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

Disruption by User:Wer900

I'm getting really tired of being insulted and defamed by this user. Every time he has a problem with anything he finds some cheap excuse to drag my name into it. Here's just the latest example [1]. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's another thread [2] from a week or two ago where he again dragged my name into a discussion that I had nothing whatsoever to do with. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also see diff and diff of disruptive editing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 00:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And here's a link to another edit I just found because it was revdeleted, (so, admins only, sorry) in which he tries to drag me into a discussion of a recent arbcom ruling that again, I had absolutely nothing to do with. He has also been involved in a thread on "that other website" where they have been badmouthing me on andf off for about six months. "Harrassment" would be the word i would use for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• For a long while, Wer900 has spent a disproportionate amount of their time on wikipedia casting aspersions on other editors. Away from their content edits on astronomy and the possibility of extraterrestial life, their project space contributions have been problematic. I first became aware of Wer900 when the wikipedia notification process picked up a series of disruptive edits they had made on behalf of an arbcom banned user on User talk:Viriditas.[3][4][5] Wer900 asserted that I had "taken ownership of Poland-related articles." That wholly false assertion—inaccurate enough to be called "stupid"— resulted in an ANI report just three months ago. Wer900's conduct during the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case gave further examples of that kind of editing, directed at other targets. Several of their contributions during the case were removed by arbitrators/clerks and they came close to being blocked. The current report concerns recent malicious and unjustified comments on Resolute. These disruptive personal attacks on others, delivered with great self-assurance and no self-doubt, happen too often. Mathsci (talk) 02:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  ROFL! Well, if it means anything Beeblebrox, I am honoured to be held in as low esteem by Wer900 as he does you. Tells me right away that I must be doing something right. Wer900 is pretty much WP:NOTHERE at this point and he's pretty much cruising to go down the same road KW did. Resolute 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

And, the icing on the cake, that he is basically trolling Jimbo now as well. "Personal attacks or harrassment" ... where have I seen those words grouped together... some list of things... oh yes, it was standard reasons in the drop down menu for blocking a user. I don't think we need an arbitiration case here, this case is uncomplicated, and WP:HARRASS or WP:NOTHERE or WP:BATTLE would all do nicely as block rationales. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the club Beeblebrox. After I got an editor waging a vendetta kicked off the BLP of his target, he has followed me around WP for years using an alternate bad hand account to make disparaging comments about me on noticeboards, my talk page, and administrative forums. No one has done anything about it even though he hasn't been hiding what he is doing. It seems you administrator types only complain when it happens to you. When it happens to us non-admin schmucks, you could care less. Cla68 (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I was impressed by all the diffs, so I loaded them all into tabs and read them. The baloney is being sliced reaaal thin, so thin you could read a newspaper through it. Synopsis of diffs: using diffs of edits to the same paragraph, which turns one incident into three, using a diff where Beeblebrox insulted Wer900 first, using a diff from May (!), and using multiple diffs from the same discussion. All of these from editor talk pages, where discussion is supposed to be vigorous. No disruption to the job of building an encyclopedia. Pah. You made me look and it was stale cheese. →StaniStani  05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits making personal attacks on Resolute on a very public wikipedia page precipitated this report. As usual at ANI, if there is a wider picture, other users will comment. Stanistani's comments are not even vaguely helpful. That could be because he is editing on behalf of a site-banned editor.[6] Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the diffs I presented myself, they show a pattern of Wer mentioning my name in a series of discussions over the last several months. Not one of those discussions actually had anything to do with me, Wer just mentions me each time as an example of a horrible, corrupt admin. I defy anyone to say that's ok and we should just let users act like that. It's inexcusable and indefensible. We have dispute resolution processes for a reason. If he, or anyone else, wants to have a conversation about how horrible I am they are free to turn this link blue and we can have that discussion instead of just sniping at me from afar. If i am really so horrible, surely others will line up to endorse the validity of his concerns and whatever evidence he has of wrongdoing on my part. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no real complaint about Wer900's comments directed at me, other than to note my amusement at how he and his cohorts dish it out a hell of a lot better than they take it. But it is often true that those most willing to criticize/attack are least willing to accept criticism in return. Wer900 themselves has been in full conspiracy theory mode for some time now, and I take their commentary within that context. Which is to say, I was not aware that working away in the glamourous world of hockey player articles was "the right cabal". Resolute 14:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care about them much as individual remarks either and i doubt anyone gives Wer's conspiracy ranting about cabals much credence, but, what bothers me is the pattern of repeatedly bringing up my name in discussions that have noting whatsoever to do with me, as his go-to example of a terrible person and abusive admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mathsci: I edit here, at this moment, on behalf of myself. I noticed Occam's post, but do not advocate on his behalf, any more than my response to him in other topics is on your behalf, you being a banned user there. Don't create bogus diffs. People might click on them. →StaniStani  19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as bans go, my understanding is that Occam, who approached Wer900 on wikipediocracy in late May to start an RfAr about me, has not been successful in having his arbcom site-ban lifted. Stanistani is ignoring any problems with Wer900's edits. But in that case, why comment at all? Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, quite recently, Wer900 made edits right here at ANI that were quite similar to those cited by Mathsci. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive809#A new accusation, he announced that he and the currently-blocked Viriditas had determined the real-life identity of another editor, and it was oh so very bad. At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Genetically Modified Food Controversies, it all turned out to be a lot of garbage. But I do note that Wer900 did apologize subsequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize unreservedly to jytdog for that incident. However, I have evidence on others, which I believe (in my best judgment, after the jytdog incident) to be unshakeably sound, including one self-identification. I digress, though; Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have gone beyond the pale with this. You have been hounding me for the better part of a year now, I think, if not more, and are slowly inching towards the proverbial topic-ban button for me (I think you know what I'm talking about, I don't want to bring it up here). You are following the classic AN/I-dweller's technique—posting a large number of "teh diffz" in order to "conclusively demonstrate" that I am a "disruptive" individual, all the while ignoring the context of one of my statements.

Sure, my changing of the hatnote on Jimbo's page was "disruptive". But wasn't Jimmy Wales's systematic (WARNING: SITE IZ TEH BAD) hatting and deletion of critical comments even more so, especially given that Jimbo seems to "hold court" on his talk page? Moreover, aunva6 (talk · contribs) deleted my statement against Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which was not "disruptive", merely critical. Why was that done? If no coherent answer can be given, then I ask that that particular comment be restored to its rightful place.

I see more at work here, Beeblebrox. You are attempting to divert attention from Wikipedia's failings and channel it into cultic worship of yourself, your friends, and Jimmy Wales. If you want to take this to ArbCom for a show trial, then you will prove that that committee is nothing but the high priesthood of Wikipedia, performing sacrifice of critics and sending them to the Wikipediocracy netherworld. Wer900 • talk 04:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was tempted to reply to this, until I realized that Wer900's unadorned words were more damning to his reputation that anything I could possibly say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:Wer900 has to be joking if he's hoping for this to be taken to Arbcom. There's enough here for an indefinite block without any further ado.WP:NOTHERE. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I obviously agree, but in the interest of giving Wer one more chance to actually explain themselves instead of just spoutiong conspiracy theories, I wonder if he would care to comment on why he brought up my name twice in discussions of the Keifer Wolfowotz/Ironholds arbcom case and once in a discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the child protection policy? What connection is there between myself and either of those discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox (talk · contribs)—tell me what content work you have done for the encyclopedia; in your honest opinion, do you think that it is enough to qualify you for a position of power on Wikipedia? Regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, I commented on you because you were brought up as a potential party and because you are an administrator I have found, many times, to be crass, abusive, and undeserving of power, not unlike Ironholds (talk · contribs) himself. To the others, you are merely opportunists who have decided to jump on to the dogpile. Kudpung (talk · contribs), I do not wish to bring this case to the Arbitration Committee—as a word of future advice, taking the time to read a comment can lead to greater enlightenment on the issues it discusses.

    And to all, remember that my statement on Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s talk page was in response to (administrator) Resolute (talk · contribs)'s comment about "attention whores" disliking email because it does not give them the "attention hit" that they purportedly "need". Resolute's statement, like your own presentation of this AN/I, Beeblebrox, is nothing more than a perversion of the facts through the elimination of context— Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), the clear object of Resolute's ire, used a public forum to voice his concerns about Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) only after ArbCom tacitly made clear its laconic approach to child protection by failing to respond to his emails in any substantive fashion. Furthermore, Resolute's comment constituted blatant degradation of an individual; with that in mind, why aren't you submitting administrator Resolute to the same extraordinary tribunal you have created for an ordinary editor like me? Is Resolute beyond policy? Isn't justice supposed to be blind? Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • With regard to my "disruption" on Jimbo's talk page, I changed the hatnote on one of the statements in order to highlight his instinct to hide any uncomfortable comments. This is entirely incongruous with the image of a "constitutional monarch" "hold[ing] court" on his talk page. I linked a Wikipediocracy article, of my own writing, about Jimmy Wales's talk-page deletions (in the present case, of a lively, vigorous, and candid discussion), but apparently the light of truth is too bright for you. I hope that is not indeed the case. Wer900 • talk 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even be bothered to log in anymore demonstrates (to me at least) your impatience to leave yet another TL;DR rant. You appear to possess such an antipathy for Wikipedia I suggest you go and leave your comments on your beloved Wikipediocracy because what you are doing here and over the rest of Wikipedia is purely a drain on our resources to have to read through all your screeds and personal attacks. A preventative indef block would be the best solution for Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say something critical about Wer900's edits, but then I read this moronic statement, full of textbook smug admin bullshit, and decided that Kudpung and his ilk are probably bigger dangers to WP than Wer900. Can't do anything about it though, cloaked as he is in his admin invincibility cloak.

Wer900, stop dragging Beeblebrox's name through the mud in threads unrelated to him, or you'll be blocked. It's unfair, uncool, and unproductive. If you have a complaint, use RFC/U or ArbCom or something. Otherwise, complain about WP in general, not about one admin you're pissed at in particular. And please remember to log in, or some moron will start screaming "sockpuppet!". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Floquenbeam. Regarding Beeblebrox, I'm not "dragging his name through the mud". I've taken crap from him several times in the past, and decided, by analogy, to compare him to Ironholds in the recent ArbCom case (incidentally, there was a discussion about adding Beeblebrox as a party, but that ended up in nothing). More recently, on the talk page of Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), I drew attention to his massively hypocritical User:Beeblebrox/fuck off essay, which he disingenuously tried to brush off (Canens eventually deleted the entire thread because it criticized him, too. Beeblebrox deleted his essay, though he still appears to reserve the right to tell people to fuck off).

Kudpung (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), you have no right to critique my actions. You are typical of admins, focusing only on the meta-details surrounding the post I made—the fact that I didn't log in (that was due to an incidental lack of cookies on that computer, in case you must know)—and having the audacity to state that I am WP:NOTHERETOBUILDANENCYCLOPEDIA when you yourself have only 27% of edits in article space and 19% automated edits via Huggle. Again, reading my statements and my grievances is key. It is you and your ilk who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but merely to argue, debate, and create drama. Furthermore, it is evident that you have heard nothing about loyal opposition—the (anyway moronic) assertion that Wikipedia is not a democracy does not mean that it is a dictatorship of power players. I support the aims of Wikipedia, but would like it to have nothing to do with you and your friends. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), you are using the same WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics as Kudpung is using, and like him you are also feigning anger and disgust.

Floquenbeam, I suggest you get out of here. You are going to be confronted by the same persons who are confronting me, and you will systematically be mistreated and driven out of the encyclopedia you helped to build by these self-serving administrators. Wer900 • talk 01:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You continue to do an excellent job of making yourself look foolish, in fact, ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, in all honesty, I'm in favor of Wer900 being blocked permanently if they won't stop dragging Beeblebrox around everywhere possible. A solution might be either a Wer900 stays away from Beeblebrox in all forms, or Wer900 gets blocked. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Unsurprisingly, the answer to my direct question was more nonsense, with no supporting evidence. I don't see any reasonable way to reply to this continued defamation and harrassment other than a block of Wer, which I hope is forthcoming in the near future. Of course, if I actually was a member of an all-powerful cabal that would have happened already... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• You are not being harassed or defamed. He brings you up because you are a high-profile admin with a reputation for being ill-tempered and domineering. Perhaps you should consider why said reputation persists and contemplate ways to improve it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder how much of the the above comment was influenced by those Wikipediocracy goats. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 01:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol, "goats"! Honestly, the whole "I reserve the right to say fuck off if you annoy me" thing kind of speaks for itself as to why he might have a bad reputation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Remember that time you threatened me with a topic-ban, Beeblebrox? That also kind of speaks for itself. So does this and the "Fuck off" essay mentioned earlier. And this. And this. Wer900 • talk 03:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahha! There it is. I was trying to figure why you had such a grudge against me, thanks for clarifying that this all goes back to that. what was the issue again? As I recall you were rapidly re-submitting proposals for some sort of formal government structure loosely based on the same seperation of powers used in the U.S. federal government, and I said if you kept doing it I would... what, uh , ask the community if it might want to topic ban you? Something like that. And.. what, you've held on to your anger over that all this time, and done research into what a jerk I am, and these links are all you've got? seriously? Well, you tried again to make this about me instead of you. Anybody convinced by those links that I am a horrible ogre and an abusive admin? Please, look at at them and behold the infernal horrors I hath wrought. It's truly terrifying. Goodbye Wer, whatever happens I don't think I shall waste my time communicating with you ever again, but it has been mildly interesting. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn in favor of IBAN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Proposed block of User: Wer900 Ugh, back from break and this is the first thing I see? Clearly a block would be in order on grounds of the WP: SOCKing alone, among more disturbing offenses. Before things get even uglier, I propose that Wer be blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia, per WP: TE, WP: NOTHERE and WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support As proposer. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Comment by accused: I didn't "sock", I just forgot to log in. Nowhere in hell could my use of the IP, clearly referring to myself, have been an attempt to sway opinion unduly. I have taken ownership of the comments here under that IP, so your socking accusation is moot. Wer900 • talk 01:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Clearly you can see I struck that "accusation". The other points still stand. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Der Kommisar (talk · contribs): Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reported me for refusing to cease and desist in criticizing his demeanor as an admin. I had taken shit from him in the past, and then transformed that experience into analogies in the Ironholds case and later ones, using comparison. Beeblebrox, the abusive administrator, was used merely as an example of an administrator who had special power and protection. While you're at it, why don't you just name him as a member of the Illuminati, an agente of the CIA, and the leader of the Mafia. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Strong oppose as silly and excessive.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support per Wer900's latest rant above (in response to Floquenbeam), in which it's pretty clear Wer900 doesn't understand (or refuses to understand) why their behaviour is problematic. The WP: IDIDNTHEARTHAT is strong in this one. For what it's worth, I don't consider the IP edits to be socking, as it doesn't appear to be an attempt to imitate another user. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support - I believe this fracas has gone on long enough, after reading more data regarding the incidents. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC) **Whoever you are, why is it that your sole two edits are to this AN/I? That *totally doesn't* look suspicious. Wer900 • talk 03:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The guy who keeps complaining that there are different rules for different users wants to discount someone's opinion because they are an IP from Verizon and probably get automatically assigned a new IP every time they log in. Nothing ironic there... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) That's three edits, and my (now three) sole edits are to AN/I because that Is all I have to say. I speak when I wish to speak, I wished to speak at this AN/I. Once what I wish to speak is spoken, I shall be silent. Simple logic. 173.55.185.222 (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Comment rescinded. Obvious support per WP:NOTHERE. Wer's comments are being stage-managed for him by other users at an offsite forum, and he still comes across like an angry, unreasonable troll who seems completely unwilling to even consider the possibility that it was not appropriate to harrass me in the manner he has been. If I were the only target of this nonsense I (and maybe the community) might not care all that much but pretty much all he does is deliberately agitate other users, up to and including Jimbo. This is simply not the correct approach to trying to actually solve a perceived problem, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) So a police officer gets to act like a juror? What is this madness? You make further disingenuous statements; my comments are not being "stage-managed" at all; other users saw my case and commented of their own accord, at least as much of their own decision as Kudpung's and Beyond my Ken's decisions to go against me. Is any criticism now considered "harassment"? Has the doctrine of loyal opposition been revoked? I would like to work with you productively, but your demeanor on this forum has not been conducive to that at all. Wer900 • talk 03:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) (ec with below) You need to get over your terrible analogies. I am neither a police officer nor a juror, merely a member of this community who is being harassed.. by you. You get all on your high horse about my "fuck off" essay, when you are acting far more nasty and out of line than someone who just feels like sometimes, when someone is being a persistent, deliberate, pain in the ass, it is ok to tell them to fuck off. I don't know why I am even replying to you as it is obvious you are determined to stay the course, which suits me fine because, as others have noted, every time you speak you make yourself look worse, not me. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Beebs, stop claiming harassment and go learn the meaning of the term. You are insulting actual victims of harassment by continuing to count yourself among them. Some random person on the Internet mentioning your behavior several times as an example of the problems with this site is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support - When an editor under sanction consideration has significant contributions to the project, it's always a balancing act to decide if the degree of disruption is worth the improvement to the encyclopedia. In this case, Wer900's POV regarding Wikipedia is so clearly off the deep end, that the degree of disruption we've seen to this moment (which is not insignificant) is obviously only a tiny harbinger of what will come. Given this, it's not worthwhile to allow him to continue editing, as he is a net-negative right now, and will only get worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) With all due respect, Beyond My Ken, this is not the House Un-American Activities Committee. My membership at Wikipediocracy does not indicate any particular viewpoint on Wikipedia; our members run the gamut from Arbitrators to Gregory Kohs. As for me, I support Wikipedia and its goal of bringing free knowledge to the world, but do not believe that the separate-but-equal system enshrined here is beneficial for it or any of its members, and only find it to be helpful for a small group of power users. I have put up examples of Beeblebrox's abuse; this is a directory to yet more examples of his failings. I tried to refrain from posting too many diffs in order to reach concord with Beeblebrox, but if he wants to rub salt into old wounds, then I must do that. Moreover, why hasn't a tribunal of this sort been set up for Resolute (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)? His comment about "attention whores" is merely the tip of the iceberg of his incivility. If you want to try me here, then you must try Resolute. Heck, why don't you try Jimmy Wales for a blatant misrepresentation of his "open door" policy that I pointed out earlier? Is he now above policy too? I came here to write about astrophysics and astrobiology, and found the governance of this site lacking. I made some comments and proposals here and there about it, but you have decided to drag me into the depths of Wikipedia drama. If you don't want me to be "harassing" you, then stop bringing me into frivolous cases like this one. Wer900 • talk 04:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Wer900, I have only ever read one article on Wikipediocracy, and it wasn't by you, so I don't know what you're on about with that remark. My conclusions about your behavior and attitude are fueled entirely by your behavior right here on Wikipedia, and what I see is not "respect" for the project, but complete disdain for everything except your own very warped POV about it. (And, BTW, I'm not "feigning" my opinions, which you accused me of above, I honestly think that you are a danger to the project and should be indef blocked.) That's the last response I'll make to anything you post here, so please enjoy your free bite of the apple: make it good and cranky, please, so it'll be obvious to even more people why we don't need you here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support some type of block or sanction until Wer900 develops a modicum of WP:CLUE and shows some recognition of the problems he has been causing. His project space/public pronouncements are out of control at the moment. One editor removed his hatting and attacks on Resolute and Beeblebrox on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Before that, AGK removed Wer900's finding about Flutternutter and Ironholds from the workshop page of the Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds arbcom case. It is this kind of highly inflammatory stirring, usually irrelevant and often offensive and highly inappropriate, that is the problem. His content contributions to astronomy and extraterrestial life-forms (a topic not in urgent need of editors) do not outweigh this disruption. Mathsci (talk) 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Pretty clearly yet another attempt to sacrifice a victim for a bountiful corn harvest. What ever happened to the good old fashioned interaction ban? The topic ban? Nope, straight to crazy-eyed lynch mob howling for blood... Glorious. This is a productive editor (astronomy) who has dipped his toe in the drama tank rather too frequently in the past month. Measured response, please. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Interaction ban with who? Beeblebrox? Jimbo? Resolute? Kupdung? All admins except the chosen few? The "cabal"? Anyone he decides is against him or whose "governance" of Wikipedia is lacking? Topic ban from what? Jimbo's talk page? All talk pages? Wikipedia space? Everything except astronomy and exobiology? Practical solutions, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) See below. Jimmy Wales can take care of his own page. Carrite (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Unless Wer900 were to repeatedly present false evidence at AN, AN/I (or ArbCom but then ArbCom can handle that themselves). Quite a few editors (including myself) have experienced far worse things than what Beeblebrox is experiencing and when that happened were told that we should just get used to it. This despite that this typically did have consequences (like being blocked because of false rumors or otherwise restricted). In this case, given the balance of power, whatever Wer900 is saying can be ignored by Beeblebrox. He just has to say once that Wer900 is talking nonsense and he doesn't have to bother anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Support. Complaints should be brought to the appropriate venue. This isn't a complaint, this is a campaign of harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Not close to being necessary, at least yet. Also, going from a clean block log to an indefinite block is a pretty drastic escalation. However, Wer900 does need to calm down. If he continues like this he might soon merit a short block, like 24 hours, for disruptive editing or personal attacks. Cardamon (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If a user refuses to acknowledge that there are problems with their behavior, which you seem to concede is the case, a 24 hour block is only going to prevent that behavior for 24 hours. An indef block does not mean blocked forever, just until such time as they can manage to own up to their own problems and give some indication of how they would prevent similar issues in the future. Escalating blocks are appropriate for other issues such as edit warring, but I don't think they are the right remedy for a problem like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC) The problem with this approach is that it leads to crazy situations. E.g. You asked Coren to block me because of a dispute about a proposal which is now an essay. Just because I didn't see things your way, you called that continued disruption and you asked for intervention. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) Oppose. Sure Wer900 can be a bit strident, and he tends to stay focused on a perceived imperfection a bit too long, but looking at the parade of personalities on this very page, I'm not convinced he's any more block-worthy than the rest of us. Wer900, lay off mentioning Beeblebrox. Holster your towel. Relax and have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. For the rest of youse: If Wer900 is blocked over apparently being a misguided crusader, it won't look good that some of the case (see above) is cooked up from low-quality evidence. →StaniStani  02:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) As Newyorkbrad pointed out,[7] this edit of Wer900[8] criticized Timotheus Canens' arbcom voting using the language of racial segregation. Without evidence, Wer900 also accused Timotheus Canens of operating meatpuppets to rig arbcom elections. Those kinds of statement are unacceptable. Warped or evasive arguments will not alter that. Harassment and bullying (including outing or threats of outing) might be part of the ethos of wikipediocracy, but please, Stanistani, don't try to import it over here on wikipedia. There is no need for references to crusaders/martyrs/whistleblowers, when this is just a question of trolling edits. The diffs of Wer900's edits speak for themselves: they cannot be dismissed as "low-quality evidence". Mathsci (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) While I do think that Wer900 has gone a bit overboard with some of these accusation, ArbCom and some Admins have in the past engaged in underhand dealings. It's a bit similar to e.g. the US making accusations about Iran's nuclear program, this is also not all supported by evidence. But then according to the US, Iran cannot be trusted because of its past behavior leading to Iran not getting the benefit of the doubt. ArbCom and some high profile Admins who have been involved in AE will similarly not always get the benefit of the doubt from all editors here because of a similar cloud hanging over this system. Count Iblis (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I'd just like to note that it is the last holiday weekend of the summer season here in the states and it may be easier to see a consensus one way or the other once it is over. And on that note I am opening a delicious bottle of locally-made mead and checking out for a day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC) support, but perhaps an indef is a bit extreme. I say a month to a year, and then let WP:noose handle the rest. per WP:TE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:Harassment, and WP:BATTLE . the user has had several troublesome iteraction issues previouslly. however, NOTHERE doesn't appear to me to apply to this. wer has made quite a few good contributions to articles, from waht I can see of his contribs. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) indef after all, indelfinite isn't permanent, just undefined. the standard offer and noose cover unblocks well. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) The thing is, an indef block doesn't necessarily have to be for even as long as a month or a year. I think that Wer900 just needs to get hold of himself, calm down, and gain a little perspective of how he's been behaving. Once that happens, and he can say to the community "I shouldn't have done that, and I'll try my best not to do it again" he can be unblocked -- and how long that takes is totally up to him. It could take a week or less, or a month or something in between - that's the beauty of the indef block, it allows for a response to the specific situation, and doesn't set a hard and fast totally artificial number. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) You know and I know and we all know that indefs of perceived "enemies of the people" (vragi naroda, a Stalinist term) are permanent. Once indef blocked there will be a ready chorus to keep blocked, and that's the way that story ends. No, not quite. What this does in the long run is create embittered "to the death" style warriors out of disaffected, sometimes-productive editors. Some of the inner core of The Site That Can Not Be Mentioned have received just this sort of treatment. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Of course, the drama fans on both sides love this because it assures perpetual new chapters in the soap opera so they can play instead of working on an encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Your lack of AGF is ... astounding, and the assumptions you are making about editors' motivations show a disconcertingly battlegroundish orientation. Not everything is about Wikipediocracy, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Support - for some sort of limited block or ban, pretty much per MathSci. The behavior of this editor is clearly problematic and unacceptable. But we have a history of being a bit lenient on such matters, whether I really like that or not. Should the problematic conduct continue after the block ends, of course, then sterner steps, probably including at least consideration of a site ban, would be reasonable and called for. John Carter (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose - There doesn't seem to be enough evidence, some of the evidence is speculation, from the earliest accusations there were clearly two or three people involved with personal attacks, there is evidence of warlike behaviour from some accusers and there is evidence of possible long term history between the users. If anything, all three of them are guilty. The accuser, the accused and the "witness" who bared testimony. Greengrounds (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Cardamon and Stanistani. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose As per ~  TUXLIE  11:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose Per Carrite and others. Frankly I find the whole rush to silence any discussion of issues with Wikipedia disturbing. Very disturbing. Intothatdarkness 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC) If all Wer was doing was discussing general issues with WP we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. What he is doing is repeatedly insulting specific users in multiple threads without actually attempting to resolve whatever issues he has with them. Not the same thing at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC) That's your view, of course, which is fine. I see it somewhat differently, hence my oppose. Intothatdarkness 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC) So picking another user and deciding to mention their name in every discussion of what is wrong with Wikipedia without ever attempting to actually address the perceived problem directly is how we are going to do things now? You wouldn't mind if every time a disruptive editor was under discussion I chimed in with "that remonds me of Intothatdarkness, another useless user who needs to just leave"? That would seem ok to you? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC) My governance models, and now my membership and work for Wikipediocracy, are meant to "actually address the perceived problem directly"; don't accuse me of not doing that. And frankly, Beebs, I wouldn't care if I was spoken about negatively a few times here and there—for all I know, Teh IRC™ hates me with a vengeance. What I really don't like is the numerous false accusations put out by your side on this AN/I; you know what you've done. Wer900 • talk 03:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Please explain more carefully what your "work for Wikipediocracy" entails? How exactly does editing in project space on behalf of site-banned editors like Captain Occam figure in your plans? It is you that are offending others by unjustified finger-pointing, not the other way round. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose as unnecessary, especially now that an involved party undid a close by an uninvolved party; shameless. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Oppose per Carrite - Interaction ban = Problem bloody solved!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Close

Note, I closed the above discussion as no consensus; despite the fact that there had not been a new supporter of the block in nearly 3 days, Mathsci, having already expressed support for the proposed block, reverted the close stating premature conclusion. Monty₈₄₅ 14:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I have made a private request to arbitrators to clarify the claim of Wer900 on-wiki and Captain Occam off-wiki that AGK gave permission to Wer900 to initiate an arbcom case on behalf of Captain Occam. I understand that this is being discussed at the moment. My feeling is that Wer900 has been misled and lacks the experience to see matters clearly. I was and still am ambivalent about an indefinite block, since my view is that Wer900's edits at the moment seem to be confused. In the circumstances, it does no harm to wait for informal clarification from arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Close by non-involved admin restored. NE Ent 01:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent attempted to close the above discussion. NE Ent, however, is involved and has a serious conflict of interest regarding WP:ARBR&I-related processes. Earlier in the year he acted on multiple occasions as apologist for the disruption-only account Akuri (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). NE Ent did this pesistently when it was clear that there were problems with IP hopping before the account Akuri was registered. (There were two range blocks by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens.) After a while, it became clear that that account's only purpose was to continue a campaign of disruption through arbcom processes, indistinguishable from that of Captain Occam. The account was blocked indefinitely by arbitrators with user talk page access revoked. In this case Captain Occam actively lobbied Wer900 concerning his campaign and is doing so now. Please could NE Ent not intervene in what are very similar circumatances, while a response is being awaited from arbitrators? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and let it go. Carrite (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Since an arbitrator is apparently consulting arbcom over whether Wer900 was given permission to start an arbcom case on Captain Occam's behalf (an unbelievable claim), it seems sensible to wait for a response, rather than stifling discussion. Most wikipedians had the good fortune not to be dragged into an endless chain of meritless arbcom requests in the second half of 2012: most of them could be traced back to Captain Occam. So this is a good opportunity to nip things in the bud.

Concerning the original complaint of Beeblebrox, I agree that there is consensus neither for an indefinite block nor for a one-way IBAN + stern warning. (Personally at this point I think a very stern warning might be all that is needed.) The previous section can be archived; but this subthread should be left open. Mathsci (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, there's no consensus, and there's never going to be. Personally, I don't think Wer900 is being constructive at all, with their constant on-wiki abuse (they've got WO to vent, after all, so there's no need to constantly do so on-wiki) but I've refrained from voting as I don't know what the best solution would be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, those who keep reverting the close also seem to be involved. That smacks of "keep it open until we get the result we want." That's not a constructive solution, either. Intothatdarkness 13:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal: Proposed interaction ban of User: Wer900

User:Wer900 is hereby warned in no uncertain terms that the community's patience is wearing very thin and that future accusatory disruption or battleground behavior is apt to be dealt with harshly. In addition, User:Wer900 is hereby subjected to an interaction ban with User:Beeblebrox: he is not to refer to Beeblebrox directly or indirectly in any thread on Wikipedia, to respond to comments made by Bebblebrox in any thread on Wikipedia, to communicate with Beeblebrox directly or indirectly on Wikipedia or by email, or to link to off-Wiki comments about Beeblebrox made by Wer900 or any other person. Violation of this unidirectional interaction ban shall bring a block of no less than 30 days. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. Carrite (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  What about Kudpung and Resolute? What about Timotheus Canens? Wer900 made a prolonged and unprovoked attack on him.[9] These are problems Wer900 has with mutliple users, many of them administrators. Your solution does not address these problems. Mathsci (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it you read it again slowly, it does address these things. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Wer900 does not seem to have acknowledged that there are problems. So your proposal—a warning and a one-way IBAN with one particular administrator—does not seem to go far enough. Perhaps he might develop a little more self-awareness: that would certainly change things. Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• No real need to include me I was offended neither by his comments on Jimbo's talk page, nor by his obsession with me here. Though I did find it amusing that I kept getting pinged in this thread by him when I had long since moved on and was, you know, writing articles. Resolute 20:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If i thought an interaction ban would solve anything I would support it. And perhaps it would solve the problem with Wer harassing me, but in order to make it broad enough to stop all his unacceptable behaviors he would pretty much have to be banned from doing anything besides editing articles as everything else he does is disruptive. Of course I also strongly object to the proposer's comments in the above section, this is not a crazy-eyed lynch mob looking for a victim, Wer brought this upon himself entirely through his own actions. Only he has the capacity to demonstrate that he has some modicum of self control and can attempt to resolve whatever disputes he may feel he has in a more acceptable manner and he has shown absolutely no indication that he even believes there is a problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are not being harassed. Bringing you up a few times as an example of an admin who can be seriously uncivil without consequences as contrasted with regular editors who are dealt with harshly for even minor acts of incivility is not harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to look at it from the recieving end. Let's say every week or so when you logged in you got an echo notification saying I mentioned you somewhere. Curious, you click on it only to discover that in the middle of a discussion of an issue in which you have zero involvement or interest there is a comment from me saying "TDA is the perfect example of a terrible contributor to Wikipedia and he should just leave." You might ignore that if it only happened once, but what if it was happening about once a week, yet I was not pursuing any sort of direct conversation with you or trying to engage in dispute resolution, just bringing you up once in a while to let everyone know that I think you are an asshole. (I don't think that actually, but just for purposes of this discussion let's say that's what it is) How would you feel? Remember now, you are not involved in these discussions. You are not even aware of them. Your name has not previously come up. We are not currently engaged in any sort of dispute or other discussion whatsoever. I did not invite you to participate, you just get an echo notification letting you know I am insulting you without provocation again. How would you feel? Like I was trying to solve a problem, or like I just wanted to let everyone, including you, get a once-a-week reminder that I think you are an asshole? That my friend, is indeed harassment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually it is not. Even if the complaints were not legitimate as they are here, someone talking shit about you every now and then to other people is not the same as harassment. You are cheapening the meaning of the term "harassment" by using it to describe this situation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

We believe in escalating blocks at Wikipedia, do we not? Carrite (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

After writing that I checked. Wer has a completely clean block log. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Not sufficient per my comments above, and per Mathsci's comment in this section. When a single user has consistent difficulties interacting civilly with multiple editors, an I-Ban concerning only one of those editors is logically not the best response, as it only addresses one portion of the problem, and, further, assumes that the interaction problems are mutual and not originating primarily from one side. Wer900's comments in this very report are more than enough to establish that he is the locus of the problem, and therefore the solution needs to be more general, and focused on that user only. I might support a "reverse topic ban" which restricts Wer900 to editing only in the astronomy and exobiology areas, since his disruption to the project seems to be occurring only on talk pages and in Wikipedia space, but that's as far as I'm willing to go away from an indef block, so my !vote in the section above stands for the moment, and I favor an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support broad IBAN: Support unidirectional interaction ban in interacting with Beeblebrox, Jimbo Wales, Resolute, Kudpung, Beyond my Ken. Or at least a strongly worded suggestion that he ceases to engage them. For reasons of WP:ROPE this effort seems prudent rather than a straight out block. I would suggest that if a further unidirectional interaction ban is required at some future time that it would indicate that it is time to cut our losses. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Supporting newer proposal, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• • Such a unidirectional ban would merely allow these editors to continue to torment me in the same way that I have (purportedly) "harassed" Beeblebrox. All editors involved in this dispute should be placed under a mutual probation, whereby their interactions are monitored by an outside administrator. As for the citation of the essay "Give 'em enough rope", are you serious? You have no right to embellish its citation to make it look like policy, because it is an essay and especially because one of the primary writers is none other than Beeblebrox himself.

    In response to Beeblebrox's comment on my evidence—I do not hold a "grudge" against you. I am not following the usual psychology of AN/I dwellers. More than once have I seen your gross incompetence with the tools, and hence I have identified you several times as an example of a bad administrator.

    On my "obsession with Resolute", why is the AN/I madhouse not submitting him to a show trial for his not-so-veiled branding of Kiefer.Wolfowitz as an "attention whore", while I am receiving one for comments in response? Why does an administrator party to the dispute get special treatment?

    There isn't much more I have to say. Wer900 • talk 19:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

    • I see no need for Wer900 to have a unidirectional interaction ban in regard to myself. I cannot recall ever interacting with him in the past, and the give and take in this discussion is hardly sufficient to justify an i-ban. I continue to see the value in an indef block of his account, until he learns that framing discussions with other editors in terms of "show trials" and throwing around phrases like "gross incompetency" while simultaneously refusing to use the mechanism we have in place to address such alleged behaviorial problems (i.e. RFC/U and then ArbCom) is disruptive and not condoned here. His argument that his harrassment of Beeblebrox (yes, TDA, "harrassment" is indeed the correct word, stop being so unnecessarily pedantic) should be answered by a "probation" of everyone who has called him on his behavior is totally ridiculous, and a pretty good indication that W900 has absolutely no perspective on what he is doing. Such perspective can frequently be regained through an enforced time-out, which is why an indef block (which can be as short as it takes for W900 to regain his equilibrium) is the best option here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nothing pedantic about it. You have no understanding of "harassment" if you think someone saying bad things about another person behind the person's back is harassment. When the girls at the salon gossip about Miss Susan and her promiscuous ways, they are not harassing her any more than any person talking shit behind your back is harassing you. This is just another instance of a long line of controlling egocentric personalities on Wikipedia feeling that any repeated criticism of them is harassment and said personalities tend to be the most malicious harassers in the bunch.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • Interesting, Wer900. Given it was the anon IP that I was calling an attention whore, should I take your statement as an admission that it was KW evading his ban? Resolute 02:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You know the broader context in which your comment was made, Resolute; yours was a thinly veiled attack against Kiefer.Wolfowitz, even if the anon was not Kiefer. Nobody thinks that your comment was not directed toward the most recently banned prominent child-protection whistleblower. Your ridiculous assertion that the anon is Kiefer is truly Kafkaesque™. Wer900 • talk 16:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
        • These statements about Resolute are not based on evidence (one edit about an anonymous IP posting on a highly visited WP page). Nobody has so far agreed with your hunches, which are just prejudiced personal attacks. An RfAr is certainly not the way forward.[10] Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The arbcom banned user Captain Occam has given Wer900 more advice over on wikipediocracy.[11] As Wer900 disclosed on-wiki, Captain Occam asked him in May 2013 to start an RfAr about me. Since 2010 Captain Occam has engaged in editing through others to continue a campaign of harassment, which included his request to Wer900 and later included outing. Captain Occam has now suggested that an RfAr is advisable to handle Beeblebrox and "the other problematic users who are involved" ... There are no prizes for guessing what that might mean. It is a much better idea for Wer900 to follow Carrite's advice and to ignore Captain Occam and his enablers. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC) As predicted Captain Occam has now suggested that Wer900 should start an arbcom case with me as a party.[12] Occam writes, " you and I both know that ArbCom (and more specifically AGK) has given you explicit permission to do that, and permission to do it on my behalf." Occam's going cranky in his old age. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Well, since you claim to know what everyone else is thinking, I'm not certain what you need the rest of us for. You seem happier having conversations with yourself anyway. Resolute 14:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose one, it's double jeopardy. Original motion likely opposed. 2, if he was in fact guilty, he should have had the original punishment. 3 If he's not guilty he's not guilty and there should be no reprimand. There were other people here that were attacking users battleground mentality allows us to pick favourites and eliminate editors we don't like. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Recommend mediation.Greengrounds (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sadly, there is no "mediation" procedure. It's not "double jeopardy," it's an alternative proposal. Nobody questions that Wer has been over the line, the question is whether he will wake up and what should be done about it if he doesn't... Carrite (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose  TUXLIE  11:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Makes much more sense!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support As it will keep Wer editing constructively, while staying away from potentially volatile comments. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no valid basis for any restriction on Wer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not the right remedy. Wer can bitch about admins as much as he/she likes, but needs to be more careful with veracity and vastly reduce the hyperbole. Criticising (and praising) admins is a good thing. Pinging someone you're talking about - especially if it's criticism - is polite; but if you'd rather Wer didn't ping you, tell him/her not to. What you can't do is stop him/her from criticising you. The way to do that is to be a decent person. If you are a decent person, and there is no substance to his accusations, open an RfC and prove it. All I see here is a few admins bitching about being criticised. Realise, though, that if you bring on an RfC based on "Wer keeps criticising me", your behaviour will be reviewed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion has been made, presumably Wer900 has seen it. If you think he hasn't, drop a note on his talk page. No need to discuss this. Hatting
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ArbCom? Wer900 may have exaggerated things and may have made accusations against some editors that cannot be fully supported. But many of the points he has made do have merit, they do point to a serious problem. That's why I think Wer900 should start an ArbCom case. That would also force him to fully support every accusation he makes. I would suggest Wer900 to immediately start such an ArbCom case before some Admin imposes a block based on the above discussion, he'll then have immunity against blocking for the issues discussed here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) A curious suggestion given Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Beeblebrox remains a redlink. Also one where the absolutely best case scenario for Wer900 would be a pyhhric victory given their own conduct would also be evaluated. Resolute 19:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) It's up to Wer to decide what to do next, I think it's better to start an ArbCom case than to start a RFC/U because part of the community is already complaining about Wer's complaints. So, it seems to me that if Wer wishes to continue with his arguments against Beeblebrox and some other Admins, he should do so in an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Could somebody please hat this sub-thread? Mathsci (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) It's better to wait with that until Wer starts an ArbCom case. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints

User:Wer900 is formally warned to "comment on content, not on the contributor". Any complaints or negative remarks aimed at another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior are to be limited to the following two types of venue: formal Wikipedia dispute resolution venues (but only when that editor is the subject of discussion); and/or direct dialogue with the other editor initiated at that editor's talk page (but only so long as that editor is willing to continue dialogue). Wer900 is also prohibited from casting aspersions on any group of Wikipedia editors, whether or not any individual editors are identifiable members of the group. An uninvolved administrator may block Wer900 without further warning for violations of this restriction.

• Support as proposer. Allows Wer900 to continue constructive editing and to seek actual resolution of concerns with other editors' behavior; but addresses the concerns expressed above by other editors, and has broader effect than interaction bans with individual editors might. Note: "may" in last sentence of proposal is deliberate; borderline remarks might merit a warning/clarification by an admin rather than a block, so I wanted to leave room for discretion. alanyst 16:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support That's actually quite a smart proposal which effectively deals with the issue and does not prevent Wer900 from editing, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This looks far too much like a unilateral gag order for my taste. I'm especially concerned by the "any group of Wikipedia editors," which could be "broadly construed" by someone looking to block the editor in question. It also presumes that Wer900 is the only editor with issues in the above discussion. I'm not sure that this has been determined yet. This comment is motivated by the repeated re-opening of the above complaint by individuals who could be seen as involved. Intothatdarkness 19:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I acknowledge having seen this. I prefer my language; this is a mousetrap with what seems to me overbroad parameters — "casting aspersions" — which will almost definitely result in a block. Carrite (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - My comment above was an edit conflict with Intothatdarkness, who correctly points out that this proposal would effectively silence a consistent critic of WP structures instead of limiting the blockable offense to further attacks on "another editor's motives, qualities, or behavior," which is the actual problem. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I am sympathetic to this concern. My intention with the wording about casting aspersions on groups was to avoid a loophole whereby Wer900 could continue the disruptive grousing but avoid sanctions by simply not naming names. If that restriction goes too far the other way, I am open to omitting it or weakening it somehow. alanyst 19:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose No restrictions on Wer are necessary, certainly not anything so mealy-mouthed. Get over it people. Move on.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The accusations against Wer900 boil down to complaining about Beeblebrox, a lot. This is not hugely disruptive, but it's annoying. Wer900 should put a sock in it. If you sanction or warn for this, you should turn right around and do the same to any other editor who exhibits the same behavior—a good example would be Mathsci who constantly complains about banned user Occam. For the record, I oppose any sanction against either editor. It's just whining. →StaniStani  19:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment All the oppose votes so far appear to be by regular contributors to wikipediocracy. That includes Stanistani. Wer900 is the latest editor in a series associated with Captain Occam that has included Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2, Boothello, Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, Akuri, and Mors Martell. In May 2013 he agreed to start an arbcom case on behalf of Occam.[13][14][15] Stanistani, who perhaps has his own agenda, has rejected those diffs as "fake". Even now Captain Occam is agitating off-wiki for the same thing. As a wikipediocracy admin, Stanistani could easily stop that if he wanted to. This mess started over there. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Musing "... of all tools used in the shadow of the moon, men are most apt to get out of order." →StaniStani  05:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) There is no correspondence between Beeblebrox-Wer900 and Captain Occam-me. Occam is a highly disruptive arbcom banned user who, with Stanistani's acquiesence, has continued his disruption on wikipediocracy, including outing. Why compare him with Beeblebrox? After being recruited to proxy-edit for Occam, Wer900 made a number of grotesque and unprovoked statements about others. Why compare him with me? If Stanistani wants to make this kind of false comparison, please could he do so back in the Kingdom of the Trolls. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I stated in the AN/I that I would not start a case against you on behalf of Captain Occam, and I am a man of my word; I will not start any case on the topic against you. If and only if this goes to ArbCom (a process best avoided, so please don't reopen the "ArbCom?" section), though, you will be named as a party given that you have been the largest purveyor of insinuations and half-truths over here. Regarding the Occam affair, never forget that the edits I made about the case were to the talk page of Viriditas (talk · contribs), a now-blocked user whom I respect, in order to request his taking the case.[16] Notice, in the cited diff, that I never stated that I would take the case outright, asking for another user to ask as a safety valve for any imprudence of mine. (Don't go after Viriditas; he declined to take the case, in no uncertain terms.) I never intended to take the case on my own. What you reported me for, Mathsci, was the mere specter, the mere shadow, of a case that never materialized. Stop harping about the case and my "seekrit" connections with Occam and AGK; my inaction on AGK's email has rendered it moot. Wer900 • talk 22:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The only suitable reply here would probably be in WP:Bradspeak.[17] Mathsci (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I have never contributed to the site in question, so trying to tar every oppose as "they're members of that bad place" simply won't work. What I do oppose are loosely-worded proposals that allow for the easy formation of lynch mobs. Intothatdarkness 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I must have confused you with another user with a similar name. Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Why are you bringing me up again? I've avoided you since the beginning of this year, but you're still talking about me. I do not like my name being brought up in discussions that no longer concern me. I think everyone else is tired of hearing your theories about this, and they don't seem to be getting any traction with arbitrators anymore. For example I see that when you tagged Mors Martell as a sock puppet, [18] an arbitrator removed the tag. [19] -SightWatcher (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The thing that Wer needs to stop is "battleground behavior involving attacks upon any other editor's motives or qualities." I don't personally think this even needs to be spelled out (I just strongly hint at this in my language) — but if one were trying to spell it out in no uncertain terms, that's how I would spell it out. I also think that a formal one-way interaction ban between Wer and Beeblebrox is called for, seeing that he is the complainant. Carrite (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is unnecessary. The thread was already closed as 'no consensus' by an uninvolved admin, and I'm sure Wer is well aware that their future comments will be subject to close scrutiny from others. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 20:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• support: hopefully, it will get Wer to stop and consider his actions and comments. this does not prohibit him from commenting on RFC/U's or any of the notice boards ( and if it does, it need to be rephrased). also does not prohibit content discussion on talk pages. it only prohibits him from making comments that could reasonable be interpreted as personal attacks or harassment. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, especially since it is not just a question of what Wer has said about Beebelbrox, but part of a larger pattern of behavior. The admonition to limit complaints about other editors to only the proper venues is a very good one for anybody, not just Wer. However, that said, it's painfully obvious to me that ANI is incapable of effecting these kinds of proposals, and that the broader issue of aspersion-casting is going to wind up at ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per IRWolfie- and Tryptofish. Wer900 needs to get back to content editing and stop making the problematic comments that led to this report. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support An effective, sensible, and pretty watered down compromise. I'm amazed that anyone is still against this. This sort of nonsense is why our one of our core policies has turned into an unenforceable empty promise. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. We should all stick to this, it's just that we usually don't enforce violations of this, because it's not always clear what is a violation and what not. So, I would be in favor of first asking Wer900 if he is willing to voluntarily stick to this, which in practice means that he will not persue his arguments against Beeblebrox in the way he has been doing. The problem with imposing this restriction on him is that it could be used, say 4 years from now in some completely unrelated issue where he would legitimately raise a problem on e.g. Jimbo's page. Take e.g. Sceptre's recent blocks for posting on Jimbo's page even when Jimbo said that she should not have been blocked for bringing a problem to his attention. Count Iblis (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment above. Wer may criticise or praise admins. What Wer must do is get better at it. Wer, you must slow down and be much more careful with your claims, and more discriminating about where you make them. If you don't improve in those regards, I'll support some kind of constraint next time this comes up.

I see you're being urged to request arbitration. That would be a mistake. If you think Beeblebrox (whom I don't know from Adam) is a problem to the project, then the best thing you could do would be to build a clear, concise but comprehensive case and open an RfC to see what the editor community thinks. If your case is convincing, the community can handle the problem with some carefully targeted restrictions addressing Beeblebrox's specific areas of concern. If that is unsuccessful, and you still think some kind of restrictions would be appropriate, then is the time to request arbitration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Beeblebrox has made this comment on his userpage when he was notified about this proposal by alanyst. Needless to say, there is no ArbCom case being "concocted" by Wer and me, I do agree with what Anthonyhcole says above about going to ArbCom. I did make the suggestion that Wer could consider going to ArbCom right away, but that was assuming that he wants to persue an issue that the community has little patience for (you then do have to consider why ArbCom would want to hear the case, of course). Count Iblis (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per nom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much, too broad. Wer does need to stop gratuously invoking and linking Beeblebrox's name as some sort of example of all that is wrong with Wikipedia. NE Ent 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• How, exactly, do you plan on stopping him from doing that without some sort of sanction? Do you think making your disagreement with his actions known is sufficient to do that? Perhaps a very stern warning will do the trick? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• He has already agreed to stop, and just look at his reply to Beeblebrox's comment on Wer's talk page. Just consider some editor using similar words as Beeblebrox posting on someone else's talk page with a request like that. How does Wer's response compare with what you would typically expect in such a case? So, if pooring gasoline on an object isn't leading to a big fire, it's a safe bet that there is no fire there, therefore no need to call in the fire fighters, at most you could think of talking to the person who has been accidentally spilling gasoline but only at the right venue , of course :) . Count Iblis (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone could propose a more narrow sanction, line up the votes etc. etc. It's been my observation that, after an editors actions have been discussed to this extent in an ANI thread, a recurrence will be dealt with fairly quickly. As this path requires far less work for everyone or at least me, it works for me. NE Ent 02:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Continued policy violations from User:TonyTheTiger at WT:FOUR (close requested)

• I know, we're tired of reading these. However, over the past two days Tony has not only edited another user's talk page comments (diff), which fortunately he has not repeated, but implicitly accused editors who disagree with him with be racists (i.e. personal attacks). He uses the term five times in describing a proposed closure with which he disagrees, implying that the editor who formulated the suggested closure (Cdtew) is racist. One of the most telling quotes from this is

"Item 1 of the above closure goes way beyond any non-racist interpretation "Should this project's criteria (and the eligibility of articles for those criteria) be determined by community consensus or by an elected project director?" Yes there is consensus not to have the director determine the criteria, but how racist do you have to be to say that means there is consensus that the director/leader will be relieved of all other responsibilities.

When challenged to support his PAs with diffs, his reply was "Racism in this case is like pornography. I know it when I see it.", with a lengthy diatribe against the proposed closure which seems to imply other editors are likewise racists: "They have cleverly waited until after the traffic from the less involved participants has died down before making their outlandish suggestions." When given a final warning, his reply was "I don't know what else to call it. I could say that everybody is playing dumb if you want". Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular, he has yet to provide any support for his claims that the opposition he faces is racism.

Could we please have a non-involved admin deal out the necessary reprimanding? I'm too involved with the WP:FOUR issues to do any blocking or otherwise use the admin tools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who said this "Though Tony may be right that the proposed closure is irregular"?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• That was me. Don't split up my post. Irregular here should be read as "not according to current consensus on the process", not as "there is ill-dealings going on", and "may" is "perhaps". You raise a fairly decent point, but immediately render it moot by playing the race card. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me or does Tony appear to have a complete lack of clue as to the use of the term "racist"? I remember a thread some years ago where Tony made the same accusations of racism again using his complete misinterpretation of the word. However, when challenged on it, he'd obfuscate as to his definition of it thus leaving participants unwilling/unable to sanction him for what is a personal attack in every way, shape or form. Quite frankly, regardless of his interpretation, the litany of racism accusations should be grounds for a block of some sort. Blackmane (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, like I said. You can read the RFC, it asks two questions. You want to expand it to grant you permission to change the administration of WP:FOUR around in all other ways. It was an RFC about one element of my claimed director role and you want to use it to usurp all other roles. You have been playing games for a month trying all kinds of administrative actions to put pressure on me for this and that. You have failed at several MFDs and now you have baited me into actions at the current RFC by pretending not to understand what it was about and pretending not to know what an appropriate close is based on the questions put up for discussion. If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not. No amount of reprimanding will ever silence this portion of my personality. Stop pretending not to know how to read in an attempt to bait my into another ANI.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

?!? How in the world is he acting as a racist? Please, illuminate us to your thought process here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you need to define your meaning of "racist". Are you saying that Crisco is making some sort of biased judgement against based on your ethnicity? Blackmane (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that's what he means. Odd, being called a racist after all the articles I've written on non-white subjects (significantly more than articles I've written on white subjects). Seriously, is that not a blatant enough PA for Tony to be blocked to calm down? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Racism isn't limited to "non-whites".--v/r - TP 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm - I have seen some stupidity over at WP:FOUR but this just has to be by far the most stupid remark from TTT that I have EVER seen! They seem to be trying to play EVERY card and cling to EVERY straw to stay in "power" as director of WP:FOUR but it's just not working. If anyone wants to revive a topic ban discussion then go right ahead... I just looked in the mirror and my face is probably going to bruise! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 09:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who acknowledged that the suggested close at FOUR was irregular?---TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Who keeps on trying to FORCE editors to stick to a "my way or the highway" mentality? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord, here is something for you to think about: Who has done more to maintain the Four Award? You or Tony? I'm guessing it is Tony. That leads me to another question: Why did you take it upon yourself to rip the project away from the user who has done so much of the maintenance work there? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a question for you, AS. What's with assuming bad faith? Panther and Cdtew only began to be involved with the discussion after Tony's last trip to ANI, and neither seem to be specifically targetting Tony. They want to reach a community consensus, as required by policy, and not have any individual with ownership issues abuse other editors for sport. I don't think either have a personal grudge against Tony, and if (for instance) I were in Tony's position and acting as Tony has acted they would still act the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, here I am, waking up and reading the news and Wikipedia, and I find that I've been accused five times of being a racist. I'm not quite sure where the accusation stems from (unless "self-appointed Four Award director" is a race, in which case I suppose I'm guilty). TTT, I don't know if you're white, black, asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, hispanic, time lord, Dalek, dog, cat, or a who from Whoville. Nothing that's I'm aware of wold even suggest to me what your race is. I have never made a single comment that casts aspersions on anyone due to their race, and I am personally deeply offended at your accusation. It appears to me that you are yet again resorting to senseless distractions because you're clearly losing the RfC. I ask an Administrator to take some form of action against Toney because I simply won't stand him slandering my name further. (FYI, I warned him about altering my comments on his talk several days ago). This occurred thereafter. Cdtew (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me also add, I was a completely uninvolved editor until I (perhaps stupidly) tried to come up with what I thought was a common sense resolution. I've never had more than a sentence of interaction with TTT before this, and have never made a personal attack on him. In fact, I've defended him from personal attacks! . Cdtew (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• I second the request to have sanctions brought against Tony for this series of egregious personal attacks. I do not take false accusations of racism lightly, and view it as no less a personal attack than any of the words filtered on most talk boards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• When I read the latest changes on the RFC myself, I wondered what to do about it. I agree TTT is completely overboard with his accusations. He is also stonewalling the discussion about closing the RFC. Tony is absolutely welcome to hold any position in any RFC. But vehemently opposing any close that does not agree with his reading is crossing the line. I support a topic ban for editing anything related to the FOUR award for at least the duration of the current AfC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban for FOUR award. Last time I argued that TTT should be given a third chance despite his previous block for edit-warring and then his massive canvassing and accusations of bad-faith. Only days ago after he tried to ping me back into the discussion, I urged him again to disengage for a while. It seems clear at this point, though, that he's either unwilling or unable to behave himself in basic ways, and is going to continue to keep finding new ways to cause drama the situation until banned from the page. There was no reason for a user page icon to turn into WWIII; we need to start de-escalating. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Disruptive behaviour / personal attacks by TTT again, throwing around the word "racist" completely inappropriately, as he did in June 2012, which led to a block for 48 hours. AN link, TTT talk page link. Instead of backing down when the matter is brought to ANI, TTT keeps going: "If you act as a racist, I will call you one whether I can prove it or not." This is well over the line and I am blocking TTT for a further 48 hours. Bencherlite^Talk 12:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block I was actually about to do it myself, but indefinite. I would have blocked TTT until he either identified which remarks were racist, what his definition of racism is, or retracted the remarks.--v/r - TP 12:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse block I've been thinking about indefinitely blocking Tony too. I'd support the block being extended if no progress is made in resolving this clusterfuck in the next 48 hours. The behaviour over WP:FOUR is getting to the stage where it's going to deter editors from creating content if they feel they're going to be dragged into messy drama about awards when they're quite content editing, making good content and avoiding the usual drama areas (i.e here). Nick (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Observation – the only reason I know TTT's race is because Crisco has chosen to nominate for deletion a page about Tony in his user space whilst also in conflict with him at WT:FOUR. Tony's racism comments were over the top and likely reflect that he has been subject to racism offline, but I think Crisco has contributed to Tony feeling that he is being attacked. Tony has been treated badly in the FOUR discussion, which does not excuse or justify his comments, but it does explain his frustration. Maybe some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion might lead to some of Tony's valid points being recognised and separated from the unreasonable posts. EdChem (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem: First, the racism comment was directed at me. Second -- "some genuinely unbiased and dispassionate eyes on the FOUR discussion" -- begs that you review my contributions to the discussion, which I believe were entirely fair and neutral. I've never had a cross word with Tony or Crisco, and Tony awarded me the Four Award for Fort Dobbs (North Carolina), while I've had limited interaction with Crisco, but all very positive (off the top of my head) -- so I thought highly of both prior hereto. I called out other users for attacking Tony, I recognized that he was right about the first proposal and my first alternate proposal being a little off-base (hence the striking-through), and then I get my comments edited and called a racist. That sort of capricious nonsensical battleground behavior is why Tony has no excuse for what he's done, regardless of his race, color, creed, or gender. Cdtew (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Cdtew:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top and I will not attempt to justify or excuse his actions. Your contribution has been much better than most and I was not seeking to criticise you. Unfortunately, most contributors have declined to recognise the validity of anything Tony has written, which has not helped to produce a reasonable outcome. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem:: I had no knowledge of Tony's race until I stumbled across that user page (after looking through his user space, piqued by his comments about racism), and the MFD came not long after that for reasons that I've outlined there. I think Cdtew has been dispassionate here — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492:: I have no reason to believe anyone has actually been racist, Tony's claim in that regard was over the top, unjustified and more than a little bizarre. Your decision to nominate his userspace page was unwise given the surrounding conflict and I am disappointed that you did not recognise it as likely to be provocative. As far as dispassionate goes, I've watched the debate at WT:FOUR since before I was invited by Tony to participate and I think your "side" has behaved poorly and not taken on board some of Tony's reasonable points. EdChem (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• @EdChem:: Re: MFD: Perhaps, but I was concerned that if I let it be I would forget (I'm somewhat notorious for that). Re: Behaviour: I was not speaking about any "side", and admit that there were transgressions on both "sides". I was saying that Cdtew has been acting quite dispassionately. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco: I maintain that your decision to nominate was poor, having come after the racism accusation just makes it worse. Regarding behaviour, I did not refer to Cdtew, I referred to you - and your actions have not seemed dispassionate to me, they have seemed partisan and TTT is far from the only one who looks bad. TTT has acted foolishly and made an unjustifed accusation and deserves sanction, but it is sad to see that his actions are concealing from notice the poor behaviour of others. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support block - I also note from his block log and talk page this isn't the first time, he has been blocked previously for making accusations of racism against other users and warned a few times. If he isn't learning this lesson then perhaps we should consider longer than a 48 hour block. Canterbury Tail talk 13:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Block for quite a while This isn't the first time I've seen TonytheTiger here. Y'all need to be thwapping him for flagrant WP:CIVIL violations too; falsely accusing users of racism is something that needs to be seriously discouraged. Jtrainor (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of racism don't need to be discouraged, they need to be treated much more seriously; especially by those making the accusations. When accusations are flagerantly thrown around, it desensitizes us to real racism. Discouraging it is an effect of that desensitization and the effect of discouraging it will be that legitimate cases will go unheard. We need to step up our responsibility to both be non-discriminatory and treat racism very seriously. Those making the accusations need to realize how serious the accusation is and provide serious evidence so those of us reviewing the accusations can also treat it seriously.--v/r - TP 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: He was blocked about an hour ago for 48 hours by User: Bencherlite. Rgrds. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Up block to a week 48hrs for the first block makes sense, a repeat of the same behaviour should be met with the obvioius escalation. Thanks to Bencherlite for finding the AN link. That was the one I was referring to in my original comment. Randomly throwing out accusations of racism have the same chilling effect as legal threats and should not be tolerated at all. @IP Bencherlite posted notification of their block above. Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hunh, must of skipped over that somehow in all the text and clicking on the diffs, etc., sorry. --64.85.215.190 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - since he's blocked, it really needs extending. He was blocked for this exact offense just over a year ago, and clearly hasn't learned, so I think the block should go up to a week, just like Blackmane says. I would support an indefinite topic ban from WP:FOUR (as I've said a few times) but not an indef block this time - however, if he ever repeated the unfounded, abusive accusations, then I would definitely support an indef block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban If memory serves me right, something like this happened with Featured Sounds as well. Ban and hand over FOUR to someone else  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban It is disappointing that TTT restored to accusations of racism. It is also disappointing that some people felt it necessary to try and wrest WP:FOUR away from TTT, basically pushing him to the side and acting like his years of contributions didn't matter. This was handled brutally and not just by TTT. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Like I said before, I didn't have a personal stake in this discussion, just brought my relatively neutral viewpoint to the argument. I wouldn't be disclosing everything if I didn't say at this point I'm less neutral, and have been personally offended. That being said, if there's one thing history can teach us, it's that when someone appoints themselves the sole arbiter of anything, they assume the risk of being deposed, violently or otherwise. In that vein, several editors sought to have a policy changed/a circumstance accommodated within existing policy, TTT held himself out as the sole arbiter or the policy and denied the request, and now appears to be losing his grasp to the democracy of the editorship. So, wrest away. Cdtew (talk) 17:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• If he is indeed abusing his position, then that needs to be dealt with. It may be that sanctions are necessary. However, it almost looks to me like some people, not necessarily including you, can hardly wait to completely remove Tony from the Four Award. I really hope it doesn't have to wind up turning out that way. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are not trying to tear TTT from WP:FOUR; we are rather trying to make it clear that personal attacks, constant ABF and abuse will not be tolerated! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Precisely. No matter who the editor was, if my first attempt to negotiate a solution (note that I was decidedly neutral at the time) was greeted with "How many MILHIST guys are going to come here to tell me how to run this page?" without any attempt to address the meat of my suggestion, then followed it with a month of edit warring, ABF, canvassing, and personal attacks, I'd be pushing to have the rules determined by consensus. Tony can stay involved with FOUR if he wants, as one of the community, and I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't. There is just no room for a self-declared director who attempts to ignore consensus and assumes bad faith on everyone who doesn't agree with him or her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support indef topic ban - It's time to say "Enough is enough" and put our foot down. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block; honestly since this whole thing started I've been waiting for the racism accusations to appear, having observed Tony's past behavior at ANI, so this is not surprising in the least. It really should be extended to a week as this is the exact same behavior that drew a 48hr block last time and clearly nothing has been learned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Indefinite Block While TTT was out of line with his charges of racism, I can't believe someone tried to delete one of his user pages. That is a provocative act and as long as it didn't have libelous content on it, it's out of line to try to delete it. My question is whether this has been taken to Dispute Resolution. This is a case that is desperately in need of an unbiased third opinion. Use a mediator, this has gotten way too personal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Liz: Check the timeline. Tony's racist attacks came before the page was nominated for deletion. First racist attacks at 13:43 my time, second claims of racism at 14:17, then the MFD at 14:48. Tony cannot claim the MFD as setting him off, unless he's a time lord. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, the time line also demonstrates the remarkably poor judgment that you have exercised in starting the MfD, as you made the nomination after giving a 'withdraw or face ANI' ultimatum. Liz is correct, the MfD was always going to be provocative in effect (regardless of your intent) and I am disappointed to see an administrator who failed to anticipate that the nomination was a poor decision. EdChem (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• And I have already given a reason why my nomination was immediate, rather than wait a week. I did not intend it as "payback" for anything here or there (though I did understand it could be taken poorly, I expected editors to look at the policy and not "just leave Tony alone"... damn I'm naive). If I found such a page the user space of anyone here I would likely have MFDed it: the policy says keep it short, after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Support extended block, including indef until they withdraw their remarks and assure us they will not use the term inappropriately again. I would support a topic ban on TTT using the term racism or anything the implies the same thing like racist, racial bias, racial discrimination, racial bigotry etc against other editors or if not that a clear understanding an indef block will result if they use it inappropriately in the future. This previous discussion [20] did not previously understand what racism even means, it sounds like they still don't understand so I don't think they should ever use the term. I would also support a topic ban on TTT from FOUR. Nil Einne (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Endorse block, reserve judgment on other issues, because I do think Tony can use a little breather and step back while still being involved. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I take no position on blocking and have worked collaboratively with Tony in the past. I do agree, though, that Tony needs to cease recklessly throwing around charges of racism. He has been doing that without any basis for years. At DYK, he threw such accusations at me and others back in September 2010 and April 2012 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 80#DYK date request and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 58#Michigan basketball overload, part 2. Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions TTT is not more at fault than some of the other editors, but I do agree he should retract his accusations. I think we are at the right point though where everyone will walk away and leave it behind them. Xrt6L (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per AutomaticStrikeout. The MfD is clearly a payback even though Crisco claims it's not. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. also, what it has to do with Tony's behavior seems unclear. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support sanctions, especially topic ban and current short-term block. This has been a long-term problem. I suspect he uses the "racism" charge because he is utterly unable to understand -- or possibly incapable of understanding -- why his egotistical behavior is causing problems and thinks, therefore, it must be racism at its root. --Calton | Talk 05:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support sanctions (block, topic ban, whatever) - I didn't want to weigh in here, but Tony's response to a request for an apology here suggests he does not understand how false claims of racism can be considered personal attacks and/or libel. Until he realises what he's doing is really not cool (for lack of a better word), I think something needs to be done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support the current block (duh), perhaps a longer one (though blocks aren't supposed to be punitive and I think he gets the point). I do not support an indefinite block at this point. Tony has contributed a lot of content and that makes up for some things--though not for accusations of racism, but no doubt any future such accusations will be met with an indefinite block, per admin's discretion. I'd like to see some sort of topic ban somewhere. From Four, for starters. Plus a real short leash on canvassing and other lawyerish disruption.

  Tony, I don't understand why you felt you had to resort to that low kind of insult, but it's obviously coming back to bite you. Did you expect otherwise? I'm sure you won't leave Wikipedia and I for one don't want you to leave (though Lord Jimbo knows we barely ever got along), but it can't go on like this. At some point you'll have to swallow your pride, maybe. I don't know. I wish you the best, but if for you continued contributions to the project means continued disruption, then your glowing career will come to a speedy end. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like activity has died down here over the last couple of days, partly because of the tangential thread over on WP:AN. Would an uninvolved admin please sum this up and close it? Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded. Could an uninvolved admin please sum up this thread, enforce any consensus-attained outcomes, and close this thread? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thirded - After the posts from both sides on my talk page (Nasty stuff!) I think it's time to pack up and move on. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 07:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Request temporary interaction ban or other measure

Withdrawing my request -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I need a break from Tony. As a quick recap, I started a brief RfC at WT:FOUR after voting against Crisco's proposal for deletion and a failed attempt to get Tony to moderate his own draft RfC. Like Cdtew, I thought I was something of a neutral outside party on this--I'm not involved with MILHIST and have never won the award--but both us of quickly learned that anyone who's not 100% behind Tony gets on the enemies list in a big way. I believe Tony's now approaching 200 posts on more than 150 pages accusing me of bad-faith rigging of the RfC. Ranging from: "In case you are wondering why both of these RFC questions are getting unanimous support, you have masterfully conflated two issues with each one making impossible for anyone to give you anything but the meaningless answer you seek. to this a few hours ago: "*I continue to feel that this is one of the most disingenuous processes I have been involved in on RFC... this sneaky process seems to have been used to make statements about having any leadership without any discussion of the rest of the organization of the project. There seems to be no interest in discussing the organization of the project other than to use an RFC about one role of the leadership to make statements about the overall leadership of the project. This all seems to be an attempt to throw the project to admins who have never expressed an interest in the project" [21] Or see the 150+ posts he made between 6:00 and 8:00 on 20 August, all copies of his claim that I had deliberately crafted my RfC "to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions". Simultaneously, he's shown up at another project I'm initiating; he's already made about 15 posts critiquing it at WT:GAN, going so far as to spend hours creating a massive dataset in his user space to prove his points. Finally another user had to tell him to lay off there, too.[22] Despite direct and explicit requests from me that we not interact with each other for a while, Tony's pinged me back into the debate ("All along, I have said that Khazar2 either did not understand the issues or purposely conflated them so that they were not really posed to the audience"), continues to post at the Million Award page, and continues to post his accusations at WT:FOUR. I've turned the other cheek on most of this--I voted against the last proposal to topic-ban TTT, for example, and I've voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion at WT:FOUR--but now that we're approaching hundreds of posts, his persistence is starting to wear me down. Is it possible for me to request here that Tony leaves me in peace for just a few weeks, or is the best solution to simply take a break from Wikipedia until this blows over? As a third alternative, is it allowed for me to simply withdraw my RfC? Frankly, the FOUR debate strikes me as a fundamentally trivial issue, and it's not worth this level of harassment. If there's no administrative will to police something like this, I'm prepared to just say he wins, take a break, and then get back to regular editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that I'm posting here at all is a clear sign that I need that wikibreak. Sorry for my own role in this drama, and I'll see y'all in a month. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion on this topic has moved to WP:AN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fabricating information and POV-pushing by User:The Discoverer

I need administrator help to deal with User:The Discoverer, who made a number of edits contradicted by neutral sources, in a way that advances the Indian agenda in several articles about places that are claimed by both India and China.

For example, in this edit on Khurnak Fort, he added "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory", purportedly supported by two Indian sources. However, the Indian source he cites says "The Chinese claim line ... included the Chip Chap valley, Samzungling, Kongka La, Khurnak Fort and Jara La. ... the Chinese were in occupation of all this territory by the early 1950s.", clearly contradicting his edit.

In the same edit, he added "this traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line" (the Johnson Line is what India claims to be the traditional border), citing this US Navy source. However, the source has this to say about the Johnson Line: "Johnson's work has been severely criticized for gross inaccuracies, with description of his boundary as patently absurd. ... Johnson was reprimanded by the British Government for crossing into Khotan without permission, and resigned from the Survey."

He also created or modified several articles including Lanak Pass, Sirijap, Galwan River, Spanggur Gap, Spanggur Tso, Chip Chap River, etc., quoting almost exclusively non-neutral Indian sources while repeating the same fabricated information. He also created the Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War using the biased word "occupied", and added all the articles into that category, including Khurnak Fort and Lanak Pass that even Indian sources admit were controlled by China before the war.

After noticing his POV edits, I nominated the category for deletion and reminded him on his talk page to follow the NPOV policy, and he agreed. However, pretty soon he added even more one-sided pro-Indian POV to several articles, citing exclusively non-neutral Indian sources.

I then tried again and again to persuade him to follow the NPOV policy, yet he refused to listen. On 2 September he again added Lanak Pass and Khurnak Fort to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (diffs: [23] [24]), even though all sources, including Indian ones that he added himself, say they were controlled by China in the 1950s, clearly before the 1962 war.

User:The Discoverer is no stranger to ANI. Last year he was reported here for copyright violation. I request that this user be topic-banned for repeatedly and persistently violating WP policies. -Zanhe (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Following are some comments regarding the points raised:

• Regarding Khurnak Fort: "The international border between India and China used to be to the east of the fort until the end of 1962, with the fort within Indian territory" is supported by the text at [25] and [26]. I know these are not reliable sources, but my statement is not a fabrication. Later, I provided four sources (available in the current revision) that state that the fort was controlled by China since June or July 1958.
• My full sentence was "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line, which were proposed by the British." This is an objective and true statement and I stand by it. I have never, ever made any attempt to justify the Johnson line, as implied by Zanhe.
• I have explained all my edits in edit summaries and in the discussion we had at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 28. I have been willing to consider all Zanhe's objections, and have repeatedly offered to rename the category to a more suitable name.
• Zanhe objected to including Indian sources, while my argument was that since the same Indian sources had criticised India, and since their statements have not been disputed by any other source, they have some reliability and neutrality. At the end of our discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_28, I suggested that we discuss our disagreement further at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard in order to get other editors' views.
• On the occasion when my edits were reported for copyvio, what had happened was that I had split Sport in India into smaller articles, and the copyvio had originated from the original Wikipedia article.

The Discoverer (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Khurnak Fort: you admit that all four Indian sources you added say the fort has been controlled by China since 1958 (another source says early 1950s), yet you still insist on re-adding the article to Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War. Your personal bias has obviously impeded your judgment to the extent that you're unable to accept the simple fact that 1958 was before the 1962 war. Your behaviour is a perfect example for WP:COMPETENCE#Bias-based, which says that "a topic ban is generally appropriate" in such cases.
• Regarding the Johnson Line: how can you deny that your sentence "This traditional boundary was also followed by the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line" is a justification of the Johnson Line? In territorial disputes, each country usually describes its preferred boundary as the "traditional" one. Your claim that the Johnson Line followed the traditional boundary is clearly an endorsement.
• The main problem with Category:Areas occupied by China after the Sino-Indian War (besides non-neutral language) is that not a single neutral source says any of the places was occupied by China after the war. On the contrary, all neutral sources I've read say China withdrew to the prewar border after the war, which is also what the main article Sino-Indian War says. You're completely replying on non-neutral Indian sources and your own fabrication.
• I did not object to the inclusion of all Indian sources. I only insisted that non-neutral sources need proper attribution per WP policy, and that you cannot draw conclusions solely from non-neutral sources. (diffs: [27] [28])
• As for your previous incident on ANI, the discussions involved allegations of copying content from other articles without attribution, as well as copyright violation. As a result, your original creations were deleted by admins.

-Zanhe (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any admin out there? -Zanhe (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The facts are clear-cut; need some resolution please. -Zanhe (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Manning

 – NE Ent 23:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kahastok is disrupting a GA attempt

The issue of which units of measure to use in the article Falkland Islands has been simmering for some years with User:Kahastok and User:Wee Curry Monster arguing for imperial units and User:Michael Glass and myself arguing for metric units. In an act of blatant Wikipedia:WikiBullying, User:Kahastok created the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS giving his reason as The major reason for having clear and unambiguous rules for units on Falklands articles - as supplied by FALKLANDSUNITS - is that they are difficult to game in ways such as these. Such tactics have been a continual feature of Michael and Martin's four-year campaign to force metrication on Falklands articles. A similar sentiment was expressed here by Wee Curry Monster. I have tried, so far in vain, to have this page neutralised but eventually both Michael and I took less and less interest in the Falkland Islands article while Wee Curry Monster has retired from Wikipedia after receiving an indefinite topic ban for disruption relating to the Falkland Islands.

Recently there was a move to get the Falkland Islands article up to WP:GA status. During the course of events, the question of units of measure came up. In the resulting discussion, the consensus was that metric units should be used, but Kahastok behaved in such a disgraceful way that in the course of one evening he succeeded in driving OrangeJacketGuy (here) and Travellers & Tinkers (here) away from the article, he had MilborneOne (here) asking why he bothered to help and he totally misrepresented me here when he wrote "He would also say that the UK is also metric-only" (BTW, I as the principal editor of this assessment of metrication in the UK and Metrication in the United Kingdom# Current usage. The full discussion can be seen at Talk:Falkland Islands# Metric v. Imperial

I request that appropriate action be taken against User:kahastok for his gross incivility earlier on this evening. Martinvl (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2013‎ (UTC)

Since posting this complaint, User:Mtpaley has also indicated that unless a solution can be found, he too will be moving on from the project. Martinvl (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely true. I am just trying to finialise the Falkland unit wars and I have deliberately not expressed any opinions about the editors or the subject. I think the entire debate has got totally out of control and it needs some definitive external input to resolve it and give the definitive answer. I recently posted a comment on the talk page saying that in 24 hours I will escalate this and try and finalise it. Mtpaley (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue has got personal and it needs a independent and binding decision to resolve it - see my recent Talk entries on the page. Mtpaley (talk) 00:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It may or may not be worth noting that after I had clearly disembarked from the whole mess on the talk page, that user continued to post in my talk page, clearly after anything constructive could have been said. OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't participated in this specific discussion on units or ever interacted with User:Martinvl or User:Michael Glass as far as I remember, but my experience with User:Kahastok on related subjects concurs with Martin's observations on his behaviour. When changes to Kahastok's preferred text were proposed on talk pages, he frequently obfuscated the discussion with distortions and unfounded harsh criticism, aided by a systemic bias that exists on those topics due to language, and leading to an inevitable lack of consensus. As a result, even though I brought lots of arguments and sources, I could hardly ever affect any sentence of the articles.

As an example, Kahastok's latest feat involving my work has been directed at a review that I've been writing [29]. Firstly, he attacked it [30] with distortions like the invention of a clause in a treaty [31]. I cannot prove in one sentence that his accusation was worthless, but it may be evaluated by reading the review and checking, e.g., the authority of the sources (I beg you do that before buying his claims). After he failed to convince User:MarshalN20 from neglecting the review, he joined [32] an attack [33] by User:Wee Curry Monster, like in the old days before WCM was banned from this subject, in an attempt that ultimately succeeded in persuading MarshalN20 to stop requesting sources and clarifications on the review's talk page [34], leaving everyone more exposed to the customary obfuscation . As I see it, MarshalN20 did it for reasons unrelated to contribution potential or WP policy, but rather akin to bullying intimidation [35].

After months of interactions with Kahastok, I've experienced little more from him than this confrontational style filled with distortions, dubious competence and attempts to preserve a status quo that he likes. One that is far from a NPOV, as I demonstrate in the review (which simply scratches the surface). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have done little editing of Falkland Islands articles for years. Despite this, Kahastok keeps on dragging my name into the discussion. The way that Kahastok behaves towards those he disagrees with can be seen from [36]. I have made an effort to be polite to Kahastok [37] but all has been in vain. I can see from the discussion here that I am not the only editor to have this trouble with Kahastok. Michael Glass (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

(Pfainuk and Justin in Michael's link are Kahastok and WCM's previous nicks). -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Andres kindly notified me about this matter and also mentions me here. I would like to start by stating that User:Basalisk has in no form or way ever bullied me (bullying defined as a behavioral pattern). Not to patronize Andres, but perhaps he meant to state that Basalisk's statement could be taken as a kind of intimidation. Regardless, the possible problem of intimidation has nothing to do with Basalisk, as the "hold" on my account is monitored by the Arbitration Committee. In fact, Basalisk is doing the opposite, essentially protecting my "liberty" to edit WP. But this is another matter.
With regards to the "Falklands Measurement System Dispute", all I recommend is that the matter be directly taken to the Arbitration Committee. This is a long-winded conflict with too many involved users & muddled positions. Using other dispute resolution venues will not solve the problem. Moreover, this "measurements disagreement" is not a content dispute, but rather a mixture between policy & conduct, so ArbComm is perfectly capable of dealing with it.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I meant, thanks MarshalN20. I used the wrong word, sorry. And I didn't mean to accuse User:Basalisk, though I wish she/he would have reacted otherwise. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Can the originator of this report please clarify exactly what is being reported:

• The heading suggests disruption of a GA attempt, yet there is no diff or link given to show that a GA attempt is taking place or of evidence of disruption to it.
• Bully is mentioned in the report with no link or diff showing bullying.
• There are suggestions of disgtraceful behaviour driving editors away, with no links of diffs demonstrating disgraceful behaviour.
• The final sentence suggests there was incivility, again with no links or diffs showing any evidence.
• Notification of this report to those involved have different headings - some call it disruption, some incivility.

I suggest that the reporter clarifies the reason and produces appropriate evidence, or withdraws the report. Credibility gap (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• My present role in this is that I am supervising MarshalN20's edit in this area, per an ArbCom amendment. My view is that this report is mainly hot air. Kahastok's actions are not disruptive, and regardless what Martinvl thinks, Kahastok is entitled to an opinion and to argue in aid of it. My opinion is that this is a content dispute and when Martinvl says "disrupting GA drive" what he actually means is "disagreeing with my point of view". I have to say I think the suggestion that this go to ArbCom is misguided in the extreme as this a) isn't a user conduct issue and b) not all avenues of dispute resolution have been pursued. I do not even think this is appropriate for ANI and this should probably be withdrawn. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• If Basalisk looks at the thread carefully, he will see that a lot of the contention centres around the page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS - a page which Kahastok asserts is consensus and a page that I asset is an attempt at WP:BULLYING. What is this page anyway? Is it policy? Is it a Guideline? Is it an essay? The page does not say. Last night I attempted to get clarification on the issue last night by proposing the page as a "Draft Wikipedia Policy". Kahastok reverted my actions.

May I respectfully request that Basalisk (or any other administrator) assist in clarifying what this page actually is. If it is a bully-stick, then, as per WP:CIVILITY it has no place in Wikipedia. If it is a Wikipedia policy, guideline or essay, it should be properly marked as such and made visible to all Wikipedia editors, not stuck away in a workgroup subfolder. Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the above, editors will be astonished to learn that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was in fact endorsed WP:FALKLANDSUNITS at the time. He said that editors should follow it to the letter, lest a "civil war" break out. That "civil war" is what he has since trying to spark, by bringing this up every few months ever since.

All in all, this POV push has been going on for four and a half years, causing massive disruption to the topic - in fact, until the recent unpleasantness with Gaba I would have said (and did in fact say) that it was worse than everything the page has suffered in terms of Anglo-Argentine disputes put together. The only respite was the period immediately after the consensus for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was reached. That is, until Martin decided to renege on the deal, pretending that he had never endorsed it.

We need this POV push to finish, but that cannot be by sacrificing basic Wikipedia values - by allowing Martin to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool for the completion of metrication in the United Kingdom. And it needs to finish in the long term. There is no point in reaching a deal, only for Martin to renege on it again, in the hopes of forcing the deal to be steadily more metric. Given how many times he has tried to fool or trick me and others, and given how many times he has tried to game the system, my ability to assume his good faith has long since evaporated.

Martin the only one who wants this to continue. We should be in the business of stopping him for the good of the topic. I believe that a topic ban for Martinvl is the only way of protecting Wikipedia from this POV push in the long term.

I reverted his "Draft Wikipedia Policy" banner because it claimed that the page was a draft and did not represent a consensus. This is false, and he knows it. I believe that was the only reason it was tagged.

I don't have much time to write much more than that, but if people want more detail or diffs, I may be back later or tomorrow. Kahastok talk 17:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok’s statement is full of half-truths, misrepresentations and personal attacks.

• An "uneasy truce" (my wording here does not equal "consensus" and much less "endorsement". I stepped back from pressing for common sense in respect of units of measure because at the time Wee Curry Monster was trying to steer the article to being a WP:GA. I knew that the article might well fail due to shortcomings in the area the units of measure, so I was letting the GA reviewer do the work. To use a chess analogy, this was a Poisoned Pawn Variation. Since IU have never endorsed the page, Kahastok's use of the word " renege" is totally uncivil.
• My ability to assume good faith in him disappeared when he tried to sabotage the writing of Metrication of British Transport - the only support that he had was from two sockpuppets of user:DeFacto - the same sockmaster who controlled User:Ex-Stanley, a vocal supported of Kahastok in the earlier parts of the discussion from which this WP:ANI request sprung. After Ex-Stanley was exposed, I tried to strike his comments out, but Kahastok reinstated the comments. If Kahastok's arguments are sound, why does he have to rely on a sockpuppert for support?
• I think that the real reason that Kahastok reverted by "Draft Policy Banner" on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was because he knows that the page will not stand up to any proper scrutiny – after all, is that page a policy document, a guideline, an essay or some unspecified rubbish? Unless it is properly scrutinised by the community at large it counts for nothing!
• I will not answer his personal attack of POV pushing - I would like to Wikipedia community at large to do that; in the first instance they should establish a baseline from which to work by passing a verdict on WP:FALKLANDSUNITS.

I repeat my invitation to User:Basalisk (or any other administrator) to require that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS be classified as a policy and that it be scrutinised by the Wikipedia community at large. This can be done by reinstating the {{Draft proposal}} template at the top of its page. (Its prescriptive language is the sort of language that one would find in a policy document rather than in a guideline or an essay).

Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd that Martin feels that an MOS-compliant article will not pass the GA criteria, but an article that for no apparent reason falls short of the MOS - as he demands - will pass. This does not make sense, and any vaguely sane criteria would say the opposite. If the GA criteria say that we are actually not allowed to follow our own Manual of Style, then there's something wrong with them that needs to be fixed. The point here is Martin trying to push his own POV on to UK-related articles: Martin trying to campaign for metrication in the UK by means of Wikipedia.

Whether Martin likes it or not, the MOS calls for imperial units in some contexts for UK-related articles such as this one. We're not talking about every context. Most are metric-first. But Martin's argument effectively boils down to either arguing that the UK should be the only country in the world not allowed to use the units in use locally, or that all British people use kilometres really and just put miles on all the road signs to confuse foreigners. The same applies to the Falklands - currently governed (legitimately or not) as a British Overseas Territory that we have no reason to suppose is any different. There is absolutely no reason why we should not follow the MOS.

I see he's still trying to argue that there's a difference between accepting the consensus and accepting the consensus. Fact is, Martin acted for all the world as though he accepted the consensus for months on end, advising editors to stick to it "to the letter". He apparently later decided that he wanted the "civil war" after all, and has been going about trying to set it off ever since.

I did object to Metrication of British Transport. I haven't looked at it in a long time, but at the time it relied pretty much exclusively on a form of OR that I have seen Martin use frequently: if he can find a single document that only uses one system of measurement - even if it doesn't actually mention systems of measurement at all - he will write the article to say that the organisation that wrote it uses that system of measurement exclusively. If you accept that there is even a possible good faith belief that such practice is OR, you should reject Martin's claim that my conduct can only have been in bad faith, because that was my objection. Excluding all the OR, the topic appeared to me to fail WP:GNG, and thus I nominated it for deletion accordingly. I also tried to remove some of the OR, but met with stiff resistance - including from Martin, who insisted among other things that the burden of consensus is reversed for large-scale changes.

WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is a Wikiproject guideline, just like many others across Wikipedia. It represents the current state of WikiProject consensus. Tagging it as something that is "definitely still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption" is highly misleading. Martin knows that. I know that. I contend that his tagging it as not consensus when he knows full well that it is consensus is disruptive. Kahastok talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Should this be made a sub-thread of the "Reinstatement of sockpuppet's work - 0RR request" ANI thread that is currently opened? Since it involves the same parties. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen. Anyone who knows anything about the Falkland Islands would agree that they an inherently controversial topic. However, most would have expected this would have been due to their status as disputed between the UK and Argentina, their naming as Falkland or Malvinas, coastal, fishing, and mineral rights, a reasonably recent war, and similar related matters. Who would have guessed that the most controversial issue would be whether to list distances with miles first and km second or vice versa? For the love of Mike (or Miguel), is this really the most important thing to argue over? Pick an intelligent but otherwise uninvolved moderator (honestly, 99.9% of editors will not be biased in any direction on this), or hold an RFC that an admin will close, and settle it. Compared to the far more controversial things about the Islands, readers of the article will really not care very much which unit of measurement is listed first. This argument is a strong candidate for WP:LAME. --GRuban (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, & have acted appropriately. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How many RFCs do we have to have? We've had plenty of them before. This has been going on for four and a half years, you don't think we've tried RFCs?

I don't want to continually discuss this any more than anyone else does. I would be very happy if nobody ever brought it up again. The only person who insists on bringing this up over and over and over is Martin. That's why I want him stopped. So that the rest of us can move on.

RFC should not be an iterative process. It is not reasonable to hold RFC after RFC after RFC until one of the RFCs finally accepts the POV push, any more than you hold election after election after election until the public finally elects the candidate the government wants. Kahastok talk 22:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Link to one, probably the last one - how was it closed? Were they really all "no consensus"? Have you considered just letting the other side win? Is it really that bad whether miles are listed second - or first? --GRuban (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What if he were insisting it be written in US English in violation of WP:ENGVAR - is that "really that bad"? What if he were insisting it be written using "Malvinas", instead of "Falkland" at every instance of the word - is that "really that bad"? What if he were insisting that instead of basing our history on a balance of reliable sources, we instead concentrated on pro-British or pro-Argentine sources - is that "really that bad"? We should be against POV pushing at every turn, in favour of neutrality and the rules we use to enforce them. Nobody has given a single good reason on talk not to follow the MOS, which calls for a mixed system. Kahastok talk 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Contributors to the debate to date are:

• Pro-metric: User:Jonathunder, User:Martinvl, User:Michael Glass, User:MilborneOne, User:Travellers & Tinkers, User:OrangeJacketGuy, User:Eric
• Pro-imperial or Pro-statusquo: User:Kahastok, User:Ex-Stanley (a sockpuppet). In addition User:Apcbg and User:KeithD reinstated imperial–first on the article.

By my counting, this give 7 editors favouring metric-first and 4 favouring imperial first (one of whom is a sockpuppet and should not count). This is hardly consensus in favour of imperial units. Therefore, in spite of what Kahastok might say, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does not reflect consensus. As Margaret Thatcher once said "Put up or shut up" - in this case let the Wikipedia community at large judge the worthiness of the page.

Martinvl (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

So now you're trying to claim that the standard burden of consensus, that a consensus remains unless it is overturned, no longer exists when you don't like it? More WP:GAMEs methinks. Kahastok talk 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No I am not. What I have noticed is that WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is not catalogued as a formal guideline, it is not part of the MOS tree structure and it is not mentioned in MOS. The previous comments show that the claim the page reflect consensus is dubious. These two points make the page worthless. I am trying to regularise the situation by bringing it out into the open, what are you trying to hide? Martinvl (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there is no need for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. WP:MOSNUM should apply. Michael Glass (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It would be great if we could trust editors to apply WP:MOSNUM in the spirit that was intended. Unfortunately, several years of experience would seem to demonstrate that we cannot. I would be happy to have a version of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS that does nothing but prescribe the recommendations for UK-related articles at WP:UNITS, though I note that that is the intention of the existing version. Prescription is good because it gives no room for doubt or misinterpretation and as little room as possible for WP:GAMEs.

I do nonetheless see no point at all in resolving this dispute only for Martin to open it again in three or six months time. As he has been doing every few months for years now. We need some guarantee that this is not coming back. And my major concern is that if we resolve anything here to mutual satisfaction, it will only give us a ceasefire in Martin's "civil war", before he reneges on the deal again and comes back with all guns blazing. Thus, I will not support or accept any change without a guarantee, enforceable by block, that this is the end of the matter - at least so far as Martin is concerned.

Martin asks what I have to hide. My answer is, Martin, when did you stop beating your wife? I've given my objection to your tagging the page as not having reached consensus - when we all know very well that it has reached consensus - several times. It is not as though there aren't WikiProject consensuses on style documented at similar pages all over Wikipedia. Here's one. Here's another. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is hardly unusual. Kahastok talk 17:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, you're arguing over whether to put imperial or metric measurements first? I don't know if you all realise how ridiculous this argument is and how ridiculous it is making all the involved parties look. Just put it in alphabetical order, honestly. It is unbelievable that there was an RFC to discuss it let alone several. Blackmane (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The page WP:FALKLANDSUNITS has not yet been formally adopted as an offical guideline. I have created a proposal to regularise the position. Please feel free to comment Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South America/Falkland Islands work group/Units#Proposal for acceptance as a formal guideline. If the proposal is accepted, then the page will indeed be part of Wikipedia policy, otherwise it will be tagged a "failed proposal". Either way the uncertainty that has dogged this page for the last three years will be resolved. This message is being sent to every editor of good standing who has contributed here or here. Martinvl (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

He fails to get consensus on talk and he goes to ANI. He fails to get what he wants through ANI so he goes to RFC on the talk page for WP:FALKLANDSUNITS. This is pure WP:FORUMSHOPPING. And he will continue this in place after place. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? His continual insistence on our having this discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over had become disruptive in about 2009 or 2010. He doesn't stop. You, admins, need to stop him.

I note he's also now trying to push a banner at the top of WP:FALKLANDSUNITS claiming that it hasn't reached consensus, when it has. He knows that the contents of the banner is false. He knows that full well. He is trying to use the tag to change history and to mislead other editors.

Please topic ban Martin from units of measure in Falklands context, including the rules that govern them. Nobody else starts this discussion in the way he does. Nobody else tries to prolong this discussion like this. A topic ban is the only way to make him stop banging on about it. Kahastok talk 07:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say I sympathise with [User:Blackmane|Blackmane's]] points above. However, the foolishness does not even stop there. WP:FALKLANDSUNITS seems to be mostly ignored. At a quick glance, Falkland Islands appears to be largely metric first while East Falkland, West Falkland Speedwell Island and Weddell Island appear to be metric first. Jason Islands follows the rules into a thicket of inconsistency. As WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is either ignored, or followed slavishly into confusion, it serves no good purpose. Michael Glass (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

In the case of the Jason Islands, it's actually a case of too many measurements full stop. All those measurements were put in before WP:FALKLANDSUNITS was adopted, when a particular editor was in the habit of putting as many metric measurements as you could find in as many articles as you could find, in clear defiance of the the-consensus for imperial-first only. Sometimes he didn't even bother to use full sentences and there needed to be a fair bit of clean-up afterward. Who was that editor? You.

(Oh, and by the way, WP:FALKLANDSUNITS does allow for exceptions to the rule in the case of significant inconsistency.)

All the rest of it tells you is that Martin routinely makes controversial edits in this area under innocuous-looking edit summaries. He's trying to hide. There is no point in pretending that Martin does not know that this is controversial, nor that he does not know that he is going against both WikiProject and Wikipedia consensus. Otherwise he wouldn't hide them.

This is yet another example of Martin deliberately trying to subvert the consensus process. It's just another demonstration of Martin's untrustworthiness. And it's just another reason why he needs to be topic banned as soon as possible. Kahastok talk 23:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a link to that edit. Yes, I put in the conversions to Imperial measures when others objected to their absence. Then I was blamed for putting in too many measurements! I think the problem may have been better dealt with by providing the information in tabular form, but it's not worth trying in such a poisonous atmosphere. My own feeling about WP:FALKLANDSUNITS is that it should be scrapped. Michael Glass (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I did actually remove a large number of these already, and put many of the rest into a table [38]. And IIRC you cried blue murder at the time about removing information. On that particular article, 90% of the geography section could be replaced with a map and the article would only become more informative. Kahastok talk 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I have requested such a map at the graphics lab. Kahastok talk 10:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Or you could all just follow WP:MOSCONVERSIONS. Creating a separate style guideline for a subset of articles is absurd, particularly when the point that is being argued is already covered in the MOS. Blackmane (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Put me in the list of editors who consider it more appropriate to have metric units listed first. Binksternet (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sheila Carter Article

Hello! I'm having a dispute with a user named Beaconboof ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Beaconboof&action=edit&redlink=1 ). I've sent them a message. I've also started a discussion on the 'Talk' page of the Sheila Carter article but they've ignored it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sheila_Carter

It's an article regarding a fictional character named Sheila Carter. The problem is Beaconboof, at some point, filled the latter part of the article as well as the lead & the infobox with viewers speculation, questioning and fans wishes without discussing it at all! I do not always monitor that article, that's why I only very recently found out. All I want is the article to be unbiased, objective and simply resume storylines the way they've played out onscreen.

- 1. What happened is the character of Sheila Carter (The Young & the Restless), a very well know villain, tricked her friend and accomplice Sugar into having plastic surgery to look just like her. Sheila then arranged for Sugar to be committed to some mental institution so everyone would think Sheila was put away and was not a threat. Sugar ended up leaving that facility, then stabbed Scotty 'cause she knew that would hurt Sheila a lot. Sugar got arrested and Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila's nemesis, realized Sugar was not Sheila 'cause the latter could not walk well at the time.

- 2. In the following scene, the real Sheila was seen at a plastic surgeon's asking him to make her look like a person on a photograph she handed him. Several months later, she came back looking exactly like Phyllis Summers. Actress Michelle Stafford confirmed several times the character she portrayed was Sheila Carter, so did former executive producer and head writer Lynn Marie Latham. Sheila as Phyllis kept acting like the old Sheila and also remembered stuff only the old Sheila and a few others did (taking pictures of Lauren & Brad). Lauren ended up shooting Sheila in self-defense. An autopsy showed it's truly Sheila that got shot.

- 3. Years later, Sheila's never-before heard of sister, Sarah Smythe, showed up in town looking exactly like Lauren Fenmore after cosmetic surgery. Sarah confirmed several times her sister Sheila truly did have surgery to look like Phyllis. Sarah said Phyllis made her think of Sheila. Sarah showed Lauren a picture of herself and Sheila before their surgeries. Sarah also held both Lauren & Phyllis responsible for Sheila's death. As a matter of fact, Sarah tried to kill Phyllis twice but Lauren shot her in self-defense before she could kill Phyllis. Actress Tracey E. Bregman confirmed in an interview Sarah is indeed Sheila Carter's sister and that Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan are Sheila's children.

This is what played out onscreen and was confirmed by actors, execs and writers. The problem is storylines 2 & 3 weren't well received and accepted by quite some viewers and fans of the Sheila character. Some of them refuse to believe it's Sheila that was made to look like Phyllis and that Sarah was ever her sister. Some of them also refuse to believe Daisy & Ryder are truly Sheila's children with Tom Fisher. Beconboof is one of them and even replaced Sheila's name by the name Pheila in the latter part of the article. The name of the character is Sheila, not Pheila. This is when Becaonboof started making such changes without discussing it first: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sheila_Carter&diff=499017451&oldid=499017269

I have found a solution. Since Beaconboof is not responding and refuses to discuss it on the 'Talk' page, I re-edited the article, once again, so it simply shows the facts as played out onscreen. I then added in a new section called 'Critical Reception' in which I address all of the viewers & fans' concerns, speculations and presumptions (Sheila as Phyllis and Sarah as possible imposters etc.)

I'm trying to be fair! What did Beaconboof do? They've just reverted my edits... Once again, all I want is the article to be unbiased and present what happened onscreen and was confirmed by executive producers, writers and actors. I have taken the time to address concerns, presumptions & speculations by Beaconboof, fans and viewers of the soap opera in a special section of the article but that ain't enough for that editor. They absolutely want the intro, the latter part and the infobox of the article to reflect THEIR PERSONAL disbelief (or disdain) of elements from storylines from 2006 and onward... I've had to revert it again...

One more thing, Beaconboof has recently edited the Daisy Carter article and kept implying Daisy is not truly Sheila Carter's daughter... What do you think? According to the 'Young & The Restless', Daisy IS Sheila's daughter. Period! Why take a fictional storyline so personally? I've just reverted their edits. That's exactly the issue I'm having with that editor; just because they do not like or accept a storyline, they keep editing articles in a biased manner.

As for references, I did not write most of the 'Storylines' section. I've only made minor changes to the '2005-2007' part and added in the '2009-2012' section as well as the 'Critical Reception' segment. I have slightly edited the lead of the article & the infobox so they reflect what was seen onsceen and confirmed, NOT viewers' disbelief etc. All that disbelief is addressed in 'Critical Reception'. I have now added 1 reference: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . I wanted to add in this link ( http://soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php ) but it's already being used earlier in the article.

Now, see this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Fisher#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Abbott_Bardwell#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Baldwin#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Abbott_Fenmore#Storylines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Fenmore#Storylines

I did not write any of the 5 articles above, and none of them use any reference in their 'Storylines' section at all! Soap opera articles on Wikipedia very often lack references in their 'Storylines' sections 'cause it's just viewers that watch the show then type in what they saw. Israell (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of observations here as someone who is not involved. Beaconboof (talk · contribs) has been editing since April 2011, most frequently in the area of soap opera characters, and has been editing the Sheila Carter article since that time. Another thing I noticed about BB's edits is that they have never, ever used a talk page or a notice board, or any other type of discussion. They have never once used an edit summary. This is a silent, uncommunicative editor. This editor is now exhibiting symptoms of article ownership on the article in dispute. I recommend that a short block be issued, for edit-warring or disruption, in order to get this editor's attention. If this editor refuses to discuss collegially with Israell then nothing can be solved. On that note, I will mention to Israell that you should be careful about continuing to edit-war. There are no winners and nothing can be solved there. I am pleased to see that you are taking steps to resolve the dispute at WP:DRN and here. Unfortunately, ANI can do nothing about content disputes and only user behavior. This is somewhat a content dispute, but I think it can be agreed that BB is behaving badly here and that needs to be addressed. Elizium23 (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am Beaconboof. The reason I have never responded is that I did not know how to do so, or how to use these specific utilities in order to exchange messages. I am sorry that the other user is dissatisfied with my edits. I feel that the writers of Y&R had no true knowledge of the Sheila Carter character from the time they brought Michelle Stafford on to play a version of her. Too many things do not add up and it seems to me that the user Israell is trying to sabotage any chance of Kimberlin Brown returning to her role through his edits. 'Pheila' was NOT confirmed as Sheila and the body was stolen from the morgue, edits that have not been retained. Sarah Smythe was NEVER confirmed as Sheila's sister. These are mere assumptions. I am not behaving badly. I am trying to preserve Bill Bell's legacy character from further desecration. I would ask that my edits be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaconboof (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that both editors involved here have article ownership issues. Israell mentions several times above that they want the article to be this, or they want the article to be that, which shows the symptoms of WP:OWN.

Be that as it may, I know nothing about this soap opera, all I know is that the entirety of the storyline section is completely unsourced. If you can provide reliable sources for what you are claiming, then it goes in. Fan speculation articles, what people think is happening, forums, blogs etc are not reliable sources. So if either of you can get reliable sources for what you're claiming, then it can go in as per WP:Verify. In the meantime I'm tagging them all as unsourced with the plan to delete the entire section if reliable sources can't be located.

I also suggest you both use the article's talk page to discuss this matter instead of bring it here to the administrator's noticeboard, as it is there is no real administrator action needed. Canterbury Tail talk 16:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Beaconboof, your comments above make me strongly inclined to block your account indefinitely. What you've just described is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor. Your purpose here must be only to write neutral encyclopedia articles about notable subjects. Any desires you have about "preserving a legacy" or influencing the casting/scripting decisions at a soap opera should be done via letters to the production company and a personal website. Do you actually want to contribute here neutrally, based on facts in independent sources--note that that does not mean what actually happened on the show, as that's the primary sources here, but sources like show reviews, academic analyses of the show, etc? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, an edit war--that's probably why this happened to come by when I was watching Recent changes. I made an edit or two, unaware of any controversy, though I did note what a bloated bag of fan trivia this was (par for the course in this area, I suppose) and tagged it as such. I have no opinion on the meat of the matter: my admin pay check is not nearly big enough to warrant reading the article and its history. Can't soap editors use Wikia or some such thing to jot down their plot summaries and OR? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, what's going on is user Beaconboof doesn't seem to accept the fact the fictional character of Sheila Carter DID have plastic surgery to look like the character of Phyllis Summers Newman. It's exactly what played out onscreen and you can see it all here: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/sheila.php . The links says: "Paul Williams managed to track Sheila to Argentina in October 2006 and discovered that she had undergone plastic surgery to look like Phyllis Summers, then had killed the plastic surgeon." I lengthily explained on the 'Talk page' of that article that executive producers, writers and actors all confirmed it's Sheila that had that surgery.

Sheila's body never disappeared from the morgue. That was just a rumor that was never seen on 'The Young & the Restless'. I just asked other viewers just to make sure: http://boards.soapcentral.com/showthread.php?906183-Question-for-Mods-amp-Others-Regarding-Sheila-Carter .

Also, former head writer & executive producer of 'The Young & the Restless' Maria Arena Bell decided to expand Sheila Carter's family and created the characters of Sarah Smythe, Sheila's sister, and Daisy Carter & Ryder Callahan, Sheila's twins with Tom Fisher. You can see it all here: http://www.soapcentral.com/yr/whoswho/daisy.php . The link says: "Sarah turned out to be Sheila Carter's sister who had plastic surgery to impersonate Lauren and Daisy and Ryder turned out to be Sheila's twin children."

But user Beaconboof keeps editing the article so it says that Sheila was "believed or presumed" to have surgery to look like Phyllis. They also keep implying Sarah was not truly her sister and that Daisy & Ryder are not truly Sheila's children. It's NOT true. All those things were confirmed and played out onscreen. I'm just trying to have the article reflect exactly what was seen on 'The Young & the Restless' in an unbiased manner.

I understand that Beaconboof and others do not like such storylines and feel the legacy of the Sheila character is being tarnished but that's NOT ME; that's what the writers and executive producers have decided. Beaconboof just admitted he wants the article to reflect his personal dislike of recent storylines, that he feels the writers did not truly understand that character and that he's hoping that Wikipedia article somehow influences a Sheila comeback. I'd love Sheila to come back too but the article should remain unbiased.

Any time I revert such edits (Sheila was "believed" to look like Phyllis etc.) they revert it over and over again... I DO listen to Beaconboof's concerns and that's exactly why I added in the 'Critical Reception' section so I can address the fact several viewers have a big problems with storylines from 2006 and onward and disbelieve the fact Sheila was made to look like Phyllis, Sarah was ever her sister and Daisy & Ryder were ever her twins but Beaconboof keeps adding such speculation elsewhere in the article.

I have added two more sources to the article in the '2010-2012'. It directly concerns the character of Sheila Carter and the possibility she might still be alive. Israell (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Editors, I have now found sources from TV.com as well as the official CBS website and actress Tracey E. Bregman that portrays the role of Lauren Fenmore Baldwin, Sheila Carter's nemesis.

First source says: "Michael is shocked to realize that Paul is holding Phyllis in a cell, and even more surprised to discover that it's really Sheila in there." http://www.tv.com/shows/the-young-and-restless/ep-8549-950242/ - Jan 03, 2007

Second source says: "Daisy finally admits to Lauren that she is Ryder's twin and Lauren realizes who their mom is; Sheila." http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/41247 - Wednesday, April 7, 2010

Third source says: "Sarah admits to Lauren that she is Sheila's sister". http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/41369 - Monday, April 12, 2010

Fourth source says: "Kevin realizes that Daisy and Ryder must be twins since she is the same size as Ryder in the old photo. Sarah shows Lauren a photo of Sheila and Sarah “pre-surgery”." http://www.cbs.com/shows/the_young_and_the_restless/episodes/41478 - Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Fifth source says: "I think it’d be too easy to kill Lauren. Sarah really wants Lauren to suffer because Sarah has suffered so much. In Sarah’s mind, Sheila was murdered in cold blood by Lauren. Also, Sarah had to raise Sheila’s children because Sheila was always so obsessed with Lauren that she wasn’t around to raise her kids properly. You can just imagine what it would be like to be in a family with Sheila! Sarah never had any sense of personal power, she never had a real chance in life. So now, in setting up this revenge, she’s finally as powerful as Sheila was. Sarah’s initial goal is to make Lauren suffer by taking her place in her world, and letting her know it. But pretty soon that doesn’t become enough for her." Y&R’s Tracey E. Bregman on her doppleganger storyline! - http://michaelfairmansoaps.com/news/yrs-tracey-e-bregman-on-her-doppleganger-storyline/2010/04/12/

I think that now we have enough proof Sheila Carter did have surgery to look like Phyllis, Sarah is Sheila's sister and that Daisy & Ryder are Sheila's children. Why should the body of the article say or imply otherwise? One last time... The 'Critical reception' section I've added outlines Beconboof and others' suspicions and speculations regarding these storylines but it's not enough for Beaconboof and he's now taking it on me personally!

URGENT: See this on my 'Talk' page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Israell#Sheila_Carter_edits Beconboof is now accusing me of having an agenda, messing with the 'Sheila Carter' Wikipedia article and endangering any chance of Kimberlin Brown to reprise the role of Sheila. Beaconboof wrote: "...reading her wiki page totally endangers the possibility of her getting to play the role again and for what? Some stupid thoughtless stunt storyline.", "I don't know why you are so intent on not wanting Kimberlin back as Sheila - the way you have messed around with her character's wiki page clearly suggests you have an agenda." What do y'all think?

All I did was replace all the "Pheila"s by the actual character name, Sheila, correct some erroneous info, add a few sources as well as the 'Critical reception' section I've mentioned earlier. Israell (talk) 13:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless Beaconboof gives an good explanation and quickly, I'm quite inclined to indef per WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

JPaestpreornJeolhlna going astray

After a more reasonable talk, started by JPaestpreornJeolhlna [39], it went dirty. JPaestpreornJeolhlna did not respond but started insulting and blind reverting. [40]. Ultimately [41]. I propose this user be told what wiki communicating really is about. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

JPaestpreornJeolhlna notified: [42] -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

To start, DePiep removed a helpful note for editors (which is extremely commonly used and placed among many other templates) from the template {{IPAslink}} in this edit. I reverted the edit​, and immediately afterwards, I posted a message on DePiep's talk page informing of the widespread usage of the note that (s)he deleted, to which DePiep's initial response resorted to profanity and ridicule of my username in the first sentence. Following this ridiculous first line, DePiep added that (s)he "had nothing to add", admitting that (s)he merely continued to stand by his/her own opinions. After my reply that this wasn't only a matter of his/her opinion, DePiep ended the section abruptly by completely avoiding any conversation or reasoning, telling me to "go away", and immediately deleting the entire section of the talk page (while, yet again, making fun of my username, calling it "weird name" in the edit summary) in order to cover up all (s)he had said in plain avoidance of the conversation.

I find it extremely hard to believe that I was the one who made this "dirty", as DePiep mentions above, "after a more reasonable talk". Nonsense; DePiep is the one who needs to be taught about communication here (and editing templates as well) . — |J~Pæst|  03:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose this one be closed without further ado. I think no wikicrimes are hidden at all. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe there's a bit of a wikicrime, in your intentionally insulting another user's username, DePiep. Could you please agree to stop doing that? I think you should also not remove longstanding, helpful commentary from templates, though that's a bit more of a content issue than an administrative one. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

68.175.127.180

Hello,

Recently, [[Special:Contributions/68.175.127.180]|this user]] has been making a lot of edits that don't appear to be constructive, most (but not all) of them consist of adding or changing dates without providing sources. Here are a few examples.

Extended content

On Burlington Coat Factory: Edit made: [43] Edit made: [44] Edits reverted [45] On Mattel: Edit made: [46] Edit reverted: [47] On (I Just) Died in Your Arms: Edit made: [48] Edit reverted: [49] On Gone, Gone, Gone (song): Edit made: [50] Edit made: [51] Edits reverted: [52] On Christina Ricci: Edit made: [53] Edit reverted: [54] On Carolyn Jones: Edit made: [55] Edit reverted [56] On Dana Ferguson: Edit made: [57] Edit reverted: [58] On Kidsongs: Edit made: [59] Edit reverted: [60] Edit reverted: [61] On Spacetoon (Indonesia): Edit made: [62] Edit reverted: [63] On Gullah Gullah Island: Edit made: [64] Edit reverted: [65] On Amazon.com: Edit made: [66] Edit reverted: [67] On Amazon: Edit made: [68] Edit reverted: [69] On You Can't Hurry Love: Edit made: [70] Edit reverted: [71] On Wednesday Addams: Edit made: [72] Edit reverted: [73] On Addams Family Values: Edit made: [74] Edit reverted: [75] On Microsoft logos: Edit made: [76] Edit reverted: [77] On Yahoo!: Edit made [78] Edit made [79] Edit made [80] Edit made [81] Edits rejected [82]

I don't know what to think about all these edits. This is not the first time this happens. The last time, I just reverted the bad edits that hadn't been reverted yet. This time, I think it's time to investigate.

Thank you, --TheMillionRabbit 22:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Aw shucks, missed another mass rollback opportunity. IP blocked. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the long report, to make the board easier to navigate. Ansh666 09:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action.--TheMillionRabbit 18:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:L'Origine du monde

User:L'Origine du monde, fresh off a block, is now trying to blackmail Reaper Eternal, EdJohnston, and JamesBWatson by ordering them to "apologise sincerely for all [their] mistakes" or L'Origine du monde will "pursue further complaints". Obvious blackmail there and obviously not a good idea.

Since the user was unblocked under two hours ago, I am requesting that User:L'Origine du monde be reblocked and indefinitely (as they previously were), as they are obviously not here to edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question, as well as the unblocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I was wrongly blocked for evading a block that did not apply to me. Blackmail is not involved. Serious mistakes were made by three administrators, including one check user, and it is important this does not happen again. BEFORE using this board, it is normal to initiate discussions on the talk pages of the editor involved.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If you were, in fact, wrongly blocked, there would already be an active discussion here on ANI or over on AN, there isn't. But saying you won't do A if someone does B is blackmail. You saying you won't "pursue further complaints" if the admins don't "apologise sincerely for all [their] mistakes" is the definition of blackmail. Attempting to blackmail an admin goes straight to ANI and bypasses the user talk pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are opinionated. I suggest you read my talk page. I am afraid I thought that the procedure was first to discuss problems with the relevant editors on their talk pages, and only to raise the issue here should that fail to give satisfaction.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you object to this edit too - [[83]] ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm extremely "opinionated", but not in this. Let's wait for the admins as any back-and-forth between us will do no good.

As for the image request, yes, I do object. It could be seen as you only wanting it taken off the blacklist so you can put it back on your userpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde, if you continue to be so abrasive towards everyone else involved in this incident, no one is going to give you the benefit of the doubt. To be honest, after reading your recent comments, I have absolutely no interest in helping you because your comments are so off-putting. I strongly suggest that you take a deep breath and try to calm your tone. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You are not supposed to add images to that list for that purpose, but for widespread vandalistic use. It took the painting away from a number of other pages without discussion. I see no reason why a consensus could not be reached that I am entitled to use that image. It has been used as a user page image for 4 years without any complaints.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 04:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The bad image list is meant for images that could be seen as inappropriate for use outside of very controlled environments. For example, many images of genitalia are on the list because those images should not be on pages that are not assumed to be about that subject. Think of if you clicked on World or Earth and saw a picture of a tangentially related genitalia. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly - read the guidelines for the list. I will now take a break. I did not ask for this discussion now. If you had been banned for evading a block on a completely unrelated user for 3 weeks by administrators who seem to have close to zero understanding of what an IP is, and how it relates to user accounts, but like to interrupt conversations with an editor who does, you would probably be a little angry yourself.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Origine du monde (talk • contribs) 04:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the admin saw you were doing something that you weren't supposed to. Since your userpage was deleted, I can't tell for myself. Also, I highly doubt it was used as an image on your userpage since you have only been an editor here since August of 2013. Also, you might want to read WP:NPA, because your continuous snide remarks and personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, however, isn't the reason for the perceived bad block immaterial to this ANI? Is the purpose more to discuss L'origine's behavior post-block? --McDoobAU93 04:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The deleted userpage contained nothing but the image being discussed with regards to the bad image list. Monty₈₄₅ 04:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine, in this edit are you stating that you do indeed have sockpuppets? Zad68 04:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If not the registered editor I conflated him with, he might be talking about this, this and this IP account that I was discussing with Elockid; those are accounts that L'Origine du monde‎ used. AndyTheGrump might have had more experience with L'Origine du monde‎ than any other editor while L'Origine du monde‎ was editing as IPs. L'Origine du monde‎ has not been editing Wikipedia only since August 2013. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that any of the admins here misused any of their powers and were following policy. It's quite evident that the edits of the IP were L'Origine du monde's. Since none of the admins here had CheckUser uses at the time of the blocking evidence, it's very believable that the L'Origine du monde appeared to be a returning blocked/banned user. Furthermore, to complicate things, the person who was editing behind the IP can't be disclosed due to WMF's privacy policy. It would appear then that L'Origine du monde is socking. Honestly, if I didn't have CU access, I probably would have also thought that L'Origine du monde was a returning blocked/banned user. This was all just an honest mistake. I can understand L'Origine du monde's frustration. However, I don't believe that this is the right venue. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the talk page messages I don't think they are actionable. Asking for an apology, which would imply an admission of error, as way of resolving a dispute is reasonable, and mentioning that you will pursue it further if not resolved is not blackmail. The messages were worded strongly, and seem unlikely to have the desired effect, but they aren't blackmail. Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • If Elockid thinks this isn't the right venue and Monty845 thinks there isn't any blackmail (even though I disagree), I will accept their opinions and we can call this resolved, unless anyone else feels different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Elockid thank you for your contribution. However I disagree about abuse of power. Reaper Eternal blocked me because I asked you a question on your talk page and he didn't like my choice of painting- but didn't want to discuss it. After you explained what I was asking about (for some reason he never asked you, and I didn't realise I could email you till two days ago), he wrote on his talk page

Elockid has clarified that the block on the IP was not targeted at him, but, rather, at another user who apparently was spoofing Ldm's IP. Since he's convinced I have a "conflict of interest" regarding his block (from what I don't know), I'm not going to take any action. And honestly, now that the issue of block evasion has been cleared up, I'm not going to complain if he creates another account with an acceptable username and userpage. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

He obviously still doesn't understand how IPs work (no spoofing was involved), refused to lift his block, and doesn't understand

"Conflicts of Interest Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace."

He also failed to explain what he was doing, or why. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 04:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Reaper blocked you for asking a question. As I stated previously, it would seem that you were evading your block and that was the main reason why Reaper blocked you. He wasn't a CU when he made the block so there wasn't any misuse of tools there. He probably was simply acting on WP:DUCK. Might not be the most practical way, but it's the best thing we have right now considering how Wikipedia works. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer. What I meant when saying not the best venue was that it probably would have been better to ask for an apology privately or at a more friendly tone. This way we can avoid all the drama and perhaps L'Origine du monde could have gotten what he asked for. I'll have to stop commenting here for now as it's getting late for me. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Elockid: My mistake, I misunderstood. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

If this discussion could focus on removing File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg from the Bad image list I would be happy. This file depicting the famous 1866 oil painting l'Origine du monde by the French artist Courbet, on public display in the Musee d'Orsay in Paris was added to the list by User:Reaper Eternal. This removed it from a number of pages in the userspace where it had happily been for many years with no complaints. He made this addition because he objected to me displaying the image on my user page, which he had previously deleted. Given that there had been no widespread problem with this image of an iconic painting, I think he was wrong to add it to the list without discussion. MediaWiki_talk:Bad_image_list#Remove_File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg_from_the_Bad_image_list ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 05:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently L'Origine is now trying to blackmail me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, dude/dudette, L'Origine, going around and demanding apologies is something that children and governments do. It's a waste of time, and never gets the desired result anyway, since you can never even be sure of the sincerity of the apology. Just go about your business, please. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If people make mistakes with their administrative, or checkuser special powers, and don't understand why, wikipedia has a problem. Apologies are a simple part of civility, and the natural response to making mistakes, particularily when they have caused pain, as this 3 week ban has. Neutral homer started this discussion - and was offensive to me on a talk page he was licking - why should he interfere in my communication, be rude, and not apologise?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 07:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This was my request to neutral homer -

Hi! I strongly object to your disruptive ignorant page stalking, and misleading comments. While you are entitled to your opinions, I find your unfounded accusations of blackmail, and negative remarks about my intelligence offensive. If you apologise on my talk page I will not complain further.

[[84]] You will see that he page stalked my complaint about another editor page stalking, and responded to my complaint that he accused me of blackmail by doing the same thing again. If he wont apologise, I request he be blocked for a week to stop him making unfounded accusations against me. ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 07:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@L'Origine: I said on the aforementioned talk page: "Blackmailing an admin, not a smart move, one that will get you nowhere but another block." Now, I'm not sure what in there you found "offensive", but it doesn't warrant an apology.

While we are on the subject of apologies, when someone demands one while threatening "further complaints", one isn't going to get the response they seek. I'm not going to apologize just because you think you are owed one. If you think you were wronged, I can't help ya. Nothing I said warrants an apology and you won't be getting one. Like real life, here at Wikipedia, you aren't owed anything.

Now, take Qwyrxian's advice and go about your business. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have User:JamesBWatson on my watchlist and have for awhile. Also for the record, I will not apologize to avoid a block as I have nothing to apologize for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Any chance of a not here block? The user name "L'Origine du monde" refers to File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg which is a magnificent piece of art, but coupled with the user's contribs indicates that Flyer22 is going to need help soon, and given the user's outbursts it would be kinder to give a firm response now. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to support Userpage desecration and fifty lashes with a wet noodle. That being said I find the demands for "sincere" apologies to be rather weak. Shit happens, mistakes are made but threats of further complaints or actions reeks of an implied legal threat or a problem with WP:STICK. Move on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel perfectly justified in complaining about neutralhomer rudely interfering in my talk, and repeatedly accusing me of blackmail. This is not appropriate behaviour. I also strongly object to him starting this ani, as an unaffected editor, without even giving an explanation on my home page. I feel that his actions constitute bullying. The fact that he is unwilling to admit that his accusations were wrong, and repeats them should be recognised. He started this ANI, on a matter which has otherwise nothing to do with him - does he not deserve censure. With regard to apologies- shit may happen, but when you clearly (look at my talk page) explain to people what has gone wrong, and they persistently fail to understand simple concepts it is wrong.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 09:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative not punitive. Any editor can bring something here even if not directly involved with the dispute...WP:TROUT for no discussion but no big deal...I'd suggest that you drop both sticks and walk away you can continue to complain but right now if you notice it is starting to {{WP:BOOMERANG]] on you.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Still rather hurt by the ban :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 09:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Just as a note: block, not ban. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

NH should have attempted to discuss with editor before opening the ANI thread -- ya know, like it says at the top of the page? NE Ent 01:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

L'Origine du monde got screwed over by the socking / check user machinery -- which is a reflection of the limitations of technology, not malfeasance on the part of administrators. While there's nothing that can be done about the past, tolerance of her understandable frustration is appropriate. NE Ent 11:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but that does not excuse them from dropping the stick and stopping harassing everyone who was involved, from the blocker, to those who declined the unblock, to those who removed talkpage access, to those who reported their extremely bizarre behaviour. Their continued actions show that a block of SOME type was actually a requirement, as opposed to trying to convince the community that they're a possibly fantastic editor. Accusing people of not knowing what they're allowed to do is ridiculous, unfounded, and plain ol' wrong (note: I'm only here because at least 4 of the people they're harassing are on my watchlist) ES&L 16:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New user moving user pages of a blocked user

Not sure if this is an issue or something innocent but I just noticed an odd couple of page moves by User:Kose zane Khosrow, specifically of blocked user User:HistoryofIran's user and talk pages to User:Koskesh. Normally I would bring this up with the user but am logging off and won't be able to follow up soon in case it is something problematic. Will notify both users momentarily. N^oformation ^Talk 07:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, HistoryofIran's pages were semiprotected - not sure if this is relevant. N^oformation ^Talk 07:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well now Kose has reverted a revert of vandalism by User:EdJohnston (who also protected the page originally) on the Koskesh user page. Starting to look like trolling. N^oformation ^Talk 07:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Off to the dentist shortly, but I'm not going to AGF, looks like some minor bad edits to boost editing count to get autoconfirmed. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked into this briefly. Isn't HistoryofIran awaiting someone dealing with his unblock request at the moment? It seems like it would be very self-destructive for him to be doing this at the moment. Therefore I'd guess it's one of the following:

1. (I'm guessing pretty likely) This is some other user/troll trying to set HistoryofIran up. Did he have any enemies? Particularly ones who are already blocked?
2. This is HistoryofIran, he doesn't know about CheckUser, and legitimately thinks he can get away with this. Did he ever participate in an SPI before? If so, I'd say this is incredibly unlikely.
3. (Not very likely) This is HistoryofIran, and he doesn't care about getting his main account unblocked.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HistoryofIran. Slightly complicated. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In view of what can be seen in the revision history of User:HistoryofIran, I have no doubt that Kose zane Khosrow is the person who previously edited from several IP addresses in the 91.99.x.x range, making pointless edits to get autoconfirmed to evade protection of that page. Whether it is also the same person as HistoryofIran I can't say, but in any case Kose zane Khosrow shows no sign of being here for any purpose other than disruption, so I have indefinitely blocked the account. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not think it is HistoryofIran. I think it is another user that HistoryofIran has been in edit dispute with, here and at Commons. I will maybe file a SPI. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

After a more thorough examination I agree the Kose account is just a continuation of the IP. It doesn't seem to me to be HistoryofIran though - that would be pretty bizarre behavior. Thanks for taking care of it. N^oformation ^Talk 00:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The SPI shows Kose is unrelated to HistoryofIran, who is now unblocked but seems to be editwarring. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Enkyo2 still hounding me

I started a thread here last week about User:Enkyo2 posting completely incomprehensible talk-page comments and generally being disruptive. User:Qwyrxian pointed out how this problem had been going on for years, and if it didn't show signs of improving Enkyo2 would probably get indefinitely blocked. User:Kim Dent-Brown then asked Enkyo2 to explain himself. Enkyo2 disappeared from Wikipedia for 5 days, before re-emerging two hours after the thread got archived, and opposing an RM I had made.[85][86] Enkyo2's other edits since returning have all been not-so-subtle jabs at my activity during his 5-day absence: I posted a discussion of Louis Frédéric's Japan Encyclopedia on WP:RSN, and Enkyo2's last six edits have all been to the Louis Frédéric article or to create a new article on the Japan Encyclopedia.[87][88][89] His edits to the These edits are obviously a weak attempt to undermine the RSN thread, as they strongly emphasize Harvard University Press, six editions in French and English, Donald Richie says great things about it ... Could someone please help me with this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, we know his comment on Talk:Empress Gemmei#Requested move was meant to undermine me because his argument was just as incoherent as ever, and all but one of his sources say the opposite of what he claims. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You, again? --Shirt58 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the Enkyo2 problem (which as I said hasn't been resolved yet because he deliberately sabotaged the thread by waiting for it to get archived) I think I've opened one ANI thread in the last three weeks. What exactly do you mean by that? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The previous discussion, just archived before Enkyo restarted editing, is here. I had asked Enkyo to respond but no response was forthcoming. To be honest I'm also finding Hijiri's continual complaints a little shrill but I can understand his/her frustration when faced with an almost completely opaque and incomprehensible style of communication from Enkyo. I'd love the two of them to get on as they seem like topic experts but neither seems to be able to co-operate with the other. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that User:Enkyo2 was previously blocked for one year by Arbcom in 2011 under a different account name in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands, and he has been the subject of an RFC/U. He was previously topic banned in 2009 in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty. A sample of his style of reasoning can be seen in this version of his talk page. In my opinion, it's reasonable for him to explain himself here and to take measures to ensure that this pattern doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Since I have a bit of background in Japanese history I reviewed Enkyo's edits. Hijiri likes to add information from modern Japanese encyclopedias, and Enkyo likes to add information from older primary sources or poorly edited Western encyclopedias. This information is mostly NPOV and not necessarily wrong. Both editors are using the sources to justify straightforward information and pretty ordinary views. I did not find any articles being especially worsened by Enkyo's behavior. The main problem is that Enkyo has very poor communication. When he wants to make a brief point he seems to be able to do so (often using the passive tense), but when he has to reply to a sustained argument he descends into incomprehensibility. He attempts to avoid pertinent discussions by not responding, as he has done here, or by changing his username, as he did multiple times on Simple English Wikipedia. He also seems to think that he can make up for his "subjective" communication failures by adding "objective" information to related Wikipedia articles, as is the case here, but that's not especially bad if he really does have relevant information to add. As ARBCOM warned before, Enkyo has to be humble and recognize that he cannot edit if he isn't able to justify himself coherently. I attempted to piece together his view at WP:RSN but the discussion is already confused by the highly personal nature of his argument with Hijiri. Shii (tock) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Enkyo2: - I'm trying to WP:AGF here but the fact you stopped editing during the previous ANI discussion, and then re-appeared as soon as it was archived, is concerning. Please can you explain your absence? GiantSnowman 18:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Question: Could this be taken as a "request for clarification and amendment" to the most recent Arbcom case? That is, since this is essentially the same problem as Enkyo2 was admonished for before, could we process it through Arbcom expeditiously (i.e., without a whole new case) on the grounds that the temporary (1 year) ban did not alleviate the problem? And if anyone not convinced that there is a problem here, please take a look at User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-Fukue, found by Kim Dent-Brown, which I have to presume is how he presumes to answer the current concern. Note also that after Kim Dent-Brown advised him not to attempt to use such a format and length of response, his next step was to increase the length by about 50%. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom case from 2011 included this advice to Tenmei:

Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

I think the wished-for change in Tenmei/Enkyo's style has manifestly not occurred. Whether the disruption it causes is sufficient for a block, a topic ban, a return to the ArbCom case is harder to judge. I'd really appreciate a few more opinions in here. We either have a knowledgeable, able topic expert who is being unfairly hounded by trivial complaints, or a slyly disruptive editor who masks the damage he causes in a swirl of hard-to-understand verbiage. If there's a third explanation I don't see it. Either way we need to do something; inaction in either case would be inexcusable. More voices, please.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think it is the latter. As for the solution, I am inclined to an indef block. GiantSnowman 11:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef, unless we hear something to convince us that the same pattern won't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri's tendency to make arguments personal is not the problem here, and it's kind of ironic that Enkyo's planned response has an image of the WP:DR pyramid without understanding that. I wonder if Enkyo speaks Japanese, in which case he might understand the following: 以魚駆蠅するな。子曰く、改めざるときは、吾之を如何ともする末きのみ。 Shii (tock) 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic-address IP disrupting to illustrate a point

At The Dakota, a contentious, month-long RfC finally resulted in a consensus to add an a.k.a. name to the famed New York apartment building. Yet one anon IP — alone among every other editor in the debate — refuses to allow this addition to be cited. He's uses several IP addresses, each starting with 69.95, most recently (today) 69.95.62.66, where I will add notification. Others include‎ 69.95.203.93 and 69.95.175.101. He was against the consensus decision, and now is disrupting Wikipedia in response.

As discussed at Talk:The Dakota, he claims adding a footnote to support the alternate name "chang[es] the considered result of the RFC." It seems remarkable that anyone would claim that adding a citation supporting the result of the RfC would be "changing" it. He further claims it would be harmful to the article to cite this alternate name since "it's obvious." If it were obvious, we never would have needed a contentious month-long discussion.

This editor was against including the alternate name, and my impression is that he doesn't want that alternate name cited, so that it will be removed at some later point specifically for being uncited. Whether this is an accurate read or not, it seems surreal that an editor would fight so strongly not to WP:VERIFY a fact that had editors debating its veracity for a month! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Subject of article requesting article be deleted

The article in question is Theresa Obermeyer, and Ms. Obermayer (or someone claiming to be her, I obviously have no ability to verify) would like it either deleted or rewritten to her specifications.

New user Tobermeyer6 initially posted a request in an unrelated article,[90] and when I deleted it, she posted the request on my talk page.

I'm not an admin, so I'm bringing the issue here on her behalf. For now I have no opinion of what should be done with the article. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Re I'm not an admin... -- could you get that fixed please? Thanks. Zad68 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be deleting anyting just based on the comment of someone whom may or may not be the one in question. They need to submit an official request through WP:OTRS. Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (Off-topic) Zad, are you saying I should fix the fact that I'm not an admin? Or am I completely misreading you here? Just curious. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You understood correctly! Zad68 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• (ec) The proposed content is not really usable, both because it appears elsewhere (the subject's facebook?), and because it's not based on any reliable sources. But on the other hand, the only reference in the article is about the subject's husband. I think this could easily be deleted on notability grounds. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, someone should probably oversight that personal information from Dawn Bard's talk page. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably not a bad idea - if oversight is deemed appropriate here, make sure to get the edit to Ideal speech situation that she made earlier - it contains all of the same info. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
• I've stubified the article per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Even if she is a public figure WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests the article should have been better sourced for the information unrelated to why she is a public figure, namely her run for US Senate. It may be possible to better source some of what I removed, and if they are they may be restored, but speaking with my admin hat totally removed, out of respect for human dignity, I'd prefer they be left out. Monty₈₄₅ 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, policy, per deletion policy and BLP, says that we don't have to completely disregard people's wishes with respect to deletion of their articles. I might take a stronger view of this than is strictly supported in policy, but I don't see any reason why we shouldn't honor a person of marginal notability's request to delete their article (and to be fair, based on a very quick glance, I'm not sure that the article fairly represented her anyway.) I'll be creating the AfD directly, if someone hasn't beaten me to the punch. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That was actually my first thought. And was getting ready to do that until I got the the last sentence of the article. Being a major party candidate for US Senate is a pretty big deal. Monty₈₄₅ 20:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's fair; I'm sure people will disagree with me, and I'm not at all sure the AfD will succeed, but it's certainly worth the discussion. Side note: I've revdeled the two edits pending true oversight. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(ecx4)No complaint here, I don't have the delete button but personally (and meaning no disrespect to the individual in question) I don't see anything in the article that would indicate inherent notibility anyway. I guess if the situation escalates we can always undelete it. Kumioko (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Generally Wikipedia articles are not deleted or rewritten simply because the subject if the article is unhappy with what is written about them. In this case however, this article seems to fail Wikipedias general notability guidelines. An unsuccessful run for a senate seat is hardly lasting notability. JOJ ^Hutton 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Per WP:POLITICIAN just being an unsuccessful candidate doesn't get you over that specialized notability guideline, it defaults back to WP:GNG, and from my searches so far it might or might not meet that. This could be a case where we apply the principle that self-requests to delete when the notability is marginal should be honored. Zad68 20:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Zad, you are correct on policy, but a major party candidate for US Senate is inevitably going to receive multiple profiles in the newspapers and so pass GNG.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'd expect too, but I was surprised to find Google News give zero hits and Google Scholar (searching on "Theresa Obermeyer" in quotes) produce only two relevant-looking hits and I can't really tell if they'd be useful for a bio. A straight-up Web search does give some more things--juneauempire.com seems to have the most stories--but I haven't yet run across the nice independently-written candidate profile we're looking for. We'll see what gets brought to any AFD... Zad68 20:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Her run was years ago, so you want to use Search Tools : Archives. Pages and pages of hits. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

GRuban so when I tell Google News search that I want my search results from "Any time", that doesn't actually mean "Any time"? Wow... I'm embarrassed to say I didn't know about that before, and thanks for explaining it. (And who says that nothing good ever comes out of an ANI thread?) And absolutely, when you search the archives you get quite a bit. Meanwhile the AFD is rolling forward with delete at full speed... Zad68 02:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Google archives are becoming less and less useful, as Google have stopped adding new articles to them. My impression is that something that was in the news 6 months or two years ago is now essentially unfindable in Google News. (See Template_talk:Find_sources#Google_News_search_is_completely_useless Andreas JN466 16:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There are only 100 U.S. Senate seats, and 2 major American political parties, so being the candidate of a major party in an election for a U.S. Senate seat would seem to handily fulfill notability requirements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest an early close on the deletion discussion per WP:BLP, WP:SNOW, etc. It's a very clear delete. Could an admin close it, please? StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's long been practice that a BLP of a marginally notable person with no or skimpy sources be deleted, particularly when everything unsourced is removed (and that's something that definitely should be done in cases of the subject asking for the removal of the article) - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Where to go for assistance

What's the best place to ask for assistance when there is a discussion in which you feel the other party is not behaving appropriately (making false accusations, avoiding directly discussion the topic at hand etc)? I need both an outside third opinion on the topic, and someone to look at the behaviour of the other editor because it's incredibly frustrating to deal with (I suspect they may be stonewalling in the hope that I'll give up and go away). WP:3O isn't an option as there was originally a third party in the conversation (they gave up on talk, but continued reverting) and WP:DRN states that it's not about editor behaviour. Cheers, Number 57 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You may want to try WP: RFC as an avenue for dispute resolution. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've tried RFCs before, and unfortunately my experience is that they're worse than useless, mostly because they attract almost no outside input, so it just ends up with the same group of POV pushers from both sides of the debate turning up with the same old arguments and predictable voting patterns. Is there anywhere else? Number 57 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, an RFC would at least show that you've tried to work the problem through the normal dispute resolution channels. If you try anything more drastic at this point (say, Arbitration), you risk getting it rejected for not having first tried the usual procedures. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I've started one here. Outside input would be most appreciated to prevent it descending into the usual farce. However, should my prediction above come to pass, where would I go next? And won't it just lead to accusations of forum shopping? Number 57 16:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's now got to the point where I think I need a venue to raise concerns about editor behaviour - the dispute is a separate issue. Where's the best place for this? Number 57 17:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the nature of the disruptive behaviour. Are they edit warring? If so, you can raise the matter at WP:AN3. If it's a complex case of long-term or multifaceted disruption, you can post here at WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's more a case of refusing to debate in a constructive manner - making false claims about what has been said by the other party, refusal to acknowledge sources, cherrypicking, smearing the other editor with claims of bias and ulterior motives etc. It's infuriating, and makes it very difficult to discuss civilly. Number 57 17:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi 57, since this article deals with Israeli-Palestinian topics it is covered under a previous ARBCOM decision WP:ARBPIA. You can request enforcment at WP:AE. It would be helpful if you read through some past cases to get an idea of what a good report looks like. And yeesh, the edit he made to the RFC would be enough for at least a warning at AE in my opinion - I'm not even gonna bother reading the rest because I'm pretty sure I know exactly where it's going. GL N^oformation ^Talk 17:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just wondering what exactly I can request enforcement for? I can't see any specific sanctions that would apply here aside from general disruptiveness. Number 57 19:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC) (replaced by 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Editor refusing to explain closure of MR against consensus

The move review discussion for 30 seconds to mars,was recently closed by User:Jreferee as no consensus despite only seven !votes being cast and of those only two were to endorse closure. Two editors including myself have requested an explanation with no result. Could someone please either get an explanation for their actions against consensus or reverse the disputed closure. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this ANI thread is a little early. Earthh asked the question and 8 hours later you took the issue to ANI. Give it 24 to 48 hours from Earthh's message and then come here.--v/r - TP 22:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Jreferee did respond;[91] PantherLeapord's own behavior is cause of the breakdown in communication.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Observation: The problem is that the 2 overturn-pending-explanation votes were not adjusted after the explanation is given. However, even when you toss those 2 votes out, there are 2 endorse close, 4 overturn, 1 relist. That is still sufficient evidence that the move is not supported, and the MR should not have been closed as such. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee just replied with the following:

The move review close was based on the strength of arguments regarding whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In other words, it was a review of whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly, not whether the close was correct or incorrect. The iVotes that addressed the sufficiency of the close explanation were not directed to whether closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. SmokeyJoe only wanted an explanation, which BDD provided. SmokeyJoe did not provide much argument, so it seemed to be a week endorse. B2C appeared to indicated that B2C adopted BDD’s explanation, giving strength to B2C position as endorse. Cúchullain and BDD both had strong endorse arguments, with BDD close additionally benefitting from closer’s discretion. On the overturn side, there were strong arguments and additional comments which addressed whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly to varying degrees. BDDs additional details on his close (18:34, 28 August 2013) was there for twelve days, but did not significantly move the discussion one way or another. I did not see a general sense of agreement one way or another. Since BDDs additional details on his close seemed to quell general concern for his close and there appeared to be no consensus in the move review, which has the same effect as endorse close, I close the review as endorse close.

What confuses me is that this implies that votes not going either way were to be interpreted as "endorse". Is that how things are supposed to be done normally? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 04:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I have asked B2C and SmokeyJoe to comment here, as their comments (and lack of follow-up) contributed (inadvertently, most likely) to this report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I was initially alarmed when an administrator, Jreferee, was upset with PantherLeapord because, quite frankly, I don't want him to make any mistakes since I was his mentor a bit ago after he got into a bit of trouble and sought out the adopt-a-user program. However, quite frankly, there's no way this should have proceeded this way by my definition of "consensus." Though it may be wiki-career suicide, I, too, disagree with the actions of Jreferee. However, with that said, I'll stop short of accusing anything more than a hasty or accidental action. I've certainly made worse mistakes than this. I do think that the decision should be reversed, but Jreferee, who has a history of very positive contributions, should simply duly note this, and everyone should move on. --Jackson Peebles (talk • contribs) 06:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Jreferee spoke about the endorses but not the overturs. The majority of the users expressed an overturn, so there's a consensus. Almost everyone in the move review wrote that at the requested move there was no consensus to move the page to the current title.--Earthh (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Looking at the whole; even the comments presents the official name is "Thirty Seconds". I like how the argument against "Thirty Seconds" is the Allmusic usage of "30 seconds..."[92], but the title is "Thirty Seconds" and the url changes as well to match it.[93]. Further evidence comes from the "Awards" which all list "Thirty Seconds".[94] MTV also lists "Thirty Seconds".[95] The official website is "Thirty Seconds to Mars".[96] Now let's not get into the limitations of Twitter where the short-hand is adequate. BBC uses it, but here is the interesting thing, other websites use "Thirty Seconds" and aside from the Youtube, the major sites all use it.[97] If anything, the usage in authoritative (not short hand) form is for "Thirty Seconds" and Wikipedia is a professional-level encyclopedia and should reflect that in both prose and title. The prose says "Thirty Seconds" not "30 seconds" throughout and when weighing the factors, seems to be a clear choice. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• You should read my comments on the move review. AllMusic changed the name recently, it was 30 Seconds to Mars when I posted it, but if you read the biography, they still use 30 Seconds to Mars. This also underline the fact that the "Thirty Seconds" is a new name. Since 1998 the band has been using "30 Seconds" while "Thirty Seconds" is used from 2013 onwards, that's why "Thirty Seconds" should remain a redirect (read WP:COMMONNAME).--Earthh (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, I just am pointing out what I see. For professionalism we should use the official name when it is recognized internationally as such, short or long form of "Thirty". Let's not get into the Manning issue, but this is not out of the Prince (musician) issue and its not like "Mammoth" to "Van Halen", but just whether or not you write out the number or don't. For appearances and professionalism combined with the adoption and official use of "Thirty" and not "30", the official use should trump over a shortening no matter how prevalent. Examples to this are rather rare, yes, but Wikipedia is the sole major site that doesn't use "Thirty". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User Jeff Rudd and the Direct Democracy Ireland, COI and off-Wiki accusations

Jeff Rudd has a conflict of interest on the Direct Democracy Ireland article, he is the current chairman of Louth Direct Democracy Ireland, and has tried to edit it to remove cited material. This has been re-added, with numerous cites. His COI has been brought to the relevant notice board. However he has previously, unconnectedly, recieved a threat. He has added to the DDI talkpage that "I wish Wikipedia to notify the Irish Gardi and Interpol as to the events that has occurred here and what might be connected to my sudden death or any injury that might fall upon me". And he has added infomation naming one of the other editors on the DDI page to [ his personal website]. This is not assuming good faith, not following dispute resolutions and a possible case of trying to for meat puppetry, not to mention intimadating any editors espieacally the one named, with police mentioned. I have edited the aricle but only manual of style edits. Murry1975 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

---

I, Jeff Rudd have not continued to edit the page of which there is a conflict. I have not done so for a number of days now. That said, I have repeatedly requested the removal of UNPROVED allegations - the cited material that is allegations, NOT PROOF - that even now persist on a page that describes my national organisation. Anything I have stated in on record and I stand by it. I'm up for public election soon and if you take this into account, you might see that any sensible person is not willing to post anything 'daft' for want of a better description, in that light.

I have pointed out on more than one occasion with detail why a current Dublin based editor to the organisation page that I represent - has conflicting interests. I have even detailed where he has lied and a Wikipedia admin has also backed this by by stating that I have been active only for "days" not "weeks" as lied by another. Namely this same person is additionally a supporter of an organisation and ideology that opposes mine and others - who's pages he also alters. He has openly stated that he is of an element that opposes other political directions offered in Ireland.

As such,as the Wiki rules stand still, any competitors should NOT be editing that of those that are opposite them or oppose them. One continues do do this however and is still getting away with it.

I have from the very outset, made clear who I am, what I am connected to and I have nothing to hide. I have been from the outset, upfront and honest. I use my real name and still stand for honestly and transparency. It is the very cornerstone of my organisation. No if's or buts. I have no problem taking this matter to the media where I will there too stand on record and state the very same things I have here.

It is unfortunate that I have indeed received threats. I have stated this while remaining silent about who is responsible but as a precaution have informed others at home. Given the historic nature/actions (easily googled) of those that oppose my organisation and others that are only peaceful in intention, the threat upon my life is very real and not to be taken lightly. Its not a light matter, nor a joking matter, nor do I post for "meat puppetry" - the threats are very real and my family and I do not take them lightly at all - nor do others close to home. Researching the background of recent "republican history in Ireland" it can be discovered that these threats are very real and sadly on many occasions, have been carried out to full extent.

My original request is simple and still is asked of, regarding my organisations website. I have asked that an allegation that still exists unproved, be edited out. Again, this is easily googled.

On Direct Democracy Ireland (DDI) webpage its stated that the ideology of DDI is "Freeman on the land" (even that is stated wrong - its Freeman OF the land)) - nothing is further from the truth. I have stated (and the following can be easily checked)that:

• There is NO Freeman ideology in the constitution of DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman ideology in the rules of the DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman postings on our forums.
• There is NO Freeman ideology on our website.
• There is NO freeman mandate in the Mandate of the DDI organisation.
• There is NO Freeman direction of any kind in the DDI organisation.
• Even the founder Ray Whitehead was never a Freeman - and NEVER even ALLEGED to be one!

...Yet a political person - a competitor (COI conflict rules alone!) - we know now supports an opposing position - he's stated this himself, is allowed anon' to post that we are of a wacky Freeman origin - and ONLY references ALLEGATIONS, many which their own party has actually put out to try besmirch the name of our growing popular organisation! They continuously reference their own allegations submitted into their own socialist paper tabloids produced from their own offices in Dublin, Ireland - and they so this though their socialist papers/mag offering them then up as supposed sudden proof - when its not - its just allegations started by them in the first place - without no proof provided.

I will continue to peacefully battle for the truth to be told - I'm hoping that eventually Wikipedia and its page on Direct Democracy Ireland, will do so too and adjust what is a easy edit for anyone. I have NOT done it myself - as I could have done - out of respect to the COI rules that have been rightly pointed out to me. I respect the rules and I stand by them by upholding them now, after being informed of their existence.

I hope you will address the COI of others that is with a political agenda, altering what I wish to see changed, to disparage my organisation for the betterment of one he supports, edits and absolutely states he follows. I have given evidence to this matter also.

I do not wish to antagonise the good admin of Wikipedia but I on behalf of my many, many members, those that elected me and others, must continue to contest the lies that have been spread as ALLEGATIONS and accepted amazingly later as PROOF with nothing to back it subsequently!

If highlighting these lies means having to expose that Wikipedia is continuing to state incorrect facts and up to now presently stand alone (ye do) in stating them incorrectly (ye do) and have them posted on your site service (ye do), then I must highlight this, defending my members though other media be it website, TV or radio, etc for the clearing of their name.

I expect anyone else would do same if they were in my position and the position of my organisation. To not do this at least is to fail to represent the peaceful people that to this date, back the efforts made by Direct Democracy Ireland.

Jeff Rudd (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• At COIN, I found that Jeff Rudd had a clear COI with Direct Democracy Ireland topics.[98] Since he did have a valid point, I then posted an argument supporting Jeff at NPOVN.[99] Basically, reference to Freeman/Freemen in the Direct Democracy Ireland article should be removed for the time being. Unfortunately, Jeff then posted more of the above at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Direct Democracy Ireland, making it hard for editors to address the issue. His last post to article space was 17:37, 7 September 2013, so he is complying with the 01:13, 8 September 2013 COIN finding. If you look at the COIN thread, Jeff has toned it down a little. If you have time, please consider the NPOVN request and also help Jeff with his participation in Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:R.stickler

Will an Amin please look at User:R.stickler's account? He appears to have done very little but cause disruption.

• His edits in February 2013 consisted of an ill-judged accusation that a Cambridge academic was posting copyrighted articles on the Internet.
• His edits in July 2013 consisted of some trivial additions to some articles, which were out of context in those articles. (He had failed to read the article hat notes)
• His edits in September 2013 consisted of personal attacks on User:Boson and myself.

Regardless of whether he is a meat puppet, a sock puppet or whether he has any other motivation, his presence on Wikipedia must be considered disruptive - over 80% of his "contributions" have been personal attacks. Martinvl (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"The WP:DUCK is strong with this one."--v/r - TP 00:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Indef per WP:NOTHERE and as an obvious sockpuppet of someone. The user talk warnings are way out of line, and not something that could be chalked up to an innocent mistake. Probably doesn't even need a discussion prior to a block, but given the lack of warnings, I'll hold off on that personally. Monty₈₄₅ 04:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Martinvl: Boson, with clearly nothing to hide, gave a clear response. You chose instead to attack me with a collection of misrepresentations of my contributions. My questions to you and Boson were well reasoned and not bad-faith or trivial, please answer in good-faith. R.stickler (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Implicit legal threats and COI on Robinson pages

After three accounts trying to censor these pages and accusations of lawyers creating/editing page, I felt it was time to bring this administrator attention. Pages being edited:

• Robinson R44
• Robinson R22

Accounts involved, in chronological order:

• User:RHC Legal (banned for username)
• User:Robinson watcher (notified)
• User:TD12231972 (notified)

Specific reasons I feel this requires admin attention:

1. see edit reason
2. see edit reason
3. see edit reason
4. see edit reason

Thank you for your time. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted, on the usernames here, that the first (RHC Legal (talk · contribs)) was, as noted, blocked per WP:U; the second, Robinson watcher (talk · contribs), appears to have been abandoned after this comment in favor of the "neutral" TD12231972 (talk · contribs); whether that is a good-faith attempt at neutrality or an attempt to evade COI scrutiny is, of course, a question. As for the removal of content, while some of it it was originally sourced to a COI/non-RS, that part merely needs another source to be added instead of having a section blanked - which, it should be noted, removed valid information as well as the claimed COI-added info, which was only on the R44 article while sections were blanked on both; this is obviously an attempt to whitewash what is considered to be embarassing-to-the-company information. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Threat and deleting pictures w/o getting a consensus

User:Werieth has threatened me of seeking a ban topic for myself if I didn't stop reverting his edit.

First of all, I reverted his edit on Desire (Geri Halliwell song) due to removing an image that was under WP:BRD discussion [100] and a consensus about keeping the image or not, wasn't done yet and yet he STILL removed it w/o getting with a final consensus about the image.

Second, this user has been threatening a lot of users.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. 'Consensus' is not necessary to remove non-free content not meeting the criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

There's currently an ongoing discussion about keeping the image or not, and according to WP:BRD: "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". Another user has raised points in keeping the image, so User:Werieth shouldn't remove an image without getting a final consensus.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A talk-page consensus cannot overrule Wikipedia policy - and Wikipedia has to take copyright considerations seriously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As the article is the only fair use rationale for the image, is there a reason it can't just be taken to FFD, and remain in the article until the discussion there resolves? Monty₈₄₅ 04:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I obviously have not seen eye to eye with Werieth in that his reading of WP:NFCC is sometimes not always consistent with other editor's readings or current consensus on certain points and he edit wars to remove images despite discussions on his talk page or articles talk pages. I am glad he is pointing to specific points of WP:NFCC in his edit summaries now since in the past he used edit summaries of "see WP:NFC", which lead to a lot of reversions back and worth, user talk page warnings by Werieth and threats of blocks by Werieth that could have been avoided by using better communication. A lot of editors do not know all of the ins and outs of WP:NFCC and most just need to be told what the rules are and sometimes why they are and the editors understand why the images cannot be used. In this case there are two different readings of WP:NFCC and because Werieth refuses to take images to Wikipedia:Files for deletion when reverted as he has been advised by numerous editors and admins, I started this discussion to try and reach a consensus on the correct reading. He left a message on the talk page and then proceeded to make two more reversions for a total of three reversions less than 24 hours despite being told that these image removals are not exceptions to WP:3RR because they are not unquestionably violations and could result in his being blocked for edit warring. Aspects (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, Hotwiki is really misrepresenting the facts of this case, I threatened a topic ban because this user does not understand policy in regards to non-free media, he has already been taken to ANI where it was proven that his actions went against policy. NFCC is fairly clear about what is and isn't allowed. There is a general consensus that 1 image is allowed for visual identification without critical commentary of the image. Any more images must have reliably sourced critical commentary on the image (Otherwise NFCC#8 isnt met). I also need to laugh since Aspects has been tag teaming with Hotwiki to re-add files and ignore NFCC. Werieth (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• ASpects and Hotwiki need to be careful of tag-teaming each other's reverts, though. This is gaming the system and if repeated on a regular basis is just as likely (indeed, more likely) to lead to a block as exceeding 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Burks

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

---

Resolved

Would appreciate it if an admin (or any editor) would start this page on my behalf, because I don't have an account to do so. The article already has the AFD text. The reasoning you can include is Non-notable. Does not meet football notability criteria in WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played any games in any professional league.. Thanks. 98.125.193.153 (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Already done by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs). Monty₈₄₅ 04:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 98.125.193.153 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Move help

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

---

Hi. Could i ask a nearby admin to help out at K. D. Singh (politician)? It's at the correct location now, but through a series of moves and cut-and-paste moves the history is at K.D. Singh (politician) (no space between the initials). If i'm in the wrong place for help, sorry; happy to be told where to go (nicely!). Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved the article from K.D. Singh (politician) to K. D. Singh (politician). There was no history at K. D. Singh (politician) that needed to be saved. GB fan 10:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to GB fan and JohnCD for those quick responses. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User is trying to take me to edit warring, breaks wikipedia rules and calls me duplicate

Hallo. User Хаченци is trying to take me into edit warring and removes "Citation Needed" from date, which is not cited in article Armenian_alphabet. Britannica suggests that oldest script of Armenian alphabet is dated back to 9-10th century, when Armenian traditional view suggests date of 406 AD. Archaeological proof is more reliable than attribution or traditional view. Still we must contain both point of view in date but seems this user tries to put only point of view he/she agrees. He already reverted edit of "Citation needed" without any evidence or reason given. He calls me duplicate account, as well... Please take a look at this. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional Notes: User Хаченци has posted in WP:SPI regarding his accusation of sockpuppetry ([101]). In addition to this, I did place request in WP:RPP due to my own suspicions of this turning into an edit war. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not make any edit after he reverted 2 edits without given reason. I try to keep this article calm to avoid it frozen on Wrong Version. I only discuss this and try to achieve consensus. I checked history of this user, he has history of Edit warring.

I will try to keep situation in normal conditions. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that entry at WP:SPI for procedural reasons. Quick checkuser requests are for cases that do not include sockpuppetry. Хаченци has been informed how to file a proper sockpuppet investigation. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User Jerry Pepsi continues to be malicious

Not sure why you continue to let https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jerry_Pepsi&action=edit&redlink=1 maliciously edit but if you look at the edit he just did recently, he undid the amount of episodes aired which are 11, he reverted it back to 10; he undid one of the episode listings, he undid one the story points. he continues to act maliciously. it had been a few days since the page was edited, under the impression there had been a truce reached. However, he continues to play tit for tat and enter false information and just behave in an inappropriate way. the page at question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory:_Married_%26_Dating (Tvfanatics (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tvfanatics: Is there a particular reason you have neither discussed this matter at the article's talk page or notified the user about this ANI report? Your refusal to discuss at the talk page was mentioned the last time you filed an ANI report against Jerry Pepsi. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• How much longer must this continue? Tvfanatics is a SPA that is apparently used by multiple people and may also be a sockpuppet of User:Swingerlove. How is continuing to allow these people to edit this one article and hurl constant accusations beneficial to the project? Please, end all of our misery and permanently block this editor. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@JerryPepsi: what are you talking about? there is only one person using this account and it is ME, MYSELF AND I. ANd I have no affiliation with Swingerlove, take it up with them. I love how you are trying to deflect from the fact that you are malicious and reverting edits because you have control issues and not because you are concerned about the veracity of the page. Please block user Jerry pepsi from editing. (Tvfanatics (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

TVFantatics has been operating as an SPA. He refrained from editing while the page was protected (other than a request to have his edits replaced) and quickly returned here when his changes were questioned and he was asked to discuss. This editor cannot contribute productively. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@JerryPepsi: you're really good at deflecting from your malicious edits. can you tell us all why you continue to undo factual edits, like the fact that 11 episodes aired, but you reverted the edit to 10 episodes? i would love to hear your answer to this question (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

This is most likely the last time anyone will warn you about this: Do not refer to his edits as malicious. It is a violation of WP:NPA. He has been trying to discuss the issue with you, and you have done nothing but open multiple ANI reports against him for it. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Look at the history, he started this by accusing me of vandalism. I am simply a fan and entering the correct information and he continues to undo the edits without reason. I have tried to talk to him and engage him and all he does is undo the edits. We will keep going I guess since no one seems to want to stop him from editing this page. (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)) I have an email from the wikipedia information team (Axl Matulic)and he agrees with me that my edits were not "vandalism" and that Jerry Pepsi was out of line saying that, yet, i speak the truth, that he being malicious and vindictive, and you threaten my account? this is weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvfanatics (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't be a fan, be an editor. Confirm via reliable sources that your edit is valid. Include said reliable sources. If someone reverts you, discuss it with them. It takes two to tango and you are the one not looking good at the moment. 129.9.104.9 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please show Diffs of the instances in which you initiated communication in a civil manner with Jerry Pepsi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Today "And no, jerry pepsi did not try to talk to us/me once when the page was locked, I don't know why you are saying that." Aug. 29 Aug. 28 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We have done that over and over!! The official source of information is the show itself, I get all the info from the showtime show page! How more official can you get??? And I have tried to speak with Jerry pepsi, he started it by accusing me of vandalism, and wikipedia agreed with me that it was NOT, so he was trying to start drama! he is unreasonable! i have done nothing butdo accurate edits, and there are many fans on wikipedia. that is ridiculous, i see edits from fans all the time.

@JerryPepsi: i know you are signing in with your IP address, I know you are the one asking for DIFFS, go to your user page, the very first entry "what's the deal?" you are passive aggressive and you think you own the page for some reason. i also have Axl Matulic from wikipedia acknowledging that some of your edits were spiteful. I can post the email here or forward to ADMIN if they want. (Tvfanatics (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

Perhaps no one has explained the principles of Truth versus Verifiable. Perhaps if you engaged in the project or article discussion pages Jerry Pepsi would be willing to explain the manual of style to you as well. Also, I am not Jerry Pepsi and I invite a CU to investigate that. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)