noted below; but helpful editors of all classes should helpfully add this article to their watchlists for the inevitable similar nonsense that is soon to follow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demiurge1000 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User:TharkunColl has three times[81][82][83] added an EL to this article, it is obviously inappropriate. I explained to him on his talk[84] that "kafircrusaders.wordpress.com Muslim Paedo Epidemic Map" is not a suitable source for anything. I would appreciate an admin taking the time to explain to him why it is not. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked by SarekOfVulcan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:LeaderforEarth1

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

---

I'm pretty sure LeaderforEarth1 (talk · contribs) isn't here for the betterment of the 'pedia. Their contribs to main space and article talk pages are bad enough ([85] and [86] for example), but this message on a users talk is a little much. Should any actions be taken at this time or just give them time and rope? Heiro 01:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Block Diffs clearly show this is a WP: SPA that has no goals of building an encyclopedia, but to add in unsourced WP: SPAM that blatantly violates WP: CRYSTAL and WP: NPOV. WP:PROMO/WP:HOAX accounts like this almost never amount to much good. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Couldn't be a more textbook example of WP:NOTHERE. There was no point in letting him run loose any longer. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

More like WP:TRIPPING  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Deletion of another's RfA comment

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

---

Here, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) suggested that, "since you seem inclined to continue to be personal and pointy, why don't you take your opinion of my comment, and stick it where the sun don't shine, sweetheart, it'll keep your head company". I removed it. Should I have done that?

My view is that my comments were appropriate in civilised debate but his were not. I understand refactoring his comment is, possibly, controversial, but believe it was appropriate, under the circumstances. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

BMK's oppose reasons were reasonable and you dismissed them in more than one place on that page in an unreasonable way with hyperbolic rhetoric (one example [87]). The issue of making a small number of deleted pages viewable for the RAN arbcom case has now been resolved. Mathsci (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken gave no reasons, just a blank I don't like that and it's dangerous, without giving any reasons for not liking it or it being dangerous. That's not argument, it's a vote. My "worthless hot air" was a little harsh, but true and part of reasonable, if robust, argument. His suggestion that I stick it up my arse was a gratuitous insult. Was I right to remove the insult, or was that inappropriate? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:WQA is now defunct. What administrative assistance are you requesting? Mathsci (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'm really just after advice. Do you mind if I move this to another venue, perhaps AN or Village Pump/Pplicy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The general level of your comments towards opposing editors there - at least a dozen edits towards at least 7 oppose !votes has reached an unacceptable level in my opinion and I suspect in the opinion of a number of others. Your are, frankly, annoying verging on disruptive and at your next challenge I would have brought it up until I saw this. Please tone it down. There are at least 2 dozen inane and frankly dubious support !votes which could readily be challenged. To do so would be seen as disruptive. You have made your support of the candidate clear. Badgering opposers has achieved nothing so far. Leaky Caldron 13:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It's called argument, Leaky. It's what we do here. Or, at least, it's what some of us do. Others just close their eyes, throw their heads back, stick their fingers in their ears and shout assertions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You might think of taking the plank out of your own eye, Leaky Cauldron [88]. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the whole thread instead of selectively picking one of my edits. In that link I was challenging hypocrisy by the candidate who had made a personal attack against me (observed and commented on by others). The OP here just badgers anyone he doesn't agree with and comes here looking for validation. Not the same thing. Leaky Caldron 13:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You reference a nursery rhyme synonymous with name-calling and taunting and then ironically "welcome" the candidate to RFA. The substance of your subsequent remarks translates as "Don't dish it out if you can't take it." While I've read the thread, there's no context that makes that an appropriate addition to such a process. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I turned up here to comment on a persistent and annoying badgerer where this RfA would not be the first time he has behaved in such a way (his block log is available). My behaviour is wholly irrelevant to this thread. Keep bringing it up if you wish, it doesn't alter the facts under discussion. Leaky Caldron 14:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think if you're complaining about the behaviour of another contributor to the RFA it's reasonable, if there are issues at hand, that your own statements at the same RFA may also be subject to comment. As regards relevance, this thread was concerned with soliciting opinion on whether Anthonyhcole's refactoring of another editor's comments was appropriate. Although you address this issue below (and I would tend to agree that he should not have done this himself), your preliminary remarks did not. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh well. While we're here, I might as well clarify something. I'm unsure what your complaint is, exactly. I have been challenging the arguments of some opposers (and pointed out to Beyond My Ken that his was no argument at all). Can you clarify for me just what is disruptive about that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You have challenged at least 7 !votes you disagree with using at least a dozen edits together with your lengthy, personal support narrative. I have seen an editor threatened with a permanent block for similar behaviour in an RfA. My opinion is that you are pushing things too far. All of the !votes you have badgered are well made points by respected, generally established contributors. You should respect their right to comment without repeatedly challenging them because you simply disagree. There are at least a dozen banal and a couple of extremely dubious !vote supports. Do you not find it odd that in at least 2 cases editors who have made hardly any contributions for the best part of a year and have never voted in an RFA just turn up now? Why not challenge them? Piping up with a well thought out rationale is absolutely fine, repeating your personal mantra is excessive (in my opinion). On topic, you should probably leave refactoring other's comments to uninvolved editors, although what you removed was a bit strong and targeted. Leaky Caldron 14:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

"You should respect their right to comment without repeatedly challenging them because you simply disagree." Here, you are expressly telling me that I may not argue with other editors. This seems to me to be contrary to our purpose here. For instance, I challenged Kurtis and (partly, I think, due to my argument) he changed his mind. We are here to change minds and have ours changed. Argument is what we are here for. I despair often over the ignorance of this fact, and over the ignorance of the nature and value of good argument. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's reasonable to ask admins' opinions here, Mathsci. I presume Anthony wants to know if either he or BMK did anything actionable. My opinion is they didn't, though neither of them acted any too well.

@Anthony: at least he called you sweetheart! But seriously, BMK's comment that you removed was indeed rude, and escalated the tone of the quarrel considerably. BMK shouldn't have said that, but then the tone of the argument at that RFA was already annoying and bad-tempered and niggling. He lost his temper; people do.

About your removal of the comment: as you may know, removing personal attacks is controversial; there was a lot of argument about it some time back, and it's certainly not policy. Compare WP:RPA, which makes the point that you need to be especially careful about removing attacks against yourself; better let somebody else do it.

I'll (hesitantly) accept your removal, but the way you did it was poor. Two things: you must leave something behind when you remove somebody else's comment. <Personal attack removed>, or the like. Secondly, you didn't remove it, you modified somebody else's post, on an RFA, yet, by removing part of it — and again, with no indication that this wasn't what BMK wrote. The much shortened comment still carries his sig. That's not right, Anthony. Please go back and indicate that you've removed something. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

Thank you sweetiepie. That's exactly what I was looking for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The proper way to address me as established by User:Giano is sweet pea. Bishonen | talk 15:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

How's that, goddess? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Very proper. It is indeed best practice to put a link in there for the curious. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC).

(ec) The policy page you point to is not clear on that point, in fact it brazenly contradicts itself; at the top of the page it says "Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor". Now, unless that's actually descriptive rather than prescriptive (so that its relevance to the topic is similar to "an elephant in musth may destroy inanimate objects in its way"), which seems problematic, that really doesn't fit with the sub-section of the policy that you cite, which does indeed say that in most cases editors should not (not quite "may not") remove comments about themselves that fall short of extreme seriousness such as outing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• BMK's comment was really ill advised, indeed, people have been blocked for less. But I don't think he should be blocked. Ideally Anthony should have left the redaction to an uninvolved editor, but I understand why he did what he did. The situation seems to have been settled now, I think this can be closed. Everyone remember not to comment on other editors and walk away when the tempers start getting real heated--remember, Rfa comments have triggered Arbcom hearings in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I knew there was a reason I stopped reading the comments and never did read the discussion page. War's over. Everybody drop it and get back to work, god damn it. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Starmagicxxx

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

---

Seems to be no one at AN3. I warned Fastfromlight (talk · contribs) for 3RR, took him to AN3 at 4RR, another Admin told him he was mentioned at AN3, he reverted a 5th time and I mentioned this at AN3, now he's reverted a 6th time. I'm raising an SPI as he is obviously Starmagicxxx (talk · contribs) who reverted the same material earlier. Neither ever discuss on talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring; happy to move to indef after the SPI comes back. GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Neither account is willing to discuss their edits, not the sort of editor we want. Dougweller (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

A Canadian governmental agency is editing its own article

Employees of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada have, over a period of years, done almost all the editing to its article, as recounted in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Financial Consumer Agency of Canada. The material included is agency promotional boilerplate and uncited, and is generally suspected of being copyrighted though we cannot always show this. I could find little in the way of secondary sources and stubbed it down in this edit. Now, once again, we have an editor restoring the same content, who has admitted on my talk page that he is an employee of the agency. I can keep stubbing the article, and my guess is that they will continue to keep restoring it. I don't know how others feel about letting part of the Canadian government write its own material here, but my gut reaction is that it sets a bad precedent. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The article looks pretty neutral and informative to me. What's the problem, exactly? I see a mention of copyright concerns here and on the editor's talk page, have you detailed those concerns somewhere? Since the information the agency is adding is highly likely to be accurate, may I suggest simply adding {{cn}} at the end of each unsourced paragraph? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

My gut reaction is so what? I completely agree with Anthonyhcole and his suggested approach, and I think it's about time that Wikiedia opened its doors to allowing those who know most about a subject to write about it, instead of chasing them away with spurious accusations of COI. Malleus Fatuorum 14:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

COI editing isn't against policy, although it should be approached very cautiously. A cursory look at the article doesn't show any major problems except needing more cites which can be solved with tags. As to copyright, I assume you meant infringing, since all the content here is copyrighted. If you can find the source, remove that portion then report at CCI if it is a major problem. In short, Anthonycole is correct. I don't see any need for admin intervention at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I removed the uncited material because it has been that way since forever, and because I could not cite it myself. And they just turned around and put it all back, perhaps slightly reworded. BUt whatever: if nobody else has a problem, I'll let it go. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If the issue is content, then WP:BRD, then WP:DRN is your path. But there is no reason for an admin to get involved, that is a content dispute. Content disputes are settled by fellow editors, no admin bit is needed at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(ce) I'd say go with what Anthonyhcole says. If you see unsourced statements, add {{cn}} tags and ask the contributors to fill in the gaps. As long as their contributions can be regarded as WP:NPOV and if they can source what they are editing, I believe WP:COI doesn't quite apply. WP:CORP is a whole different issue but again, reliable sources are the key word. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Chascharl

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

---

AussieLegend suspects that the above user abused multiple accounts, with that account being an IP, 68.205.136.58. Refer to this diff for more info and please check their contribs. Arctic Kangaroo 15:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Chascharl has been editing disruptively at List of Pair of Kings episodes for the past few days. All attempts to engage this editor in discussion have failed, with the editor preferring to edit war. I eventually filed a report at WP:3RRNB because of the edit-warring.[89] Unfortunately there has been no reponse in the ten hours since I filed the report, which has given Chascharl the opportunity to start vandalising my comments on the article's talk page. After I gave him a final warning he disappeared and the IP started making the same edits, with its only recent activity being identical vandalism of the talk page and removal of content from Chascharl's talk page. I warned it after the first instance about vandalism while logged out but after the second reported it to WP:AIV. Daniel Case has now blocked both Chascharl and the IP for a week, so I guess there's nothing else to be done at this point, although I expect I'll have to do it all over again in 8 days. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

IP adding false information to articles

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

---

An individual editing from the IP 24.159.181.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding false claims to various articles. The IP has been twice blocked for similar edits, the last block being for six months. It is obviously the same individual making these false claims so I reported the IP to AIV, but it was removed due to "insufficient warning" being provided. My thinking is that a six month block is all the warning someone needs. The IP has been trying to remove any mention of Anthony Mason being the co-anchor of CBS This Morning: Saturday and replacing it with the claim that Jim Axelrod is the anchor. Other problematic edits included falsely claiming that the Australian version of "The Price is Right" is ongoing, when it has been cancelled and that includes removing sourced material stating it has been cancelled. Unfortunately, it is difficult to suss out if all the edits are false or only a large number of them. This IP should be blocked again for a long time and all its edits should be reviewed for veracity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Otiscalms

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

---

Otiscalms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could somebody please block them quick? It's the latest Mangoeater1000 sock, and AIV isn't responding. (In fact, they're currently edit warring to remove the report.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

DoRD (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked the sock. --Webclient101^talk 20:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by 213.10.158.120

This IP, 213.10.158.120[90], has for months been systematically removing references and referenced information from articles, with no edit summaries or false statements like, "These sources are not reliable. The ancient sources explicitly describe him as coming from a Turkic line, which claimed shufa descendence. He was not a Kurd.[91],"I can't find any reference anywhere to a Kurd origin"[92]

Further unexplained removal/change of references and/or referenced information:

• [93]
• [94]
• [95]
• [96]
• [97]
• [98]
• [99]
• [100]
• [101]
• [102]
• [103]
  

This IP's disruptive editing needs to be addressed.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (newsection) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henkywijaya.1 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Very important and accurate, Amen.-----

MervinVillarreal

User:MervinVillarreal has returned and with it his disruptive behaviour. In particular over on Talk:World War Z (film). After an attempt to change the nationality on this and other articles, he was eventually blocked for Edit Warring, then again for Disruption, uncivil behavior and more edit warring, he was then again for longer for Sockpuppeting. At the end of his block he has returned on World War Z and first off going off topic trying to defend himself against his Sockpuppeting with little regard to the topic at hand. After going back and forth with him and other editors, I proceeded to close the discussion with the relevant template in line with a "no consensus to change" after all the discussion had been opened for nearly 2 months and had little comment by editors for the change suggested and the majority saying to keep the nationalities as they were. Any way, the editor then proceeded to reopen the discussion by removing the template several times

• here I closed/archived the discussion
• here he reopened the discussion
• I then closed the conversation again.
• Again, he reopened it.
• User:Grapple Xthen closed the conversation again.
• And again he reopened the discussion.
• User:Darkwarriorblake then closed the conversation again.

Not necessarily after a block again on this editor, but if an admin could swing by his talk page and give him a word or two so we can move on from this tedious back and forth that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 23:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I did, because i think you can not close a consensus just because have two months of being open, if the discussion continues, just continus, why not closed for 15 days ago when I was blocked? MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mervin, if discussion is clearly going nowhere because it's simply one editor railing against facts and better arguments, it's both constructive and encouraged to shut it down and move on. We have no need or desire to remain bogged down in a circular argument with one person blindly repeating nonsense until everyone else gives up. Your lone views have been roundly rejected, your claims refuted with simple facts, and you still continue to act the victim. Please do us all the favour and stop. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's also worth pointing out that I know for a fact you're aware of the three revert rule, as someone (me) already warned you about it here; the fact that you've once again broken it shows you have a problem abiding by our guidelines. GRAPPLE X 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mervin, use the : to indent your responses. It wasn't closed because people weren't paying attention to it because it was over and we all have better things to do. Then you come back after a block for aggressively pushing a jingoistic agenda against all consensus, reasoning and evidence and start doing the same so we pushed forward to bring the conversation to a permanent conclusion as you had been indulged enough, were being disruptive, wasting volunteer's time and you would simply use a lack of further response as justification for you to do what you set out to do by opening the discussion. That is why it was closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

User has again reverted the discussion. Which was again Reverted by Grapple X. Citing WP:REFACTOR which it would seem the user is determined to ignore. MisterShiney ✉ 00:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

oh right, because everyone thinks that I not have reason, "all British" that chance ...then it should be closed because I have no reason, wikipedia is so fair. MervinVillarreal (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I for one have NO idea what you are trying to say here... MisterShiney ✉ 00:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

He's being sarcastic. The discussion should be shut down because he's being unreasonable (this is from his perspective) and Wikipedia is "so fair" (sarcasm - Wikipedia is not fair).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, I thought no one would know. MervinVillarreal (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, Mervin, I'm not saying I agree with you; I don't. Your persistence on the talk page is clearly disruptive. In addition, in a related vein, User:SarekOfVulcan left a canvassing warning on your talk page, which you removed (you remove a lot of warnings from your talk page, which is permissible but in your case tends to support an unwillingness to collaborate). Frankly, I'd like to hear some acknowledgment from you that your approach to editing here is inappropriate and that you will change it. Otherwise, the only issue here is whether your behavior merits a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

my god. MervinVillarreal (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we take that as your not acknowledging that your approach to editing here is inappropriate and won't be changed, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible username violation

If editor returns, toss him at WP:UAA. Otherwise, nothing to see or to do here. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Jewishterminator, I believe, is an inappropriate username. I know the account has been around for about a year and hasn't edited in a long while, but we can't just let this stick around, can we? The username, to the best of my knowledge, could either refer to Naziism or speculation that Arnold Schwarzenegger is Jewish. Either meaning is, I think, inappropriate for a Wikipedia username. I think a block or usurpation may be necessary (Seriously, how has this been around for so long?). --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Or, we could WP:AGF and figure that the editor was Jewish and a fan of Arnold's movies.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) User appeared on 17 January last year, made four edits on that day - which were a bit dodgy, then disappeared forever. Why are you poking this horse carcass with that stick? The user is obviously long gone, and we can't make the username go away. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I guess your right, I probably just freaked out when I saw an inappropriate name with a talk page that wasn't blocked. It's certainly not a common thing here on Wikipedia, usually when you type "User:(Profanity/Euphenism)" in the search bar, it is either non-existent or indef-username blocked. Just startled me I think. I'm calmed down now. This discussion can be closed/archived/deleted if so chose. --Free Wales Now! what did I screw up?  01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC) His handful of edits should have gotten him indef'd at the time, but either no one took notice or no one took action. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CBNG-reverting ducks

I seem to have found some WP:DUCK socks who add the same text to a page and revert anti-vandalism bots. For an example, see diff one and diff two. If it's not apparent, the users are User_talk:41.233.63.61 and User talk:Bola George. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 02:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

RFA disruption?

Is this a suitable addition to an RFA? I undid it, seeing it as disruptive, but I am obviously not the best person to make the final call on that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• I see it as disruptive as well, but I'm also not the best person to make a call on that. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Frankly that smells to me of sour grapes... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

apparent statement of intent to ignore WP:DRN consensus regarding WP:RS determination

Apostle12, an editor at Huey P. Newton, after discussions on the talk page and at WP:DRN regarding the reliability of a source (consensus seemed to be non-RS), has announced intent to write a wholly new section that would appear to include this source. Talk page discussion is here and here, original material that prompted DRN involvement is here -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I do intend to write a new section, using various sources. I have not voiced any intention to ingore WP:RS, though I do not in any way agree with the hasty conclusion of various editors. This is the third attempt by editor UseTheCommandLine to attack me personally because we disagree, a pattern I find wholly intolerable. Apostle12 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal

IP User:69.20.167.78 has been making a series of vandalistic edits to Nordic gold, despite talk page notifications. Here are the relevant contribs. dci | TALK 06:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't vandalized after the last warning, so we don't need to block quite yet. By the way, AIV's the normal place to report these things, just for future reference. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I'm probably a bit too tired to be reviewing vandalism right now, and for some reason thought to report it here. dci | TALK 06:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries--happens to the best of us. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)