Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

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

---

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not the best Wikipedia user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.

• You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced.
• Maybe you should start listening to those of us encouraging you to do that, before you dig your own grave into AN/I, hmmm?
• You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame..

This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Wikipedia merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

• Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions: [1]
• IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO: [2]

Eric ^talk 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Wikipedia, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Wikipedia. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, I think that. With this, EEng will likely come to sanctions. It is this irresponsive flamewar which caused him to lift any control of his own conduct. Who will account for his imminent block and/or sanctions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this thread? No one.. it's about you.. no one willaccept a shift of blame from you to him. You could open a new thread, but I'll lay odds that it will WP:BOOMERANG because everyone will see it for exactly what it is.. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

With 4 or 5 editors having expressed a similar concern here, is there a willing admin looking into the matter further? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... Yes, but I'm starting into a much more ugly and complicated one further up on the page. Another uninvolved admin is encouraged to try and take a look, I will probably not have time sooner than tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Don't worry, this one isn't particularly "ugly" just a little spread-out, might take a bit of looking into, I've only been a little involved in the recent developments, personally, so I can't say how much deeper it goes or the best way to resolve it, because said editor does not seem to care about resolving anything due to not accepting being at fault to begin with. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what I would consider personal attacks or even incivility so much as odd and disruptive comments regarding other editors. For example, saying X is a waste maker is literally true -- both human and bot editors generate waste heat and of course humans generate biological waste -- so one has to try to infer meaning.
• The removal of such comments is problematic. Although there was no blowback in this case, such removal of comments by higher status editors would typically cause a fracas.
• Incnis Mrsi seems to be generally right on content but needs to improve their interaction with other editors. Quite simply, comment on edits not on the other editors.
• Note: This is a quintessential WP:WQA issue -- no admin action is needed here -- and illustrates the folly of closing that forum without first establishing a realistic replacement. But hey, the tribe has spoken. Nobody Ent 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Somehow, I don't think someone is going to call a person a "waste maker" because their body generates waste heat or dumps shit... that's cutting it a bit thin and taking AGF too far... Regardless, fortunately the precise meaning can be found in his own words: User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary#W - a "botcher" (User:Incnis_Mrsi/Glossary#B) even describes it as "may be fairly harmful", this being true, why does he use it so much? One can't admit that a term is harmful, then claim not to be uncivil.. that would be hypocrisy. And calling someone a botcher or a waste-maker is essential contrary to AGF.. it's virtually accusing them of vandalism. Not civil terms. In fact, I find it disturbing that a guy who edits calculus/physics articles sees fit to maintain a list of negative words to use in summaries and comments.. add "imbecile", "twat" and "retard" into the list and he'd have the ultimate glossary of anti-AGF words. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:WQA has been terminated, and WP:DR is for resolving disputes. The problem here is that the editor is uncivil, and when asked to control his attitude even by uninvolved editors, he basically tells them to "fuck off and mind their own business".. so yes, admin intervention is needed here to look into this editor's behaviour - not his editing, his overall conduct with regards to rude edit summaries, antagonising comments to other editors such as ownership-like remarks, pretentious comments, and total disregard for other editors opinions. When an editor is allowed to be uncivil, without warning, or ignoring all concerns, they think they can get away with anything. That is the "potential blowback".. he even admits above that trying to force him to be uncivil is impractical use of ANI time, which is essentially admitting that he does not want to be civil and does not feel anyone is good enough to tell him otherwise. If that isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. The more eyes there are on this guy's interactions, the better. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to MarcusBritish he posted the link to my glossary, although I did not advertise it anywhere, even on my user: page ;) First, a "waste-maker" (sorry, I did not find a better English expression) does not necessary produce only waste and never a product of acceptable quality. Though, if a construction worker improperly installs, say, "only" 2 beams out of 40, then he can be not only fired out, but fined and even imprisoned. Happily, Wiki is not a building construction, but monitoring for low visible waste such as invalid redirects and improper characters, and, in some cases, even arguing with persons (accidentally) making such a waste, consume valuable resources of (other) users. Second, waste-making is perfectly compatible with a good faith, under such conditions as "ignorance" and "negligence". It is another thing which is not compatible with good faith: a harassment towards a specific user because he argued with another user(s) about quality issues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds as if you're attempting to try us under the Law of Spikelets for the destruction of collective property. Are we all to be shot, or sent to the gulags? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advertise, no, edit, yes.. thus it's plain to see on your contribs list.. no secret really, anyone might have noticed it. And we all have a Special:PrefixIndex/User:Incnis_Mrsi/ page.. so again, no secrets here on Wiki, son. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 11:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+428)‎ . . User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary ‎ (+waste) (top) [rollback 3 edits]

Per WP:5P:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

So once again, I repeat that your Wikihounding list, condoning mistakes by User:Jarble is a direct attack, contrary to "do not worry about making mistakes". The list and manner in which you delivered it was uncivil. The only time that might be appropriate is if the edits were vandalism or controversial.. but in this case they were all trivial errors, typos, and you simply bullied him by making him out to be a useless (ie "waste-maker") editor. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, less try this for a tack. Incnis Mrsi, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia, so if you are looking for a view from an editor given some kind of status by the community, that's me. I have three pieces of advice, which may make your editing experience less confrontational.
• First - On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
• Second - if you are trying to use a Russian expression and are uncertain of it's translation, don't use it - say something simpler. For example, the expression "waster" in English is terribly rude when applied to someone, and that's how everyone has been reading your 'waste-maker' (and getting angry with you because it sounded like you are being terribly rude). What you are referring to is a situation in which an editor appears to make a significant number of mistakes such as misplaced dashes or erroneous characters.
• Third - it may be considered unreasonable to pick on editors for making minor errors in spelling, punctuation etc, unless it is a really massive problem (they have just run a script that accidentally replaced every n-dash with an underscore or something like that). Normally, to assist everyone in rubbing along together, it's better to ignore minor mistakes in talkpage edits, and fix them without fuss in articles, and see if you can find a tactful way to say "are you having problems with....." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not minor mistakes is human edits is a problem. Scripts which allow to make multiple errors, which are hard to detect, is a problem. And this becomes a very problem (yes, my English is funny) when automated users are unwilling to fix their scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One can only wonder, AGF aside, if his lack of response, despite actively editing since Elen commented, is further indication of Incnis' disregard for others opinions, as he was evidently willing to argue with everyone else of less "authority" – not sure if there's anything more can really be done at this stage, but I hope there are a few more eyes on his questionable interactions as a result, rather than let this matter be swept under the proverbial rug. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet comments not related to topic – SPI/CU confirmed as blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have encountered Marcus here before but indirectly as an anonymous IP, he was involved in a dispute almost a year ago that spiraled out of control, having trawled through the OP's history of contributions I can safely say that he is not innocent of incivility, as he is also guilty of battleground and bullish behavior that conveniently has been buried under a mass of recent edits. An example is an editor review submitted by said OP, when asked for an opinion. an editor then provided Marcus with some constructive criticism, Marcus than unbelievably personally berates and is very incivil towards the editor, but a more extreme example of the OP's incivility issues was when he threatened an editor in real life after a long and lengthy dispute over something stupid, this editor appears to have then be driven over the edge. With all due respect to you Marcus, you appear to have some good contributions despite everything else but you are the last person who should be submitting an AN/I report for incivility as you appear to love the drama so I suggest you stay away from AN/I for your own sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisiterottingcorpse (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) The above is this brand-new editor's first and only edit. Hmmmmm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, don't worry.. that'll undoubtedly be my favourite Irish stalker, User:Sheodred – I'm sure he fancies me. Feed him some WP:ROPE then I'll pass it to WP:SPI, again.. Reported to WP:SPI. He has more blocked accounts than braincells now. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good one fresh out of the oven [3]. EEng (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Funny how editors who lecture others about English mechanics so often are the same ones whose contribution histories are littered with "(reduced an overlinking and cleansed a lame typography)" [4] and similar examples of unintentional self-parody.

So ironic that he tells someone that their skills are insufficient to copyedit an article, yet follows up with a very poorly worded question. Perhaps showing that they should refrain from offering advice when they've got similar issues? Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Given that Incnis is now obviously ignoring this thread in the hope that given time others will grow bored and it will self archive with nothing actioned, what.s the way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

The way forward is to go forward. A legit concern was raised, and multiple editors, capped by Really High Status Elen have addressed Incnis. Either their future behavior will be appropriate or it won't. If the former, nothing more needs to be done, if the latter, another ANI or RFCU can be opened. Nobody Ent 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whose Really High Status? Give a link or diff to "a very respectable editor who already addressed Incnis Mrsi", please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Elen of Roads' reply above.. having stated they're a member of Arbcom, what more do you expect.. Jimbo Wales to reply personally? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of typical behavior for Incnis Mrsi -- check out the discussion here for example, which Incnis Mrsi begins with typical massive incivility and personal insults. When Incnis Mrsi discovers that s/he has been wrong about several factual points in the discussion (e.g., whether a merge template was used) s/he simply ignores the new information. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a typical behavior of a good Wikipedia user. Incnis Mrsi and D.Lazard (talk · contribs) in 2½ days wrote the article square (algebra), something that JBL was unable, or unwilling, to do in 3 weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the time it takes to write an article have to do with anything? That's just another typical uncivil remark where you compare yourself to other editors and claim to be somehow better. Doesn't the whole block of remarks above indicate how your persistence in that manner is unwelcome, because it's rude and not collaborative language? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Square (algebra) article predates the filing of this ANI -- Incnis has already been encouraged to improve their collaboration moving forward; finding additional examples of past behavior isn't useful. Nobody Ent 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all! — Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[5] Nobody Ent 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I did not find it in this  for some reason. Thanks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now this really takes the cake. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does seem somewhat hypocritical.. not that it matters, Arbcom wouldn't take the case unless it had unsuccessfully passed through other channels first.. for all his mathematical and scientific editing ability, can't understand why he didn't grasp that. I think it's more important we try to resolve this now though.. six days is more than enough preliminary discussion time for such a straight-forward matter, hence why I proposed some kind of resolution below, before this gets too tedious and appears as WP:BAITING, as Incnis has clearly frayed a few nerves lately. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Incnis Mrsi does not abide uncivil remarks towards himself, despite his own behaviour towards others. He has opened an ironic RFC against EEng. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EEng Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained here I stand by my interactions with I.M. EEng (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some administrator involvement so we can wrap this up. --JBL (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There has been a distinct lack of admin interest on this, apart from Elen – Incnis tried giving her one of his typical brow beatings yesterday without success, as he seems to becoming despondent due to lack of support for his RFC and behaviour. I'm not sure where this is even going to end up, myself... he seems keen to stand his futile ground. Though from where I'm standing, he might as well be facing a firing squad, the amount of opinion he has drawn against him, standing solo. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Let me get something out of the way first: he's still not getting the message, as seen in an exchange today on an article's Talk [6]:

Incorrect Molar Mass The reported molar mass of the "hydron" is 1.00794 g/mol. Isn't that the molar mass of the hydrogen atom? The molar masses are based on the mass of a proton, so the molar mass of the hydrogen cation should be exactly one. Kyoobur9000 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Just Learn Physics Better. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

However, in all seriousness I'm beginning to wonder if the reason he's not getting the message is that he quite literally can't understand it. Consider this recent post by I.M. to another editor's Talk [7]:

I reverted your edit except its only part which was substantiated: removal of {{pi}}. I know that this was rude, but discarding a legitimate improvement, namely √2, by your edit, was silly. If you want to know, why I behave rude and do attack (you), then ask on my user_talk, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I submit there are two possibilities. Either

hypothesis (a) (the uncharitable interpretation) I.M. revels in the practice of what might be called "open and gross rudeness", or

hypothesis (b) (the charitable interpretation) he does not comprehend basic English words such as rude, attack, and silly.

If the answer is (b) then perhaps the controlling principle needed here is WP:COMPETENCE#Language_difficulty:

If someone can't use English well, and can't discuss things with other editors very well, consider trying to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other-language Wikipedias need help from editors, too.

EEng (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

He won't per this:

"The stranglehold of double standards was the main reason why I ceased to contribute to Russian Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)"

I suspect that means he pulled the same stunts there as here and became outcast for not being civil or cooperative. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, English Wikipedia has its double standards too ☺ although these are quite different. My comment "user:… makes waste" was immediately obstructed, but most of blatantly disruptive and flame-provoking comments were not. And you all know, why these disruptive comments were not obstructed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I.M.'s response gives further weight to my hypothesis (b) above. In addition to, perhaps, trying again at the Russian WP (do they have WP:CLEANSTART?), I suggest in all seriousness that perhaps the Simple English Wikipedia might be a great place for his contributions -- they seem in dire need of help in the mathematics and sciences. I don't know what that idea means in terms of a proposal for what should happen here at en, but he certainly can't be allowed to continue the way he's going, and since he can tread water in an ocean of criticism for weeks on end yet emerge absolutely unwetted, it seems like mentoring is a nonstarter. EEng (talk) 06:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. Simple Wiki is designed to present information in Basic English and suggests that there are only 2,000 common English words. You probably have to be good at English in order to determine how to select the right words for a non-English speaker to understand.. people like Incnis use broken English, with common and comples words, but quite muddled.. that's not Simple English Wiki's aim, and he would easily become more frustrated there than here, because a non-native speaker is less likely to be a walking thesaurus and know Simple English alternatives. I expect the maths and physics aren't up to his level either. He may be Russian, but he's not Aleksandr Orlov ("Simples!").Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And an advice to users who are upset with me, such as Andy Dingley, JBL and StringTheory11: try to give me a positive view of the etiquette, instead of participating in flamewars. Of course, I know that I should not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate my point, myself, but with this bashing campaign I am already not sure, what I may do and what I must not do. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good advice. But you'd do better to take it, before you give it. In fact, that would be the best place for to start.. by taking advice and stop knocking those who offer it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 06:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Marcus! I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source. I am sure in the good faith of e.g. Andy Dingley despite his hectic attitude and direct breaches of AGF towards me. Sorry that I see here so few users experienced in content creation and a topical (damn!) interaction. My impression about users depends first on their own conduct, and only after that on my prejudices. I do not discard an other guy's opinion only because I do not like it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "I am paranoid about other users and hence, do not accept advices from every source." is also not AGF.. surely you see that? When people give advice you are supposed to either acknowledge it (mean you neither accept not refuse it), or respond positively.. "thanks for the advice.." you don't attack the advisor out of paranoia, distrust, or for any reason, it's uncivil, rude, not AGF, and not likely to make other people offer you good advice, because you turn them off giving it. You don't have to accept anyone's advice.. but when you don't, you don't have to tell them that. Better to say nothing, than give a seemingly "nasty" response. Understand? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The trouble that people are having with you, I.M, is that all that people have been telling you is that your interaction style (or lack of) is exactly the problem. Your "paranoia" causes you to refuse "advices from every source" even from those of us who have never interacted with you. Experience in content creation does not give you a blank check to insult, attack or dismiss others. Unfortunately, you even acknowledge that you are rude and attack others that was posted above. It looks like what you need isn't a sanction or anything, but a mentor on the expected culture here, and maybe the western world in general, and how to get your point across without being insulting. Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's virtually what I've proposed below.. a short period of mentoring in interaction. I though you opposed it though, or were not in full agreement with the idea that he might be mentor-able? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was me that said that ( I may be wrong, I say or write a lot of things that I subsequently forget) Blackmane (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, just below you suggested a 1RR and block if this returns to ANI, and no need for mentoring. Not sure what would be best, though. He's got a new message put up on his userpage. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Struck the last part of my post else I'd be contradicting myself. Blackmane (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the message is something. Will be interesting to see what comes of it. --JBL (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This thread has dragged on for a very long time, multiple editors have commented confirming User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility across a number of article talk and user talk pages, in addition to my concern over his blunt edit summaries. So far, despite all these remarks, and an Arbcom admin commenting because Incis only expects to be rebuked by an "authority figure", he has failed to acknowledge the comments, has not voluntarily agreed that there is a problem that he should be taking steps to deal with, instead he continues to argue with editors across a number of talk pages and WP:BATTLEGROUND is becoming the case, including the initial signs of war editing, as reverts begin to show. Let's not have this spiral out of control. Given that this issue does not relate to content disruptions, no topic ban should be required. An interaction ban might be appropriate, if this was very serious, but I'm not sure that it would be worth enforcing.. Incnis might be prudent to offer himself to a voluntary interaction ban, staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months, and keeping edit summaries to an absolute minimum by only stating edits effected, without commenting on other editors, or the state of the article, and no words from his "glossary". This would need monitoring, however. I propose, the best thing might be to see that Incnis receive the necessary mentoring, from an experienced mentor/adopt-a-user editor, who can focus specifically on his interaction skills, and help him understand the distinct differences between relevant and potentially "rude" remarks to other editors, and with respect to his non-native English, it is clear that he needs to be more careful and far less bullish, pride isn't required to be a good editor, as much as patience. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a mandatory interaction ban with the conditions MarcusBritish suggested, with the agreement that any violation of the restrictions would result in a block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the continuing aggressiveness, unpleasantness and lack of good faith (see for example the latest posts here in which Incnis Mrsi repeatedly misconstrues constructive comments and is borderline rude and aggressive) I support the proposal (in either the weaker or stronger form). --JBL (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should allow time to pass to see if Elen's suggestion is followed or not. Nobody Ent 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen's comments were made on the 25 Sept. He was still being abrupt after that. e.g. 28 Sept, 29 Sept. Given that he didn't even offer a courtesy response to Elen, do you expect people monitor him once this topic is archived.. unlike ex-WQA 24-hours and zap! archived and we have to start afresh, pain in the arse it is... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have overlooked this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

Thought I'd mention that he did reply, only 3 days later. It's indented under her reply so it's not easily seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The reply is completely non-responsive to any of the concerns raised here. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So he does... and all he does is comment further on what he sees as problematic, as though trying to justify his behaviour, but either completely ignores or fails to respond directly to the concerns Elen took the trouble to highlight about his behaviour which have been raised by several editors this week. Just seems like another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only meant to say he responded, as opposed to responded in a meaningful way Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban. I support some sanction, but why an interaction ban between just two editors when the issue of User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility has affected other editors too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one proposed an interaction ban with one editor, it says "staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months" — so all editors, all article discussion pages, not including things like requesting admin help/ANI or a mentor's talk page, of course.. just none of his usual "nasty" messaging to IPs/other editors telling them what they've done wrong, no article talk posts as he also tends to upset people on those too. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a talk space ban, not an interaction ban in the usual sense of the term, which I don't think is the way to go. If he's edit warring, then slap an indefinite 1RR and a civility parole that the next ANI he's brought to is a 1 week block and it escalates from there. Simple and no need for monitoring. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There were only early-signs of war editing, I don't think a 1RR need be set unless it escalates. 3RR applies to everyone anyway. "interaction ban".. "talk space ban".. it's all interaction to me, I see no need to worry about semantics as long as it does the job. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This issue has dogged you for a week now. The nature of the ban doesn't matter half as much as the fact of it. Please stop User:Incnis Mrsi from driving away more editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrap this up?

Given that Incnis Mrsi has voluntarily chosen to enact an interaction ban between himself and, well, pretty much everyone (with an exception) for the next 2 months, I'd say that more or less closes out the above proposal as enacted. I guess it's wait and see what happens in 2 months time. Blackmane (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes – if there's repeat uncivil behaviour over the next few months, give him a block and then he'll have to expect greater sanctions; I'm not too sure anyone can enforce his non-interaction, given that it's voluntary, and the lack of bold admin-interest or support over this sizeable week+ long discussion disgusts me. He'll be known and closer watched now though. Thanks to Elen for trying, however. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Zaiger and baseless claims of homophobia

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa, User:Zaiger has repeatedly accused User:Cupco of homophobia ("Cupco is obviously homophobic", "This is anti-gay witch hunt is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia.", "message to known wikipedia homophobe cupco" (edit summary)). Now that's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. But in this particular case it's especially absurd: Zaiger is one of the main admins of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site not exactly known for its lack of homophobia (even Zaiger himself is happy to use the term "faggot" over there. Can't link due to the spam filter, but I'm happy to provide diffs if requested).

Still, just in case there might be something to it I asked Zaiger to back up his allegations on his talk page (User talk:Zaiger#"Homophobia"?). Unsurprisingly, he did/could not do so. I told him to retract the allegations or back them up, after which he threatened to contact Jimbo Wales and the media(!) and have my sysop-bit removed should I block him, before he simply declared me involved and having a conflict of interest (Not sure why. I used to be active at Encyclopedia Dramatica (the article, not the site), but I don't think I ever interacted with him over there). Despite the silly allegations of having a COI, I figured that having a few more eyes on this couldn't hurt, so here I am. By now, Zaiger has agreed not to call Cupco a homophobe again, though he also said that he would not retract the allegations. (For what it's worth, the origin of the homophobia claims seems to be this edit. At least that's the best I could find.)

That's a bit besides the point, though. Frankly, Zaiger is a troll. He's a main admin on ED (where he calls other people "faggot" regularly), he knows the art of trolling in and out, and he knows exactly how much he can get away with on Wikipedia. His act of being horribly offended by (supposedly) anti-gay comments is blatantly fake, and the only reason he might be doing this is, as they call it, "for the lulz". He's here to have fun, and not to contribute to the encyclopedia. As such, I propose a ban on this user. --Conti|✉ 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in the discussion at this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, since Zaiger got the SPI spotlight deflected, we can look forward to Zaiger resuming productive article-space edits like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit is multiple years old, and Jewbuntu is an actual Linux Distribution. I am sorry but I felt that I was being attacked because of my sexual preference and got defensive. I have promised not to call him it again, yet he continues to make baseless accusations about me being User:LiteralKa when it has been proven otherwise. I feel as if I am the one being trolled. I apologize for making a couple of edits that could be taken as humorous, multiple years apart. Please assume good faith. I am not an active user on Wikipedia, but I do prefer to keep an account so that I may join into discussion concerning pages that interest me. Blocking me is going to do no good and you know it. I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do. I am not trolling, I was just defending myself from what I felt was persecution based on my sexual orientation. The language I use off Wikipedia should have no bearing on anything. I no longer plan on "feeding the trolls" so to speak, so I will not be responding to this anymore. I have promised not to say what I said to him anymore, and I would like to continue to keep this account, but I can't then so be it. There is obviously a back-door agreement to block everyone who edits the GNAA or Encyclopedia Dramatica articles on a non-POV manner. By the way I said I felt that Conti has a conflict of interest because he has an unflattering biography about him Encyclopedia Dramatica (which as far as I can remember I have never edited) and in my opinion seems to have formed an opinion about me based on emotions rather than rational thinking. I am not a bad person, I just react harshly when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize for that and promise to keep it in check. Thanks for reading. --Zaiger (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An edit from late last year is not "multiple years old", and this appears to be the only constructive article-space edit you've made since that edit. Being an actual Linux Distribution doesn't make that factually accurate (a dead project that never gained any traction is not popular anywhere for starters) nor is it a productive edit (piping Richard Stallman to Jews). You also appear to have a history of Jewish-related "jokes". - SudoGhost 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not just indef this editor as a troll, regardless of the SPI results? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any. The SPI results came back negative, by the way, though I'm not surprised by that. There's multiple ED trolls editing Wikipedia at a time, after all. --Conti|✉ 07:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Naive question for Zaiger: If you "react harshly when you feel [you are] being attacked," and presumably understand that other people have the same feelings you do and have the same reactions when they are attacked, then why do you spend so much time on a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

To me it appears that Zaiger is actually a pretty standard example of a COI editor frustrated by misrepresentation on Wikipedia. His largest recent contributions recently have been talk page debate in which he (correctly) emphasizes that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not defunct, but has continued at a new site. Opposition to this viewpoint is predicated on the erroneous philosophy that ED is narrowly classified as a "web site", and a web site is defined solely by the holder of the original DNS record; but in fact it is a publication and a community foremost. It is not unusual for frustrated COIs to start lashing out more and more, and indeed not unusual for admins to single them out for extraordinarily harsh and unreasonable penalties, but Zaiger and the admins here, respectively, still have the power to do better.

I should emphasize very clearly - whether a user chooses the same name, or another name, to edit resources elsewhere on the web or in print, he should not be subject to any persecution based on ad hominem evaluations of his overall character by people who have read a line or two. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one in which editors are "vetted" for political reliability. Wnt (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Even assuming all of this is correct, this could not possibly be an excuse for blatant trolling, surely? Not to mention that Encyclopedia Dramatica now shows Zaiger's preferred version, anyhow, and still the trolling ensued. Personally, I very much doubt one had to do with the other, but it really doesn't matter in the end. Trolling like that gets you blocked, simple as that.

As for your second paragraph, I'm honestly not sure I understand your point. I shouldn't use Zaiger's contributions on other sites to show that his comments here are just an act/trolling? Huh? Why not? --Conti|✉ 16:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

the current version is the result of a lot of talk page discussion and consensus, not "Zaiger's preferred version". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that Zaiger's preferred version was the wrong one. I fully agree with you that his preferred one is the one that has consensus currently, and as such is the one the article is based on. --Conti|✉ 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting contributions from this IP address [8] [9]. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on those links, it appears this whole "homophobia" charade was a "clever" imitation of the User:Fæ affair. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked Indef

• I agree with Salvio. Blocked indef. T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not okay with the way this went. Zaiger has made good edits, and some bad edits. Now, he's been blocked indef on a first block, with vague allusions to 'trolling', even though a SPI case was returned as negative. Last I checked BADSITES was not in effect, and editors here on WP should not be blocked based on their alleged actions elsewhere. Furthermore, I'm really not seeing consensus to block here. The big issue here, of course, is that both LiteralKa and Zaiger have been editing the GNAA article in a manner that is disagreeable to User:Cupco, hence the SPI case that fell through, and the subsequent block - Alison ^❤ 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC) (and as CU who ran the aforementioned case, I fully welcome any other CU to review my analysis and act accordingly)

I didn't block him because he's involved with ED. I blocked him because his on-wiki show is entirely inconsistent with his off-wiki behavior, and strongly suggests that his on-wiki conduct is intended to disrupt rather than out of a good-faith concern. T. Canens (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That isn't right. An editor should not be compelled to be one thing or another on a third-party site - nor should he be compelled to always be the same way on that site as here. The fact is, Wikipedia is a serious endeavor and ED is a humorous one. There's a difference between using a word in the context of a humorous sketch and using it in some other discussion. Mind you, I haven't even looked at Zaiger's case in any real detail - what bothers me here is the logic being used by others in considering it. Wnt (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

After you get elected to ArbCom we'll talk about that. In the meantime, perusing the talk pages of badmnachine (what hasn't been revdeleted, that is) I see that User:Michaeldsuarez has also been given an indefinite vacation. WP:BADSITES may be a failed policy on Wikipedia, but WP:NOTHERE is applied pretty often. And it was correctly applied in this case to Zaiger, who vandalized a few articles and screamed bloody murder about perceived insults that he regularly tosses at people elsewhere. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obvious troll is obvious. May I suggest that Alison spends too much time in such company, such as User:badmachine—another blocked troll, for whom she also vouched personally at one point? She may have lost sense of what level of trolling is acceptable on enwp. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Obvious troll is *not* obvious, to quote a well-worn meme. I've no problem with indefblocking persistent trolls and have done so many times myself, but I'm not seeing the justification here. I do see Zaiger making an effort to modify his behaviour on request, yet that was rebuffed. And I see a unilateral indef block being handed down for the flimsiest of reasons. It's more of that ED/GNAA/Trolling//b/ third rail effect; associate an adversary 'opposing editor' with any of these groups, file a somewhat unwarranted SPI case, then run to ANI to have them banhammered. The point I'm making here is that not all people are being treated the same here, and that's simply not okay. Then when someone (as I am) questions it, you go on to smear them with the same accusations. I don't care who keeps company with who; what matters is solely their behaviour here, and that they be given fair opportunity to address that properly before they are sanctioned. This hasn't happened here, and it smacks of vendetta - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Riiiight. Look how well badmachine turned out as a Wikipedia editor. WP:AGF and all that while Zaiger pulls off bad-taste jokes about Jews in article space. No thanks. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, his edits were mentioned here, so you might do well to assume good faith. 66.87.70.46 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

In my observation Alison treats other Wikipedians with respect and dignity and good faith and refrains from demonizing other human beings because of one or more actions that aren't Wiki-correct. I don't think any of that is ever a bad thing. Nobody Ent 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I try to be fair with everyone - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the indef. Wikipedia can do with fewer trolls, and this case is rather obvious. Rklawton (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block; I have just logged in and I intended to block Zaiger myself, but I see I was beaten to it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Alison, the SPI case was not the reason for the indef block. It was Zaiger's behavior during that case, not the allegations made in that case, that led to the block. As such, the results of the case are irrelevant here (And I have no doubts about the results you posted on the SPI, by the way). You write that "what matters is solely their behaviour here", and I fully agree with that. And, no matter how I look at it, Zaiger's behavior here was blatant trolling for the sake of causing disruption. Either that, or he really is genuinely offended by the most vague allusions that could possibly be interpreted as homophobic (while at the same time having words like "faggot" in his everyday vocabulary). I'm sure you know much better than me which of the two is more likely. I find it interesting that neither you nor anyone else defending him has actually tried to defend the very edits that led to his block. All you offer are platitudes and allegations that he is being singled out. It's hard to respond to vague statements like that, but I can assure you that my motivation for all this was solely his trolling that led to the block, and nothing else. I did not even know that he was an ED bigwig until I looked a bit closer at the issue. --Conti|✉ 21:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

to quote from above: "Riiiight". 67.174.52.134 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not that those edits are totally right, but they're not that wrong. The ad hominem argument used against him was indeed where things started going off the rails. Crying "homophobe" was not great, no, but right now, today, we have on Jimbo Wales' page a defense of editors calling people "arsehole" and "dishonest idiot" [10] so why not 'homophobe' too? Or if this is the one sole solitary Bad Word a person can use on Wikipedia, does it have to lead to an indef block? Wnt (talk) 23:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem here wasn't the use of the word "homophobe", the problem was that the outrage over the perceived (and non-existent) homophobia was a blatant fake. --Conti|✉ 09:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You're drawing that conclusion based solely on activity on another site, which means that you're blocking him solely based on his participation in that site. This is the reason why Wikipedia ends up being composed of "anonymous cowards" - because any information you give can and will be used against you. In addition, this deduction is not even correct - for example, just because someone freely uses "faggot" in a humor site doesn't mean he would think it is right to call people that, or want to be called that in a dispute about article content or here at AN/I, because it's a totally different context. I would consider that it is actually because ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue, where gay editors feel comfortable that they are not going to have their work deleted or their accounts blocked by those with the so-called conservative agenda, that the use of such words over there is not seen as disruptive. Wnt (talk) 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just cannot take someone seriously who writes that "ED is a paragon of tolerance and virtue". The "conservative agenda" bit was particularly amusing, though. --Conti|✉ 12:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have relates to the double-standards I'm seeing here. One editor files a largely unsubstantiated SPI case (which I rejected), and it gets erased surreptitiously and the filer gets a week-long block. The second SPI case is also largely unsubstantiated. I run that to the best of my ability and, though it comes back clear, the accused gets indef'd and the filer pretty-much gets a pat on the back.

By all means, ban all the trolls or whatever (for whichever definition of 'trolls' you determine) but please do so in an even-handed manner across the board. I don't see that happening here. And because there are ED and GNAA connections, it should be demonstrably fair, and done 'by the book'. Because it will be questioned - Alison ^❤ 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that someone who is part of a trolling organization is trolling when their behavior can reasonably be interpreted as trolling seems to be a perfectly reasonable position. If a KKK member makes statements that appear to be racist I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they just really like the robes and hoods. It is unreasonable to not consider intentional membership in a group dedicated to committing the same transgression of which one is accused, especially when said transgression is literally the raison d'etre of the organization. I'm sorry Allison, I think you're a fine administrator but you seem to have much too high a threshold for trolling. Sædon^talk 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well no, frankly. Because that's taking off-wiki behaviour into account and that's just not fair. That's without even getting into the whole impersonation/cross-linking business. And if we applied that rule across the board, there would be a whole lot less editors here. Also, making KKK comparisons is grossly unfair - seriously. Look I've been an ED sysop myself at one time. And a WP sysop. Concurrently, even. I'm somehow still here. Yet these days, I'm seeing editors with any sort of remote connection to ED being indef blocked, largely so someone else can have their way with whatever article is in dispute (usually ED/GNAA or MLP stuff). Seriously - that's just not okay - Alison ^❤ 00:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES links to a failed proposal, and one that doesn't address this situation at that. You're asserting that it's not fair but you're not giving an argument as to why it wouldn't be fair. If someone is known to be part of organization X, the purpose of which is to engage in behavior Y, and then that person engages in what can be reasonably interpreted to be behavior Y, we would be foolish to pretend that this linkage is outside of the bounds of consideration. In murder trials of gang members, for instance, gang affiliation can be presented as evidence - even though it is prejudicial - because gangs are organizations known for engaging in murder.

Your other two arguments are either strawmen or tangential: (i) I did not make that claim that all editors who are also ED editors are trolling WP, only that when someone appears to be trolling and is part of a trolling organization it is reasonable to take said affiliation into account and (ii) this isn't an editor with a "remote" connection to ED randomly getting indeffed - it's an editor who appeared to be trolling to uninvolved, [presumably] reasonable editors, and who is more than a "remote" player at ED. Lastly, you make the assertion that a KKK comparison is grossly unfair but have not offered an argument demonstrating that the fundamentals of the analogy are false(namely that both groups can be seen to exist for the purpose of deviance and that if it were reasonable to consider the affiliation of a member of one group the same argument stands for a member of the other group. In no way does the analogy carry the insinuation that ED members are like the KKK in regards to their morality, nor that ED members are racist. It is a common mistake for people to focus on non-fundamental aspects of an analogy as a means to dismiss the analogy as a whole, but I think you will find after consideration that the fundamentals are congruent). Sædon^talk 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Since you are concerned about doing it 'by the book' and are concerned that things will be questioned, should you have been the one to have done the SPI both times since you personally know the individuals named in the SPI?. - SudoGhost 00:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I personally know them, I pointed out that I know who they are IRL (in real life). That's very different - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you see a huge distinction there, but I'm not seeing it. That's still very questionable, you being the one to handle both SPIs when you know and have had previous extensive off-wiki involvement with the individuals in the SPI. If you're going to claim "by the book" wasn't happening, next time perhaps you should take a look at your own actions, because you aren't exactly in any position to be claiming things weren't handled correctly. Perhaps there is no WP:INVOLVED-equivalent for CUs, but either way you shouldn't be handling the SPI for your former associates. - SudoGhost 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Good grief - I have not had "previous extensive off-wiki involvement" with anyone mentioned in either of those cases. Please point out evidence to support this assertion, or withdraw it. In fact, I've run plenty of cases here over the years involving Wikipedians with whom I've had involvement; it's an inevitability here. As it happens, this is now being handled by AUSC so they can decide accordingly. But statements like this are utterly unfair - Alison ^❤ 11:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more unfair than you accusing others of being unfair and of not going "by the book" if you're going to put yourself in a position where you actions are just as questionable. Someone who says "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets" shouldn't be the one to run the SPI on "those guys", especially if you were concerned about the appearance of being fair and avoid questionable actions. - SudoGhost 11:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Putting words into my mouth that I did not utter is unfair. I did not say "No it's cool, I know those guys they aren't sockpuppets". I suggested that two of them are unrelated based on my knowledge of who they both were IRL. I did not say that nobody was socking; that had yet to be determined. At this point, I'm not going to comment any further - Alison ^❤ 11:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for paraphrasing, your exact words were "I can say that I know who both {{user|LiteralKa}} and {{User:Zaiger}} are IRL and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated." If you're going to vouch for two editors in an SPI, you shouldn't then be the one that runs the CU and then ask others to take your word on the results. Is this something actionable? Probably not. However it is very questionable activity, especially when you then complain that others might be doing questionable things regarding the same situation. - SudoGhost 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this line of discussion is productive. I suspect that many of our veteran checkusers could say something like "I can say that I know who both Grawp and who Bambifan101 are IRL, and can say with certainty that they are both unrelated". That doesn't mean that they'd be vouching for either Grawp or Bambifan. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a situation where some checkuser gained knowledge of the editors due to their experience as a checkuser/admin, as Zaiger's talk page indicates. I'm not suggesting that something inappropriate happened here, but when an editor points out that something should be done carefully since it would be questioned, their own actions in that situation shouldn't be just as questionable. - SudoGhost 16:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a related concern: Zaiger's location is identical to that of the IP which made a (now revision-deleted) edit to the SPI case against me which Basedircrory (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) quickly blanked and then replaced with identical text and his signature instead of the IP signature after he logged in. So how can they "geolocate to very different places"? —Cupco 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I have seen all their IP addresses and you have not. As I've already stated, I welcome any other CU to recheck my result, and I see one has already - Alison ^❤ 05:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is a witch-hunt --Polmas (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. COI trolls are needed here so badly for their "excruciating anal devastation" line of comments. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

trolling? you forget about Comet Egypt who was obviously a troll, and you want trolling? "Is it my fault, that i'm better than you? even though i'm a jew.

everybody just loves me. 

they just come to see,

how hot and amazing i am,
they just need to stay calm.
i just wanna be left be,
but everyone wants to touch me, inappropriately.

I'm hot really hot and you're just super not. i'm cool you're fat so i treat you like a household mat. everybody wants to be me, i think it's cuz they can see, that i'm just so super cool..."(jared milton, who is a real troll)- that is trolling, it is made clear to me that this person Zaiger has said that he will not repeat his actions of calling the user in question a homophobe, so i see no point to the indef block. I support alison fully. instead of blocking somebody who has stated that they will sease and desist, you should be looking for people who post worthless shit like the quote i gave. and to me, it appears that you're basing this on his account on encyclopedia Dramatica, that's how things look anyway. I'm not attempting to accuse anyone here, but put it this way, you're flimzy reason for blocking this user after he has clearly stated that he will not do it again, is as dumb as the song i quoted above. maybe try that on for size. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Where did he say he won't do what again? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

here: "I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do." Previously he said he would not retract his statements, however, nor did he ever even attempt to substantiate his claims. --Conti|✉ 15:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Subsequently. Since Alison says Zaiger's address doesn't geolocate to the same place as Basedircrory, but the IP address which Basedircrory tried to hide in their deleted contributions geolocates to where Zaiger says he is located on his blog (in multiple and his most recent posts, I should add) then I suggest (1) Basedircrory was probably using a proxy until they slipped up by making a non-logged in edit, and (2) another checkuser should look at whether the sources are from proxies or consumer IPs. —Cupco 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If he wants to put up an unblock request he should explain what he plans to contribute to Wikipedia, not just give assurances that he won't behave like a troll. Insofar he turned out to be the prototypical WP:COI editor we don't want here. His main focus here was the article of the website (ED) he is associated with. His style of argumentation on Wikipedia was a mirror of the style that ED promotes and not just in that last incident (see the unrelated "excruciating anal devastation" comment linked above.) Besides that, he vandalized a couple of other articles here with his ED-style "jokes" about Jews and made inconsequential minor edits to a few more. [11] [12] That was essentially his four-year career here. It's hard to escape the conclusion that his participation to Wikiepdia was a net negative up to now. Yes, we do coddle other potty mouthed editors (cf. latest ArbCom request on "Professionalism and civility"), but at least they contribute something besides trivial edits and bad jokes. The indef block imposed on Zaiger is not at all unusual. See the case of 7mike5000 for comparison. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seems like some low-level and mild issues over a period of time being built up into a massive troll conspiracy based on who he is and what website he is primarily associated with. Not a good block at all, certainly not an indef. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support block Having reviewed the information here, I think this is a clear case of someone with an axe to grind and not someone with a serious commitment to the growth and betterment of Wikipedia as a project. This appears to be someone who doesn't have the best interests of Wikipedia as their primary motivation for contributing, so I'm not sure we need to keep their distractions around for much longer. I'm afraid of all of the collateral choking should we grant someone like this too much WP:ROPE. --Jayron32 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, just because someone refuses to retract their statement doesn't mean that they are going to continue harassing people over it. I agree that we should kdeep wikipedia free of trolls, but even with the sources you gave, it still looks like you're blocking him based on his connection with Encyclopedia Dramatica. Why don't you tell me that i can't edit here because of my bulbapedia account (Christian woods), that would not be fair, would it? in any case, i do acknowledge that he stated that he will not retract what he said before, but you refuse to acknowledge that he has stated clear as day that he will not repeat his actions regarding fear of homosexual people. Again, worry about those people who repeat their disruptive actions, and not those who dispite their refusal to retract the statement, has made it clear that there will be no repeats of such things in the future. I don't have an account here nor do i wish to create one, but i can say this. maybe i can talk to him a little bit, i am jewish after all and i have actually made jew jokes before on a couple websites. maybe if you allow him to use his talk page i can speak with him and find out what's going on, i have a thing with trolls, how do you think i got Jared Milton to stop making videos on youtube, at least for the present time anyway? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Has Zaiger made any actual good article contributions? That's the main thing I want to know. Silverseren^C 04:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see a grand total of 20 edits to mainspace, the majority of which apparently deal with Encyclopedia Dramatica. In short: it would seem not. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

And what's wrong with encyclopedia dramatica? i don't remember there being anything oh so bad about comedy, ooh! heavin forbid someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica dare help edit an article on this site about it, because that's the biggest crime ever commited! ooh, why don't you do a spi to find out where he lives again, arrest him and launch the jail cell with him/her into space so he/she will either burn up in the thurmosphere or die due to lack of oxygin. note the sarcasm. what exactly is wrong with being from encyclopedia dramatica anyway, i mean you shouldn't give people from that site the status of troll automaticly, allison, help me. I'm not saying that he can do jew jokes, i stated above that i'm jewish, but i'm saying that using encyclopedia dramatica as part of your basis to block zaiger is not only asanine and shit headed, but it's also unjust and unreasonable. What's next, you gonna block me now because i have a bulbapedia account? look up Christian Woods, i'm also on bulbagarden and Serebii, gonna block me for being from there? the way you guies act, i could just as easily be a troll because i have an account on a site related to pokemon, i mean really. understand? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE BLOCK STRONGLY. - i made that all caps to show my sincerity. reason: The basis of the block as i can see has shit to do with the contribution for the encyclopedia, and everything to do with his status on encyclopedia dramatica. I'm not promoting the website or anything, i just wish to see a little bit of fairness here, this block is not justified, and Encyclopedia Dramatica should never have been brought into this. i'm sensing something that appears suspiciously like an attack campaign, and it is the reason why i didn't make that edit i wanted to make in the article about Zoroark master of elusions. You guys are making it look like you're automaticly a troll and it's the biggest crime on earth as i said above to have a minor minor connection with something or someone. So, i oppose and curse this block, and its basis, in the name of fairness and in the name of wikipedia! (throws out chest bairing wikipedia's logo on the front of shirt. then proclaims loudly:) No Attack campaigns.

You make this look like an unfair battle from super smash brothers in which link, samas and Pikachu are ganging up on a level 2 luigi, and luigi can't attack or defend himself. that's my analogy of most of you guies here. sorry, that's how i'm seeing it, i'm sure i'm not the only one who notices tha attack campaign format of this, not only against zaiger, but against encyclopedia dramatica, which is a COMEDY website, "for the lols" (meaning it's supposed to make one laugh.) thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You've made your point in this thread amply enough already. Now please drop the WP:STICK. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

  Sticks have two ends, and I've found it's often hard for a single editor to carry one by themselves from very long. Nobody Ent 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not untill i see some fairness here, and besides, you're doing the attacking anyway. you oppose my views, so i will don't think i've made my point clear to all people here yet. you don't even acknowledge what i'm saying. and again, i don't support trolling, but i believe that the block should have been for a better reason than encyclopedia dramatica, and leave my contribs out of this. you've all proven to me that i am not welcome here, but i shall sease when i see some fairness here. this isn't about tijfo or myself anyway, it's about zaiger as you can clearly see. i don't see the fairness, andand also leave my status out of this please tijfo, i don't take to such things that well. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Can we have more poems then? Tijfo098 (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters much (being eponymously a nobody) but as far as I'm concerned you're welcome here. However, if you need or expect fairness from Wikipedia I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed -- not because of maliciousness but a host of reasons too long to iterate here. Nobody Ent 12:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just think that things should be handled different, and i'm shitty at poetry, ask my english teacher. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC) Also if you're refering to the quote i gave tifjo, it's super super cool by jared milton. please youtube if you like, but warning, it's a little strange to say the least. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - Although he clearly did not display the civil behavior required to be a productive Wikipedian, I feel that an indef block is far too much for his comments on a superfluous SPI case that he was only named in for editing an article in a NPOV manner that someone didn't find productive. I feel a short-term block would benefit more, as well as possible wiki-mentorship or whatever it's called. Maractus (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

possible idea

Now here's a suggestion that should seem fair to all parties concirned: yes it does involve unblocking him.

• step 1: unblock him but monitor his edits (but don't be all creepy stalky about it)
• step 2: rather than punnishing him for editing ED articles, you can maybe encourage him to do civil disgussions on the ED article's talk page on how he can word his contributions so they don't seem like promos.
• step 3: someone have a conversation either via e-mail or on his talk page on how some ideas of things to help contribute to. it worked for me on bulbapedia, which is similar to this but about pokemon. nevertheless, that idea should be considered.

If he persists then maybe a week or month long block would be ideal, an indef should never be a first time block, it gives a bad impression on people, not just Zaiger him/herself. also, it's not right to make assumtions that because of his status on encyclopedia dramatica, he's a troll. as stated in the previous section here, ED is humorous while this is serious. I know i don't have status on Wikipedia here, but i don't care, i just think that maybe my suggestion should be considered before you finalize this disgussion. and no, i don't support him making jew jokes on serious websites, i am jewish after all. thanks. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

WP is WP:NOTCENSORED, so why is everyone saying ED instead of just saying erectile dysfunction like adults? Also, I think it was very insensitive for the previous poster to refer to ED as "humorous" when sufferers often find themselves feeling powerless -- even impotent (though admittedly the neurological signs are often soft). EEng (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's an alternate suggestion: go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

For the love of Kirsty Hawkshaw i'm trying to help out here. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 13:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly do you want to help? What connection do you have to Zaiger? Silverseren^C 15:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i have a connection to him. I think that the block is unfair because of what it's based off of. quite a few of these people are letting this ED shit get to them, and i'm trying to the best of my ability to see this as a reasonable block, but i'm at the point where it will litteraly take this spaciffic someone to help me out, because i don't see it as a reasonable basis at all.

• even though he refuses to retract his homophobe acusations, he has clearly stated that he will not repeat the statement in the future.
• His status (pronounced stay-tuhs, the propper way) on encyclopedia dramatica is being brought into this when it has as much to do with this as the way i pronounce status does.
• and finally, assumtions of trolling because of said status on Encyclopedia Dramatica being used as arguments to rationalize his block

are not ways that a block should be imposed on someone. we can't read minds, and i'm sure some good faith has been assumed, but let's not show that we make those kinds of assumtions please, it brings Wikipedia a bad immage. This is coming from someone who wishes every once in a while to find things to edit on this encyclopedia. I'm uninvolved, and though i oppose the block, i don't promote trolling at all. But i also know not to assume he's trolling or not. i'm trying to put this nutrally but it's hard when i get told to go away by Andy the Grump, and when Tifjo tries to status push here. Again, let's leave my status out of this, we're not here to talk about my status, we're here on this notice board to help make a rational decision based on a good reason and not based on views on a sertain websight that makes attempts at humour. so let's just stick to trying to keep things as reasonable as possible here. mkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling your stay-tuhs here may change soon enough [13]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please define what you maen by saing my status will change, and Hopefully he did stop making videos. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, i'm much moe concerned about the fact that he doesn't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. A complete and almost utter lack of mainspace edits shows that he's really not making any constructive worthwhile edits. Combine that with past and present negative actions and I see no reason for him to be unblocked. We're here to build an encyclopedia. If you're not here for that purpose, then you shouldn't be here. Silverseren^C 17:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh i do have a few article edits i wish to make, i'm just currently attempting to find sources for them, such as the fact that Kirsty Hawkshaw was active in 1989. i just don't have a completely reliable source yet, so i'm not putting that untill i do. and i take it my suggestion won't be considered at all? my Status better not be the reason, and i ask again, what does tifjo mean by saying my status here will change soon enough? clairify that please and thank you. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean you as in you, I was just speaking in general. And it seems to me that he's being "punished" because he really doesn't seem to be a constructive editor. Combine that with the unconstructive things he's done and I don't see why he should be allowed to stay here. And, yeah, it might be better if you make an actual account. Silverseren^C 18:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

What's done is done, but i won't create an account, odds are it'll be inactive for long periods of time, i spend most of my time on bulbapedia. but i'd still like clairification on Tifjo's statement on "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." what exactly is that supposed to mean? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you "quoting" this guy on your talk page? Someone you know or wish to emulate? Doc talk 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Catch me if you can? For someone "not trolling" he is surely well acquainted with plenty of trolls. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I never said i was acquainted with trolls, i said i got a spaciffic troll to stop on a different website for the time being. again, i do not support trolling at all, and rather wish that it never began at all. But alass, there's nothing i can do about that. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Back on topic

I do not agree with the indef block, yet I see a rationale for a short-term ban and other measures to be taken. Thus I propose:

1. The block shortened to one month
2. Possible wiki-mentorship or other source of guidance

Zaiger has been somewhat productive from what I can collect, so there's no use in driving him off completely when he has potential to help the project and cut out the disruption. Maractus (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Zaiger's block was a an unfair lynching. Wikipedia needs to get past the disgusting prejudices and let him back in. Mm. Sheepers (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

user: Tifjo089 and irrational deletion

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

---

Hello, i am an ip user in Manitoba who is attempting to speak with Tifjo but every time i attempt to do so, my edits keep getting undone, by someone. I had a message on my talkpage presumably poasted by mdan052 saying that he's the one doing this, yet on Tifjo's page, Tifjo states that they are the one doing this,. I am askng him for clairification on a statement he made above in the section regarding Zaiger in which he says "your stay-tuhs will change here soon enough." I do not know if he means that he believes me to be Jared Milton, who is a well known youtube user who has made controvercial and just lane dumb statements. I've asked him once about an hour ago, the edit got deleted. i tried again, edit got deleted, message from Mdan052 on my ip talk page. Asked Mdan052 to quit undoing my edits and told him why i'm making them, repoasted my clairification request to tifjo's talk page, only for it to pull a Houdini again. I then see a section in tifjo's page about me falsly accusing Mdan052 of undoing my edits, then i post a message saying why i believed him/her to have done it. it disappears again. I repeated the message on Mdann052's talkpage and so far it is still there. I do not think that it is right for Tifjo to avoic me the way he is when i'm trying to get him to explain a statement he's saying to me. is it a threat? does he think i'm a troll? i am completely clueless as to what is going on here, and would ask that someone gets him to stop his behavior twards me. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can't speculate on Tijfo's reasons, but the edit history of their talk page makes clear (esp. this summary) that your comments are not welcome there, and they have a perfect right to remove them. It would be nice if that had been made clear in an actual response, but that doesn't alter the fact: please refrain from posting on Tijfo's talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • So what do they do? Post on the talk page again.[14]. Not a competent editor here to contribute positively. Doc talk 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Eh, plain talking doesn't seem to work with him: [15]. And by the way, he misquoted me in his ANI statement above. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • "I have a feeling" isn't plain talking. Nobody Ent 19:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You tell me that you have a feeling that my "stay-tuhs will change" soon enough here, ("i have a feeling that your stay-tuhs here may change here soon enough") i want to know what you mean by that. and where else am i going to ask you, and in future, please let me know that you don't want to disguss it there, and tell me where i can ask you if not on your user talk page. and sorry for the misquote, i stand slightly corrected. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I fess up: I think you'll be made admin pretty soon. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey, sarcasm is my gig, lol. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) a friend of mine for some reason told me to "leave wikipedia alone" for some reason, so this is my last message for a long while untill he flies home. I am not a troll, i do not promote trolling, and i wanted to only see fareness. 199.101.61.190 (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• How about this; Tijfo098, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK, hinting/insinuating/quasi-threatening that another editor will be blocked when you lack any sort of admin ability to actually carry such a thing out. Mr. 199.101.61.190, stop being a proverbial WP:DICK and repeatedly posting on someone's talk page when they have made it clear that they do not wish to talk to you. There, my daily let's-make-peace duties are done. Tarc (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Slow edit war

Can someone please look into this slow edit war on 1911. Some reverts seem to be done using Rollback tool. There are some more articles with the same edit war going on: 1910, 1909, 1908, 1907, 1906, 1912. --SMS ^Talk 04:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried stopping the edit war and discussing the issue? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 05:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

SMS isn't involved in the edit war; he just happened to see it. From glancing at both users' talk pages, User:Keith D left each of them a friendly prod on 11 Sept to stop the blind reverting and discuss it. Apparently that message was completely ignored because they're still going at it. Also, this edit war is pretty damn lame. Ishdarian 06:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained on User talk:Keith D/Archive 35#Re:1907 I have given up trying to get more constructive responses from the other editor involved (who, btw, did not respond to Keith D's request for input) and, given the other user's past history (see for example Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#CalendarWatcher, User talk:CalendarWatcher#Previous account(s)?, User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 4#Previous account(s)?, I did not really expect anything useful. I'd appreciate neutral input on this matter. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You should stop removing valid information. Binksternet (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "Valid". DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have fully protected the article for a week and removed DerbyCountyinNZ's rollback rights. Please sort the content issue out on the talkpage - I' don't want to have to block anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING behaviour by User:Antidiskriminator

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

---

I report this issue reluctantly, but I can see no other option given the situation. User:Antidiskriminator and I initially had a large amount of interaction on Talk:Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, which I had moved to its current title on 11 April 2012 [16]. We first interacted on 4 May 2012 in relation to a wikiquette issue [17], but didn't really start interacting until a Request for Move for that article was lodged on 1 August 2012 [18], which was closed on 12 August with the result Not Moved. Both User:DIREKTOR and I opposed the move. Before that RM was closed, User:Antidiskriminator commenced further threads on the talkpage here [19] on 6 August 2012, and simultaneously here at WikiProject Serbia [20].

On the same day as the previous RM closed (12 August 2012), User:Antidiskriminator lodged a further RM with the same intent move to German-occupied Serbia. It was closed on 21 August 2012 with the result Not Moved. Both User:DIREKTOR and I opposed the move. Starting on 15 August 2012, User:Antidiskriminator and I started to have a lot of interaction at Talk:Pavle Đurišić which User:PRODUCER and I had recently helped get to MILHIST A Class. On 29 August another editor started a further discussion of the article title of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia,[21] which was quickly dominated by User:Antidiskriminator who focused on what they considered to be the behaviour of "other editors", clearly including myself and User:DIREKTOR. On 10 September 2012, User:Antidiskriminator started another thread about the title [22], and again on 14 September 2012 [23] and again on 18 September 2012 [24]. These latter threads focused on User:Antidiskriminator's issues with the behaviour of editors that were opposing the move of the article.

In June 2012, User:DIREKTOR and I had a discussion about the naming of the various articles that make up the Seven Enemy Offensives. This was the culmination of a number of discussions we had about this topic over the previous few months. The discussion occurred here [25], but the resultant moves of all but one of the articles were linked on all the relevant talk pages prior to the moves being made. No-one opposed those moves, and the articles have been stable at those titles since then. The one remaining article was Second Enemy Offensive. On 29 September 2012, I moved [26] this article to Operation Southeast Croatia per the talk page here [27] and the previous discussion User:DIREKTOR and I had at Battle of Kozara. I have been editing articles within the Seven Enemy Offensives pretty much since I started on WP late last year, and to my knowledge, User:Antidiskriminator had not edited any of those articles or talk pages in that time.

Almost immediately after the move, User:Antidiskriminator commented on the talk page of Operation Southeast Croatia saying that he opposed the move and that it should be returned to its previous title as User:DIREKTOR and I had not gained consensus for the move [28]. Both User:DIREKTOR and I expressed our concerns that User:Antidiskriminator's appearance at the article was suspicious, and said so. I even cautioned User:Antidiskriminator about my concerns about him WP:WIKIHOUNDING me at his user talk page here [29], where I stated

Your decision to oppose the recent move there (in retrospect after consensus had been achieved for the move, which is consistent with the approach User:DIREKTOR and myself have taken to the Seven Enemy Offensives articles over several months), appears on face value to be an attempt to follow my edits to cause me distress, and gives rise to the suspicion it is being done out of revenge for a perceived slight because you have not been able to gain consensus for your preferred move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The move of Operation Southeast Croatia is not clearly a violation of WP policy, which would be your only possible excuse for following my edits (and move) at that article. Your behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason that is acceptable on WP.

However, User:Antidiskriminator has not acknowledged my request on his talk page, and has continued to act aggressively on Operation Southeast Croatia, including returning the article to the previous title,[30] and tellingly, using as a justification for their involvement what clearly they perceive to have been an illegitimate move of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia by myself on 11 April 2012 [31].

I consider User:Antidiskriminator's decision to oppose my recent move at Operation Southeast Croatia (in retrospect ie after consensus had been achieved for the move by the only involved editors (User:DIREKTOR and I), which is consistent with the approach User:DIREKTOR and myself have taken to the Seven Enemy Offensives articles over several months), appears on face value to be an attempt to follow my edits to cause me distress. It gives rise to the suspicion it is being done out of revenge for a perceived slight because User:Antidiskriminator has not been able to gain consensus for their preferred move at Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia. The move of Operation Southeast Croatia was not clearly a violation of WP policy, which would be the only possible excuse for following my edits (and move) at that article. User:Antidiskriminator's behaviour is disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason that is acceptable on WP, and I request admin intervention to stop this behaviour. Regards, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much response you'll get to an initial post as long as that. On one of the initial points raised - I was briefly involved in discussing it some months later - I'm confused as to why you thought the April move of the page re German-occupied Serbia was appropriate in the first place. That - or some variation of it - is rather obviously the clear, common and consistent-with-similar-pages title for the page in question. When I came in to argue in favour of a move to such a title, I wasn't aware that it had only recently been unilaterally moved away from that to the current cumbersome, obscure and unclear "Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". If that move had been subject to a formal RM - as the later, failed bid to return to the more obvious title was - it would never have been moved in the first place. You had virtually no talk page support for making the move in April and since then there has been regular discussion in favour of moving it back, all stymied by "no consensus" RM results, even though it is clearly the preferred title in the real world and among editors here, and even though there was no consensus to move it in the first place. That might, as you acknowledge, be part of the problem here (I make no comment on whether subsequent behaviour by others is appropriate or not). N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is surely an irrelevant side discussion. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You raised it yourself as a possibly contributing factor. I agree with the suggestion that the dispute at that page is relevant - although I disagree with your assessment as to where consensus about that page title lies - and thought it worth expanding on why that issue is problematic in itself. N-HH talk/edits 11:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

@N-HH, perhaps you did not look into the matter quite thoroughly. You've expressed some of your positions in your recent post on the article talkpage, and, as I have stated there, you've certainly gotten a few things rather wrong. Its a long discussion and an even longer story.

@Peacemaker, I think this might be a matter for WP:AE. -- Director (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:AE. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is nothing more then a organised and insidious traveling circus with the only goal to eliminate all opposing sides from relevant discussions. Exactly the same fabricated "reports" already happened with several other disagreeing editors, who are not masters of GAMING THE SYSTEM like some of you here. Deliberate misrepresentation of entire situation, misguiding of other newly included editors, partial informing, and all for defending questionable, and wrong POV, while using wiki to push some personal agenda. Stunning. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

WW it'd be prudent to avoid such decorum breaches as your unsubstantiated accusations against other users (FutureP) have already been noticed and commented. That being said, Peacemaker you should take your concerns to AE without sections that focus on content disputes and have no proposed sanctions and evidence (3RR/ARBMAC warnings) as they aren't ANI/AE material.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 16:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins, please close this incident, I have accepted the several suggestions that it should be at AE, not here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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))

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)

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))

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))

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)

But Masanori Asami can communicate in Japanese Does that erase your suspicion? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

IP section blanking header; long term pattern

24.147.80.78 (talk · contribs) has been continuously removing level 1 headers in articles if there are level 2 headers below them. This has been going on since September of this year. There are broader issues and warnings, none of which have been responded to, from this IP from June of this year. There appears to be good edits within the IP's history, and the subject matter suggests the same individual has been using the same IP since at least June. Yet as far as I can tell they have not responded to any inquiries about this behavior. In fact, before the section blanking started the IP had been contacted by editors about other issues, and blocked for them August 31. Not long after that block expired the editor started again, and that included removing section headers. The header blanking picked up about a month ago.

I, among others, have warned the IP multiple times, and been explicit about the reason. Yet just now the trend has continued again. I would post a list of diffs but a quick look at the history and the diffs with "section blanking" tags are pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• The IP has already been blocked for vandalism only a month ago. I've now blocked again for one week. It's a dynamic IP so if this type of disruption resumes we may consider longer blocks. De728631 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The IP was removing level 2 headings if there were level three headings below them, not level 1 headers. A level 1 header is just generated by "=" rather than "==" and should never be used in articles. Graham87 05:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Move of draft into mainspace

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

---

A user has moved a sandbox rewriting of French Valley Airport into the mainspace as French Valley Airport/draft and then had the sandbox deleted by an admin. I don't want to CSD this article as duplicating an existing article topic (since valuable information might be lost), I can't merge the content into the existing article and have the page deleted (since the attribution of the merged content would be lost), and to the best of my knowledge such "subpages" are not permitted in mainspace. Whatever the right way to handle this is, it will surely involve admin tools, so I'll leave the matter to you folks. Deor (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, as Wikipedia:Subpages states, "Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g., [[Example Article/Temp]] in the main namespace is disallowed" but an option is to move the article in the talk namespace, e.g. [[Talk:Example Article/Temp]]. The redirect would need to be deleted though of course. The reason subpages in the article mainspace are disallowed is because the subpages could be found using Special:Random and can appear as the main article. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing as this was my mistake, I have moved the draft from French Valley Airport/draft to Talk:French Valley Airport/draft in compliance with WP:SUB. I see Riley has requested CSD already. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 14:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect has been deleted. but same with the draft itself.. Left a message for the deleting administrator. (Recreated) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Copyedit help

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

---

I have a question for the administators.I have placed a copy of my fathers 2 presidential unit citations in the air corps/air force page as there was no listing for the 320th Bomb Group which recieved 2 citations during world war II. I have typed the exact citations as they are written froma copy of my fathers orders for both citations into the edit page. My question is how do I get this information into the catagoriy which it should be posted? There is a 330th BG listing but none for the 320th? So what I am asking is how do I get this article to show up on the page like the others so when someone looks at the air corps/air force presidential unit citations they will see the listing for the 320th Bomb Group just like the others on the page? I am very new to wikipedia and I looked at the help pages but did not see a how to place the article into the correct listing page where it should go?

Please let me know how to insert the 2 orders atricles in to the page wher it should be or can you do it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gitrdone1957 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This would need to be filled into the existing wikitable at the article Presidential Unit Citation (United States). I'm going to have a look at it, but next time please ask such questions on the talk page of the relevant article or at the Wikipedia:Help desk. This noticeboard is for administrative topics only. I'll drop you a note on user talk page when I'm done with editing the article so you can have a look at it. Oh, and please sign your contributions to talk pages and discussion boards like this by typing four tilde characters, ~~~~. This will add your username and a timestamp for reference. (N.B. please don't sign your edits to articles). De728631 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Stillstanding discussion of contributer against policy

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

---

Stillstanding has posted information about another user not of any use to improving the article Homosexuality[32], and seems to be waging another personal war against an editor. I collapased the post and added the policy about discussing the content and not the contributer but he just uncollapsed it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (e/c)

First, I'll note that Amadscientist did not bother notifying me. In any case, everything they said turns out not to be the case. The purpose of the note I dropped was to let people know what LGR chose to do, particularly so that they knew not to make things worse for LGR by roping them back in during the two-week break; I referred to it as "teasing". My comment said nothing about whether LGR was improving the article, contained nothing insulting, and was not part of any sort of personal war. In fact, it's the result of my withdrawing an edit-warring report that looked likely to get them blocked. There's nothing here more than Amadscientist's misunderstanding, compounded by their violation of WP:AGF. I tried to discuss it with them about on their talk page, but instead of replying, they went to this drama factory. Likewise, I independently asked an admin involved with the edit-warring report for an opinion.[33] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Section removed, and I will block him if he restores it. I've had just about enough bullshit involving this editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You are way out of line. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding, please please please just drop this and move on to something else. Zad68 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment has been removed and the editor has been warned. I recommend closing before the back-and-forth starts up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'll fully admit to being out of the loop on this one, but I don't see gloating here. There _could_ be gloating, but I really don't see it without a pretty strong squint. I agree SS should just drop this though--nothing to be gained here. Hobit (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247...had another account previously I suppose?--MONGO 22:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should drop this and close it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was wondering if anyone was curious about his choice of username?--MONGO 23:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Simple admin request to fix a ShadowCommons issue

Resolved

 – done. Graham87 05:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Nutshell: Could an admin please move File:Blank.svg to File:Fond blanc.svg (the same file, on Commons), and leave the redirect? Non-admins cannot make this type of move, and I will clean up inbound links once the move is completed.

Details: File:Blank.svg was uploaded in February 2006. Commons:File:Blank.svg was a completely different file uploaded in April 2006. Both are being used heavily. In 2007, the ENWP image was copied to Commons as Commons:File:Fond blanc.svg, but it was requested that the ENWP copy not be deleted. So now Commons:File:Blank.svg, which is a very useful file, cannot be used on ENWP because of File:Blank.svg, and the file history is a little confusing. This move would solve several problems at once, enabling a clearer file history, ensuring that both images can be used properly, and avoiding the Commons file-move bug (bugzilla:28299) for these heavily used files. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the unusual nature of this request, I'd rather not try to ask for this move with a template, and I don't really want to solicit individual admins on their talk pages if that can be avoided. The only other way to do this would be to delete the Commons image temporarily, but it would risk further complication. This is a fairly simple fix with a one-time action by an admin, any admin... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa

Efrange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This spring, a group of admirers of the subject began a concerted effort to turn the article on him into a hagiography. Eventually, one account made a death threat (as I recall) and was blocked and the page ended up being indefinitely semi-protected. Now, a new tactic is being tried. User:Efrange created George Calciu, an equally effusive portrait of its subject, and redirected the other article to the new one. My complaint was then met by a request for protection claiming necessity on the grounds of avoiding "Communist slander". Of course the charge is absurd and I actually admire the man myself, but clearly, this user (who has had an account for over five months) has no notion of WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:ESSAY, and other relevant policies. I'm not sure what remedy would be best, but I do want to avoid the tiresome edit wars we had in the spring. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Efrange may have had an account for five months, but they haven't done much in those months except to behave inappropriately. They've made only 36 edits, 31 of which were to article space (they don't talk much). They've had two coypright warnings, one in June and one much more recently in this little debacle. Their comments at RFPP indicate they have an agenda. For me, the only issue is whether sanctions are warranted without more engagement. I don't see anyone trying to talk to them (not counting edit summaries), although I may have missed it. If I'm right, then I think someone needs to explain things to them. If they don't respond and continue to edit disruptively, then, of course, sanctions would be warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this was funny, unintentionally though. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying very hard to think of a reason not to just indef now and be done with it, this person is clearly a classic case of NOTHERE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but except in egregious vandalism-only accounts, I tend to prefer one clear warning before indeffing. I'd also note that they haven't edited since their absurd comments at RFPP. If they start editing again disruptively without even responding here, an indef would be clearer to me, even without a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Efrange has made a comment on my talk page. Civil, but kind of pointless, since there was no need to repost his entire article. This line strikes me as revealing: "If you are truly Orthodox, it would seem that you would not have sided with the article posted before it". Perhaps he should be referred to OrthodoxWiki, or at least to WP:NPOV and WP:BATTLEGROUND. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've indeffed him. He recreated the inappropriate article, put it on Biruitorul's talk page and created a sandbox with it as well. I've restored Biruitorul's talk page and deleted the sandbox. That, plus of course he never responded here. Not surprisingly, Blade's instincts turned out to be spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Class project needs attention

Over the past few days there has been some activity from what appears to be a class project. The problem is that at least one student signed another student's post on a talkpage while another student under the name of Gingerkd (talk · contribs) added an unsourced BLP violation on Iran-Israel relations about Netanyahu. I gave out a few warnings to Gingerkd and User:Nmisgot but the group is large and there seems to be little supervision, so some admin attention may be required. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Check to see if you can identify the teacher by their account. Ask one of the students, and approach the teacher directly; and then send them to Wikipedia:School and university projects. From my experience in working with these situations, the teacher does do everything on the up-and-up, and is trying to do it the best they can, but clueless teenagers remain stubbornly clueless every time. --Jayron32 03:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

For convenience, the students are part of the group User:Nmisgot/sandbox/Lib100 Students. Guessing from this, I'd assume the teacher is Nmisgot, and should be contacted as such, unless someone has some other indication regarding who the teacher is. --Jethro B 04:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE - I left a comment on their talk page. There are a bunch of editors making posts on Nmisgot's talk page, referring to Nmisgot as "professor," so Nmisgot probably is the teacher. I asked just to make sure though. I'll see what happens. --Jethro B 04:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Good job. Thank you Jethro B. I'll also keep an eye to see where this goes and help point them to Jayron's links. I wouldn't want to see any more unsourced edits from that group, especially BLP vios. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Since it really does look like they are the teacher, I went and expanded my post to include the points of concern. I'll see what he/she responds. --Jethro B 04:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'll keep an eye also. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I've gone through each student's contributions to see if there were any violations still in articles. Most of the students have only edited talk pages, so I ignored those. The few students that added to articles have been reverted, by different editors, for various reasons, so as of now, we're good in terms of violations not being on these articles. --Jethro B 04:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe also drop a note at the Education Noticeboard. It appears that this class isn't working within the education project framework, but editors there may be of help. The Interior (Talk) 05:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Jethro B 05:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A user keeps vandalizing Armenian related pages

A user was going around vandalizing Armenian related pages. When he got banned he created a new account and has since continued vandalizing. As of October 1 this individual has vandalized 13 Armenian related pages. He changes the names of soccer players, removes and adds fake players, changes jersey colors, changes the history of the clubs, etc. Ninetoyadome (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To save others time, the user appears to be User:Vagharshapat. They have been notified (and insulted as a free bonus), although on their user page rather than their talk page. Ninetoyadome, I think the standard response here is that if they continue despite the warning, WP:AIV is the place to deal with it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

his previous account, which got banned, received numerous warnings but he still continued. His previous account was User:KunoxTxa Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked indef, vandalism, pov issues, likely sock of KunoxTxa. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Incivility

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

---

Kwort has been using foul language on me and an anonymous IP who had undone their unhelpful edit on Yan Bingliang. Kwort was blocked for three days for the vandalising of the mentioned page but resumed vandalising once the block was over despite multiple warnings from me and several other users. See Kwort's talk page and my talk page history. I request further action be taken to show them that such language is not welcome on wikipedia. Thanks. ~ Acsian88 (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you seriously just report someone's incivility to AN/I, and direct us to their talk page where you called them "a arrogant, useless, brainless, uncouth, condescending low-life"? WilyD 09:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Acsian88, as you can see, Kwort has been re-blocked for a week. (I would have made it two weeks, but YMMV.) I can understand you were provoked, but please read Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals. If you retaliate like this again, you will certainly be blocked yourself. Bishonen | talk 09:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC).

Bishonen, I was insulted using much stronger language (e.g. the f word, b-stard, etc) even before that (look at my talk page history if you don't believe me: [34][35] and etc. I'm not even going to list everything. I ignored them and just undid it but they kept coming and added even stronger threats. Anyway, Kwort has been blocked so I hope that's the end of that. -Acsian88 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't change your own responsibility to be civil. Nobody Ent 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Extended to indef Nobody Ent 10:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, they used a sock to threaten violence. Seemed appropriate. WilyD 10:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Concur, don't think anyone would think otherwise. Nobody Ent 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the last we'll see of Kowort; I've started Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kwort just in case he re-appears. GiantSnowman 10:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -Acsian88 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Changes at New_contributors'_help_page

Resolved

An administrator's help is required for changes at the fully protected page Wikipedia_talk:New_contributors'_help_page#Changes --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

{{Edit protected}} serves very well to get assistance for these situations. :) However, I've tried reducing the protection level. I'm thinking this is likely to be uncontroversial, since it's an easy fix if issues arrive. I've watchlisted the page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247 discussing my murder

Ok, I've been patient for days while Dennis Brown et al. try to work with StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) but talking about paying for me to be murdered is far enough. This user's talk page is full of folks trying to explain to him what he did wrong. He doesn't get that 1 edit reverting another user's edit in an edit war involving many users is still edit warring. After his ANI thread against me closed in support of the topic ban, he continued to personally attack me on his talk page: "grossly incompetent", accused me of gaming the system, called me immoral, accused me of a conservative bias (two diffs there). He later received a warning for something unrelated from Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) and immediately accused him of "assuming bad faith". He fails to understand why he is responsible for his own actions despite the actions of others. And finally, he insists to continue in this behavior, claiming that WP:ADMINACCT means I have to bear it. This guy is a clearly tendentious editor whose constant refusal to get the point is draining on the communities patience and mine personally to the point where his own suppoters are considering an RFC/U. If anyone feels he hasn't had enough guidance, I'll eat my shoe. His behavior boils down to three things: 1) Toe the line, 2) Blame others, 3) Accuse the admin of bias to involve them. Enough is enough. I invite everyone to give his talk page a read over.--v/r - TP 13:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, that is just crossing the line. TParis, I suggest you trace this guy's IP address and report him to the authorities. That is too far and that shouldn't even be on Wikipedia. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

LOL! He used to proudly display his IP address -- then whan any editor referred to it, sought a block for them "outing" him! [36] etc. And then tried to get Art Rubin blocked for an IRC "joe job" [37] I believe he has the Guinness record for most admin "final warnings" being warned by way over a dozen separate admines in a very short period of time - and avoiding any penalties therefor. [38] Because some of you are too careless to read, I'm going to spell it out for you. Collect is outing me by posting where he believes I live. I have asked for it to be redacted, but you people have made such a mess of this that it's pointless. You should be ashamed of yourselves for aiding him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) seems to show how he reacts to anyone saying anything at all about him. Cheers Collect (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I started reading the talk page, then my brain started to turn to mush and I felt like garotting myself with this elastic band ... but the general gist I see is that things have got totally out of hand, and threatening to kill TParis, even if said in the heat of the moment and in jest, is going too far. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been following StillStanding's antics a bit (mainly from AN3 reports), hence I am not surprised that he was about to be the subject of an RFCU. However, death threats are going just too far, so I have indefinitely blocked StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Threatening to murder a user, even implying that StillStanding-247 has supposedly "paid" someone to kill TParis is extremely horrific. Clearly StillStanding-247 is not mature for Wikipedia. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 13:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, let's hold off on calling the cops, or calling these "death threats", as it was clearly intended as joking, albeit in bad taste. However, I think the overarching claim of tendentious editing is clearly valid, I think he's been given enough chances, I think he's made it clear he is not going to alter his battleground behavior, and I support Reaper's indef block. In a way, citing these "threats of violence" as a reason for the block is probably going to end up needlessly confusing the issue; it gives SS247 a detail to focus on when requesting an unblock, when that isn't the biggest problem with this editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that StillStanding is actually going to go kill TParis, but it is for TParis to decide whether to talk to the police or report this to the WMF. However, the threat was not just two friends "messing around" with each other, but one user who has an extreme dislike for another posting a threat against him, and hence not joking. That said, even if he unambiguously retracts the threats as "comments made in frustration", "joking", or whatever, I am still opposed to unblocking unless his massive battleground behavior and tendentious editing can be curbed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. Wikipedia requires a collaborative working environment with actual human beings. Death threats, no matter how ludicrous or facile on their face cannot be allowed. I am generally loathe to invoke "protecting the community" since the community isn't the point, it is a tool - but this isn't about protecting community sensibilities, but the community's members. Indef, ban, and gone until StillStanding-247 demonstrates a personality change.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make light of the comments; they're not acceptable, and fit into his overall pattern of behavior. I just think they're not (I need to reword this somehow, I'm channeling Akins, hopefully you know what I mean) "legitimate" death threats; the problem with them is not that TParis is in danger, the problem is that they are part of his overarching inflammatory, disrespectful, antagonistic, battleground approach. They risk turning the discussion into "were they real threats or were they bad jokes", when the real issue is his overall behavior. We can't let the inevitable unblock request discussion focus just on those comments. "Until StillStanding-247 demonstrates a personality change" is what I'm trying to emphasize too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good block Very much a tendentious editor with a clear "I didn't hear that" problem. Joking about killing an admin shows major immaturity issues, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block I had final warned him at an earlier ANI thread and would have done the block myself if I wasn't asleep. MBisanz ^talk 14:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed with Tznkai. The nature of their death threat - joking or not - should be enough to just indef and forget. But looking at the commentary on their talk page, it is evident they are not here to work collaboratively, but rather to war endlessly over their preferred POVs. The only thing we're likely to get by an unblock at this point is more wasted time and effort. Resolute 14:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Joke or not, this is way beyond the acceptable limit. De728631 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Yep, no question. Even if it was just a 'joke', it's absolutely unacceptable on Wikipedia. That's just plain and simple trolling in a very sinister manner. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 14:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment a decent editor driven insane by the politics of this place. I hope he's happy in his evil lair. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. Tparis has taken more personal attacks, insults, insinuations, and IDHT from StillStanding in the past week or so than I would have even thought possible for one person to take. SS capping his tirades off with talking about killing Tparis is over the line, period. His behavior even before was tiptoeing on the line of so-excessive-it-must-be-halted, but rather than being blocked before now, he was given tons of room to calm down and pull himself back, presumably because everyone wanted to make sure they were being fair to him. Tendentious POV pushing and professional victimhood? Not conducive to a workable Wikipedia atmosphere, but not necessarily immediately blockable. Doubling down with death threats, however? 100% not ok, do not pass go, do not collect $200, and good luck convincing the community you have any goal other than to abuse another Wikipedian if you're unblocked. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block I appreciate TParis's patience while several of us tried to get Still to back off the personal attacks. I had offered to mediate a new discussion on the original topic ban and reached out in every way I knew how to. In the end, we couldn't find common ground with him. After seeing the mocking death threats, which was after a series of blistering personal attacks, I can't find fault with blocking him. I feel like we have made every effort, extended every possible second chance that could be, stretched the meaning of "good faith" to the breaking point here. These kinds of threats are unacceptable from anyone, and we are all responsible for our actions, no matter "provoked" we think we are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block. In the wake of all the other issues with this editor, this block was unavoidable. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Agree. Even though it is obviously meant as a joke, it is in very poor taste and unacceptable in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, extend to community ban The goal of such a threat was as a minimum intended to provide a chilling effect, forcefully dissuading not only TP, but others from "going against" them. He then continued in the same vein. Wholly support advising authorities of the threat dangerouspanda 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block, coming from someone who's tried to work with him. While I think it's obvious he was joking, this was simply the last straw. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block (NAC) It seems absolutely correct to block him for all of those disgusting comments. Personally I think that he should be reported to the police as you can't just let death threats go without action regardless. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not for the "murder threat". Maybe he should be blocked for the other stuff, but I seem to be in a minority of one in thinking the reaction to the so-called "murder threat" is way over the top. Leaving aside that the comment is clearly and obviously supposed to be a joke (if a silly one), it's literal meaning isn't even a "murder threat", and I don't even see an implied threat actually. DeCausa (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think it was just for the threat. The threat was the "icing on the cake" and it only demonstrated that my efforts to get him to come around and cooperate were being wasted. It was the final straw, after a long series of personal attacks and inability to climb off the soapbox. The threat was the worst of it, demonstrating that it was only going to get worse, not better, so action had to be taken to prevent more disruption. Talk of banning (above) is premature, but I don't see him being unblocked any time soon, justifiably. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't lose any sleep over the block - there's enough there to justify it besides the threat that's not a threat. But all the outrage of some of the posts and talk of reporting to "the authorities" seems to be a minor outburst of mass hysteria to me. DeCausa (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that others may be taking the threat more literal than the intent. To me, it was just a ramping up of the personal attacks, and doing so in a shockingly brazen and disrespectful way. It was as much an attack on Wikipedia as Tom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree, there is enough other things to justify the block (such as falling off the WP:CLUETRAIN and the incivility etc), but interpreting [39] as a threat of violence isn't one of them. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good Block The incident does not need reporting, I agree with User:DeCausa that it wasn't an actual threat. But it falls into the "watch how clever I am, when I post something that looks like a murder threat, but technically isn't, just to show how stupid the WP community is, because they will fall for it." Had it been the first post, the proper response would be, "cut it out, we don't need that here". That it is the 100th such example is an amazing testament to this community's capacity for forgiveness.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Something being a "joke" does not mean that it is not to be taken seriously. GiantSnowman 15:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I think its similar to yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block and I would support a community ban if push comes to shove --Guerillero | My Talk 16:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
• Good block - The only thing wrong is that it should have been done a month or two earlier. This user has freely admitted that they will not change their ways and will continue to be disruptive until they are banned. For disclosure, I have gotten into it with this user and have been topic banned, which I take responsibility for. --Mollskman (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin stop in to look at this Sharyl Attkisson edit-protected edit request

Hello, could an uninvolved admin stop in at Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson#Edit-protected_edit_request at take a look at it? The article is full-protected until 13 November. The request has been open for 4 days without any admin input. Please either act on the request or provide feedback as to why it shouldn't be done at this time. Thanks... Zad68 13:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in that it's not the only edit protected request that's been standing for a long time.... there's also one on Talk:Revolution (TV series) that has similarly been pending for days. Are there no admins patrolling the edit requests category? Also, it looks like something might be broken on that page, as the boxes at the top aren't transcluding the most recent pages listed on the bottom of the page.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhhh.... it appears that semi-protected edit requests are similarly messed up and stopped updating the box at the top on 10/2...... I'm going to raise this over at WP:VPT as well, because it's pretty clear something has gone pear-shaped in the wikipedia software.... Sailsbystars (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS issue?

Another editor, Mercy11, informed me that I am misinterpreting the WP:CANVASS guideline in my observation that they were canvassed to come to the talk page of Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States. The canvass request at issue was made on Mercy11's talk page here by XL8TION. On the article talk page, I drew attention here to the language XLR8TION used in their request to Mercy11:

"Please add your opinion on the talk page... ...A right-wing Filipino is trying to cause problems to the photos... because of his right wing views... ...he is trying to create a divisive faction in the community... ...Please contribute your opinions to the article's talk page to dispel his absurdness..."

The "right-wing Filipino" XLR8TION refers to is apparently RightCowLeftCoast. The guideline on WP:CANVASSING states "Canvassing — which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate — is considered inappropriate." Can an un-involved administrator or experienced user clarify for us whether or not this constitutes inappropriate canvassing, or is instead entirely acceptable? I will post notices on the user talk pages of Mercy11, XLR8TION, and RightCowLeftCoast about this ANI posting. The overall thread is Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• This posting here is purely a diversion from the real topic that is under discussion at Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox): it is using a Guideline (canvass) to divert attention from a higher level matter - a Policy (POV). Undoubtly done in wp:good faith, but in the end still has the same effect of disrupting the encyclopedia - another Guideline. Attention-seeking by escalating to this forum from frustation that things are not moving his way at Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States#POV infobox is not a legitimate alternative. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

There appears to be an NPA issue here too. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC):There appears to be an NPA issue here too. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The NPA issue extends to the article talk page, along with assumption of bad faith. Also, it seems textbook canvassing in my opinion. --Nouniquenames 16:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• If there is/was personal attack, then the correct thing to do is to deal with it based on the NPA policy, not the illegitimate canvass tactic. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Confused cross namespace article problem

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

---

I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but it's a bit of a jumble now, and I think admin tools will be required to untangle it. User:Petrus201066300 created NAKAYALE a few days ago. I moved it to Nakayale and requested speedy deletion of the all caps redirect. That user has since been keeping at least three copies of it going, one at their user page, one at their talk page, and the actual article itself. I just realized today that they had recreated the all caps article, and moved the proper caps article to user talk space. Now, the correct article title is a redirect to User talk:NAKAYALE; there is no such user name. Anyway, it's a bit of a mess and it would be great if someone could get it all back the way it's supposed to be. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Floq and I got it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)I've moved the page to Nakayale, and it appears Elen already deleted the page User talk:NAKAYALE. It' s bit unclear why Petrus moved the article back to the ALLCAPS title, but I'll leave a note on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Already done that, and move protected the article for a couple of weeks. Hopefully he'll ask for some advice. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. Should the all caps version be deleted per WP:R3? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I usually leave those as harmless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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