Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) at 03:15, 9 October 2012 (→‎User:Zrdragon12 Reverting for Fun and Deleting Well-Sourced Material for No Reason: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Nationalistic disruption

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

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

    By what reason, did Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) labels me a nationalist? I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) lacks the ability of reading, and I think I am far from a nationalist or a patriot of Japan. After I had requested Ryulong(琉竜) to show the reliable source on the talk page of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ryulong(琉竜) began to make actions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 4 and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here. These must be the bothering tactics of Ryulong(琉竜), Ryulong(琉竜) must show the reliable source that my definition of Ryukyu Arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is synonymous with "Ryukyu Islands".(Masanori Asami (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Ryulong stated that you were pushing a Chinese nationalist PoV, not Japanese. – Richard BB

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

    Maybe so. For I have not classified the Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) into the Ryukyu Islands of Japan. I think Diaoyu Islands(Senkaku Islands) belongs to Taiwan China.(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    But my nationality is Japanese, so it is not correct that even if Ryulong(琉竜) had called me a nationalist for short instead of a Chinese nationalist. (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    I find it odd that someone who claims to be a Japanese citizen believes that the embattled islands belong to the Republic of China rather than their own nation.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But Masanori Asami can communicate in Japanese Does that erase your suspicion? OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely enough, there are in the world some non-Japanese people who can communicate using the Japanese language: there's even this thing called "language classes" that non-Japanese can use to improve their abilities.. --Calton | Talk 04:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion on MA's ethnic background is irrelevant to the case at hand. One's ancestry is not the determining factor when considering if behaviour is disruptive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the Wikipedia article of late Professor Kiyoshi Inoue who was a Japanese but clarified meanness of the Japanese Government about Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands dispute. (Masanori Asami (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    The definition of Ryukyu Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ryulong (talk · contribs)(琉竜) is same to an article of People's Daily in 1953, and is almost same to the arrticle of Baidu(百度百科) edited by the Chinese nationalist in Mainland China. They want to make Ryukyu independent from Japan, and classify Ōsumi Islands (大隅諸島) which have never belonged to Ryukyu Kingdom into Ryukyu Islands, such that to make the area of Ryukyu wider. For they think the land of Ryukyu belongs to China. If you can understand chinese, please see "琉球群岛" in Baidu(百度百科) below.
    http://baike.baidu.com/view/68665.htm
    (Masanori Asami (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Masanori Asami, the definition on Wikipedia is the common definition for the English speaking world. The Americans referred to the entirety of the chain as the "Ryukyus" during their occupation. Up until sometime last year, the article was solely about the islands that comprise Okinawa Prefecture, but upon further research several editors discovered that Encyclopedia Britanica and other publications refer to everything in the "Arc" as the Ryukyu Islands. You have for reasons unknown seen fit to disrupt the page on not only the English Wikipedia but the Chinese Wikipedia. You removed valid sources, removed anything regarding the Osumi and Tokara chains, removed content regarding Japanese rule, the Japanese name for the whole chain, and some other nomenclature information and a free photo. On top of that you have been fighting over the content fork at Ryukyu Arc as well as insisting that content be added to the main page that the Amami Islands are not part of the Japanese definition, even though that information is already covered. You are not here to constructively edit. You are here to push a point of view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Be bold. --(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    This really does seem like AE material to me, but the wording of the WP:SENKAKU remedies are vague enough in their scope that I'm not sure if bringing it there would be the right course of action. I have a mind to file a request for clarification on the matter, unless anyone can give me a definite answer on the matter short of that process. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on my misgivings on the general wording of the remedies as well as how applicable they are here, I have opened a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Senkaku Islands. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Masanori Asami is now repeatedly calling into question my qualifications for editing all of Wikipedia because of a message I have posted on my ja.wp talk page that hasn't been changed in like 5 years. Also he saw fit to edit WP:SENKAKU to post the same screed against me he posted on the AFD for Ryukyu Arc.

    I believe that Masanori Asami lacks the competence that we seek of editors for this project, and will only continue to disrupt Wikipedia in its English, Japanese, and Chinese editions so long as one project uses the common English definition of the "Ryukyu Islands" which encompasses everything the Japanese call the "Nansei Islands", rather than a portion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He posted the screed a 3rd time now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong(琉竜) named this claim "Nationalistic disruption", so Ryulong(琉竜) must make it clear that Ryulong(琉竜) think me (user:Masanori Asami) as the nationalist of China or the nationalist of Japan, to avoid the "chameleon tactics" in the future.(Masanori Asami (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Ryulong(琉竜) made my nationality a problem substantially, so Ryulong(琉竜) should disclose own nationality.(Masanori Asami (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    It must be paid attention that, even if I(user:Masanori Asami) had been a nationalist of China or Japan and my editing had been perfectly correct, then there would have been no problem. So, the title of this claim "Nationalistic disruption" is not suitable for wikipedia, such labelling is a technique to evade investigation.(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    I am an American national currently residing in Okinawa Prefecture. I may have been wrong to label your disruption as nationalistic, but it is most certainly disruption at any stage. Why else would the Chinese Wikipedia have seen fit to fully protect their page on the island chain had you not been disrupting it there? You have clearly been disrupting both the English and Chinese Wikipedias with your attempts to make the definition of the "Ryukyu Islands" your own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At this point, I think it would be most helpful if someone instituted an interaction ban. That doesn't resolve the content dispute, though. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
    forcemeat          09:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why would an interaction ban be necessary when I'm a regular editor with several hundred thousand edits and Masanori Asami is a WP:SPA?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think editing limited to one very narrow area or set of articles is bad, but I create Daikon Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in 2007. Daikon Island is a volcano, so I edited the article of Volcanology of Earth Science. Please see my abstracts about "Daikon Island" in the homepage of "Japan Geoscience Union" below. So, Ihave some knowledge about the "Ryukyu Arc".

    http://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2003/pdf/v055/v055-p030_e.pdf

    http://www2.jpgu.org/meeting/2004/pdf/v055/v055-p026_e.pdf

    (Masanori Asami (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Asami continues his personal attacks.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They were not personal attacks.(Masanori Asami (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    "How could you graduate an elementary school?" is most certainly a personal attack.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even an elementary school child of the average ability is different from "1,046 km (650 mi) " and "650 km (400 miles)" . (Masanori Asami (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    I didn't read the numbers and only paid attention to the text. A simple mistake that you want me to pay for so you can be in the right.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc

    Ryulong(琉竜) began to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc after had made the page of (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryukyu Arc) . The editing of substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc contradicts the proposal for the article deletion. That means the withdrawal of the proposal by Ryulong(琉竜).(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    (notice) After Ryulong(琉竜) had begun to edit substantial contents of Ryukyu Arc, User:EauOo moved page Ryukyu Arc to Ryukyu arc.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Ryulong(琉竜) should apologize to me in having proposed the article deletion.(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    There is no rule saying "thou shalt not improve the article after nominating it for deletion" - especially as the edits were not "substantial contents" - and there is precisely zero requirment for anyone to apologise, especially for AfD nominations done in good faith. Strongly reccomend this subsection be closed as spurious and specious. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule system of Wikipedia is incomplete. Thus the incomplete part must be complemented by "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" and good sense. Estoppel is one of such general principle of law recognized by civilized nations, especially by English speaking nations.Please see Estoppel.(Masanori Asami (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC))(Masanori Asami (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Please see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:VNT. Also please see WP:THETRUTH. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid Ryulong(琉竜) does not understand the definition of Ryukyu Arc given by User:EauOo at 16:23, 6 October 2012‎. In fact, Ryulong(琉竜) added "It comprises the entirety of the Ryukyu Islands chain. ", but that means "Ryukyu Islands" do not include Daitō Islands(大東諸島) nor Senkaku Islands(尖閣諸島), for according to the definition of Ryukyu Arc given by User:EauOo, "Ryukyu arc" do not include Daitō Islands(大東諸島) nor Senkaku Islands(尖閣諸島; Diaoyu Island, zh:釣魚台列嶼). Please see the history page of Ryukyu arc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (Masanori Asami (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    So, the title "Nationalistic disruption" lose the meaning. (Masanori Asami (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    While my initial labelling of your disruption as nationalistic in nature may have been wrong, it is certainly clear that you are disrupting regardless. You unilaterally changed the content of one article to fit your whims while creating another poorly written article that is finally being looked at by people who know more about the subject than either of us do to create a proper page where you could not and where I was probably wrong in dismissing it as a stand alone article. However, I am under no requirement to apologize to you for anything.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong(琉竜) and Chinese people think same islands belong "Ryukyu Islands"

    The islands written by Chinese people belonging to "Ryukyu Islands" by online encyclopedia of Hudong was the same as the view of "Ryulong(琉竜)" in Ryukyu Islands of English-Wikipedia until I changed the article of "Hudong". (Masanori Asami (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)) http://www.hudong.com/wiki/琉球群岛[reply]

    Please click and see the history page "历史版本" of "琉球群岛" of "Hudong". And compare the version of "历史版本42" by "下自成奚" and "历史版本48" of "浅见真规". (There is no direct link url to the history page.)(Masanori Asami (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Asami, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. I am an American citizen with absolutely no Asian heritage who along with User:Nanshu and User:Kwamikagami decided that "Nansei Islands" does not exist in English usage to describe the islands between Kyushu and Taiwan, while "Ryukyu Islands" does. Stop accusing multiple people of some sort of systemic bias because the common Chinese and English definitions of "Ryukyu Islands" and 琉球群岛 are the same and more extensive than you want them to be. The fact that you have just now blatantly revealed that you are going from user submitted website to user submitted website to change the definition of this subject just shows you are here to push an agenda, and that is not welcome.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we had a long and somewhat contentious discussion over this, and decided that the preponderance of English sources trumps usage in Japanese. This is WP-en, after all. We accommodated the Japanese by adding a section on just that. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In your discussion, "English sources" mean encyclopedias and dictionaries. When the editor of Wikipedia use an encyclopedia about the core part of the definition, the editor of Wikipedia must obey the rule of the copyright, but untill you (kwami) changed Ryukyu Islands yesterday there had been no "quotation" of encyclopedias and dictionaries in the definition part (top of the page) of Ryukyu Islands, it had benn illegal. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    You (kwami) had already known that, so you changed Ryukyu Islands and added the source of definition yesterday. And you hid that and referred to "English sources" here. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    And the editor must understand the definition given by encyclopedias and dictionaries, this is more important. For Wikipedia threaten the existence of encyclopedias and dictionaries. Do you understand the definition given by encyclopedias and dictionaries? -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    So, please explain under your definition how can you understand the article 3 of "Treaty of San Francisco" to me. -(Masanori Asami (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    Right now I'm trying very hard not to block you for nationalist disruption; you're pushing your luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do. This is getting ridiculous and this should have been stopped days ago. He's now accusing everyone of violating copyrights just to get his way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What? Hudong and Baidu are never reliable sources. And from the history I've seen, they are edited by Japanese. And Masanori Asami please refrain from making personal attacks.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Amanbir Singh" IP

    Yesterday, 117.199.109.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who signed as "Amanbir Singh" was blocked for disrupting the talkpage of Anders Behring Breivik and for repeated removals of the block notice on User:Meowy's talkpage. I was the first of two admins who declined his unblock request.

    Some of the postings this user has come with seem like threats of violence [1] (he will argue he is only warning of dire consequences from others, but I am quite certain that a defense like that won't work.)

    Another IP came back today as 117.220.144.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), also signing with Amanbir Singh, and I have blocked that one as well. Apparently the person here is IP-hopping, so please keep a eye out. Also, the threat above is of the type where I would seriously consider the Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm process, even if I am 90%+ sure that this is simply a troll. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I too have had the pleasure to be visited by 117.199.109.150 117.199.105.177 [2] but I decided to ignore them. Given this new development I'd advocate a range block. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See also 117.199.105.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at Meowy's user page. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently this has been going on for a quite while, starting at 21 March 2012:
    De728631 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy seems to be on a global trolling mission. 117.207.152.91 has also been disrupting the Breivik article talk and Tournesol's user talk page at the Swedish WP: edit history. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Has Sv.wp been informed of what's been going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have informed Tournesol on his en account. He's an admin over there. De728631 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tournesol has now also been notified at sv.wp. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We appear to have blocked the following addresses and ranges at SVWP:
    • 117.220.144.0/20
    • 117.220.144.80
    • 117.207.152.0/22
    • 117.199.96.0/20
    • 117.207.152.163
    • 117.199.102.112
    • 117.207.152.91
    I'm not sure exactly what ranges the /20 and /22 correspond with, but the last block was yesterday morning so I suppose the blocks solved the problem. - Tournesol (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A possible problem with undiscussed moves

    Hi all, I'm reluctant to start a thread on the drama-board about this, but... people have tried to discuss some concerns about Gryffindor's mass moves, and Gryffindor has carried on regardless. What should be done? Here's a summary - I'll try to keep it neutral (others may disagree, of course)

    • Earlier in 2012, Gryffindor started moving articles about government bodies, typically along the lines of like Senate of Trinidad and Tobago -> Senate (Trinidad and Tobago). A lot of the moves are over redirects.
    • Some editors have disagreed with the moves and tried to start a discussion; [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] etc. Gryffindor just keeps on moving pages regardless.
    • Personally, I believe that some (not necessarily all) moves are flawed, on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. In many cases Gryffindor's edit summaries seem bizarrely unrelated to the actual moves (for instance, "per constitution" even though the relevant constitution doesn't use the new name, or "proper name" even though the new title is not used by any source). Gryffindor didn't reply to my latest query and instead moved some more pages.
    • I only noticed this because I watchlist Burkina Faso; in the wake of one of these undiscussed moves, an unrelated editor came along to "correct" National Assembly of Burkina Faso to National Assembly (Burkina Faso). The former title is used by far more sources than the latter. I queried on the relevant talkpage but Gryffindor did not reply.
    • One particularly worrying example is on Senate of Pakistan: Gryffindor moved it, Green Giant disgreed and started an RM, the RM was closed as "page returned to original name", then Gryffindor moved it again anyway.

    What can we do to get things back under control? If many of these moves have met with disagreement, shouldn't we be using RMs? (and respecting the result of the RMs) bobrayner (talk) 12:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-communication block to get them to respond. Lack of communication isn't acceptable Blackmane (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor has communicated. Nobody Ent 13:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In that particular case, Gryffindor commented on the RM requestor's talkpage and then moved the page anyway, contrary to the RM which had been closed by an uninvolved admin. In this case they responded to another editor's complaint with a comment that simply doesn't mention or justify the new title Gryffindor had chosen. In this case, Gryffindor tells another complainant that they moved to the WP:COMMONNAME, but the name Gryffindor actually moved it to was neither the official nor the most common name, and like the other cases it's a highly improbable search term (Won't somebody think of the readers?). However, these responses only account for a tiny proportion of moves; hundreds of other moves were undiscussed and other objections have gone unanswered.— Preceding unsigned comment added by bobrayner (talk • contribs)
    All the more reason to block pending explanation? dangerouspanda 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He has replied to one of the concerns, but on the other users talk pages [17] as Ent pointed out, but he needs to stop and come here before doing any more since that is a reply, not a discussion. And Ent, I understand why he mentioned it. Rules are different now, some old school admins do things differently. This may or may not be that situation. I left a message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mentioned the fact that he's an admin from way back a) specifically for the reason Dennis suggests, and b) because admins are expected to set an example and should be held to higher standards of behaviour -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Attacks on wikipedian and BLP subject

    User:ShowTimeAgain is a WP:SPA, edit warring to insert attacks and soap boxing against the Wikipedian and BLP subject William M. Connolley User:William M. Connolley : [18], [19] [20][21] (milder but still focussed on Connolley: [22][23]). The editor believes himself to be defending a deceased non-notable climate change denial scientist [24]: "If you'd care to read the reason why this file was uploaded, you'd realize this was the only way to defend the reputation of Professor Leroux against an unjust attack. ". Considering the accounts attacks on Connolley and knowledge of wikipedia, it seems a likely WP:DUCK as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • CU found no links[25], but it isn't magic pixie dust and can't rule out meatpupptry. I do see some disruptive behavior, let me take a closer look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointy behavior like adding to an AFD talk page after it closes[26], likely meatpuppetry at that AFD (I did the SPI investigation, BTW, which is still open). His combative and single purpose intent is obvious here [27], as well as his soapboxing at the AFD itself. (first link). Like most SPAs, he isn't here to build an encyclopedia, that is certain. Many SPAs serve a worthwhile purpose, and just have a single interest, thus pose no problem. This editor doesn't appear to be one of them. The question is: has he passed the threshold for WP:DE? If he hasn't, it is certainly within his sight, if not his crosshairs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ANI header states Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Not seeing that on User_talk:ShowTimeAgain. Suggest this be closed pending completion of that step. Nobody Ent 13:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, Nobody Ent is right. I suppose I worked the SPI and saw all the disruption that was taking place, including likely meatpupptry, leading me to conclude a positive resolution isn't very likely, but that is just my opinion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "he isn't here to build an encyclopedia," if true, is a facial case for an indefinite block. Furthermore, a cursory glance over the edits suggests that Wikipedia is being abused by this editor as a battleground. --Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you trying to say Prima facie? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much. May have been getting something confused with facial challenge. Somewhere between per se and presumption.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be pointless Bureaucracy. It's self evident that an editor shouldn't go around attacking other editors (which constitutes about half his edits). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Non sequitur -- we have the {{uw-npa}} series specifically to point this out to users on their talk page.
    The thought occurs to me that inviting a new user to ANI for attacking other editors is like putting someone in a prison in the US, at least -- just as likely to learn better ways of attacking other editors as they are to be rehabilitated. Nobody Ent 13:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the rule to discuss at a talk page before posting at ANI is "pointless Bureaucracy", let's amend the rule. While it may be "evident" to regulars that one shouldn't attack, but different places have different rules, so I suggest it is not "self evident".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marcel Leroux is notable, and new citations from paywalled French newspapers have been found to further support his notability. User:IRWolfie- is a participant in this singling out scientists skeptical of some aspect of global warming for non-notability claims, and in the case of Marcel Leroux initiated the attack with either a bad faith or incompetent google scholar search.
    Regarding the dismissive "pointy behavior" characterization above, it should be noted that User:ShowTimeAgain has "respected" the prohibition on editing the closed deletion article itself, despite a precipitous closing of the deletion discussion by User:WilyD while work was still being done.--Africangenesis (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that editing the talk page of a closed discussion is just as pointy as adding to the closed discussion. It is closed. I also agree that you shouldn't have been dragged into an SPA tag, but none of that changes the fact that there is a battleground mentality at work with ShowtimeAgain/Showtimenow. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that sticking to the talk page is showing respect, and if anything makes it clear that you should always have a battleground mentality when WMC is involved, it is the fact that he was in a revert war on the talk page.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but after the close is putting it there where no one will see it, which is pointless, or WP:POINTy. Taking it to the talk page of the editor or another venue is the proper response. As to the article or merits of the AFD, I have no clue and not interested. My focus is on behavior. And now I see that a large amount of off-wiki canvassing took place against Connolly, which appears to be ShowTime's "enemy", so to speak. When SPAs take a battlefield mentality, as demonstrated by the totality of edits (and not the validity of any argument), then it becomes a problem for all of us. It is entirely possible to be 100% right on the merits of an argument, but to be so disruptive in how you present them that you get blocked. I see it regularly. It isn't enough to be right, you also have to get along. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see User:StillStanding-247's behavior over the last 2 months to prove this point. Search these archives for one of his 15 or so visits to this board. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I was surprised at the precipitous closing of the deletion page, the talk page is the first place I went to look for a discussion of what was going on. Even experienced users like myself, aren't necessarily experienced at page deletions, and a different talk page standards once they are closed. I was far more shocked that someone was reverted on a talk page than that someone was posting on one. I had only seen reverting on talk pages before when vandalism or namecalling vitriol was involved.--Africangenesis (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, the closing notice even mentions that discussion should take place on the talk page:
    "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."
    --Africangenesis (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD talk pages are for procedural issues, which is why it is pointless to use them. Like it says, DRV or the article talk page if it had been kept. There is a laundry list of places off-wiki that this AFD was canvassed at, leading to this whole mess and the SPI investigation. Again, my concern is behavioral, in particular, ShowTimeAgain's behavior. I have no idea if they are the one that spammed the canvassing off wiki, but they have maintained a battleground attitude ON wiki, and that needs to stop if they expect to stick around. It is fine to disagree, we all do, but Show's comments indicate he has trouble not being "disagreeable" at times. Several have noted this and brought it to his attention. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaving a final note of sort on his talk page. If he continues to act in a disruptive way to make points, he is likely going to be blocked. Hopefully he will be wise and consider this, and find a way to contribute without the drama, soapboxing and grandstanding. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just read this and wish to contribute, while I still can: IRWolfie is mistaken. My knowledge of Wikipedia's process is "beginner" and it is obvious: it took me a while to even manage to upload the image of the certificate. I even accidentally duplicated it. Notwithstanding how to include a link in the conversation. So much for knowledge...
    • Connolley's reputation as a Wikipedia editor had reached beyond Wikipedia and it is fair knowledge to anyone watching the climate debate. His bursting in the deletion discussion with inflammatory "delete - the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)" accusations were not an aggressive characterization perhaps? No ANI there. I argued that IRW and WMC had little knowledge of Leroux's works and WMC acknowledged having not read Leroux. He should. When in good faith I showed proof of Leroux's title as Chevalier de l'Ordre des Palmes Academiques, its authenticity was immediately rebuked. Is that the attitude of people wishing to see information shared in a free encyclopedia or is it the attitude of people with an agenda?
    • As for my interventions: Did I go on modifying pages from those I disagree scientifically with? No. I posted on talk pages as I promptly discovered that the conversations were moved over various multiple pages. Aren't these talk pages for discussion? I had not intervened on Wikipedia for a long time as there was no need for me to. But the reputation of Prof. Leroux had to be defended against what became, especially after WMC's intervention and his endless hunt to delete every bit of Leroux on En.wikipedia, including the Palmes certificate used in other pages, a clear biased process. Notability was an excuse. Opinion was the reason, as adequate Google search results by another poster have demonstrated, the notability of Marcel Leroux is among the 1% of scientists [28].
    • I notice in this discussion that IRW is advocating a swift banning process against me. No surprise. To me this confirms that the Leroux deletion was a premeditated action and that these two editors hoped for a quick, eventless deletion of the Leroux page. Tough luck. On a final note, I have made my point so anyone can read our exchanges and draw their own conclusions.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Only two have brought editing complaints to Show's attention on his talk page, and one of those was IRWolfie. I doubt there is any harm in putting the notice on Show's page, he shouldn't sweat it. Show and Lucy are vindicated. I've made an open and shut case for reversing this totally unnecessary deletion at WilyD's talk page. Did IRWolfie, WMC and even WilyD really not know what the real criteria was for academic notability? Why should this deletion and an injustice to this scientist's memory, have been allowed to go through in peace? [29]--Africangenesis (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • As the person who did the investigation, I completely understand why IRWolfie brought it to SPI, it did look very suspicious (with the exception of Africangenesis, not sure why he was in there). I will vouch for that. One new user. One user who hasn't edited in over SIX YEARS, magically show up? Coincidence? Maybe, but the amount of canvassing off wiki combined with those coincidences certainly does qualify for someone at SPI to look at it. And I did. And no one is blocked. And I did find ShowTimeAgain's old account from 2010 (which isn't a problem since they aren't both being used at the same time). Now, I've left Show a message, and the best thing anyone can do is help him understand how things work here a bit better, so his actions don't look as disruptive. He came here and it looks like he did in good faith. I don't want to block him and don't expect to. I was hoping to get his attention, which it seems I did, and hopefully he will tread a little less aggressively in the future so we can avoid ANI and the like. Just back the tone up a little, try to cooperate more, ask questions instead of accusing people, and you will be fine, Show. This is expected from all of us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis Brown, I created this profile in order to defend against the Leroux page deletion attempt in September 2012 as I thought my original handle from 2010 was not working anymore. So much again for my supposed knowledge. Since you investigated, you therefore know that my first ever contribution to wiki in December 2007 had nothing to do with climate. It however involved someone of immense talent that may be lesser known to the masses. Since my 2010 interventions, there have been many improvements to Leroux page which I did not object to. I came here in good faith and informed, about Leroux's work and publications. Africagenesis was even more informed than I was, and more computer literate (easy...). I was also informed about some of those who worked and pushed for this deletion, who seem to enjoy total immunity despite serious incidents[30]. I have no quarrel with you and find your demands reasonable in an environment of good faith, which in this particular case, on this subject was not the case [31]. Again, a properly executed Google search reveals another picture of Leroux's notability [32].
    • You cannot at the same time complain about not finding new water sources and criticize efforts to making other people who could contribute aware of what's going on here and potentially help finding new data. Unless your agenda is definitive suppression.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you are saying. Did you notify people about the discussion off wikipedia? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me restate: why would you want to restrict the flow of information if it can improve the page? Isn't that what wikipedia is all about?ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Addendum: That's what I understood from your post. Could you explain further what "admin semi-protect" means and why it may be relevant to this discussion? Others obviously have seen what happened, even suggesting article deletions (see comment section) and not the least because of this [33]ShowTimeAgain (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to be a tact admission by ShowTimeAgain of off-wiki canvassing of the worst type (canvassing people of a specific viewpoint in order to stack a discussion). In combination with the general battleground mentality and attacks against WMC, I'm inclined to think that this editor is simply not understanding how collaborative editing works and may not be working in the best interests of the project. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You must mean tacit? What is "the project"? If the project is a permanent deletion of the Marcel Leroux page regardless of information, indeed I do contest this approach and shall work with any wikipedian (?) to revert this decision. If "the project" is to bring a wide range of information pertaining to Marcel Leroux, then I believe to have done my part as demonstrated (certificate, precisions on OMM). Africagenesis has done also a significant amount of work. I have cleared any misunderstanding with Dennis Brown regarding battleground mentality. Now how collaborative is "admin semi-protect"? That is why I requested IRWolfie to clarify what he meant in order not to misinterpret him. As for WMC anyone can read his blog and draw conclusions. BTW I did not recall your contribution to the subject at hand. Did I miss it with so many lines of questions and answers? Thanks.ShowTimeAgain (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ShowTimeAgain, On Wikipedia we expect editors to try to work, however they can, for the advancement of the encylopedia as a whole, colloquially called "the project." Editors who are persistently distracted by personal, petty, or single topic disputes are not welcome here. You appear to be such an editor, and in response to concerns about your behavior to run back to the Marcel Leroux article, which suggests you are not getting it. Most, probably all of us reading this thread have no idea who Leroux is, nor do we care. It helps maintain our objectivity. I am inclined to block you since you are not both willing and able to edit collaboratively for the improvement of the encyclopedia. Please show cause otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI WP:DRV ShowTimeAgain (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits Made by JohnDopp in Re: Douglas Anthony Cooper

    I bring to the noticeboard a complaint about the conduct of JohnDopp (and also that of his alter ego, “Qworty”) and ask that he be refused further access to the Wikipedia entry for Canadian novelist Douglas Anthony Cooper.

    JohnDopp has repeatedly vandalized and tagged this entry; and certainly not because he can’t stand writers being compared to Milan Kundera or Italo Calvino.

    It is because of something else entirely. When that conflict of interest was made plain by several editors on “talk” and “articles for deletion” pages, JohnDopp squawked that his privacy was being compromised.

    So, let me give you an example without blowing JohnDopp’s cover.

    Douglas Anthony Cooper has recently written a series of essays supporting “apples.” These essays have been published in a high-profile news site. JohnDopp is notorious in this community for his obstreperous attacks on “apples”.

    Now Cooper has announced that he's about to write a series of scathing articles about “oranges”.

    JohnDopp is outrageous in his constant trolling in support of “oranges”. He's perhaps the most pernicious “oranges” shill on the web. In fact, some people say you can't talk about “oranges” without JohnDopp showing up to spout the party line.

    I’ve made no pretense about my identity or position in defense of Douglas Cooper against these baseless attacks. I post and edit under my real name. While Cooper is just an acquaintance, I am also involved in the “apples” community, and I too have been attacked and pilloried by JohnDopp, including but certainly not limited to these Wikipedia discussions.

    JohnDopp insists that he's neutral and knowledgeable enough to comment—always negatively -- on Douglas Anthony Cooper. But on what basis? JohnDopp has no special expertise or experience in literature. His only argument is apples and oranges.

    When the woman who actually wrote the Wikipedia entry about Douglas Anthony Cooper joined the debate on the “articles for deletion” page and announced that fact, JohnDopp still insisted that that the entry was "self-promotion." Even after he knew better.

    Even when Cooper’s entry was overwhelmingly deemed a "Keep", JohnDopp still laced the talk pages with as many negative things as he could about Mr. Cooper, a last ditch attempt to smear. He did this in tandem with editor “Qworty,” whose writes with a remarkable similarity of syntax to JohnDopp. (When confronted with this fact “Qworty” suddenly went silent.)

    JohnDopp is trying to destroy Cooper's credibility for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with literature: he wants people involved in this debate of apples and oranges to dismiss Cooper as a lightweight, not notable, a self-promoter.

    JohnDopp and his alter ego Qworty should be permanently blocked from discussing Douglas Anthony Cooper. (They should probably be banned from editing anything in this whole field of apples and oranges.) All of the comments about Cooper should be removed; inspired as they were by JohnDopp, acting in bad faith every single step of the way. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just at a glance, I sense an incoming WP:BOOMERANG here. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bushranger, should that be the case, so be it. It's worth the risk to bring the machinations of this editor to light. I've been honest from the start. One has to ask, finally, why it would be of so much importance to someone to delete or hack the entry for a novelist, if there wasn't in fact, some subtext. (It's my own opinion that perhaps Wikipedia should not allow for anonymous contribution or editing, and instead ought to verify all users; as anonymity lends itself to such shenanigans.) Larkin Vonalt (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This will be fairly obvious on review, but I'm going to state it for clarity and convenience here.
    • I have neither "repeatedly tagged" nor "vandalized" the article in question. I placed a notability tag on the article, which was removed without explanation by one of Mr. Cooper's supporters, who then accused me of vandalism. I replaced the tag and attempted to explain that it was not vandalism; it was deleted again, without explanation. At this point, rather than engage in edit warring, I requested dispute resolution. At no time have I sought to undermine the processes or policies of Wikipedia.
    • I am not Qworty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), nor do I have any association or contact with Qworty outside of Wikipedia.
    • Mr. Cooper's original article was rife with WP:COI, WP:SPIP, WP:SPS, and WP:PEACOCK, and the sources did not support the subject's notability. My edits were in good faith and were based solely on content, not my "literary expertise" or alleged "trolling" on behalf of any variety of fruit. As demonstrated by the AfD discussion, there were valid concerns about the subject's notability. And when the numerous problems with the article were corrected, I promptly withdrew my objections and voted to keep the article.
    • It was in fact Mr. Cooper who sought to vandalize and delete the article and was subsequently banned. It was Mr. Cooper's meatpuppet who initiated the AfD on his behalf, not me. I would always prefer to see an article improved rather than deleted.
    • Larkinvonalt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had no interest in Wikipedia until Mr. Cooper asked his meatpuppets to target me for personal abuse and harassment.[34] In her one week at Wikipedia, Larkinvonalt has not contributed to improving the article in any way; her only contributions have been harassment of other editors and unexplained, disruptive reversions of their work.[35]
    • In contrast, I have never had a dispute of this kind in my history on Wikipedia, and I have always sought to retain neutrality and balance in my edits. -- JohnDopp (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: This issue has nothing to do with me to the exception that I have brought this matter to the attention of those who might be able to do something about it. JohnDopp has failed to explain why he was insistent about the changes made in the entry for Douglas Anthony Cooper, or to answer the charges that he is neither neutral nor knowledgeable as to the subject at hand. Still, JohnDopp cannot resist name-calling and other unpleasant behaviors here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. (As for my own history with Wikipedia, it began so long ago that one didn't even have to be a "user" in order to make contributions or edits.) Larkin Vonalt (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I was afraid this might end here. Hopefully it ends with this venue. I was involved in the AfD discussion as well as (marginally) the COIN post. There were some issues with the article, and the AfD showed quite a high percentage of accounts with few to no edits outside of the topic area. I tagged accounts there with {{spa}} based on contributions, including both Larkinvonalt and JohnDopp.

    • JohnDopp contacted me on my talk page (now archived) in disagreement with the tag. (Note that he did not remove the tag himself, but contacted me, the one who placed the tag, instead.) While his edit history was closely tied to animal cruelty-related articles, and this author had written concerning animal cruelty, he seemed less single-purpose, and less tied to this article and a related POV. I modified his note accordingly. We also discussed some ideas for him going forward so he could productively edit without accruing such a label in the future.
    • I had no interaction with Qworty, but the duck test seems to have JohnDopp as a different person. A CU might disagree.
    • My interaction with Larkinvonalt was that of him reverting my productive edits (including combining identical refs) with the summary "restored text." When I pointed this out to him, he simply determined that if I continued to contact him, it would be seen as harassment[36].

    I don't know what Larkin is trying to push, but it seems he is trying to push something. I'd rather him topic banned, if a ban is to occur, to prevent the POV he wants to push. --Nouniquenames 01:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I'm pretty happy with how the deletion debate turned out. Even JohnDopp voted "Keep" when he saw he couldn't win.

    That doesn't mean there isn't a serious problem here. This is the situation you're dealing with:

    Let's say there are these two writers named Woodward and Bernstein, and there's a Wikipedia article about them. An editor comes along whose name is RichNix, and he flags these writers as "not notable," and tries to delete the article. So these writers protest that RichNix is in fact a man named Richard Nixon, and that they're in the middle of exposing him and his friends as really awful people. RichNix screams that his privacy is being infringed on, so all of the complaints and information about him really being Richard Nixon are erased.

    We're not dealing with presidential politics here, but we're dealing with a pretty important political matter nevertheless. It involves over 100 million dollars, and the lives of millions of animals, each year. So it's not just fluff.

    I'm saying maybe privacy isn't such a great principle in this case. People should have to own what they say. That is why I, like Larkin, use my own name. It sure isn't helping Wikipedia, in this instance, to allow an editor to hide his agenda and identity. Someone like JohnDopp should lose his privacy privileges in this kind of situation, and then let him defend himself once everyone knows who he really is, and what he's done. CandaceWare (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare[reply]

    Comment: It should be noted that in retaliation for this complaint, JohnDopp has opened "sock puppet investigations" against Candace Ware and myself, indeed against everyone who disagreed with him in the matter of Douglas Anthony Cooper. In his "investigations" material, he provided screenshots of Facebook conversations that he should not have been privy to, as he is not the Facebook friend of anyone involved. Facebook has ruled repeatedly that they construe this misuse of screenshots in this manner to be "theft of intellectual property," and JohnDopp knows this, because he has gotten in trouble for it before. Furthermore, because I have blocked JohnDopp on Facebook, he should not be able to see ANYTHING that I have written there, and yet he provides a screenshot of it! Clearly, he has multiple accounts everywhere! And all because he wants to question the notability of a Canadian novelist. Right, nothing else going on here. Right. NoUniqueNames must also be connected with JohnDopp, as there was no reason for him or her to be called to this discussion. I did restore some punitive edits that NoUniqueNames had done in the spirit of overzealous editing. Like JohnDopp, NoUniqueNames shows no previous affinity for literature in his or her Wikipedia career. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Larkin, extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. If you have the proof that JohnDopp, Qworty, and NoUnique names are the same user, take it to SPI. If you do not have that proof, I would HIGHLY suggest you stop throwing around these accusations. This whole situation stemmed from what appears to be a good faith notibility tag on the Cooper article, and JohnDopp voted keep for the article. This whole discussion seems to be retalitory and should be closed as such. Ishdarian 02:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And Candace, you stated Even JohnDopp voted "Keep" when he saw he couldn't win. JohnDopp was one of the first editors to vote keep. I think you should avoid making false statements such as this one. Ishdarian 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who thinks JohnDopp's notability tag was done in anything remotely akin to "good faith" simply hasn't followed the issue (and your comment regarding JohnDopp's 'keep' also reveals that you haven't been following it, Ishdarian). Douglas Anthony Cooper is in the midst of writing a series about a highly controversial organization. JohnDopp is the WEBMASTER for the apologist/propaganda site that protects this organization. The fact people are so obtuse when it comes to recognizing this blatant COI just drives me NUTS. People, please -- wake up!!!! 75.142.17.148 (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare[reply]
    No, it really was done in good faith. At the time he tagged it, the article was horribly sourced. A handful of editors worked on it and brought it to a much better state. He tagged it to get it help. JohnDopp did vote keep after some work had been done on the article. I looked at the contribs, and I'm not seeing any malicious intent on JohnDopp's part. Other parties, however, I can't be as certain about. Ishdarian 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Larkin, I'm here because I watch this page. It can be an interesting barometer of the community, and simply watching has taught me some interesting policies, procedures, and best courses of action. More to the point, though, I chimed in because I was involved in the AfD and the COIN and had discussions on my talk page with at least two of the other editors involved in the Afd at the time. Everything I posted was out in the open for anyone (admin or not) to see. Editors have other things to do, though, so I posted what I could to help along with my personal opinion. I honestly wish you had said something on a talk page to any of the non-spa accounts at the AfD, as I cannot imagine that any experienced editor would have advised you to go ahead with this. It's also interesting that when a SPI case was opened, you didn't disagree with the accusation. Your only contention was that he shouldn't have those screenshots of facebook that show he's correct. --Nouniquenames 07:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Ishdarian", how would you know what edits were made in good faith, unless you are indeed JohnDopp? In fact, "Ishdarian"'s edit was reported to me through Wiki mail as having been made by JohnDopp. Go figure. Sometimes you forget to cover your tracks, John. Larkin Vonalt (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Huh, that's interesting. Proof?
    Simply looking at the contribs for the page, JohnDopp's first edit was a simple notability tag. Nothing more. It doesn't seem like a far stretch to beleive that a person trying to build an encyclopedia would perform an act that would further the project. Ishdarian 04:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...stop Larkin, stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you as being a sockpuppet of JohnDopp. As you are making these accusations on no other basis than "they all agree with each other and disagree with me" it is uncivil and, indeed, can easily be seen as a personal attack. In fact, your claim above regarding "Ishdarian's edit was reported t me through Wiki mail as having been made by JohnDopp" is, in fact, blatantly untrue as the edit history of this page shows. I would strongly reccomend you retract that statement immediately. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uuhhhmmm -- if you're going to insist Larkin stop accusing everyone who disagrees with her of being a JohnDopp sock puppet, Bushranger, why are you not calling HIM out for exactly the same behavior? I would strongly recommend a little balance in your reprimands.CandaceWare (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare[reply]
    If you break it down, JohnDopp filed an SPI report of why he thinks you two are meatpuppets, including the evidence he had. Larkin is throwing out baseless accusations without providing a shred of proof. There's an unwritten rule about accusing people of sockpuppetry: Put up or shut up. If you can't provide evidence of why you think people are puppets, then don't accuse those editors of such. Using those kind of arguments violate the no personal attacks policy. Ishdarian 02:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've followed this situation closely, and frankly can see little wrong, or unusual at this time. There is no admin action to take. It's over. I recommend this thread gets closed by an uninvolved administrator soon, preferably with one of little reminders about what we're here to do. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is "little wrong, or unusual" about what has gone on, and if you guys cannot see the glaring COI here, then it's no wonder Wikipedia is universally scorned as useless, other than as a place to find links to real sources of information. As for JohnDopp's ridiculous and petty hissy fits about various types of "puppets" -- every single user/editor ON Wikipedia began as an SPA. If this reception is typical, then it's a wonder anyone sticks around long enough to expand their activity. Still, it's been fun learning about the editing process, the colorful vocabulary, and writing code. And I'm very glad to have helped the "Keep" happen. So not a total waste of time.CandaceWare (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)CandaceWare — Preceding unsigned comment added by CandaceWare (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this thread alone, I suspect CandaceWare and Larkinvonalt need to be indeffed for abusing Wikipedia as a battleground. So consider this your invitation to convince me otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, I can't see who the oversighter was for the AfD for some reason, if whoever that is notices this thread, could they please let me know?--Tznkai (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Al-Hakam II

    بابيلون (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) insists on removing a sourced section in Al-Hakam II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). He has been reverted by me, Cluebot and at least another user in the last few days. No other contributions by him. José Luiz talk 20:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I issued a warning to User:بابيلون that he may be blocked if he reverts again without getting consensus for his change. He is trying to remove a well-sourced claim about Al-Hakam's homosexuality. The claim is backed by three references to what appear to be reputable historians. This editor has tried adding the following to the *article text*: "All stories about Al Hakam II homosexuality are pure nonesense, these stories come from non Islamic soureces and there is no mention whatsoever to it in the Islamic history books, so they cant be taken seriously." EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fry1989 and DrKiernan

    DrKiernan is well known to be rather mild; Fry1989 not so much. Fry's talk popped up on my watchlist and he's in it pretty hot and heavy with DrKiernan; called him a troll, on commons, for example. This seems to be about fictitious flags, which Fry does rather a lot of. I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago, which is why his page is on my watch. The talk is pretty messy and will have rolled along while I've been typing this. I think Fry's unblock needs reconsidering. I've seen very little constructive participation from him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't done anything on Wikipedia that broke my editing restrictions, I've barely made 30 edits this past week alone and none of them had anything to do with Drkiernan or pages he has worked on. Everything he is complaining about happened on Commons (how can my English Wikipedia restrictions apply to Commons???? That's not even stated on my restrictions page, it's ridiculous!), and is filled with half-truths and assumptions. He blames me for "following him around". I haven't done anything of the sort. The fact I came across those files is easily explained because I go through the daily upload logs, The files aren't even Drkiernan's. All I did was remove a fictitious tag from those three files which Drkiernan added, and I only did that once on each file. I haven't even touched them since!!! Trajan is the one who removed Drkiernan's tags a further two times, which is when Drkiernan nominated them for deletion on Commons. I was completely unaware of this until Trajan came to my talk page and ASKED me to give input in the DR. I have only posted in the DR once, give my view, and haven't gone back since. I do not understand what I have done that could possibly be worthy of a block, nevermind an indef block. Fry1989 eh? 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    In my view, I think it's rather bad form to bring a dispute from some other Wiki project over here to the English Wikipedia, and then for DrKiernan and Br'er Rabbit, who are fully aware of Fry1989's temperament, to fan the flames to goad Fry1989 into violating his unblock restrictions. That's how it appears to me. I would support an interaction ban on all parties. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) I just wanted to make a tentative comment. Fry1989 notified me about the problem he was having on his talk page. While looking there, this topic was opened by Br'er Rabbit, whose involvement puzzles me a bit, but no matter. I was involved in the unblock conditions (listed above), but there was extensive discussion with User:Amatulic, and I've notified him of this topic. I won't comment much on the merits of DrKiernan's complaint at this time, and I'm not sure what DrKiernan seeks at this point as he didn't open this topic. My brief comment is that DrKiernan was asking Fry to leave him alone at Commons. Br'er Rabbit inflamed things. Fry felt pushed. DrKiernan got more forceful because he didn't get the response he wanted, and here we are.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now responding to Amatulic's comment, I fully agree with everything he said except I haven't yet decided whether an interaction ban is needed. Depends on other comments here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Br'er Rabbit won't even answer my repeated requests for what he thinks I have done to deserve an indeff block. "Long-term problematic"? What is that supposed to mean? What "problems" have I caused here since my unblock? I've been following my restrictions as laid out on my restrictions page to the letter. I haven't gotten into revert wars, I haven't flamed people, I haven't followed anybody around, I haven't done ANYTHING! But somehow he thinks he can support me being indeff blocked without even stating why! So what if I called Drkiernan a troll on Commons? First off, that was my personal opinion after being asked by another user to participate in a deletion request. Second, it was on Commons!! My restrictions have nothing to do with Commons, this is completely a Commons matter if it's an issue at all! Also, I came here not too long ago myself asking for an interaction ban between me and Drkiernan because of the constant spats we have had for 2 long years. He and I can't get along so I try to avoid him the best I can. Yes, I went to his talk page, about an issue on Commons, but he is doing the same now. I used language which is a bit strong, but when you look at the actual full sentences, I didn't call him anything, I didn't attack him. I have followed my restrictions very clearly. I do not deserve this witch hunt. Fry1989 eh? 22:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at it this way; your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd missed the whole unblock discussion in August, so I was surprised to see Fry1989 editing at all. And I see him calling DrKiernan a troll and being quite belligerent, including addling the threading on his talk. I see the separation between en:wp and Commons as pretty thin; images go there, are used here. I don't think I had much to do with whatever got Fry dinged in August; I saw it go by, but don't think I even commented. The Rwanda thing was more like February, and I don't think I've had any conflict with Fry since. FWIW, DrKiernan is probably off for the night, so best to see what he has to say tomorrow. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How many times do I have to tell you why I put my replies that way was to answer him and you separately, and that the reason I reverted you (once) is because I felt like you were disrupting me by moving my replies around??? There was absolutely no malicious intent behind it, but you keep trying to assert that there was. From the beginning of that you have accused me of disruption, when I told you twice before now why I did it. Stop accusing me of malicious intent which I don't have! Fry1989 eh? 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And the "Rwanda thing"? That's been over and done with for half a year, I don't even know why you would bring it up. It resolved itself ages ago, way before my unblock discussion in August even came about, and it wasn't even brought up in August, it has nothing to do with this. It feels like you're brining up past issues just to make me look worse and worse to get rid of me. Maybe not, but it sure feels that way right now. Fry1989 eh? 23:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come here atleast two times over the years about Drkiernan. The second time I asked for an interaction ban, I don't remember what I wanted the first time, but both times when I tried pointing out how he pushes me, and is rude to me, and orders me to do things for him when he's capable of doing them himself, they are ignored. I never got help. But whenever he complains about me, I always end up with threats of blocks and bans and restrictions and everything else. You people ignored my cries for help, and this is what happens when you do that. I don't want anything to do with him, but we keep rubbing shoulders here and there every few months and then this kind of nonsense comes about. Fry1989 eh? 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I already outlined on your talk how your move of my post away from DrKiernan's (to whom I was replying) was inappropriate because it changed the context of things. That you don't get it goes a ways towards explaining things. You are aware that DrKiernan is well respected on this project, right? Right? Calling him a troll, anywhere, is absurd, and far from civil. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read my post again. I didn't say anything on whether the way I posted my replies, or the subsequent revert of your change, was wrong or right. All I said is that you are accusing me of doing it maliciously and with the intent to disrupt when that absolutely isn't the case, I told you why I did it, please STOP accusing me of doing it maliciously! So what if it was (in your opinion) wrong? Doing something wrong doesn't always translate to deliberate malicious intent. You don't like the way I arranged my replies? Fine I'm sorry. But stop this attack on my intentions when I've made clear they were anything but what you accuse them of being. As for whether or not Drkiernan is well-respected here, that doesn't factor into how he interacts with me, or how I interact with him. That's between me and him, not how others view him. Just because someone is widely respected, doesn't mean they're above the capability of mistreating someone else. He has been rude to me for years. He's ordered me to change files and do other tasks for him which he is perfectly capable of doing himself. What right does he have to order me around to do things? And yet people like you seem to think that it ok, but that when I get tired of being pushed around, I'm the one with all the blame. Protect the bully, punish the victim, it's an old story I'm very aquainted with. Fry1989 eh? 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure I've not used the word "malicious", but you have, repeatedly. And calling DrKiernan a "bully" is just silly; especially coming from a bully in victim's clothing ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so glad this is humourous to you. You have continuously accused me to doing my replies (and the single subsequent revert) with the intent to disrupt. That means you think I did it maliciously, whether you said the word or not. I've also made no attempts to shy away from the fact that I've been very rude to him, but you have to acknowledge that he has done the same and more. This website is littered with him commanding me to do things for him so he'll "accept them" and "allow them" on articles. Those Greek monograms for example, many times he ordered me to change them to blue so he would "allow them" on articles. Why do I have to do that for him? He showed in the past he was capable of doing it himself, he had no other problem with the files except their colour, so why couldn't he change them himself? Instead it was a further attempt to bully me into submission, "change these files or I won't allow you to add them to their rightful articles" like I'm some worker to be stepped on. Yes I've been rude as hell to him at times, but you completely ignore that it has been in response to TWO YEARS of unsolicited pushing around by him. He followed my edits to pages he had nothing to do with, and then passed judgement. He told me to change files for him. He has called me names. He has done so much to me, but somehow because I can't take it anymore, I'm the bully, I'm the one that needs to be blocked. I CAME HERE TWICE asking for help and you people ignored it. You don't think I'm not aware that he and I don't get along??? It takes two to tango and you make excuses for his steps in the dance. Disgusting. Fry1989 eh? 23:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The background seems to be this - User:Fry1989/Unblock conditions :

    • "Civility requirements (in effect for 6 months after the current block expires): ... All communications must refrain from commenting on individual editors, except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages ... Fry1989 agrees that the requirements listed above constitute best practices that should be followed at all times, and that the durations above refer to the period in which a violation will result in the resumption of an indefinite block." (my emphasis)

    Unblock conditions were agreed in August 2012. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    • I want Br'er Rabbit and Fry to stop arguing with each other. If DrKiernan does not come here and tell us what he wants to do, this topic should be closed. This is not the right forum to have Fry's unblock and the conditions of his unblock reviewed (see Br'er Rabbit saying "your prior indefs were warranted and I don't see the benefit of them having been reversed"). As for whether Fry has violated the conditions, neither I nor Amatulic believes he has, or if he has (I haven't read every one of Fry's remarks on his talk page or here), it's only because he's been goaded into it. So, Br'er Rabbit and Fry - stop posting here. Fry, if Br'er Rabbit won't stop, ignore him. That's my advice and my position at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then what is the right forum to report breaches of Fry's unblock agreement? --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the right forum to report a breach. I'm saying this is not the right forum to have the unblock and agreement reviewed. I'm also saying that that is what I think Br'er Rabbit really wants. Finally, I'm saying that if someone believes that Fry should be sanctioned for breaching the agreement, someone other than Br'er Rabbit needs to step up and say so, but the bickering between Br'er Rabbit and Fry should stop. And another finally, I'm going off-wiki now, so I won't be able to respond to anything until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I should stop posting here? When Fry's got about six times the verbiage going as I do? And note that I didn't bother replying to his last above the {{od}}. And another note; I already suggested awaiting DrKienan's commenting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. You've raised the issue to the community, the back and fort just clouds the issue. Nobody Ent 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's just make sure a couple of things are clear here. First, from what I've read above, I'm not seeing many allegations that Fry1989 has violated his unblock conditions, or has been disruptive in any other way, in his edits over the past few weeks on English Wikipedia. If I am wrong about that then would someone please post specific diffs.

    I gather the main (alleged) problems are on Commons. In general, we don't sanction an editor on English Wikipedia for misconduct on another project. That is not, however, an absolute rule; in extreme cases of harassment and the like, editors have been banned from En-WP for misconduct on another project, on another non-wiki website, via e-mail, or offline. The key words there, however, are "extreme cases." What's been described above doesn't sound yet like an extreme case.

    That being said, if the situation is as it's been described, then Fry1989 should clean up his act on Commons, rather than risk sanctions there, or here, or anywhere. I have no role or participation on Commons and don't plan to read through the edits there, but if Fry1989 called DrKiernan a "troll" on Commons, he should apologize and not do it again. DrKiernan is the farthest thing from a troll on English Wikipedia, and unless he has a personality transplant each time he logs off of English WP and onto Commons, he isn't a troll there either. An attitude of "I can call you what I want there and you can't do anything about it here and neener neener neener" isn't going to impress anyone on either project.

    And I agree that at this point we can see if DrKiernan wants to take this further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have absolutely no objection to an interaction ban between myself and Drkiernan (something I've already asked for before and it was ignored) or myself and Br'er Rabbit. I don't even understand why my talkpage was in his watchlist anyways, going through the entire history from 2009 to present, this is the first time he's ever posted there (unless he had a previous account or previous account name). Fry1989 eh? 01:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To include commons? Nobody Ent 01:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue on Commons is cloudy. The files in question were not Drkiernan's, and the files' uploader asked me personally to give my input on the DR for his files that Drkiernan initiated. Drkiernan does not often comes to Commons (from my observation anyways), but I would be open to that extending to Commons if people feel it's necessary. I already try and avoid him here, the only real issue on Commons was that today I self-admittedly called him a troll. Was it nice? No. Was it out of line? Of course. But again you have to understand that I have over 2 years of interaction with this user and it has almost always been unpleasant. Fry1989 eh? 01:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd seen these before coming here; now collected and per Brad's request.

    net revert:

    actually a full revert back to Fry in May other than bot edits to interwiki links:

    And no posts to the talk page since June.

    No posts to the talk page in a year.

    Seems Road signs in New Zealand is "my [Fry's] article":

    No actual talk on the talk page ever.

    I didn't goad him into any of this; I only found it by looking, which is the purpose of having brought this to ANI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur violations of unblock conditions linked by RexxS have been violated. Nobody Ent 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well first of all the New Zealand Road Signs article is not literally "mine" (though I called it that because I worked VERY VERY hard on uploading all those signs and making the article), but if Br'er Rabbit would pay deeper attention, he would find that the article has been under repeated vandalism by a user called Jermboy (that's what I know him by anyways) and that Pharaoh of the Wizards also reverted this user several times on my behalf for the vandalism. He is a known sockpuppet who has access to dozens of IPs and creates fake accounts all the time too. He repeatedly added duplicate signs, removed ones, or added onces from other countries, I wasn't the only one reverting him on there, and I believe my restrictions exclude obvious vandalism. So let's cross off the New Zealand one right off the bat. As for Luxembourg, that's a complicated issue but to put it simply, there was already a discussion about what arms to use on the page, and it was only recently (in the past week) changed several times by an anonymous IP address. I still gave clear edit summaries instead of blank ones. Now for Cambodia, my edit summary was clear there too, I said the file that JamVT added is up for speedy deletion (not by myself) on Commons, this was true. It's because it has no source for it's copyright status and it will probably go. It was appropriate to revert back to the long-standing SVG file of the Cambodian flag. I'm sorry, I didn't explain my reverts on the talk pages of these articles, I messed up on that, but when you look at the purpose behind those reverts, it's clear they were in good faith and valid. Now yes, not explaining them on the talk pages is a breach, but it was a mind-slip and certainly not worthy of an indeff block and review of restrictions. Fry1989 eh? 02:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody Ent, can you please quote me where you feel I broke the civility restriction? I have not called anybody anything (on Wikipedia), the only place and time I have done so was once, today on Commons. Again that would make it a Commons issue. Any language I have used here on Wikipedia regarding other users has been under a qualifier of choice, the action they choose to take over another which directly affects me. For example, when I said today on my talk page that if Drkiernan was to choose to continue believing that I'm following him around (something he accused me of which is not true), when I gave a clear and reasonable explanation of how I came across the files on Commons, that would be out of his own insecurity. I didn't call him insecure, I didn't call him anything. Fry1989 eh? 02:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Vandalism" is not a content dispute over the order that two images appear in a gallery (an incredibly large gallery;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about the order of the images! Look at the actual changes that user made, he duplicated images. New Zealand requires all their pedestrian-related signs to be fluroescent green. They used to be yellow. I have the fluoro green ones in the current gallery, and the old yellow ones under "retired signs". In THIS edit he duplicated them so that the fluoro green ones were in BOTH the current section and the retired signs section, removing the old yellow ones from the article all together. That was beyond obvious vandalism. Or what about this one where he duplicated the "cyclists take care on tracks" sign. There is a yellow one and a fluoro one, in that edit he made them both fluoro removing the yellow one from the article all together. None of these changes were constructive, they were vandalism! Fry1989 eh? 02:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are old; August.
    That's not obvious vandalism, and it wasn't discussed on talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the history of that article and go through all the changes that user made, 99% of them are vandalism. Is moving two signs around in their order vandalism? No. But that article had been vandalized by that IP so many times I reverted that change blindly without looking at it's substance because of everything else that was done. It should be noted, the IP's now blocked for a year because of this, so clearly others felt I was right, cause I'm the one who asked for it to be blocked and I posted everything it did as evidence. Fry1989 eh? 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    In any case, I won't be replying to Br'er Rabbit anymore. He's splitting hairs instead of looking at the bigger picture, and is on a crusade to get me indeffed, he made that clear when he said he'll support such a penalty on my talk page, and in this edit summary. He wants me gone and that's all he cares about. I don't understand it, I don't even remember the last time he and I interacted on anything, certainly not my talk page as he hasn't posted there since I created my account in 2009. He's taking the place of judge, jury and executioner and trying to get you all to go along with it. If he posts something and others want me to explain it, ask me and I'll reply to you, but my replies to him are done with. Fry1989 eh? 02:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    Based on the diffs provided by Br'er Rabbit and the admissions by Fry, I see no choice but to block Fry indefinitely for breaching his unblock conditions. The conditions, which were crafted by Amatulic, Fry, and me, were extraordinarily clear. Other than leaving a little wiggle room for what constitutes "vandalism" or "spam", no interpretation is required. And the consequence of a breach is just as clear: a violation results in an indefinite block. Fry can request an unblock if he wishes and it may be considered, but I don't see that he's entitled not to be blocked in the first instance. And the duration is not flexible. I am prepared to block him, or another admin may do so. I won't take any action until others respond, but that's my view.

    One thing to add. Br'er Rabbit's comment that finding these violations was his "purpose" in bringing this here is preposterous on its face. He stated his purpose when he first posted. He said that Fry's "unblock needs reconsidering", and his other comments concerned the troll comment at Commons. However, my disapproval of Br'er Rabbit's conduct doesn't change my conclusion that an indefinite block should be imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can't there please be any other option? What about a self-imposed period away, I can go away and come back. I screwed by by not posting my reasonings on the talk page, but that was a minor mess up. Half the things Br'er Rabbit brings up are misconstrued by him. I don't do very much here, I've made a minor slip up but I haven't actually done anything bad here or in bad faith. I haven't had any revert wars, I haven't gotten in fights, and I haven't attacked people. These are the issues I had which got me in trouble and I've stayed away from these actions. Please. Fry1989 eh? 05:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you block me when I haven't done anything bad here???? I didn't break my civility restrictions or my edit/revert restrictions, all I did wa mess up by forgetting to post a reasoning on a talk page, but when you look at the actual reverts they were 100% reasonable and right so there's not even an issue with their validity. This is insane that you would grant the desire of someone whose only purpose is to get rid of a good user who he's never even talked to in three years (three years I've had an account here and today is the first day he has ever posted on it! check the history). I've created articles, I've given hundred of hours of my life to this project and uploaded thousands of files to better this project. I did NOTHING wrong! Fry1989 eh? 05:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, Fry, I'm not happy about recommending an indefinite block. I suggest you back away from saying you did "nothing wrong" as that's not correct. Your best course is to apologize for the breaches, explain that you failed to monitor your edits in light of your unblock conditions, and that you will try very hard in the future not to let it happen again. That kind of statement may get you unblocked later, even though it's unlikely to prevent you from being blocked now. You appear to be willing to stay away for a while, so why not do that, return after a reasonable period (not too short in my view) and make your request. An indefinite block is not necessarily a permanent block, although I can't predict what will happen if you make an unblock request in the future. In any event, others besides me need to weigh in at this point, and I need to go to bed. Take a deep breath and try not to post anything here that you may later regret.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say in my initial post that "Fry's unblock needs reconsidering", which re-blocking amounts to. I then said a bit later that "the purpose of having brought this to ANI" was looking for diff; my meaning in the second was that the purpose of such threads is to get more eyes looking at the record, which few seem to have done. So I dredged up what I'd been glossing over with popups and had the diffs together before seeing Brad's request for diff. Fry as been at DrKiernan's page both apologising and offering a deal; help kill this thread in return for a promise to stop attacking him. diff of User talk:DrKiernan, diff of User talk:DrKiernan. Let's see what DrKiernan has to say, especially about Fry's commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Fictional achievements of arms. Fry makes flags and COA up and that's pretty dodgy. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've not fully examined the discussion above, but all I've done is to ask Fry to avoid me from his own choice. I've not asked anyone else (administrators included) for anything else.

    This wouldn't have blown up at all if Fry had avoided 3 insignificant files that were not in use anywhere on any article page on any project and were never in danger of being deleted at all until he popped up to randomly undo my categorization of them. I really don't think that it is too much to ask him to refrain from undoing harmless actions on relatively trivial issues.

    I would, however, like someone to remind him not to talk about editors outside of the noticeboards. DrKiernan (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make it easier for anyone else reading this topic, DrKiernan is referring to two posts Fry made to DrKiernan's talk page in September, which DrKiernan complained of on Fry's talk page in October (the exchange that led to ANI): (1) "no faith" in "due process" & "incredibly childish"; and (2) "stop being lazy telling me I have to do your job for you".
    If I understand DrKiernan properly, he is not asking for Fry to be blocked for violating any unblock condition. Instead, he'd like Fry to leave him alone and he'd like Fry to be reminded of the two civility bullets in Fry's unblock conditions, which include the requirement that Fry be civil on talk pages and that Fry not comment on individual editors except on some noticeboards. As for the civility issues, I'd personally like to avoid a discussion as to whether Fry's comments on DrKiernan's talk page were uncivil as I think what DrKiernan is asking for is far less than the block that could be rightfully imposed on Fry. As alluded to earlier, Fry has apologized for calling DrKiernan a troll on Commons and had promised to "never attack [DrKiernan] again". However, in my view, that's less than what DrKiernan wants. He essentially wants a one-way interaction ban so that Fry will just leave him alone. I'm not sure if DrKiernan is asking for that ban to apply to Commons as well, nor do I know how that would work. But what I'm geting to, in my usual long-winded way, is an alternative proposal that does not include a block. I'm just struggling with the terms of the proposal. Perhaps DrKiernan could help in crafting one that the community could then discuss/vote on.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, DrKiernan is mild. You've already agreed that violations of the unblock terms have occurred and that restoration of the indef is appropriate. That DrKiernan is willing to overlook the violations does not change the fact that right off the 30 day block, Fry returned to form. That, too, is why I brought this here. Look at the block log, again; this is a pattern that is not changing. Look at Flag of Rwanda; Fry stuck that OR flag back in there after consensus on the talk went against it. Even if that is a fair representation of a flag the President of Rwanda uses, the article is not about the president's personal flag, it's about the country's flag (which is quite different). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As you already know, I'm not happy with the role you played in this. However, I don't dispute your right to request a block. I'm just exploring an alternative based on DrKiernan's post. I'd like to hear more from DrKiernan on this issue. I'd also like to hear more from Amatulic. And of course others may weigh in.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not missing your hostility, I've been ignoring it as not relevant. I noted a recurrent issue that you and Amatulic are responsible for and brought it here for review, so I too am looking for others to opine. I believe you and I have bumped somewhere before but am not recalling what it was about; you remember? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be away for a day or two, will reply more fully later. For now, my original comment will have to stand as it is. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if I was unclear above, but I haven't asked for a formal ban or any extra community sanctions, and (I hope this doesn't come across as rude, it isn't meant as such) I'm not that interested in helping to determine any. I would like Fry to adhere to the current restrictions, which means not talking about editors on user talk pages, and to wikipedia policies and guidelines, which means not attacking anyone anywhere. I'm asking him as a personal favor to avoid me voluntarily. The only community discussion I've started is at commons [37]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know I said what I posted below was my final statement, but I realllly feel I need to say this. Drkiernan, I am sorry I attacked you on Commons. I am also sorry you feel I attacked you earlier on your Wikipedia page. You haven't answered my apology on your page, and I don't know whether you believe it or not, but I really was not trying to find or follow you there. You may not believe my explanation for coming across the files, but it's the truth, it could have been any other user and I still would have come across them cause they were new uploads. I am trying to follow my restrictions, I've admitted that I slipped up on not posting reasonings, and I admit I have a bit of a grudge against you for past issues, but not one that's strong enough to stalk you for trouble. The evidence below however is very strong that another person here IS holding grudge for over 6 months and won't let go it it, against me. That is what a real "issue" with another user looks like. Anyhow, this is my last post here until I am contacted with a decision and outcome of this. Goodbye everyone. Fry1989 eh? 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I do believe your explanation of how you came across the files. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actual proposal

    I prefer to wait for Amatulic's return before closing this discussion, with or without action, but I thought I'd start the ball rolling:

    1. Fry1989 is reminded that he must pay closer attention to the conditions of his August 2012 unblock agreement whenever editing.
    2. Fry1989 is advised that compliance with the civility conditions of his unblock agreement may be construed broadly.
    3. The following is added as a bullet point at the bottom of the August 2012 unblock agreement: "Fry1989 is indefinitely banned from interacting with User:DrKiernan on Wikipedia or on Commons except on appropriate behavioral noticeboard pages. This ban was added in October 2012 based on [this discussion at WP:ANI].

    The link to this discussion can be added once it has been archived and has a permanent home.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of comments about my own proposal. First, Amatulic proposed an interaction ban between Fry and DrKiernan. I've proposed a 1-way ban, partly because DrKiernan didn't say he was amenable to a 2-way ban. I don't know if 1-way bans are ever imposed, and it seems problematic to me. Example: DrKiernan (not banned) goes to Fry's talk page and says x and asks Fry to explain himself. Fry can't do that without violating the ban. Maybe DrKiernan would care to comment on this issue. Second, regardless of what kind of ban it is, I wasn't sure about the duration, so I wrote indefinite, thinking (a) why would they ever want to talk to each again anyway and (b) Fry could always request a change if for some reason they became more friendly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that given the profuse apology made by Fry1989 above at 18:59, 8 October 2012, these additional sanctions are unnecessary at this time. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    you're merely here to undermine me due. shoo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My final statement

    First a reply to Bbb23. What I meant when I said I did nothing wrong is that I did nothing harmful to wikipedia. Yes, I did wrong by not explaining my revisions on the articles' talk pages, that was a slip and I'm sorry. I agreed to do it and I haven't done it. But everything else on my restrictions list I did obey.

    Secondly however, I want to point out that I now know who Br'er Rabbit is and why he is so dead-set on having me blocked. He used to be Alarbus (some of you may already know this so sorry if it's old news, but I just realized it). He and I had a bitter disagreement on Talk: Flag of Rwanda about the inclusion of the presidential flag of Rwanda. I was blocked for uncivility, but Alarbus was later blocked for socking. When I my block expired, I posted "it's not over" on his talk page (unaware that he had also been blocked during my time away), because I had over 10 new sources. That comment was removed by Diannaa under Alarbus' request through email with a rather colourful metaphor as Diannaa put it in their edit summary. After that issue however, I continued with my sources on the article's talk page, and eventually got an email from the Rwandan Embassy to the US confirming it being the President's flag, and it's been left on the article from May to now October, 6 months. Alarbus (or should I now say "Br'er Rabbit") obviously7 hasn't let go of this spat because today he just removed the flag again saying the article isn't about the President's flag (despite plenty of other national flag articles including their presidential variants), and because in his very first post on my talk page yesterday he already had decided that I need to be indeffed. He obviously is not just trying to get rid of me for any reason, but because he still holds a grudge over the Rwanda issue. He doesn't even care about the facts, for example above he says that I create the "dodgy coats of arms and flags] and that the DR was mine. It's already been made extremely clear here those files were made by Trajan, and that my only involvement in the DR is after he asked me to give my opinion.

    I ask the admins here to look into this because it's plainly obvious that Alarbus/Br'er Rabbit hasn't let go, he even brought up the Rwanda flag dispute here yesterday! He instantly said I need to be indeffed on my page, coming there looking for the slightest sign of trouble, because he had it in his watchlist (self-admittedly) under his new user name, and Drkiernan never asked him to come to my page. He was LOOKING for trouble, any excuse to bring this here. Fry1989 eh? 16:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A word of advice: do not try to play the victim here, it will not win you any favours. I very strongly recommend that you strike the entirety of the second and third paragraphs in your post above, otherwise you risk giving the impression that you have a battleground mentality which is not a good look and won't help your case. - Nick Thorne talk 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? It's not like Br'er hasn't hounded others before. He has a history of that. Check with ArbCom. I don't know if Fry1989's timeline is accurate, but it's not out of left field that he is being hounded/goaded in this case. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly, I at least partly agree with both of you. I think many people know about Jack's history, although it is hard to follow (so many different accounts). Assuming Fry is right about the history concerning Fry and Jack, Fry's comments may be relevant to Jack's motives. However, they are not particularly relevant to any action that might be taken here. Generally, it's not a good idea to jump on one's accuser unless one is contradicting an allegation. Casting aspersions, even if valid, isn't usually productive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "I had some dispute with him about a made-up image of a coat of arms some six months ago" in Br'er opening argument brings that issue into the discussion, doesn't it? Tijfo098 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I kick small children, too :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict) Tijfo098, all the more reason why Fry should not respond like this. It only pours fuel onto the fire, a lesson I personally learned in this place not all that long ago. If Fry has a grievance, the correct way to raise it is not in an AN/I case about his own behaviour, it makes him look defensive and unwilling to admit his own weaknesses, neither of which are likely to impress any passing admin that might feel inclined to impose a block. IMO he would be best advised to cop it on the chin, admit his own breach of his unblock conditions, promise to do better in the future and drop the stick about the real or imagined misbehaviour of others. With his history he should not be raising such issues any time soon, if the things he complains about are real then the alleged perpetrator will undoubtedly cross swords with some other editor and may well end up here on the receiving end of his or her own AN/I case. Anyway, I believe Fry would be best advised to avoid the editor(s) with whom he is having trouble, even if that is hard for him, at least that way he may be able to remain here - if he gets blocked then he won't be able to edit here at all. - Nick Thorne talk 02:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. I've seen plenty of cases on ANI where both the editor who started the thread and the one reported were sanctioned. WP:BOOMERANG, Unclean hands, and all that. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    run along; you've a history with me. you're just trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock farm at Consett

    See Talk:Consett#Consett_Iron_Theatre: this looks like textbook sock-puppetry to support a hoax. -- The Anome (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Impressive. One has to wonder why the alleged Consett History Society that has been used as a reference via this page is presenting their Iron Theatre as scrapped in the early 1900s when there are images of it taken in 2008. But on a closer look these images may even be from downtown Los Angeles and not from Consett, England. So much for the quality of the references used for this hoax. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yesterday an article was created about part of the War of 1812 that historians had up until now overlooked, The Battle of Allentown. Also created was an article about its leading figure, one William C.J. Mason. Both sourced from this website. Back on topic: a theatre made entirely out of iron? The acoustics would have been terrible! WP:SPI is this-away.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Belchfire

    On 25 September, Binksternet started a discussion thread about Belchfire (talk · contribs) on User talk:TParis (see "Ignoring sanctions on US political articles"). At the time, major concerns about Belchfire's behavior were raised with administrator TParis. In the discussion, it was shown that Belchfire had received at least three major warnings from administrators about his battlefield behavior and edit warring. TParis said he was on vacation playing the new WoW expansion and couldn't be bothered to deal with the problem.[38] Shortly after the thread ended on the 26th of September, Belchfire disappeared two days later, on the 28th. Today, Belchfire returned, engaging in the same exact behavior that has not yet been dealt with as requested by Binksternet back in September. To make matters worse, Belchfire appears to be gaming the system, reverting to the edits of a SPA IP (User:71.97.130.211) on political positions of Mitt Romney and violating the spirit of general sanctions by engaging in edit warring,[39] and coincidentally, doing the same thing on the same day on homosexual agenda, reverting to a version created by another SPA, this time a registered account (User:BacktoWiki).[40] This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely. Is Belchfire here to build an encyclopedia or to play games? Viriditas (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This complaint is nonsensical:
    • A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever.
    • When I edit an article, I'm not responsible for the contribution history of previous editors. Ever.
    • Even if I was responsible for those contribution histories, neither of the editors cited by Viriditas meet the criteria of WP:SPA.
    • Supposing just for the sake of the argument that they were SPAs, that doesn't mean it's against policy to revert to their version of an article, because there's no policy against being an SPA.
    • All that remains is (supposedly) "odd behavior", which isn't much of a complaint. And there is no policy against "odd behavior".
    I humbly suggest that Viriditas stop wasting everybody's time unless/until he has a real issue for admins to deal with. The only battlefield behavior here is this trumped up, fictitious ANI thread that he's started. G'day. Belchfire-TALK 00:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I maintain, using the above examples, that you are deliberately engaging in disruptive behavior. An enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem has been collected by other editors/admins, so there is no need for me to repeat it here. You are basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts which effectively increases the 3RR count by adding additional reverts into the mix. I'm asking for action to be taken based on Binksternet's original request from 25 September.[41] Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Viriditas is hardly "wasting everybody's time." After looking into the links provided, I see that Belchfire has been warned numerous times and appears to me to have serious issues, starting with systemic vios of WP:TEND, and I call for remedial action to hereby come into consideration including a full topic ban for any political subjects. Clearly this has gone on far too long. And for the record I am utterly uninvolved with any of this. Jusdafax 00:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is someone accusing BF of sockpuppettry?  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          02:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Disruption is more like it. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. For clarity, I do not accuse Belchfire of socking. Jusdafax 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an ongoing problem that needs to be stopped, but Belchfire has given every indication that he is unwilling to stop his behavior. Far too often he has been reverting other editors on a drive-by basis on multiple articles—not engaging the other editors on the talk page to build toward consensus. He just throws a wrench in the works as he drives by. At WP:DISRUPT we see that Belchfire's pattern is identified under "Signs of disruptive editing". Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a content dispute that has no place at ANI. Also, the originator of the complaint did not make a good faith effort to resolve the issue elsewhere, which is required per the bolded verbiage at the top of this page (only 22 minutes passed between a message on my Talk page that the initiation of this section). This entire thing is motivated solely by partisan politics. Cheers. Belchfire-TALK 02:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "content" under dispute in this report, only your continuing bad behavior. As for attempting to resolve it, the diffs show that you've been warned many, many times. At this point, we need administrator action. We are far past the point of trying to resolve it. Been there, done that, now we need action. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    BF has had issues inte past, mostly with civility, but since being warned he has been much more civil. Where is he refusing to discuss?   little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          02:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to have a discussion when there is something to discuss. There is nothing to discuss here; this is simply a politically-motivated content dispute - not an ANI-worthy complaint. Viriditas knows better. Belchfire-TALK 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no content under discussion in this thread, only your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. The links Veriditas posted above, highlighted "enormous amount of evidence indicating this continuing problem," indicate there is plenty to discuss, as I see it. In my view to deny that is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I respectfully suggest Belchfire take this matter a bit more seriously, because up to this point they are doing themself a disservice. Binksternet and Veriditas raise troubling points that arguably merit community oversight and sanctions. This is the place to discuss that. Calling their complaints "partisan politics" reveals a battleground mentality on Belchfire's part. Jusdafax 02:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe. But the initial complaint by OP makes it seem like they are accusing BF of puppettry. This needs clarification.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          03:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "A single edit is never "edit-warring". Ever." LOL! Someone needs to review what is considered edit warring.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was sticking in my craw as well.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          12:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Care to explain how both Belchfire and Collect are wrong on this point? Viriditas (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of warnings is to change behavior and if that is not effective then the next logical step is sanctions. I believe we have reached that point and would support a topic ban on political articles. Also, I find his comment on edit warring disturbing, since he has been blocked twice recently for edit-warring. It shows an unwillingness to follow the spirit of policy, and avoid sanctions by following the letter. TFD (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no editorial misbehaviour warranting this section - it is clearly a matter of disputes between ed\itors on content matters, and this is not the place to rule on content matters. Further, it is dictum that "edit war" does, indeed, require more than a single edit. I would further note that the editors who seem most aggreieved have been involved in precisely analogous behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no content dispute under discussion here, nor have I been involved. In fact, I have made a total of zero edits to the articles named in this dispute:[42][43][44][45] This discussion is about Belchfire's edit warring (which does not require more than a single edit) and battlefield behavior which has resulted in multiple warnings, all of which have been ignored. At this point, we're calling for action, preferably a topic ban or sanction. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note SPI is --> thataway. Making accusations here is not proper. Collect (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nobody has made any such accusations. Viriditas (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Here [46] you say that BF is ...basically a "revert-only" account at this point who seems to be gaming general sanctions and tag teaming on controversial articles by reverting to single-use IP's and throwaway accounts (emphasis added). This is tantamount to making the claim that BF is socking, which is a serious accusation. If you have evidence or even a strong suspicion, take it to SPI.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          12:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it doesn't imply that Belchfire is socking in any way, but it does imply that he is reverting to versions edited by other throwaway accounts to game the general sanctions and 3RR. I hope you understand that this statement does not in any way imply that he is the operator behind those accounts, but rather that he conveniently seems to show up at coincidental and opportune times to revert to their versions. There are any number of explanations for this coincidental behavior. For example, they could be meatpuppets, not socks, and no SPI would ever prove anything. Now, please stop distracting from his behavior under discussion. This isn't a dispute about content or a request for an SPI. It's a discussion about Belchfire's continuing battlefield behavior. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever heard of something called a watchlist? These edits you present as "evidence" of disruption of BF appear to be a coat-rack to bring up a discussion of sanctions against BF. Don't accuse me of making distractions, I'm not the one making insinuations.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Belchfire's contribution pattern, there appears to be a gaming of the 1RR of general sanctions and the 3RR coordinated with the coincidental appearance of single-use IPs and throwaway SPA's. You can dismiss this as a coincidence when it happens once, but twice within the same day on two different articles right when Belchfire "returns" from a week-long vacation? Sorry, this does have the look and feel of odd behavior. I monitor editorial patterns all the time, and this is very strange behavior. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Red herring. No one has accused anyone of sockpuppeting. Saying an editor has a revert only account does not imply there is another account. You inferred it, but it wasn't implied. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Belchfire is the poster child for votestacking. He finds a controversial article and reverts to restore the position of his friends, but he does not engage in discussion. More than any other, Belchfire is the type of editor that Lionelt hoped to recruit (and did recruit) for the Conservatism WikiProject to further conservative causes. The exhaustive list of disruptive edits that Swatjester warned him about includes many exemplary votestacking instances such as this one removing well-cited but negative information at Christian Coalition of America, without a single peep on the talk page, and this one at You didn't build that to revert to a fabricated image photoshopped by Lionelt, added to the article by Lionelt, one which was soon deleted. Anybody who wishes to investigate further into Belchfire's editing pattern will find too many disruptive reversions, the same things Swatjester already noted. Binksternet (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the Belchfire votestack I found most disruptive: he involved himself in the article for precisely one edit, reverting my changes to the lead section of BP and the addition of text cited to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. Belchfire used the edit summary, "removing unsourced material and obvious original research". Such a summary was purely spiteful, considering the sources and carefully crafted text. Belchfire never once engaged in discussion on the article's talkpage. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Belchfire's involvement with the project has improved since they received a final warning on September 9, but it seems to be mostly due to reducing the level of activity, as opposed to altering undesirable editing behavior.

    The drive-by reverting started about a week after Swatjester's final warning.

    With the exception of the Sept 20th bullshit comments, most of the edits and summaries you cite appear to be reasonable, as they can reasonable be rationalized. Perhaps he is frustrated at what he percieves to be edits that do not reflect what the sources state? When you proceed to revert his edit before discussing, do you expect him to answer your talkpage response? I'm on the bandwagaon that BF can certainly be curt and sometimes abrasive, but most of these problems can be handled within BRD. Two bad the D part is often an afterthought. And BF is not the only guilty party.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          14:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Belchfire is not just curt and abrasive, he is purposely disruptive. That's the key point. Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understand that's the claim being made. So far the diffs presented here haven't shown disruption, much less intentional disruption. That is unless you consider source checking and attribution to be disruptive. I would however urge BF to start opening TP sections when he removes material he believes to be unsourced and be more specific as to the chief complaint.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          14:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such thing as believing text to be unsourced when in fact it is sourced to the New York Times, the US Department of Justice, the Washington Post, CBS News and ABC News. The chief complaint is that Belchfire piles on in edit wars, that he is disruptive in his edit pattern. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an example, one of the cited diffs above is [47] which is a removal of unsourced material. There are other edits, also above, where BF has reverted edits that contain unsourced and sourced material in one fell swoop. Perhaps you feel he should have been more judicious in removing only the unsourced portion. Perhaps he felt it wasn't his responsibility to clean up anothers mess. Did he see one "bad" edit and decide to revert the whole thing? Is it ok to throw out the baby with the bathwater? Let's postualate that this is a misunderstanding on both sides. If everyone were to take this up on the talk page then we wouldn't be discussing it here.  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          16:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that you chose that example, because here is the passage from the Rolling Stone article:
    " "Open your eyes, people," Anderson recently wrote to the local newspaper. "What if a 15-year-old is seduced into homosexual behavior and then contracts AIDS?" Her agenda mimics that of Focus on the Family, the national evangelical Christian organization founded by James Dobson;"
    Belchfire removed: "Anderson's agenda is similar to that of Focus on the Family" with an edit summary: "removing unsourced original research" – MrX 02:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot to add this series of events which occurred as the Parents Action League was being expanded:

    At first, I was encouraged to see Belchfire, StAnselm and Insomesia joining together with me in the spirit of improving the article. But almost immediately, it became evident that there was an effort to keep sourced content out of the article. When that didn't work so well, Belchfire sent it to AfD in a WP:Twinkle of an eye. Belchfire's reason: "This organization fails GNG, as it is unheard-of outside the Minnesota Twin Cities area. Article is here purely as a coatrack to cover it's SPLC "hate group" listing." – MrX 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I find it interesting that in this discussion, the members of Wikiproject:Conservatism are out in full force to defend Belchfire, especially those who previously tag-teamed with him like Little Green Rosetta. Not two days ago they were out for blood, misconstruing a joke comment as a "threat" in order to get rid of an editor who stood in the way of their tendentious POV-pushing and endured a great deal of abuse from them and nasty comments or worse for doing so. I think Belchfire ought to be blocked indef on the same grounds that the WP:Conservatism crowd demanded StillStanding-247 be blocked for. And yet, they insisted his conduct shouldn't come under an RFC/U first, while they want Belchfire given free rein to run around while an RFC/U is researched and filed? I have an alternate proposal, for all members and admin members especially of WP:Conservatism: Conservapedia is THATAWAY. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note, the editor mentioned above was blocked for a comment about offing an admin. He was also blocked for repeated disruption and his block was widely supported. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this ip is most likely indeffed user SkepticAnonymous  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          02:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to StillStanding-247 who is still defended even though he is one of the worst POV pushers to ever hit this sight, amazing. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, having a lousy sense of humor tinged with a little irony isn't a blockable offense. The comments you refer to are [48] and [49], which are clearly meant as him making jokes. There's no way " Even if I agreed to your dastardly plan to murder TParis" can count as a threat. The fact that it was a middle of the night pile-on by editors and admins associated with TParis is as much a matter of WP:CANVAS behavior as anything else, just as the rush to defend Belchfire is a function of WP:CANVAS levels from a certain Wikiproject. Reaper Eternal is previously on record as a WP:Conservative supporter and "supports the campaign to fire Obama", and blocked within 15 minutes, which is quite a rush to indef-ban an editor who's gotten the short end of the stick from a POV gang since day one. It's pretty obvious what is was going on was an attempt to get someone blocked/banned for political reasons because they oppose POV-pushing editors, nothing more or less, and the defense of Belchfire who has just as much a habit of tendentious editing and disruption is being treated the other way by the same people for reasons of political affiliation as well.
    I don't see any reason to miss or minimize the fact that Belchfire saw StillStanding-247 gone, and figured he could get into tendentious editing again because one of the people likely to report him was now blocked.
    Also, false accusations don't do much for me. Pull the other one while you're at it, otherwise they'll get lopsided. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    topic ban proposal

    • Strongly support a topic ban for the areas where Belchfire is unable to contribute constructively: Politics, Christian political organizations and people, Christian right, civil rights organizations, anti-gay/hate group organizations and LGBT topics. While Belchfire can make positive contributions to Wikipedia, I believe that this topic ban would have a net positive effect on the project. – MrX 13:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban A single edit can be edit warring; particularly when you pile in a edit war with others by not getting consensus for the bold reverted change first (It's BRD, not BRRRR). Belchfire trying to force an edit through by re-inserting a bold edit is edit warring, and it seems to be something he does quite often. The account shown account shown User:BacktoWiki is clearly a SPA account. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose No case other than "IDONTLIKEHIM" has been presented. The implication that he is socking was improper on this page as I noted, and the fact that he has content disputes is insufficient to purge him. I would note that those seeking to ban him are specifically involved in the disputes, and that I would not support a topic ban on them either. AN/I is not the noticeboard to get folks barred from areas where the ones proposing the topic ban have remarkably similar attributes themselves. Collect (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one implied sock puppetting. You wrongly inferred it as has already been pointed out several times. Stop with the red herrings. Are we reading different ANI threads? The diffs have been presented, that you have ignored and denied the reality of the diffs, which clearly show piling in on an edit war, doesn't mean there is no case. It is self evidently not just a content dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How else do you read This is very odd behavior and needs to be scrutinized closely as anything other than a veiled accusation of impropriety? Cheers -- and the "new account" below does not seem to be "new" either. Collect (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bothe the IP and registered account linked above are new, and appeared just prior to Belchfire reverting. Why do you claim they are not new? Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Agree a topic ban on politics, religion, homosexuality and civil rights broadly construed. --JimEdgers (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    • Oppose Rabblerousing from the usual suspects. Arkon (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree with IRWolfie. A look at the edit on the Romney positons article shows that this was indeed an edit war and BF's revert part of it[50]. I also note the use of the edit summary to debate or disute the previous summary claim (See WP:REVTALK) is one reason to consider this single revert an edit war. With the addition of the revert on the Homosexual agenda article, it does look very much like a topic ban is appropriate for "politics, religion, homosexuality (Edit:Not just this single article but all LGBT related articles) and civil rights" broadly construed as mentioned by Binksternet.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This has relied to much on verbiage and innuendo -- he reverted to the last version edited by an SPA (gasp) ... just sayin' ... not that I'm accusing anyone of sockpuppetry (but it's okay if you connect the dots on your own). More diffs, less words and less mud next time please. And single edits are warring, they're bold! Like a good Wikipedian is supposed to be. Nobody Ent 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's lists of diffs in the discussion above. You want even more than that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone whose actually read all of the diffs above (where diffs were actually provided), none of them seem to support the accusations of the submitters. To quote a recently indefed editor "What else you got?"  little green rosetta(talk)
    central scrutinizer          00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious question: When you read all of those diffs, did you really see no examples where content was removed on false premises? Did you really not see that Belchfire wrote "The edit summary was erroneous, my bad" when called on it? – MrX 02:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LGR is Belchfire's tag-team partner... linkage from the same. 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban on political, religious and LGBT articles as warnings appear to be ignored, as I explained above. TFD (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose  I have examined one of the edits [51] about which this topic has been opened, and found the complaint regarding this edit to be without merit.  The edit by Belchfire in question addressed the issue that the previous post was WP:BITE.  Note that the link provided by the OP hides the edit comment of the previous post: [52].  Belchfire's objection was sustained by the subsequent edit comment, which has removed the "WP:BITE".  Unscintillating (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This does not appear to be a clear-cut case. You should start a WP:RfC/U instead. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this proposed ban in its broad nature. I sure as hell think it is time to act on the final warning about 2012 election editing as this type of revert is so beyond inappropriate that it needs little explanation. The conduct at Parent's Action League is troubling, but over a month old. Seems to me an RfC/U is the more appropriate step at this point, even if just to sort out exactly where he should be prevented from contributing. Not gonna rule out that his contributions in some of the other areas might be constructive unless there is evidence to the contrary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - nothing of substance here. If anybody should be topic banned, it should be the person who started this thread since he has a pretty clear POV biais. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 01:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As opposed to yours? "let's ban anyone who disagrees?" 98.196.232.109 (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Urolagnia

    We seem to have another obsessive IP (or possibly the same one we had trouble with on the subject before), intent on spinning the article (with questionable grammar etc), and using questionable sources in the process. Most notably, the IP (currently User:87.194.46.83, but changing frequently) has inserted a statement that "R. Kelly was famously accused of featuring in a video telling a girl how to urinate, and urinating on her" into the article - a clear violation of WP:BLP policy. Can I ask that people keep an eye on the article, at least. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the IP. If the BLP violations continue then I think semi-protection would be warranted. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected for three months. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to strongly object to the offensive language used by AndyTheGrump here and else where, and his misleading remarks made about me here. After edit warring against me, and refusing to admit that the oxford english dictionary is a reliable source he told me to "piss off: [53],I would like to point out that, rather than complaining first here, I followed procedure, and contacted him on his home page - where he wrote ""the article is on a paraphilia, and it is going to say so clearly. If you want to promote it, go somewhere else. This is an encyclopaedia, not a watersports forum."87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his complaint is dishonest. Firstly, the statement was supported by reliable sources, and is already in the R. Kelly article - exactly which aspect of WP:BLP is violated. Secondly I did not insert the claim, but reinstated it with sources as requested by Andy . Thirdly I object to being called obsessive for trying to fix problems with articles. If you look at the edit history for Urolagnia you will see Andy consistently reverting my edits without proper explanation, and if you look at the talk page you will be able to see his POV. I also object to being described as an "obsessive IP (or possibly the same one we had trouble with on the subject before)," and ask that you examine the article and talk page properly.87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Creationist vandalism

    Per WP:SNOW, Andycjp is topic banned from making evolution related edits, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Andycjp has been involved in a persistent edit-war with myself and another editor at Walking due to his persistent and deliberate attempts to remove at least the word "evolution" from the page, while not-so-subtly altering the title to suggest an imaginary alternative, presumably creationism. This is not isolated behavior - he has made similar edits in heel and Anatidae (see recent history of each) going back nearly a year. He has not altered his behavior in the face of multiple warnings from myself and Fama Clamosa, and remains dogged in his attempt to insert this nonsense into legitimate articles on scientific topics. His edit history shows him to be productive in other areas, but this sort of vandalism is unacceptable. HCA (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    On this topic: this is unacceptable censorship.
    On the broader topic of young earth creationist censorship (I emphasize young earth because old earth creationism is totally compatible with theistic evolution): For Christ's sake, can we just get a policy made saying "Wikipedia accepts evolution as a fact, don't try to hide it just because you don't like science"...? I know that it really should just be an essay saying "per WP:NPOV, we side with mainstream science and accept evolution as a fact, and handle young earth creationism as a WP:FRINGE theory." However, if we do that, that's only going to let people go "it's just an essay," or "it's just a guideline." Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's appropriate to say that we offer blanket endorsement of one theory over another. We claim the need to cite specific facts, relying on the most authoritative sources for those citations. Those sources will dictate what Wikipedia endorses. If Young-Earth Creationism is indeed a fringe theory, reliable sources will take care of that. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually disagree with you there, Jprg. The Bible is not a reliable source for scientific articles, despite what Andy seems to think [54]. No editor should be forced to take such an editor through dispute resolution and get consensus not to cite the bible on in a section of evolution or other such ridiculous things. There's a difference between editors disagreeing over the reliability of a source and the fringeness of a theory, and one editor pushing a POV that doesn't have a hope or a prayer of being included, except in an article on the POV itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The bible is a primary historical document and it's apparent that it shouldn't be used. If you use the most reliable secondary sources to give WP:DUE weight, fringe views will be put into perspective with the mainstream. Current guidelines in this area are actually pretty good (provided people follow them). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    HCA, Andycjp's edits are not vandalistic. Read WP:VANDAL#NOT before using that word. His edits are problematic and appear to push a POV, but that does not make them vandalism. --Jprg1966 (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See the statements in Talk:Evolution/FAQ which are backed at least by the consensus of the editors on that page. The FAQ observes that "The process and theory of evolution are both uncontroversial among biologists." In this edit by introducing a comment about the Garden of Eden into the Walking article Andycjp may have gone over the line. His edit summary is "Other views have the right to be represented here-most of the planet knows full well God has a hand in everything". Allowing a literal reading of the Book of Genesis to affect our article on a scientific topic is unacceptable. He is close to needing a warning under WP:ARBPS, in my opinion. See the wording which Arbcom used at WP:ARBPS#Serious encyclopedias. I agree with editors above that the word 'vandalism' is not appropriate for Andycjp's editing, but he has engaged in long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree a (final) warning to Andicjp is needed here, as a minimum. Let's also not forget that the WP:NPOV policy has very explicit guidance on exactly this type of situation: WP:Making necessary assumptions. Quote: For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. It doesn't really get any clearer than that, does it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Indeed, vandalism is the wrong word, since Andycjp believes himself to be making Wikipedia better, grossly misguided as he may be. His editing is in violation of a dozen or so of Wikipedia's alphabet soup policies, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is clear here, and it needs to stop yesterday. --Jayron32 05:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm now considering whether a mere warning or a block is in order. This editor has been around since 2004. Has he been known for similar disruptive behaviour before? Edits like [55][56][57] (random collection from his talk page) suggest that he was involved in disruptive POV editing repeatedly, and repeatedly showed quite nasty aggressive behaviour over it. Has he ever been warned explicitly about anti-evolution POV pushing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I think some warning should be considered as any block would more than likely be indef, considering the circumstances and user's block log. Tiderolls 05:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's all of these warnings from this particular dispute. I really do think that requiring a more formal warning here is overly bureaucratic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a final warning for "vandalism", which he is not guilty of, and a handful of NPOV warnings over time for specific edits. But I don't see a clear explanation and warning over his general religious POV approach to editing. And he genuinely believes he is doing right and making Wikipedia better. Some may see it as overly bureaucratic, but I think he needs a properly explained final warning that removing reference to evolution from scientific articles, trying to use the Bible as a reliable source, etc, is not permissible and that he will be blocked if he continues. Once that's done, if he does it again any admin can issue a block with community support without having to come back here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he does state on his userpage that "consensus is not truth", so I'm not inclined to A as much GF as to his intentions. I guess I can see there being somewhat of a grey area here, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He's actually right that "consensus is not truth", but that's not the point here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, an editor who has been around since 2004 and who has been involved in a number of disputes here knows that the project operates on the former. I don't find his comment below to be exactly encouraging, either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm not encouraged either. But as he has not had the problems with his edits clearly explained to him before (he's just had various alphabet soup servings, some of which were blatantly wrong), I think that step is necessary before considering a block - certainly for an editor acting in good faith, which I believe he is. I've offered something of an explanation, below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the fact that A) he openly disdains consensus and B) regards being called out on this issue as being made a martyr (!), I think a Formal Warning™ would fall on deaf ears. That said, I'm not sure that an outright block would be reasonable here, given the limited scope of the disruption, troubling though it may be. A topic ban on scientific subjects would seem more in order. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am getting wikicrucified am I?andycjp (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    that won't make you wikijesus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Or wikispiderman (he has a much cooler costume). Such actions can lead to more than 3 days in the wiki underworld, often with slim chances of resurrection. Heiro 07:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance we could keep the mocking comments out of this, folks? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is happening here is that your editing behaviour is being discussed - and you have clearly been making edits that are not acceptable. Firstly, you must not censor scientific articles to remove reference to evolution - amongst biologists, it simply is not controversial. And you cannot use religious texts as reliable sources for scientific/factual issues - they can be used as sources for what the texts themselves say or as references for what their followers believe, but not as reliable sources for factual claims. Now, the scientific consensus might indeed be wrong about evolution and the age of the Earth (though it is pretty overwhelming), but even if it is wrong it is still the job of Wikipedia to echo it - that's what encyclopedias do; they don't try to correct or argue against consensus. Anyway, if you agree to stop trying to promote your religious views or change scientific articles away from the scientific consensus, I see no reason for any sanction other than a warning/notification on your talk page (though others, of course, might disagree with me and the consensus might be a block now - as with Wikipedia articles, I can't go against consensus). But if you continue, then it's pretty certain that you will be blocked from editing, probably indefinitely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ' God is the only lawgiver and judge. He alone can save or destroy. Who do you think you are to judge your fellow man?' James 4:12andycjp (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a little known fact that James was opposed to websites setting their own rules. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this user's only response to this thread really to quote the Bible?! And to say "Who do you think you are to judge your fellow man?" Topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright Andy. You're going to need to do three things: 1) Stop invoking God in content disputes; 2) Stop trying to drown out the scientific viewpoint on evolution; 3) Stop trying to insert the biblical viewpoint on evolution. You are one stupid edit away from being blocked. Wikipedia is a collaborative and serious encyclopedia. Editors who don't get that aren't welcome. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, a number of editors have explained to you why your edits are problematic, and I find your response wholly unacceptable, not to mention offensive to other people. ("What about us atheists? The Mohmedans don't come round here waving bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom, or Hindus harmonizing in the hall, and the Shintus don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans....") Responding with a random, out of context quote, from a religious text (something I personally find reprehensible as you can take out-of-context quotes from just about anywhere in The Bible and use them to say whatever the hell you like) indicates you do not understand what the problem is. You need to understand very quickly that other people have different opinions to you, and they all have a place on Wikipedia, otherwise you'll be blocked because you don't want to hear it. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Lawgivers: United States Congress, Judge: Chief Justice of the United States. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy, I think these sorts of edits and comments would be more at home at Conservapedia. – Richard BB 11:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that Andy edited yesterday, on a Sunday and Exodus 35:2 states quite clearly "For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death". From this, we can conclude that either a) Andy should be sentenced to death or b) quoting random bits from the Bible doesn't make a convincing argument. Since a) could be interpreted as a personal attack, let's go with b). --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban for Andycjp

    Proposal If an editor is problematic in a specific area, then a topic ban from that area makes the most sense. There are issues outside that area, but they can be looked at if the issues persist. I propose a topic ban from evolution related edits broadly construed. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban. Per Boing! said Zebedee's observations above, the problematic edits only occur in this area, and he makes positive contributions elsewhere. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban broadly construed across the subject of evolution. Per the fact that everyone seems to agree that the editors other edits are fine (and I checked a few myself and found no problems). If they can keep themselves to other subjects, problem should be solved. I am seriously worried about the editors response (i.e. the spouting religious texts to justify their actions). But maybe a cool down period overnight may change their mind. Heiro 10:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposed topic ban. I believe the editor can certainly continue to edit constructively within many topics on Wikipedia, but evolution-related topics do not appear to be one of them. While I am still concerned about the user's interactions with other editors and their handling of this ANI discussion, I think this is an appropriate step to be taking. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 10:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This user could have used this AN/I discussion to learn and correct his mistakes, but then he decides to quote James 4:12 and decides that we are not worthy to judge him. He's clearly stubborn and unwilling to change, and he clearly has an issue with scientific fact simply because it conflicts with his interpretation of his religious text. If he'd have kept his bias and disdain for scientific evidence to himself, that'd be fine; instead, however, he attempts to censor evidence and remove scientific facts from Wikipedia in an attempt to promote his interpretation of his religion. The views of his god are not encyclopaedic (at least not in the articles in question). – Richard BB 10:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Enough is enough, he's clearly convinced he's right and I don't think we can expect him to change his position - which is fair enough except that we can't have him editing in this topic area. He's got other interests (I also did a spot check of edits outside this area and they seemed harmless) so a topic ban should be sufficient. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. If he were to edit evolution-related things in the same tendentious way again, I would block him in any case. The likelihood for him to edit evolution-related things in a different, NPOV-compatible way appears quite low. Therefore, we can just as well tell him to not edit evolution-related stuff at all from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - totally inappropriate behavior. I suspect he would be happier at Conservapedia, where his shameless biases are taken as givens. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Damn skippy. --Jayron32 12:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The problem must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as I stated above. Also per FP@S, I don't see this user being of any help in the topic area at any point in time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Not only is the tendentious creationism-pushing unacceptable, but responses like the one the user made to this thread is disruptive. Further examples should also result in a block, IMO. DeCausa (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. What about edits like this one? This was just an an unneccesary edit to remove the word "evolve" from an article about that has nothing to do with evolution. Singularity42 (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just weird. I hate to say it but that plus his response here and recent ones in a similar vein on his talk page raise for me some sort of recent WP:COMPETENCE issue.DeCausa (talk)
    That is just plain odd, it's like he's trying to suppress the concept that things might change with time in any capacity. .... Perhaps broadly needs to be extended to editing sentences which have the word "evolve", "evolving", "evolution or any derivatives. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw that and thought it was fine, as it was an incorrect use of the word "evolve" - individuals don't evolve. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you thinking of the narrower scientific meaning? There's certainly a broader meaning of "develop into" which does apply to individuals. DeCausa (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not specifically - I think "grown into" makes far more sense than "evolved into" when referring to two young people who have grown up - we don't evolve up. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Venue question

      • Not to be overly bureaucratic, but why are we having a topic ban discussion at ANI when they belong at WP:AN? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because the discussion on the ban grew out of a natural extension of a prior discussion which was appropriate to ANI. The discussion didn't start from scratch, and having the prior discussion right here next to it is helpful for context and history. That being said, I never understood why ban discussions were supposed to happen at WP:AN over WP:ANI anyways, except to arbitrarily push a certain volume of posts from this desk to that one. After all, every ban had to have originated with some number of incidents... It seems incongruous to shuttle ban discussions off to that desk, which is more properly designed to handle discussions about things admins need to do that don't involve sanctionable stuff. --Jayron32 13:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be more confusing to have the same discussion across multiple noticeboards. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not laboring it, just saying it is arguably less prone to drama and drive by comments. Every other page at enwp is, for that matter. Normally, linking it is trivial. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion - put a link at AN over to here. There's not much point moving it now that it's started and looks like it's going to be pretty conclusive -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I know, it was more of a "for future events" comment than anything else. Once started, it is too late. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis: Jayron's comment is exactly right: when a ban discussion arises naturally from an ANI, it's generally the case that it continues on ANI. When one is started from scratch, it should be brought up at AN, or moved there from ANI if caught early on. That's been the usual procedure for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that since WP:AN specifically states it is for ban discussions and ANI is not, and most start here, that the accepted norm is link over to a new proposal on WP:AN for that portion. This is a trivial thing to do, and the design and guidelines seem to indicate this was the original design intent. I'm not saying moving this one that is already knee deep to be bureaucratic, I'm saying that if current guidelines indicate this is what we should do, then this is what we should be doing, or change the guidelines and repurpose or remove WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's what the guidelines say, then they are wrong and should be changed, since Wikipedia guidelines are supposed to be descriptive rather than proscriptive, and reflect actual practice, which is as Jayron and I have described. There's no need to "repurpose or remove" AN, since it is the preferred starting point for topic ban discussion which do not arise out of ANI discussions. (Also, topic ban discussions are hardly the only purpose that AN serves.) I haven't done an actual count, but I don't think your impression that "most" topic ban discussion start on ANI is correct, and I note that when they're started here ex nihilo, moving them to AN is almost invariably done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a fairly recent innovation: I've been around the block a bit here at Wikipedia, and it has only been the last year or two that we've been moving ban discussions to AN; I believe that when people started doing so it was merely to free up space here. AN serves lots of purposes besides ban discussions, lots of notices regarding tasks that need admin work unrelated to sanctioning people go on there. Which is what it was originally designed for. --Jayron32 02:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories

    Doctor Reno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added a lengthy original essay to the end of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, detailing numerous reasons why he (the editor) is convinced Obama is not eligible to be President. I reverted him, but he promptly reverted me back. I also left a notice on the editor's talk page, explaining the issue and advising him of the Obama article probation sanctions. I didn't revert him the second time because I don't want to be seen as getting involved in an edit war, but I strongly recommended in my talk page comment that he revert his own edit. If he fails to do this, I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to remove the material in question, and possibly also take other actions in keeping with the article probation sanctions. — Richwales 06:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've removed the edit, and added a confirmation of your warning to him. Removal of stuff like this is covered under WP:BLP anyway, so there is no reason for concern over reverting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rich, you also need to remember to notify users when you raise issues about them at ANI - I've done it for you in this instance. I second FPaS; you can revert this sort of thing at will without fear of violating 3RR. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know (about the ANI notice requirement) — and I was in the middle of composing a notice, but my efforts got edit-conflicted, first by FPaS, and then by you (Yunshui). Thanks for doing it on my behalf. — Richwales 07:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was a bit surprised you hadn't done it - sorry for the edit clash! (Next time I'll give you a few more minutes...) Yunshui 雲‍水 07:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User-page problem

    After he made one (vandalistic) edit, I noticed that Sam Ahmed Actor (talk · contribs) had created a fake article—about himself, naturally, and complete with falsified refs—as his user page, so I dropped a warning on his talk page, hoping that he would remove or revise it. Later, I noticed that the material was actually, mutatis mutandis, a copy of Dev (actor) (he even copied the page-protection and maintenance templates), so I blanked it as a copyvio. (I thought about asking for revdel but decided it wasn't worth the trouble.) Now he's recreated it. I think an admin should delete the page and perhaps issue a sterner warning. Deor (talk) 10:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted and uw-copyvio left. Any more copyvios will be grounds for blocking without further warning. Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He's recreated the material on his talk page. Would someone please block him. (Nyttend's been inactive since his original reponse to this thread, or I'd just notify him to do so.) Deor (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - material removed and user blocked for 48 hours. I've told him that I'll indeff him if he re-introduces it anywhere. GiantSnowman 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; I was just about to leave for work when I made the original block. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Range block for Aberystwyth university - IP 144.124.24.57

    How does one go about requesting a rangeblock?

    I have the problem below - which I would have taken to AIV, but it's a bit too detailed for the sort of thing there:

    Editor User talk:144.124.24.57 has clearly no intention of improving the encyclopedia:

    Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment you can add that this IP has made an edit impersonating me as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This situation has been made worse by continuing to entertain this user long after they should have been WP:DENY'd. I'm going to issue a couple of blocks (not a rangeblock at this stage, though the /16 doesn't appear to be very active) and protect User talk:Chaheel Riens, but everyone needs to ignore this person now. That includes not having lengthy conversations in response to frivolous complaints of discrimination, and not following the IP to completely unrelated pages to start edit wars. Thanks. – Steel 13:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks dad! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent IP-user

    There's an Australian IP user that has been editing articles on military and naval history since early August that I think it's starting to become a problem. Edits are certainly in good faith, and some of the copyediting has been useful. But there's a very rough treatment of articles on occasion with wholesale removal of paragraphs and statements without any proper motivation. I've had to revert most of the changes in three bouts of edits in galley during the last few days because of repeated removals and outright skewing of facts.

    Here are some of the more problematic edits from other articles.[60][61][62][63]

    The biggest problem is that along with reasonable prose changes, there are wholesale removals of facts and what appears to be editing from a purely personal view of what facts should be. The change of the figure "1,700" to "10,700" in this edit is especially bad, since the former figure appears to be correct (I checked other sources). Where the latter figure comes from is a complete mystery.

    I see potential for useful contributions here, but I'm concerned about the lack of dialog. Since the IPs change constantly, and no attempt has been made to use talkpages, I don't really know how to engage in discussion. Any suggestions?

    Peter Isotalo 15:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "no attempt has been made to use talkpages" is correct - even if the IP changes, you should at least have tried to discuss with the (then-current IP) - you have also not notified them of this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see for yourself, the IP has changed on a daily basis for over a month now. No IP has been used on more than one date, or even more than a few hours. I have tried to communicate through edit summaries,[64][65][66] but the problem remains.
    The removals and subtle skewing of facts (accompanied by moderately useful improvements of prose) are very tricky to deal with. They're very easy to miss. Anyone who's hesitant about reverting completely, but doesn't go through edits in great detail, risk missing very relevant changes. I've notified all the IP's talkpages now, but the reason I'm posting here is because the user has been around for about a month and is not improving. And I simply don't know how to deal with the issue if the IPs just keep changing so rapidly.
    Peter Isotalo 16:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Id420x

    Id420x (talk · contribs) is editing the leads of some American cities in Massachusetts or Rhode Island to add distances to multiple cities or towns. Xe (or an IP adding the same edits before this account was created) has been reverted by at least 3 editors and a detailed suggestion as to what he should be doing added to his talk page on the 2nd. I gave him an edit warring notice yesterday plus the comment "I've posted the above because you haven't responded to either the fact that you are being reverted or to the comments above. Discussion between editors is vital to Wikipedia" but xe just carries on with no discussion. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments: At least two IP addresses appear to be involved. The behavior extends to articles on towns and cities in other regions of the U.S. The number of reversions at, for example New Bedford, Massachusetts, is becoming too numerous to list or count, way beyond three. Giving the distances to Washington, Los Angeles and Honolulu (!) from a place in Massachusetts is seriously off-topic and a distraction to the reader. What's next, the distance from everywhere to everywhere else? The edit warring needs to be shut down before this situation gets any further out of hand. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The named user has now made several more edits of this pattern after being given a general warning about edit-warring and after being alerted to this ANI thread, so I've given him 24h ew-block purely on procedural grounds. Feel free to extend length or spread to other IPs/accounts, I don't have time to work more on this right now. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. The same editing pattern has been shown by IP 76.118.118.117 at Fall River, Massachusetts and New Bedford, Massachusetts and 68.99.241.179 (especially at Sharon, Massachusetts). Hertz1888 (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hertz, I agree this is completely absurd. The reader should be oriented as to the location of any given city or town by giving its distance to the Boston Marathon finish line in Copley Square and/or the John Harvard Statue in Harvard Yard. Anything beyond that is blatant surplussage. EEng (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no doubt in my mind that these two are the same as our editor. Same edits, same pattern, same handwriting. IP 68 is active (became active after Id420x was blocked) and will be blocked for evasion. Maybe they'll actually participate in discussion at some point, maybe not. Maybe we'll have to semi-protect all these articles, which would be silly. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting myself on behalf of Brad Watson, Miami

    Indef blocked for great justice. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ok, ok, really reporting Brad Watson, Miami, for his various problems with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:IDHT

    Brad_Watson,_Miami (talk · contribs)

    Here, Brad Watson claims to have reported me to y'all earlier this morning. Since I don't see any report in his contributions, I'll file on his behalf. Brad has been adding fringe material, often unsourced, across various pages, and has been trying to justify his edits on talk pages using his own particular form of gematria.

    Seeing how many of my edits are to articles relating to religion, the occult, and the history of both, I wasn't hounding him into him in articles like God, Number of the Beast, Selah, Nero, Hermaneutics, Isopsephy, Burning bush, and Kebra Nagast. These are only the places where I've interacted with him, glancing through his other edits, I see he behaves similarly elsewhere. Various editors beyond me have also left him messages on and about different pages, but he either does not respond or responds with hostility to any call to follow WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc, etc.

    So far, I'm one of the main (but not only, thankfully) editors following through on his POV and sourcing problems, and he seems to be under the impression that I'm just making this up to bully him instead of pointing to our site's social contracts. He needs to know that WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE are backed by all serious editors who don't end up getting blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just take a look at User Talk:Brad Watson, Miami and ya'll will see that gematria/Isopsephy now serves as wp:verifiable sourcing for editing in Wikipedia.   — Jason Sosa 16:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Self reporting yourself at ANI seems POINTy. I recommend reformatting this as a standard report of User:Brad_Watson,_Miami, which it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I'll add that I've seen no evidence that Brad Watson is a positive contributor to Wikipedia - he seems to be here just to push his unusual ideas. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This can readily be seen at Talk:Seven Seals and Talk:Number of the Beast, who for some reason, had been stuck on referring to the History Channel as a source, but only after watching an episode, without using proper citations.  — Jason Sosa 17:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I'll be leaving the old thread title so he can find the thread, but I've reformatted it otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Oh, thought I should point out that I did notify Brad about this discussion in another discussion with him, which is why I have not changed the thread title). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose topic bans or sanctions on Brad Watson for all articles related to Book of Revelation as can also be justified by the Revelation related blogs mentioned at User:Brad Watson, Miami which he pushes on his talkpage and other's talkpages, here. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 17:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What Dougweller said. I think a topic ban should include all religion-related articles, broadly construed, and all edits that are religion (or mason) related articles. Very broadly construed. Here is a user who doesn't get something--including the basic idea of reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at Talk:Seven seals, I see he's been pushing his garbage under an IP address for over a year, and Jason Sosa was correcting him on this stuff last year. I'm tempted to say the topic ban should read "User:Brad Watson, Miami is hereby topic banned from any article or edit relating to religion or freemasonry, broadly construed, and will be indef'ed for violating this ban under this or other accounts." I'll let someone else write up the formal proposal, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... is there a reason you're all talking about a topic ban instead of an indef block? Kindness? Or are there some edits on some subjects that we can actually use in there somewhere that I'm missing? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I broadly construe my broad construction as a topic ban, basically, of all edits. I.e., an indef block. It reminded me of the famous Tachash case, and the important matter of the color of dolphins. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indef block for sure. This kind of editor cannot contribute normally. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Uninvolved comment: I generally favor topic bans over indefinite blocks or site bans per WP:ROPE: they are effectively indefinite blocks on people who have nothing else to contribute, but on the off chance that someone is redeemable, it leaves them an avenue to return into the fold. Its a way of stopping the disruption in the least severe manner, which is usually desirable as a first step. --Jayron32 18:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone cannot grasp basic policies like WP:NPOV and WP:RS after repeatedly having them drawn to their attention, they are no use here. A block seems much more logical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been going on for some time now. This was their first edit with this account, back in July: [67] bobrayner (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    While all I was hoping for was more third-party attention to get it through his skull, and would settle for a topic ban, a block would be more satisfying, especially seeing how he's been pushing his crap for at least a year under different IP addresses (again, see Talk:Seven seals). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm indeffing now for general disruption. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that Ian and Jason were willing to go with topic-bans only, but I also agree with the block. Any unblock would have to come with said topic ban. Keep an eye for socks. --dangerouspanda 21:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin requested for RfC closure at Human penis size

    Would a tactful admin mind closing a request for comment on Human penis size? I think the answer is clear, but the article talk page is overly full of single purpose editors who are obsessed with penis measurement and it would be best if an admin made a conclusive decision based on arguments rather than vote counting. The RfC is Talk:Human penis size#RfC: Is an image illustrating "length" and "circumference" necessary?. Thanks. And, please, block anyone who cannot stop themselves from making penis jokes here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done by Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER (and Drmies). Hatting extended discussion.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • You know what, I looked at that discussion before, a couple of weeks ago, and now I remember why I didn't close it. It's a mess, and if there's any consensus it's no consensus/leaning toward include. Call me a dick, but what I suggest you do is start the whole thing all over again, asking for a simple yes or no on that particular image. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just went and looked at it, and drew a slightly different conclusion. I saw no consensus, and was troubled that the question as to whether the sources say the method shown is the proper scientific method for measuring, so the question as to the accuracy remains (or possibly being OR in the image itself). There was some merit to the concern that the penis shown was not representative of most penises as well, being very US centric (Caucasian and circumcised). That led me to think it was leaning ever so slightly to not include as those valid points weren't really addressed in the counter arguments. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I would never say so since I'm a totally uninvolved admin who knows penises only from books, but that image is indeed totally problematic. I see where you're coming from with your last point, about validity, and it's the lack of proper discussion that makes me want to set the whole thing aside and tell them to start all over. They can do one of two things, or both: have a discussion as to whether an image ought to be in there, and have a simple poll-like discussion (we don't do polls blah blah blah) as to whether that image ought to be in there. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zrdragon12 Reverting for Fun and Deleting Well-Sourced Material for No Reason

    Zrdragon12 instigated a massive edit war across numerous articles that previously got him blocked for a week. User:Nguyen1310 was blocked along with him; because I had taken part in the edit war, an admin blocked me shortly after the other two. Zrdragon12 has just been unblocked, and he is already causing more of the same old problems, having learned nothing. He has reverted two editors three times on Vietnam war casualties, for a total of 6 reverts. He's also had lesser edit wars on other articles, and resorted to personal attacks. I reported his antics to ANI too late last time, so that (to an admin) nobody had clean hands--but I will not repeat that mistake. Let me be clear: Our dispute is not over controversial issues, despite the contentious nature of the article. Zdragon12's reversions are a knee-jerk reaction, not a last resort. So, why do I say this?

    • In this edit, he added the following text to the start of a section: "American forces killed around 5,500 civilians between 1960 and 1972; in democide. Rummel's estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000." However, the end of the section already said: "American forces killed around 5,500 civilians between 1960 and 1972 in democide; Rummel's estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000." Clearly, his edit was redundant. In addition, he added this text: "The Phoenix Program was a counterinsurgency program executed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States special operations forces, and the Republic of Vietnam's security apparatus during the Vietnam War. It targeted the Viet Cong civilian infrastructure in South Vietnam. Historian Douglas Valentine states that "Central to Phoenix is the fact that it targeted civilians, not soldiers"." This, too, was a repeat of what the article already said: "The Phoenix Program was a counterinsurgency program executed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), United States special operations forces, and the Republic of Vietnam's security apparatus during the Vietnam War. It targeted the Viet Cong civilian infrastructure in South Vietnam." In his next edit, he trimmed the excess, but his edit summary was surreal: "removed piece that was stated twice,someone did some very bad editing here". Someone? I asked him about it, but even though I offered proof of his error, he blamed me for his own edit and refused to acknowledge any mistake. He even suggested that I was guilty of "harassment"!
    • Our dispute is minor. The issue is if we should include a direct quote from a historian about the Phoenix Program, or summarize it as we do with all our other sources in the article. I favor the latter option, especially because Zrdragon copied all of the text from the Phoenix Program article without attribution and previously refused to correct this. The article is not about the Phoenix Program, it is about the Vietnam war. It is a list of statistics, not a place for political commentary. Still, especially when I tried to discuss it on his talk page, why would he risk an edit war over something so insignificant?
    • He's hurting his own cause just to revert. Although he is editing from a pro-North Vietnam POV, he reverted an IP's edit about American democide in the war. Democide refers to deliberate killings by American troops or deaths caused by American bombings that had no target. Zrdragon's alteration left us with the following text: "American forces killed around 5,500 civilians between 1960 and 1972; Rummel's estimates range from 4,000 to 10,000." That is, self-evidently, a ridiculous underestimate. I imagine that if Zrdragon actually read the text he was playing around with, he would have accused "someone" of "pushing a right-wing POV"--even though, again, he made the sloppy edit. He even reinserted typos and extra spaces that I removed!
    • Look at this edit, which I have yet to revert or even challenge (though it cannot stand): Zrdragon removed "During the peak war years, almost a third of civilian deaths were the result of Viet Cong atrocities"--a statistic cited to a book from Oxford University. Why did he do this? His edit summary said only "POV".
    • The article includes sections about South Vietnamese killings, North Vietnamese killings, and killings by the U.S. military. Each section was structured (pre-Zrdragon) so that it started with a list of atrocities, and ended with a range of estimates. Because he edit warred to get the American democide estimates at the start, not the end, of that section (for whatever reason); he altered the South Vietnamese section accordingly. The whole article is not, however, consistent in this regard; edit warring has resulted in a loss of coherence.
    • He seems to have adopted an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude to my attempts at engagement. He continually insists that other people are the real edit warriors, and he is an angel.
    • His six direct reverts can be seen here, here, here, here, here, and here. With regard to Zrdragon's battle with the IP, I can state that the IP was correct about what the source said, and that Zrdragon was edit warring to remove sourced material he did not like. Zrdragon and the IP are also involved in a minor edit war at Free World Military Forces, in which he is POV-pushing. They're only at 2 reverts, but it fits into a broader pattern.
    • On his talk page, Zrdragon12 has left message board-style personal attacks that demonstrate a battleground mentality: For example, "How did that ban work out for ya? LOL"

    So what do I want an admin to do? Simple: Block Zrdragon12 again, forever if neccessary. He just got unblocked, and I'm not playing any more games with him. Previously, he racked up several dozen reverts in a couple days battling with with PhilipCross, Stumink, Nguyen1310, several IPs, and myself. I have never encountered a less constructive, less self-aware editor in all my time here. Every article he has ever contributed to has exploded into an edit warring frenzy. Let's nip it in the bud now. He obviously hasn't learned his lesson.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=516754712"