Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Review of unblock request and discussion of possible community ban

Unresolved

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/CCI

This conversation concerns the handling of a prolific editor who has been found to have infringed copyright in multiple articles. Discussion is ongoing about the potential handling of this review, which will involved tens of thousands of articles. Participation in brainstorming solutions or joining in clean-up would be much appreciated. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

WT:BISE and User:Triton Rocker: indef block review request

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE to reduce space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

Murder of Meredith Kercher, again, uninvolved admins please

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Murder of Meredith Kercher to save space on this page and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this reaches the top of the ANI page. –MuZemike

• Update. Since the accused blocked editor is still working on his draft in response please do not add a timestamp until this matter is solved so that uninvolved admins who are not aware of the sub page can still see it and comment. --TMCk (talk)

• Update 2: PhanuelB has finaly submitted his response. Admins and editor are ask to please take a fresh look at it so a decission can be reached. Thanks,--TMCk (talk)

Is it justified to remove a deletions nomination when the nominator doesn't know what a page is about?

Resolved

 – Sock blocked, puppeteer community banned, AfDs allowed to run their course - Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Recently an editor User talk:Donald Schroeder JWH018 has nominated a bunch of Transformers articles (again). This guy doesn't even seem to be reading the articles or know what they are about, as he says in every nomination that he wants to get rid of "Gobots crap" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razorclaw, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Groundshaker (Transformers) and there about nearly a dozen other times. I've asked directly if he's joking about thinking they are Gobots, he isn't. He does point to a link about some character who did a "gobot" rant from some movie. ("And you know what Randall Graves said about the Go-bots.") Can a deletion nomination be closed early based on clear proof that the nominator either doesn't know what the article is about or that he's making a joke out of the nominations process? Mathewignash (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can argue that the AfD be speedily closed as keep, and if the reason for listing is blatantly unfounded I believe an admin can close it as such. I'm not 100% on that though; it may be necessary to allow the 7 days to expire to gain consensus on closing it for such a reason (or per WP:SNOW). Someone else should be able to confirm or deny that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what the articles are about. They are "about" failing the WP:GNG standards and having no reliable sources. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that both of the AfDs linked to here have at least one additional, justified, delete !votes; such AfDs certainly can't be closed in such a way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 judging from his edit history and his talkpage appears to have some civility and ranting issues. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might be on to something there. Mathewignash (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

These nominations for deletion are all perfectly acceptable AfD nominations that should be discussed on their own individual merits. There is no ill faith on the part of the nominator, and as far as I can see there is no "speedy close" reason applicable. Let the discussions run their own course; the closing admins will be perfectly able to gauge the consensus. Filing this AN/I report is an example of frivolous forum shopping. And oh, by the way, if you are keen on Transformers, the Transformers Wiki is that-a-way -- I am sure they would be extremely appreciative of your efforts to enlarge their database. But Wikipedia is not a fanboy's magazine. 80.135.18.50 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Concentrate on the issue at hand, the continued failure for the majority of our Transformers coverage to have significant secondary sourcing, rather than constantly running to ANI to get people un-personed for raising that as an issue. Saying "gobots" instead of "transformers" is not in itself a flagrant example of bad faith nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3)Donald Schroeder's civility issues are not a reason to declare an AFD invalid, and even if he is mistaken about the cartoon series involved he is actually right about the lack of reliable, independent sources. And since there are good-faith delete votes at both AFDs now, an early close is ruled out. This recent spate of Transformers-related deletion discussions is the inevitable consequence of nearly two years of legitimate concerns about these articles. You should have made an effort to fix the problems when they were brought up, but you didn't. Ignoring people for two years and then whining loudly everywhere when the community finally gets fed up and gets on with things without you is not very constructive. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where all that came from. You seem to have a personal problem with me. I had a legitimate question about nominations from someone who seemingly was just ranting about gobots in the nominations rather than addressing the articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was intended as an honest criticism of your attitude towards this issue, not a personal attack. I do not have a problem with you personally; I just want you to understand everyone else's point of view on this, and that your unwillingness to discuss and compromise with people like Sarujo is part of the reason all this Transformers stuff has come crashing down all at once. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) The deletion nominator ought to be perma-banned for confusing Transformers with GoBots. Back in the 80s, them was fightin words! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I see your Cy-Kill and raise you Megatron. I find it disturbing that it seems that the recent response to Transformer AfDs is to attack the nominator. Sure, one nominator was abusing multiple accounts but that doesn't mean that anyone that nominates the articles for deletion is doing so in bad faith. -- Atama頭 23:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In all seriousness, some of these nominations are absurd. Nominating Cliffjumper for deletion? I realize only nerds like Transformers, but that character was central to the first 2 seasons of the TV show. I can see nominating some of the less-known characters (some of them even I've never heard of), but Cliffjumper is absolutely notable as a central character in the TV show, in the comic books, and for being voiced by Kasey Casem (who left the show with some controversy). I would advise people nominating these articles to 1) make a more thorough and legitimate rationale for deletion other than "contested prod, gobots crap", 2) Please be civil, and 3) don't nominate things for deletion when sources can be found. AfD is not for cleanup, it's for nominating things that truly are not notable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper notable? Never heard of it. Still Wikipedia's 'notability' inclusion criterion demands the use of reliable sources and the ones in that article don't hack for me. Jon.

Cliffjumper was Bumblebee, basically, but colored red. (I was really into those toys as a kid.) He was one of the main characters from the original show. My biggest complaint about this nomination is the lack of edit summaries, when an article is nominated for deletion it makes it really handy to be able to see later in the history (if it's kept). Many admins don't bother putting an oldafdfull tag on the article's talk page after closing an AfD. -- Atama頭 00:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cliffjumper was one of an, errr, ensemble cast who were given rotation in the stories so as to ensure kids bought the toys. If you were billing the G1 "cast" in order of plot importance he'd be well behind Prime, Wheeljack, Ironhide, Bumblebee, Ratchet and half the bad guys. The most notable thing anyone's ever found a secondary source saying about his is that his toy is a recolour of Bumblebee's. That's not exactly standalone article material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk · contribs) is  Confirmed as a sock puppet of Torkmann (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Someone else may want to consider whether the AFDs should be closed as initiated disruptively by a sock of an indeffed user. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the SECOND banned sock puppeteer making mass deletion nominations of Transformers Wiki Project articles in the course of 2 weeks. Both of which came from me asking about incidents of weird mass deletion nominations. Both of which had many accounts and seemed to love to nominate for deletion and vote to delete articles. Yeesh. Does this happen often? I've never seen it before, then TWO in 2 weeks? Mathewignash (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, this does not happen often. Usually when people use sockpuppets at AFDs they use them to stack the vote but it doesn't look as though these people have double voted. Reyk _YO! 08:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting this from all the TF articles. Everybody is crying notability for everything with ponying up the proof when asked for it. It seem that everybody has no real clue as to what notability is or they wouldn't be so quick to deem the articles as such. Ignash and I will not see eye-to-eye on what these articles need. Ignash just claimed here, "we are not establishing article notability". When what are they trying to establish??? To me Ignash seen to be exploiting editor faults to save unnotable articles. To me that practically game. Sarujo (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Another sock: please also block the original account name DeepAgentBorrasco (talk · contribs). After his account was renamed he went and recreated the old one [1]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, that the previous statement was written before the news of socking. Now I feel sick. Sarujo (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• I know the feeling. You agree with Person A about something. Person A turns out to be a ratbag. You feel dirty by association. Still, we had no way of knowing Donald was a sockpuppet and voted on those AFDs in good faith.

Although it is not allegedly important, steady 4000 views a month for Cliffjumper. Off2riorob (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• These nominations are tainted and cannot reasonably result in a clean outcome for deletion. As such, all of them ought to be speedily closed as keep for procedural reasons, whether or not there is any legitimate commentary. That doesn't take an administrator to do, although some sense of the community's consensus would be helpful. Sock-gaming of deletion nominations seems to be a persistent problem, and the best response in some cases is to simply undo the damage, get rid of the socks, and if warranted start the deletion process again. Continuing a tainted process to a tainted conclusion is a big waste of time. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'd probably revert a non-admin that tried to pull that sort of stunt. We had this discussion last week, where consensus was that even if an AfD was initiated in bad faith, there's no legit reason to abort it if good-faith !votes have already been entered. Same logic for article creation by socks; if they ar the primary/sole contributor then toss it, but if others have made significant edits in the meantime, then it's no longer appropriate. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Agree: good-faith editors' contributions shouldn't be rejected simply because the nominator opened an AfD in bad faith. A single user's argument made against policy doesn't "taint" the AfD: it's simply ignored. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Edit warring in support of socks is not a cool thing. The wording of the AfD policy page is misleading on the point and doesn't reflect actual practice - there is no blanket consensus for keeping bad faith AfDs open after the first good faith comment. I've been in these situations before and they all end up with the article kept, the socks blocked (eventually), and lots of heat. Flawed nominations need to get shut down. Anyone who gets suckered into supporting someone else's process games ought to reserve their indignation for the socks, not the editors trying to clean up the mess. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought we'd heard the last of this old "AfDs started by socks are tainted" chestnut after Le Grand Roi left the building. These AfDs have been a long time coming, and it is a waste of the community's time to procedurally close them when editors have already engaged on them in good faith. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a case by case matter. If the nomination is viable and there's a manageable amount of misbehavior, then an AfD can reach a viable conclusion. At the opposite extreme, when an editor banned or blocked for making a string of bad faith deletion nominations starts creating socks to re-nominate the same articles, those are best reverted on sight. That goes for other process gaming too, not just AfD. Sock-filed reports on the help desk and 3RR notice board occasionally get deleted too, or bad faith soapboxing on article talk pages, whether or not a passerby unaware of the problem has innocently offered their opinion. When socking gets particularly disruptive, WP:DENY and WP:IAR are much more fundamental and important than unwavering adherence to procedure. I'm thinking of a case from a couple years ago where a very strange editor was creating socks to nominate a series of articles about primarily African-American urban neighborhoods and nearby geographic features for deletion. These wasted a heck of a lot of time. I don't know about the exact circumstances here, but in general it is best not to humor sockpuppets, or waste much time hand-wringing over undoing their process games. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Here it is, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Qrc2006, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogtown, Oakland, California, one of their many nominations that were deleted or more commonly speedily closed by non-administrators. Speedy closure is in fact the correct result there, not posturing over deletion theory. After the socking itself, the worst disruption and biggest time sink arises out of the tangential administrative complaints. If the articles truly need to be deleted it won't kill anybody to wait a week in order to go about it the right way. The encyclopedia won't sink in the meanwhile. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Community ban

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted per unanimous consensus - Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This level of abusive sockpuppetry and gamesmanship is repugnant. I propose a community ban for the puppetmaster Torkmann (talk · contribs). This will allow us to automatically revert all of his sock edits without violating 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support- Socking is not on. It's dishonest and disrespectful to everyone. However, the freedom to instarevert should not apply to the currently open AfD discussions, because a lot of good faith editors have already expressed opinions on them. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• This is obviously due. That said, let's not prejudice these (rather overdue) AfDs on that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Reyk; clearly there are a lot of socks entering play now, and the user has already proven themselves disruptive. The currently open AfDs have good-faith !votes in them though, and this should have no bearing on them. The nomination reason in each case was not based on policy anyway (mainly WP:IDON'TLIKEIT), and will be disregarded by the closing admin anyway. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Almost seems like a campaign to remove this wikis transformer articles.Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Which is not a bad thing at all, just that this is the wrong person to be doing it. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No. This is just preying upon a revealed weakness, in this case Mathewignash's ill-considered and poor responses to anything dealing in Transformers articles, as revealed by the previous AN/I discussion. At one point it was Richard Arthur Norton who was the target. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • And while it's deeply unfortunate that people resort to hounding people's contribs through socks, the community still hasn't come up with a proper solution for that. Shutting the gate after the horse has bolted is not likely to work. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Need to move forward with the AfDs without the taint of socks. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Socks suck mark nutley (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support The socking is not good. Purely disruptive behavior. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I am in favor of this, but I am involved with the "user" as I have put an article up for nomination and the user was the first and only keep on the AfD. Hasteur (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - And don't I feel like a dimwit after arguing to assume good faith about these nominations. Sigh. -- Atama頭 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Quite ironic that the OP can complain about people not knowing what AfD nominations are about when he appears to not be able to read the nominations himself. Call me insulted *stomps off in a huff* Black Kite (t) (c) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inexcusable behavior. Dream Focus 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
  • What is his newest incarnation? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:Donald Schroeder JWH018 probably, look to the thread above. -- Atama頭 23:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually I guess User:DeepAgentBorrasco was created more recently although that account doesn't seem to have any contributions (deleted or otherwise). -- Atama頭 23:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
      • A bureaucrat renamed "DeepAgentBorrasco" to "Donald Schroeder JWH018". –MuZemike 05:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Psst! MuZemike! Kindzmarauli caught this above. ↑ Atama is right. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I encountered this user about a month ago and my experience with him was less than pleasant. His attitude and socking is only disruptive and detrimental, and a ban is necessary. —fetch·comms 02:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly not here for the right reasons.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Not a big fan of the behavior shown. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This is not acceptable behaviour. Ban 'im. --Divebomb (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This user has exhausted community's patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus here seems to be clear. I will place the ban notice. Kindzmarauli (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Hoary

Background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281#Legal threats: User:Opinoso & User:João Felipe C.S, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive538#More article ownership by Opinoso' Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Personal threats from User:Lecen, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#White Brazilian, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive623#Latin American demographics again, revisited (son of), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Removing informations and edit-warring

I do not know if this is the correct place to talk about an administrator's behaviour. I'm here to talk about Hoary.

This administrator has some personal problem with me. He already claimed that he "deslikes me" and accuses me of being a "child" and being a "false" person.

This administrator is always protecting another user, named Ninguém. Ninguém is always asking this administrator's help in his talk page, and Hoary is always helping him, and always against me. Since Hoary already said that he "deslikes me", of course he is not able to be neutral when it comes about conflicts between me and Ninguém. He abuses of his administrator condition. The newest case is going on in article Afro-Brazilian. This article was full of "fact tags" added by user Ninguém. I added sources to those tags, and user Ninguém reverted me (he asked for sources, but doesn't want people to add them). Hoary, as usual, is now helping his friend to keep that article with all those fact tags, after I spent several minutes looking for sources.

Hoary doesn't respect my work of Wikipedia and protects his friend Ninguém. I ask an intervention, and that Hoary from now start to be away from conflicts where his friend Ninguém is involved. Opinoso (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please notify the editors mentioned here regarding this thread. Also, some diffs to back up your statements would be useful for admins looking this over. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not a dispute involving administrative tools. This board is just about the worst place to resolve a content dispute, because the administrators who respond here are going to look at conduct. I have no particular expertise on the subject under dispute; I'm just offering you some friendly advice. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are required to notify other editors you discuss here, but I've taken the liberty of notifying Hoary for you. —DoRD (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No redundancy there, DoRD! Thank you for the notification.

I strongly dislike various aspects of Opinoso's approach to editing articles, yes. I'd be interested to know how I have abused my position as administrator.

To me, Opinoso is no more or less than the sum of his edits. He has of course made some good ones in his time. But as for his recent ones, please see this for the specific and this for the sweeping. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A cursory read through the thread on that talk page should be enough to dispose of this section. While content is at issue down the chain, it's also about adherence to WP's sourcing policies and guidelines, which I have advised Opinoso to read carefully; and it concerns Opinoso's tendency to launch personal attacks, although at the lower end of the intensity spectrum. (Disclosure: I am a wikifriend of Hoary's.) Tony (talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I would say Hoary is a bit involved to make it preferable if other Admins were active in that area. They may well come to the same conclusions as Hoary but imo it would be better if someone else took any Administrative actions required in that area. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd welcome the attention of other administrators. Incidentally, I haven't used any of my administrator superpowers in that area for quite some time, as far as I remember. Possibly some sprotecting and wrong-version-full-protecting, but even that wouldn't have been recent. -- Hoary (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool thanks for that, then user Opinoso has little to complain about then, you oppose his position as an editor just as you are free to do. Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "position as an editor". I have no ideological or similar beef with him. (I continue to take a dim view of his methods and standards: his misreading of sources that I can find and read, his refusal to specify page numbers within large books in Portuguese that he cites [books that I neither possess nor would be able to read, but that others editing the article would], his unwillingness to discuss, his tendency to revert others' reasoned and thoroughgoing edits, and his eagerness to label as "vandalism" what clearly isn't vandalism.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Psst! "you oppose […] as an editor". Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:FellGleaming

FellGleaming (talk · contribs) is disruptively editing Challenger Deep and Mariana Trench in the middle of two different discussions about his poor use of sources, the first at Talk:Challenger_Deep, and the second at WP:NORN. Now, Slatersteven (talk · contribs) has showed up and started tag teaming for Fell and making blanket reverts.[2] After a discussion about Fell's edits began at Talk:Challenger Deep, I helped Fell find reliable sources for his claims because he was having trouble understanding how we use sources. No offense to Fell, but the user has a long history of misusing sources and not understanding basic policies and guidelines governing their use. It is not quite clear why this problem has continued for so long, but his poor use of sources resulted in an enforcement request warning in April.[3] The concerns expressed in that warning are the same here:

• Failure to exercise basic due diligence in reviewing the content of sources before making assertions about them.
• Failure to be scrupulous in the representation of sources and the use of purported quotes from them.
• Failure to respond directly to the substance of concerns about the use of sources and quotations.
• Continued aggressive posturing when asked the above.

In any case, Fell didn't like the discussion on Talk:Challenger Deep and took this dispute to WP:NOR/N. Not liking the responses he received there, he began engaging in extremely WP:POINTy behavior, and duplicated the same disputed content[4] that was removed from Challenger Deep into Mariana Trench.[5][6] The result, is that FellGleaming is ignoring the concerns raised about his misuse of sources on Talk:Challenger Deep, and disregarding the problems raised with his use of sources on WP:NORN, and has now managed to copy the same disputed content into two different articles for no reason other than because he can. This is extremely childish and disruptive and with the addition of Slatersteven demanding that I prove a negative, and with Slatersteven supporting FellGleaming's disruption with tag teaming over disputed content, I think it's time for administrative action. Viriditas (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from FellGleaming

A short history of events:

1. Viriditas blanked a section of the article: [7]
2. After talk page discussion, Viriditas allowed restoration of some of the material, but would not allow a Berkeley Law of the Sea Institute (a group of legal scholars specializing in international sea law) to support the text that "nuclear waste dumping is banned according to the UNCLOSIII treaty. As of September 2010, the US has not ratified this treaty". I gave some additional sources for this, such as a NYT article. He still refused, on the grounds that none of these sources "were about Challenger Deep specifically". He also began making threats and personal attacks on the article's talk page ([8])
3. To seek conflict resolution, I took the issue to the No Original Research noticeboard ([9])
4. Another editor (SlaterSteven) saw the issue there, and responded by restoring the text Viriditas removed. (I note that this editor, rather than being a "tag team" helper, is an editor who has actually conflicted with me regularly in the past).
5. Viritidas responded by attacking that editor as well, and posting snarky comments to the editor's talk page: ([10]). He also began canvassing other users to search for complaints to use against me (See links from Collect).

I believe Viriditas' edits to be disruptive, and his talk page activity to violate civility and harassment guidelines. I ask for no formal sanction against him, but do request an administrator acquaint him with basic policy in this regard. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE

After my agreeing to acompromise version of the text that did not state the US had not ratified the UNCLOSIII treaty, (his original objection) Viriditas has taken to simply repeatedly blanking the entire section. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already succinctly explained the problem in my original report, but I would like to clear up Fell's misrepresentation of basic facts. To refresh Fell's memory, I originally removed poorly sourced material from Challenger Deep[11] and placed it on the talk page per best practices.[12] This was done because the solitary source used, did not support the content. FellGleaming, without replying on talk first, quickly restored the material,[13] adding an unreliable source to Helium.com as his chosen source, a "peer reviewed citizen journalism website". FellGleaming then begin making a series of very strange claims on talk, arguing that "the Helium source is not being used as a WP:RS for a science claim, but merely to support that the location has been suggested as a waste repository." Fell began trying to reinterpret and reinvent the concepts of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR on the fly, so that they would support his edits. Because Fell was unable to find a reliable source that supported the content he wanted to add, I felt sorry for him and tried to help him out. I found the Hafemeister (2007) source[14] and Fell was happy.[15] However, things quickly devolved into Jekyll and Hyde territory after I helped Fell find a source. At this point, Fell began to go off on bizarre tangents, arguing that any reliable source is acceptable to use in the article, even one that is not about the topic. I calmly explained to Fell, that per the policies and guidelines, we generally only use topical sources, mostly to avoid original research and drawing conclusions that aren't found in the sources. As it stands, Fell will not accept this fact. So now, Fell has added the disputed material into two different articles, and continues to ignore the concerns raised about his edits on the article talk page and on the OR noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignore. CANVASS per [16], [17]. I have not seen anything nasty from Fell Gleaming. Charges of "tag teaming" should be weighed carefully, and discarded as chaff. Absent any real charge, and considering the CANVASS involved, I suggest the first word I wrote is correct. Collect (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been no canvassing, and MastCell asked me to "bring it up elsewhere" because he can no longer deal with FellGleaming on both a personal and administrative level. Screwball23 has nothing to do with this report. Viriditas (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

CANVASS occurs even if the people CANVASSED do nothing. It is the contact which is the violation, not the result of the contact here. Collect (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC) ::

A simple question for teh alledged canvaser, did you ask anyone who has not been in conflict with fell? A si8mple question for the accuseer, has the user asked for comment or asked what he should do in both cases?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There has also been no tag teaming. I made Two edits, one imidialty after the other [[18]]. I ask that this blatant mis-representation is withdrawn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And you blanket reverted my edits and restored Fell's. You tag teamed. And like Fell, you have not been able to answer the questions posed on the article talk page by myself, or on the NOR noticeboard by other editors. This is disruptive editing by the both of you. Viriditas (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ONe making an edit you do not like (or restoring an edit you do not like) is not tag teaming (and I now belive this to be casued by the fact you cannot revert due to having used 3 reverts already, that you are attmepting to use this ANI to continue an edit war). Two I have answerd the questions, that you do not accpept the answers [[19]] (why this should be here) [[20]] (sources supporting the fact the nUS has not ratified the treaty) [[21]] (that the sectio with out the material about US nonratification mis-represents the situation) is not my problom.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I have filed this ANI because both Fell and yourself have ignored concerns regarding your misuse of sources on both the article talk page and the OR noticeboard, and have now duplicated the same, exact disputed edits in two different articles for no reason, which not only doesn't make any sense, but is a good example of the disruptive, POINTY behavior going on here. You can't just ignore talk pages and noticeboards that question your edits. You need to stop adding the disputed material and work towards resolution and consensus. Neither of you seem able or willing to do this. I don't know where you stand at this point, but I do know that Fell has some kind of difficulty understanding basic policies and guidelines, and from what I can tell, has no interest in understanding them. That's a bit strange for an editor active since January 2008. I mean, he's had plenty of time to figure things out, right? Viriditas (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you care to check I have only edited the one articel. I ask you to withdraw the accustion I have done this on two artciels as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was presenting that finding as a total, not as evidence that you yourself edited two articles, but you are correct, you have only edited one, but two separate articles between the both of you now contains the same content. Viriditas (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also relevant, this discussion with FellGleaming about not so reliable sources for science articles on the Goddard Institute talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

GISS is not a "science article", and the text being cited is not a scientific point, but simply that a particular person works for GISS. Even worse is the fact that Ibis himself agrees the fact is accurate; he simply wishes to use a separate source for the citation. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

How can our article about the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) not be a science article? --TS 15:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The notion that the statement "Steven Schneider once worked for GISS" is some sort of scientific method, theory or discovery that can only be verified by a Ph.D-authored science book is rather odd. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem here is different, i.e. that you don't want to use a source which, while verifying the statement, covers the science related to the article's topic in a way that makes the book not a good source for the other information it contains. There may be cases where such a book is the only source available and you don't have a choice but to use that book. I think there exists a special tag for such references that indicates that one would rather have another source. But in this case we already have a better source. Count Iblis (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

In any case we have an apparently perfectly adequate source for the late Stephen Schneider's association with GISS. I agree that the source proposed by FellGleaming is a little odd for an article about a scientific institute. --TS 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source was proposed by another editor, not myself. As for the other source being "perfectly adequate", multiple independent sources are often used. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is this in the article at all? As far as I can tell he was at Goddard as a post-doc for less than a year in 1971-72? (according to his own CV). What particular relevance the GISS article has his brief stop there to do with anything? Put another way -- rather than argue about "what" source for this information, a more important question would seem to be "why this information at all?" (The place for it would seem to be the guy's biography, you know "Early career and education.")Bali ultimate (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good point, Bali. I don't feel comfortable removing it myself because of this ongoing dispute, but if you (or anyone else) wants to excise it, I support the action. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple, but you need to understand the history. Cla68 is having a campaign to add as many facts to as many articles as he can, using Fred Pearce's book as a source. That is where this factoid came from [22]. See-also the next diff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have encountered this editor before. He bears careful watching. Basically FellGleaming is so very strongly pro-nuclear power that he will bend or break WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR to get a pro-nuclear slant onto articles. Tenacious to the point of tendentiousness, this editor will likely require the attention of Arbcom eventually. A SPA with an agenda, who treats our project as a battleground. --John (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A question Is this about this specific iuncident or about Fells wider actions=?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to Slater's question, but I do consider it pretty disruptive to copy-paste a hotly-contested section from one article into a new one when you're right in the middle of a discussion at WP:NORN about that section. And since FellGleaming will no doubt respond by informing the world of it, I'll mention that, like John, I've had my problems with this editor before, and that I agree with John's assessment. For example, I requested full protection for Linda McMahon a couple of days ago because FellGleaming, along with two others, was engaged in a smoking-hot edit war over that article. ( I wasn't involved. ) The article was fully-protected for a couple of weeks, but FellGleaming has been right back to the talk page claiming "consensus" with her his same-side edit warrior, to whom she he gave a barnstar for his part in that war after the article was protected, and suggesting they approach an admin to ask that an edit they'd been warring for be implemented through the full-protect. Not pretty stuff at all, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC) ( revised by Ohiostandard at 21:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC). sorry, FG, just habit from previous assumption, which I apologized sincerely for, as you know. this is the only time I've made the mistake since I was informed of it; you've no reason to think it was intentional: it was not. )

The "smoking hot" edit war consists of my making a total of 3 edits in the past week: [23]. Ohiostandard, by the way, has been following me from article to article, misrepresenting sources with his edits, just as he did in this one [24], where he claimed it for "fidelity with what the sources actually say". The only problem is, they say no such thing. If he continues this pattern of harrassment and source misrepresentation (and continues to misrepresent my sex as well, despite repeated corrections to the contrary), I believe action will be necessary. Fell Gleaming^talk 21:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, "smoking hot" was careless, and I'll retract the phrase. I was influenced, no doubt, by my great distaste for what you've been doing at Linda McMahon since the end of August. But anyone here can look at its history and decide whether you've been edit warring there, long-term, and whether the warring needed to stop. As to your claim that I have some kind of "pattern" of misrepresenting sources, people can take a look here for the facts, and refer to MastCell's enforcement remarks about your own "pattern" re sources. Further, I'm genuinely sorry if you feel "harrassed", but you're a very ubiquitous presence on boards like this one, I'm very familiar with your own "patterns", and I very strongly disapprove of them. So when I see you in places like this so often, up to your old "hijinks" (your word, since you like it so much), of course I'm going to comment. I'd rather not, actually; it's boring. But someone needs to. Anyway, my principal point in the post above was that I think it was disruptive to copy-paste a contested section from one article to create an identical new section in a different one, while you were in the middle of a discusssion about the section at WP:NORN. But as I said, this is boring; have the last word if you like.  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had run ins with thism user in the past but am not sure how relevant it is. I will say this on the current case. No one, it would appear, on Mariana Trench appears to have objected to this material being added apart from an involved user on the related page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Challenger Deep is a particularly deep spot in the Mariana Trench. The two articles are so closely related that it is hair-splitting to distinguish between them in this way. In case anyone wants to know my opinion (as an involved editor) about FellGleaming: This user appears to be an expert on nuclear power with a very strong POV, and a will to push that through. The user seems to be generally operating right at the edge of what is tolerated here, not unlike the way that some other editors are acting or have acted in the past to advocate mainstream, sceptic or pseudosceptic positions on articles related to fringe or pseudoscience. The main difference is that this user is now advocating positions that are very unpopular, overall. The main problem at the moment is that we don't seem to have an expert who can represent the other side and prevent articles from being skewed through highly selective information. This is the kind of explosive situation that is bound to end at Arbcom. Hans Adler 14:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then (if they are that closely related) do a totaly different set of edds appear to edit one, but not the other, articel? With only a couple of edds on only one of those pages objecting to this aqddition? If the users actions are that out of order then would it not offend more then those with whome he appears to be (or have been) in content dispute with. I see this users actionsa as no worse then many otehrs who seem to enjoy huge amounts of indlugence, and I am operating from the posiiton of precidence. I agree that this users combative approach is problomatic, but no more so then (for example) the attitude of the accuser.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass removal of tfd templates required

Resolved

 – Task done. Thanks, ---Taelus (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello - in the late of August, a tfd-discussion was held regarding all the language icon templates, and as a result, all the language icon templates (see Category:Language icon templates) were slapped with {{tfd}} to notify passerbys that the templates were up for deletion. However, after the discussion was closed on August 27, no one removed all the tfd-templates from the language icon templates. I was planning to run through them all and remove them through AWB, but alas, all the templates are fully protect, so I cannot do so. Is anyone here that is capable of doing so willing to clean them all up (or give me adminship powers )? Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've just picked four templates at random from that category, and they all had the TFD notice removed on 2010-08-28 by MarkusSchulze (talk · contribs). None of the four were protected, either. Please point to an instance of the problem. Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, the several that I had looked at were protected and had the tag, so I assumed they all were like that. Guess not. Thank you to Taelus below for taking care of it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done, all templates in the category checked, old TfD templates removed from 89 of them. Regards, ---Taelus (Talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's some attention being paid to the matter, can anyone work out what's causing {{zh-hans}} to break? I don't have any more knowledge than is required to remove the TfD template from a bunch of unprotected pages, so I can't tell where the issue might be myself. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooeer... Very odd. I must admit that as I swept past it, I assumed it might be something to do with a language pack, as I have experienced oddities and unreadable/broken things before which others users assured me rendered correctly with the relevant language pack. However, looking at the content of the page when it is being edited, I cannot see anything in non-english characters... Anyone know where that ISO number might be coming from? ---Taelus (Talk) 23:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Upon some messing around, the issue is caused by zh-hans not being recognised as an ISO language code. If you change it to "en" it says "English", "fr" to "French", etc... Thus I assume that the template is rejecting zh-hans as not existing. I did a search to try find the language code for Simplified Chinese, and found it to be zh_CN or similar, yet the template didn't like any of these either. Anyone know the exact ISO code? ---Taelus (Talk) 23:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Intelligentsium got to it and fixed it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Salt required? Meredith and Springlyn

A many times recreated article by an editor who from the looks of it [25] [26] [27] isnt going to take no for an answer and is going to be very impolite about it on their way out. (and those pages linked could probably use a bit of cleaning themselves) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the WQA I've opened as I'm willing to give the user an opportunity to improve their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You're an optimist. This deleted edit suggests that the keen author of this article is troubled to an unusual degree. -- Hoary (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

AGF untill the user demonstrates that they are not worthy of AGF. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Amply demonstrated. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User in question has been indeffed, but salting the article would still be a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Salted. —fetch·comms 02:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice to know what people think of me... I guess I'll see you all in hell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Inka 888 misusing Vandalism Templates

Resolved

 – Reviewer privs revoked. User agreed to mentoring. WP:CIR problems are evident. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Inka 888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been doing Recent Changes patrol, but doing it very poorly. The user reverted this edit and this edit, an anon user removed outright vandalism. He reverted him and then warned the user, an inproper user of warning templates. Moments later, he did the same with this edit and this warning. He also reverted a block template here from User:HJ Mitchell, an admin. When I gave Inka 888 a warning, he posted on my talk page that I "[had] no idea what [I was] talking about" and was "way too emotional". This user obviously hasn't gotten the last two times there were at ANI that Wikipedia isn't a game and to slow down. This is in need of an admin's attention before he messes something up. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What is this, the third time in a month? I'd block for incompetence or something like that, but I think I'm a bit too involved with him. Although a block is in order. —fetch·comms 03:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not RC patrol. Reverting reverts of vandalism is comparable to reverting removal of copyright. Just as the latter is still copyright infringement, that's simple vandalism, really. Also, considering Inka 888 has outright ignored Neutralhomer's warning (and even accused him of harrassment), there is no question he's not here to be conducive. Would also suggest removal of reviewer rights. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Competency is required. This person has taken up way too much space here due to either not listening, or not understanding what they've been told. At this moment, they're a net drag on our resources, and a short block to get their attention would be completely justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note - I have also notified HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of this section on his talk page as he is in some way involved. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 03:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, forgot to notify him. My apologizes on that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason reviewer rights can be removed is if the user is misusing them, I'm not so you can't remove them. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are misusing them. And you're misusing warning-templates. And you're wikilawyering. And you're being stubborn. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Competency is required, if no one is willing to mentor them they need to be blocked until they are competent enough to edit constructively. Heiro 04:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's they, and several people have his talk watched and have been giving advice. I'm practically his go to now for questions. Sooo... Me? :D--intelati^(Call) 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Another user and I both suggested a couple weeks back (at his first ANI thread) that he get a mentor and he quickly turned it down. I brought it up again, it was slammed back at me. This user is confident they know what they are doing, which is dangerous since they have proven they don't and want no help learning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you were the first one to suggest it that is why I brought it up to you. --Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

So once again it's about Neutralhomer? Would you please convince us that you're not going to blatantly screw up again -- or would like to have yet another one of your rights removed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict): Yeah and you outrightly turned it down. User:RobertMfromLI suggested it too, turned him down. I suggested again, you said you knew what you were doing. If you did, people wouldn't suggest mentors and take you to ANI three times in under a month. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentor problem solved. Inka accepted my request to mentor him after his one week Wikibreak.--intelati^(Call) 04:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Solution

Inka 888 has said he "will work on [his] mistakes" while User:Intelati has extended an offer to be Inka 888's mentor. Inka 888 has accepted mentorship after a Wikibreak (good idea).

With Intelati's mentorship, I think he should be watched closely by other users. Mistakes, like marking people for vandalism that isn't vandalism, should come with a consequence, be it a block or not, I leave that up to you all. I recommend the Reviewer access be removed as the user isn't ready for it at present and is possibly misusing it, though they may request it back after a reasonable period of time (2 months sounds good). What say the community? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Inka 888, on their talk page, has stated agreement with being mentored: "Go ahead and mentor me when I get back from my wikibreak." 12:30 am, Today (UTC−4)
  
  I still believe Reviewer rights should be removed until intelati and others believe their return is warranted. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 04:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support As mentor :D. I am watching him closely--intelati^(Call) 04:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support under the above conditions. Heiro 04:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Question - Should a consequence be a block, warning, what? Want to make sure that is established before we put this into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably depends on the offense. More major offenses call for a block, minor offenses call for a warning.?.--intelati^(Call) 04:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Next time Inka 888 re-instates vandalism, it should be treated as vandalism by Inka 888, as should misuse of warning templates, starting with a level 3 warning. That should do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree--intelati^(Call) 05:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - Good plan. Gives the user a warning and a consequence. Same should go for other instances where problems arise. Warning issued for the problem, re-instate of the problem, goes to a Level 3 warning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree as well. Heiro 05:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree and support overall proposal: I'm a bit late joining this discussion but as an ANI regular and a stalker of Neutralhomer's talk page, I've seen the disruption the user's been causing with apparently good-faith editing, and their refusal to accept that their actions haven't been constructive. they've now had it made very clear that undoing a vandalism revert is vandalism itself, so a level 3 warning if it continues will be appropriate: we have no choice but to believe that continuing to do so now would be intentional disruption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries on being late. An admin would have to notify the user of the community's position (unless I am misunderstanding some rule) before this can be put into effect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've resolved this thread and issued what can be construed as a final warning with what I hope is blunt and constructive advice. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support, with reviewer rights removed. If Inka wants them back, he should have to re-apply for them rather be handed them a second time without question. Also, if he reverts reverts of vandalism, he should be blocked for vandalism (because that's what it is). Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Though I am agreed with intelati, I also propose that Inka 888 be instructed to simply ignore any revert work that he is not 1000% sure of how to handle - or ask intelati (or someone else more experienced) to help or offer advice. If that rule is followed, there shouldn't be any mistakes other than very minor ones. On the other hand, with such communicated (again, but this time as the terms of this ANI), it means it will give Inka 888 no leeway for any excuses for a major mistake, as the proper route would have been to ignore the issue or ask intelati for help/advice.

Also, reinstating vandalism, or warning a user who reverted vandalism, or warning someone who made an obviously good faith edit, to me, is a major mistake; and if not retracted immediately by Inka 888, should be treated as such (IMHO). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 05:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I resent that. :( JK :)--intelati^(Call) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support and Agree Being involved, I'm familiar with this editor: and he needs a "wake-up call"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I suspect that this is a competence thing. Tommy! 13:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support and I have removed the reviewer flag. Inka can have it back when his mentor says he is ready. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Tommy that it seems a competence issue; and I endorse removal of reviewer flag: user can't be trusted to recognise vandalism and other violations, so he's not yet ready for the ability to review someone else's edits... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Got a bit of a situation here....

Got a bit of a situation with the Dr. Mario (video game) article. The two players are User:Odokee and User:Ryulong. Odokee apparently keeps removing the japanese characters from the article. Ryulong keeps putting them back. This has been going on since September 9th. No effort has been made to discuss the issue on the article's talk page but Ryulong has tried, several times, to talk to Okokee ([28] [29], [30] on his talkpage only to be dismissed and ignored. Both editors have apparently been blocked once this month for edit warring over another Mario Brothers article for the same reason.--*Kat* (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like each editor has 4 or 5 reverts total over the last 10 days, and at least some appear to be over different material. It doesn't appear to be serious enough for sanction at this point. Have you tried talking to the editors involved yourself? Fell Gleaming^talk 05:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

At present, both users are at 2RR today. Recommend locking the page down to force these two to the talk page. This has be done with other users and other pages and has worked successfully. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody removed any Japanese characters at all. - Odokee (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Japanese words then. Not sure what to call it. Romanji maybe? But you and Ryulong are clearly in an ongoing edit war over the existence of that text and you're not trying to compromise with him or even talk about it.

As for me intervening before bringing it here: I thought about it. Then I looked over the edit history (not just the summaries either, I looked at the actual modifications made), the talk page history, Odokee talk page's edit history and Ryulong's talk page and decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. That's why I brought it here instead.--*Kat* (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy requires the users to be blocked before the page is locked down. Just saying....Basket of Puppies 06:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to discuss things with Odokee (regarding Dr. Mario (video game), Game Boy, Super Mario RPG, etc.). I have been civil. I have been blunt and not civil. Odokee keeps unnecessarily replacing the text "Dokutā" with "Dr.", and has now been doing that while simultaneously performing other large scale edits on the page. This is not the first time he has done this and I am fucking tired of his methods. I have attempted to bring up his behavior and inadvertantly bring up my own in response on this board three fucking times and the last time there was a ban suggested that I did not want to agree to because it would have prevented me from editing constructively in other subject areas. Odokee has been almost entirely unresponsive to my messages on his user talk. The only way I can communicate with him is apparently when we edit war over this style/content/whatever the fuck you want to call it. And even with his comment here he is trying to say that there is nothing wrong with what he has been doing by being obtuse and saying that he's not doing what you're saying he's doing, exactly. The last time, we were both blocked and he socked and performed a revert during the block. Odokee is a net loss to this project and needs to be given the boot.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

His latest response to my request. At least he attempted a response before removing my section entirely.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) On this board, we consider "making the beast with two backs" to be more genteel. In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. Fell Gleaming^talk 05:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary? It's called being correct. That's what I am doing: fixing the mistakes of others. - Odokee (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no mistake in my using the text "Dokutā" in the Hepburn romanization section of {{nihongo}} on Dr. Mario (video game). The mistake is you replacing it with "Dr." which is not a romanization.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong, you of all people should know that edit warring is bad, but to do so to make a POINT is just a double no-no. If the behavior is bad enough, take it to ANI or AIV, do not edit war.

Odokee, you need to chill. If you don't get your behavior is a problem by the number of times you have been to ANI, then you don't need to be here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to get outside input. The most input I got was in the third thread I made (first link) where it was suggested that both Odokee and myself be banned from doing anything regarding romaji which would severely hamper my ability to edit other pages I regularly edit. And I am not trying to make a point by edit warring as being the only method to talk to him. It was just an unfortunate realization on my part that it's the only way to talk to him, aside from the fact that he responded on his talk page for the first time ever this morning, but then proceeded to blank the entire section from his talk page before I would have any sort of attempt to respond.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a style issue right? And one currently before Arbcom? Don't you think that's not nearly a major enough issue to edit war over? Why (and this is a question for both of you) is a stylistic difference important enough to go to such lengths? Fell Gleaming^talk 06:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was put up at ArbCom prematurely by someone who was planning to put it up before ArbCom because there is no grey area to make a compromise in in the discussion that stagnated two weeks ago. ArbCom is also not taking the case because there has been no outside mediation and the RFC was useless apparently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And if this is how he responds, he should be banned. There have been de-adminings for the same behavior, if I recall correctly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a style issue in the least. - - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad populum? really? - Odokee (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming, you say above In any case, the proper response to such acts is not to edit war, but to request conflict resolution. Requesting assistance from other editors is a much better solution. I warmly agree. You are right. Allow me as an entirely uninvolved editor (I don't even play computer games) to assist, and to resolve the conflict.

And so: This is a unusually straightforward matter. Ryulong is right, and Odokee is wrong, simple as that. Reason being that Ryulong is compactly providing a small amount of useful and highly relevant information (the Japanese pronunciation of the Japanese name of a Japanese product), and doing so in full accordance with relevant guidelines. Now, Odokee may have some reason why these guidelines should, extraordinarily, be put aside for these particular articles; but until he puts this forward, lucidly and persuasively, we needn't trouble ourselves to try to divine his reasons.

(Oh, in case anyone is wondering, there's nothing personal here. I'd never heard of Odokee until a few minutes ago, and Ryulong is a user who I think was fairly recently in some dispute with me, though I really don't remember what it was.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC) [slight tweak 07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)]

(We had been discussing the merits for and against the use of tildes in the titles of Japanese media; a matter I would still like to discuss because I feel that they have some use).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Providing the wrong info is the issue here. One I am trying to correct. - Odokee (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

And what, precisely, is the "wrong info" here? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The issue is Dokutā/Dr. in the romanization section of {{nihongo}}. Hoary and I believe that "Dr." is wrong, while Odokee believes that "Dokutā" is wrong (and is a fake word).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the standard "everyone is wrong but me" defense. Odokee, just knock it off, move along and edit constructively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and Odokee, it isn't a "fake word", see here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he can edit constructively.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sort of inclined to agree. As I said above, the reason why I didn't try and intervene on my own before coming here was because, after reviewing Odokee's talk page history and the article's history and other stuff, I decided that it would be like banging my head against a brick wall. Odokee makes no effort to communicate with others. He just does things the way he thinks it should be done and to heck with anybody else's opinions. That would be fine if this was the Encyclopedia Britannica but it won't work on Wikipedia.--*Kat* (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what that means. But, needless to say, it doesn't affect this in the least. - Odokee (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember the underlying principle in WP articles isn't truth or accuracy, but verifiability. Do either of you have reliable sources that validate your interpretation? Fell Gleaming^talk 12:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ryulong wrote the Japanese pronunciation. What has "interpretation" got to do with it? Do you want reliable sources saying that what he says is the Japanese pronunciation is indeed the Japanese pronunciation; and if not, what do you want? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. One user says the info is correct. Another says it's incorrect. But what do the sources say? If there's a RS for one interpretation, it should be used. If no RS at all can be found, the material should be excluded, whether or not we think it's useful. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You forgot an apostrophe. Also, there are plenty of reliable sources that say that the Japanese derivation of the English word "doctor" is parsed as ドクター which would be interpretted per our guidelines on transliteration of Japanese as "dokutā". The issue is that rather than saying "dokutā" is wrong, Odokee is saying that it is not a real word and therefore should not be used on Dr. Mario (video game). He is instead replacing it with "Dr.", because the Japanese title of the game does not explicitly feature the text of ドクター, despite that being the intended pronunciation of "Dr." in the Japanese market. He has arguably done the same sort of edits to articles on other video game related topics that also feature English text in the Japanese title (such as スーパーマリオRPG, ゲームボーイアドバンスSP, etc.). And while he performs these edits, he does not respond to criticism on his talk page, and generally continues to make these bold edits, despite being reverted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I previously recommended a 2 week topic ban for both editors which gained traction, but wasn't implemented. I further recommended and even longer topic ban from article space for odokee because of his non-communication. It's obvious he's continued that, and now I'd recommend he be blocked. The topic ban should still be in place, but Ryulong has at least tried to communicate. I recommend Odokee be blocked for a week, followed by a 1 month article topic ban on anything to do with changing the romanization (broadly construed) of anything to do with video games, japanese, etc. Ryulong should be topic banned for 2 weeks, and as I previously recommended both should write a well thought out proposal for the conclusion of this situation, including compromises. If one or both parties can't engage in constructive debate then they need to be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth should Ryulong be topic banned for a day, let alone two weeks? -- Hoary (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Because he's been edit warring and blocked over the topic. You can see the previous discussion we had about this, I believe it's linked above.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Disagree per Hoary. --*Kat* (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer requested temporary full protection at RFPP about ten hours ago, a bit after this thread was posted. Since then, the edit history has been fairly quiet, and discussion has begun here. Is this protection still needed? Airplaneman ✈ 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, with eyes on the page, that protection is not needed at this time, but should be used if the edit war starts up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

I've never typed one of these up before, but here goes nothing.

One week full ban for Odokee (to get his attention) followed by a month long topic ban on Romaji and Mario Games. If Odokee wishes to edit in other areas during the topic ban and after the topic ban, that is fine, but he needs to find himself a mentor.

How does this sound? --*Kat* (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it, but I would also add in that Ryulong will not edit war on any article....period. He should know better since he is a former admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I sort of thought that that went without saying.--*Kat* (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war and have a content dispute, and Ryulong does not have full consensus for his edits. So no, without a remedy applied to him to curb his behaviour and actually find a solution to this as I proposed above, it doesn't fix the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Odokee's behavior has been proven time and time again to be inappropriate. He needs a flat out ban. He is in the wrong and I am in the right. This has nothing to do with the arbcom shit. This is something else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that so? I don't really think you demonstrated where this supposed Japanese of "doctor" came from. It's a transliteration, not a translation. You can't go from japanese to english when there is no japanese. So yeah, it's a fabrication. I've proven this time and time again, and your behavior has clearly been disruptive. Does this mean you should be banned? - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are all statements from users who (for the most part) are involved in the dispute. Adding neutral and verifiable content is not disruptive. Repeatedly removing it is. Several times, Odokee, uninvolved users have called you out on your behavior, particularly in this thread. And let's not forget that you were found to be socking during our last block to perform the same revert that got you (and me) blocked in the first place. And there was a link from Neutralhomer in this very thread that shows that "doctor" has been made into a Japanese cognate, which is rendered as "dokutā" in Hepburn. Seriously, stop trying to change the subject to make it seem that you are right.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted it does take two to tango but Odokee was the primary instigator and perpetuator. Something should be done about him. If you would like to propose a separate sanction or remedy that will apply to Ryulong, then be my guest. But this is my solution for Odokee's unacceptable behavior.--*Kat* (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claims simply aren't true. I don't even need to go into it. - Odokee (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I added content in good faith. As we can clearly see from your edit summaries, you have constantly been removing content in bad faith: rv japanification vandalism, rinse, repeat, remove bad edit, lol japanification, Undid revision 383787215, undo japanifications, Undid revision 383787091 by Ryulong (talk) fake japanification, Undid revision 383787092, remove japanification and bad edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support *Kat*'s proposal, with a reminder to Ryulong regarding warring. Any sanction on Ryulong should be discussed separately; as a number of us who are uninvoled here have said, on this occasion we can't find what Ryulong has done wrong. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support the ban proposal per the above suggestion by *Kat*. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support *Kat*'s proposal. With the proviso that Ryulong be explicit in his understanding that repeatedly "Adding neutral and verifiable content" can indeed be disruptive when it becomes edit warring, and as such should be avoided. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Strange Passerby. I think Ryulong's in the right here, but an edit warring reminder is appropriate. Kcowolf (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Socks?

Can anyone check these two edits [31] and [32]. They look like a coordinated campaign. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

QUACK! Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 06:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds (looks) like it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically, they're  Confirmed; I could not help but think that this is somehow related to the Dr. Leigh-Davis hoax perpetrated by CreativeEndeavors (talk · contribs) (but I could not find a technical connection there); the type of complaint is almost spot-on. –MuZemike 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much MuZemike. I didn't know about the hoax background but when I saw the type of claims they didn't look very good for sure. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

please delete my account and my other two accounts

Resolved

 – User and socks blocked

• User:VTomi
• User:Xx.tom.green.xX

i dont like wikipedia anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simcontributor (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Accounts cannot be deleted, sorry. Tommy! 13:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then just stop editing.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Due to the fact that Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and the CC-BY-SA, all edits must be kept for attribution purposes, and so your accounts cannot be deleted. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jamie jca: compromised account?

• Jamie jca (talk · contribs)

User:Jamie jca has been a productive editor since 2007, a few featured lists, a featured topic etc, until recently when he vandalised the article God with this edit on 23 August and then the David Cameron article today with this edit. For what its worth I removed the reviewer user right today but should the account be blocked? Woody (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a bit drastic. Did anyone try to talk to the user re: the god edit? If his account is compromised then i'd expect blatant vandalism, meaning, blatant page blankings, etc, like the crap I revert with Huggle. AGF for now is my opinion. Tommy! 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But he's been blocked anyway.. well I guess we'll find out either way with an unblock template. Tommy! 14:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to try emailing the user but no email address specified. Woody (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It is possible in that Jamie's account was compromised in a number of ways: someone could have gained access to Jamie's computer via a sale, a roommate be vandalizing Wikipedia with her still being logged in, etc. So blocked for now, let's see where this goes. NW (Talk) 14:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit war at Apollo TV camera

There's an edit war breaking out at Apollo TV camera. One of them might have broken WP:3RR, but only reporting one would seem unfair, as they both/all appear to be misbehaving. They have also started fighting on the Talk page. I'm just about to inform the two main protagonists. (Didn't know where to take it, as it potentially covers WP:AIV, WP:3RR, WP:RPP, so I brought it here instead). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally these reports should go to the edit warring noticeboard. They've both demolished 3RR, though, so I'll be blocking both for 24 hours. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks - didn't know of the WP:AN3 noticeboard (but I do now). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste move

Resolved

 – Article histories are where they are meant to be Woody (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If someone has a free moment could they please fix a copy/paste move error General list of masonic Grand Lodges -> List of Masonic Grand Lodges :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

My error... I thought I was moving the page correctly, but apparently not. My apologies. Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI: There's a page specifically for this sort of request at WP:REPAIR. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wicked! Had no idea of that one, thanks --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Anishviswa on Mayuri Kango/Mayoori

Resolved

Recently, an AfD discussion was closed as a speedy keep, a discussion that I was deeply involved in (having improved the article in the interim). After the AfD discussion ended, User:Anishviswa posted a comment on my talk page and on the article talk page. I replied both there and there.

My reasoning is that, there has been no proof in reliable sources shown that they are two separate people. All we would need is a reliable source showing something that Mayuri Kango had done since 2005, but that hasn't been given. And, as can be seen from a Google News Archive Search, Mayuri Kango's last news bit was in January of 2005 (the two 2008 things just being discussions of things Kango did in the mid-90's). So, it reinforces the idea that Mayuri Kango and Mayoori are the same person and did committ suicide in 2005. I have seen nothing to the contrary thus far.

After my reply to his comment, the user, about an hour later, tried to Speedy Delete the article under A7. This was promptly denied.

And, then, I woke up this morning to find that the user had moved the article name to Mayoori and then deleted most of the content. I still have not received a reply on my talk page or on the article talk page from this user.

It seems quite clear that this user neither wants to submit proof or discuss the issue, since they are clearly carrying The Truth. Silverseren^C 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Silverseren^C 16:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Anishviswa (talk · contribs) is clearly correct here, even if you just look at the sources in the diff you submitted above. One set of sources about Kango clearly list a distinct set of movies compared to the other set of sources about the actress who was 22 when she died in 2005. We need to make sure that the sources are about a person, not the other way round. It's not synthesis/OR, based on the available sources, to say that these are two different people, quite the opposite in my opinion. I'm moving back the article to Mayoori (actress), the other one - Mayuri Kango is a BLP unless proved otherwise and we shouldn't have any dubious death dates under that title. —SpacemanSpiff 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I added all of the references that are in the article, and i'm not seeing the differences that you are talking about. Could you explain more, please? Silverseren^C 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, please give one source that says Mayuri Kango died in 2005. None of the sources you've added say that. Filmography in the article was based on "Mayuri Kango", marriage was based on "Mayuri Kango"; death date and name of "Shalini" was based on "Mayuri" with no mention of Kango. Two distinct sets of sources that have no overlap. —SpacemanSpiff 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. But...question...I thought you were going to split the two articles, not delete the Mayuri Kango article? Kango is the far more notable person than Mayoori. Silverseren^C 17:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've left the content intact on the current article for you to split it out (since you were the originator of the content), it's just been commented out, as I mentioned on the edit summary; the reason for the move was because the "dead" actress was the one sent to AfD, not the BLP (although it appears that there was confusion at the AfD on this count). cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User claims to be friend of an X Factor finalist and isn't prepared to listen

Justtheme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly adding information to The X Factor (UK series 7) about how allegedly contestant Nicolo Festa has made it through to the live shows. See here, here and here despite me reverting it twice and also leaving multiple messages and three warnings on his talk page. He then posted on my talk page several things which need addressing:

• He said "I am Nicolo's friend!" → meaning he has a vested interest in/has a common interest in the subject and therefore lacks neutrality
• He then says "And of course Youtube and Twitter are verifiable sources. His Twitter account has been verified." → blatant ignored wp's policy for reliable sources and verifiability.
• He's also said "And if this was speculation, there are tons of other Wikipedia articles that have it," → blatantly doesn't understand WP:OTHERSTUFF / WP:WAX.
• When I pointed out that if he refuses to remove the information then inline with policies I will have to ask administrators to get involved he said "I will report you for removing content that is perfectly written, with sources that say exactly what I'm posting, nothing more, nothing less." → a complete lack of care of encyclopedic content.

I suggest the content is removed from the page because it is in complete violation of all wikipedia policies. Youtube and Twitter are not verifiable sources. Furthermore the twitter source he's used doesn't even verify the claim he's making. Finally as he's claiming to be best friends with the alleged finalist perhaps a topic ban is in order as its obvious this user is going to prove problematic? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

note 2 minutes after this thread was posted and following the notification that Justtheme has been reported to WP:ANI he has magically removed the paragraph himself [33]. Do I need to say anymore? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"2 minutes after this thread was posted and following the notification that Justtheme has been reported to WP:ANI he has magically removed the paragraph himself" means that this is resolved. I don't think it's wikipedia policy to block or ban new editors for beeing unfamiliar with our policies. Taemyr (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He isn't that new... he says he's been editing for a while and has just threatened on my talk page to report me to administrators once Nicolo has been confirmed as a contestant. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 17:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

He is new enough that he is obviously confused about our RS policies, also he has less than 30 edits. Threats are obvously bad, OTOH what he is actually threathening to do is to bring more eyes to the issue before reinstating the content, so I would recomend that you shrug those threats off :) Taemyr (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I will ignore those threats but in relation to his edits... But let's disect his/her edits for a moment: 1) the first source added allvoices.com only confirms that Nicolo audtioned in London but instead was used to claim something else. 2) The official youtube source confirms what song Nicolo autioned with [34] and the third source is twitter simply speaking about an airport. There is a large constitution of WP:OR here. And whilst I accept I might be seen to be harsh with the relatively new editor, he/she should be made to understand that threats (however idol) are not WP:CIVIL. Additionally someone needs to explain why his/her edits are incorrect per our policies as they don't appear to understand the warning templates. Thirdly it needs to be explained to said user that there are neutrality issues because he/she is claiming to have an affiliation to the subject being edited. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Screwball23

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The issues are:

• Mis-attribution of vandalism: [35]
• Inappropriate canvassing: [36]
• Repeated personal attacks in article talkspace, calling people "clowns", "delusional", "lunatics", "slimy", "insincere", "garbage", and other abusive language: [37] [38] [39]

[40] [41] [42]

• Repeated reversions without talk page discussion: [43]
• Edit Warring to the point an article needs protection: [44].

I admit I am partially to blame for the last item, however I have a total of 3 edits to that article in the past week, whereas Screwball23 has 20+, the majority of them contentious reverts against multiple other editors. I am not asking for the user to be banned; I simply ask that an administrator reacquaint him with policy so we can continue work on the articles in question. This user has hardened his position to the point that discussion or compromise just isn't occurring; every action is a total revert, followed too often by abusive language. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Screwball does appear to have rather more then 3 reverts in one day. As to incivlity. Sorry but calling an edit or comment garbage is not a PA (however I may feel about this thats the rule) he does appear to call two eddds clowns, that may be PA but I doubt it. By the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3 is where you report edit wars (and this seems a very valid concearn).Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the vast amount of issues appears to be stuff you'd report here; the edit-warring is just the icing. HalfShadow 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that saying something is vandalism when its not is reportable (unless done on a very regular basis (and I doubt it would be even then). The canvassing is an issue, but I think we really need more then this for sanction here. Most of the PA accusations will fail to convince (only one actually seems to be about the users not his comments and half appear to be difs of a history page, and i can see no PA’s there. The edit warring (and blatant 3RR violation) appears to be the only real issue here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Screwball23 has, indeed, used grossly incivil terms repeatedly with any who fall into his path. He does not, apparently, understand just why NPOV is quite so important in BLPs. Further his edit history, amounting to hundreds of edits in single articles, shows him to be a very single-minded person when it comes to inserting material he wants in BLPs. Further, he inserted a great deal of improper material into the History_of_World_Wrestling_Entertainment article [45] , and asserted that WP:BLP did not apply there This is not a BLP article, and I have no idea why you think this page is a BLP was the claim Screwball23 made. See also [46], [47], [48] etc. Multiple warnings over edit warring. Multiple extended blocks. Multiple civility issues. In all of under 3K total edits - of which over a third are about a single person! Not to mention an extraordinary block history (three times in the past few months, not to mention civility and canvassing warnings, etc.). As many know, I always oppose draconian punishments here. I might not comment on one here. Collect (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, calling anyone "delusional" or "insane" is, by any logic at all, a PA. Collect (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Three blocks, plus additional warnings in the last few months? I had originally thought this was an isolated case, but it seems it may be part of a much wider pattern. Fell Gleaming^talk 17:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Better diffs are needed. I have had to dig to find him calling some one delusional (its not in the diifs above but is part of the discussion the difs relate to) [[49]]. It might help matters then if we see the actual comments.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

[50] if you think there is no support for it being in the infobox, you are delusional; [51] Collect is delusional to think that his view is unanimous on this issue. Sufficient? Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think its clear he has made PA on at least two users despite previous blocks. its not as if he is a new user either. He must by now kow his actions are unaceptable (or is unable to learn).Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If this isn't enough to warrant Admin intervention, I don't know what will. Frankly Collect, I don't know why you didn't just delete the section at its inception as clearly in contravention to WP P&G (WP:TALKNO) on talk page content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the record of the person. 3 major blocks in under four months is likely to indicate Screwball is a problem. That he used a section to attack me shows I have a fairly thick skin which he has finally breached. Collect (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

When an editor brings a complaint to ANI they should get their facts right.

• "Mis-attribution of vandalism" is a refer to an edit summary saying "POV vandalism" - not the same thing
• "inappropriate canvassing" is asking for advice by someone confused by WP dispute resolution processes
• calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[52]
• complaints of edit-warring should be addressed at the edit-warring noticeboard

Based on the above, this discussion thread should be closed.

My advice to Screwball23 is to read all polices and procedures, and use content dispute resolution. That will bring in other editors who understand procedure. The article involved is the biography of a controversial politician running for office. The article must present the subject as they are being reported in mainstream media. If the media give little coverage of some aspect of her biography then that is what we do as well.

TFD (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall I have to agree. He has however called users delusional. There are also otehr PA's.

:*calling people "garbage" turns out to be calling their arguments garbage.[53] Read further down in that same link. To quote: "You're incredibly slimy and insincere". This is not an attack on an argument. Fell Gleaming^talk 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The cited edits are full of blatant personal attacks and edit-warring, and this editor has been blocked three times over the past few months, the most recent in July, for two weeks. A one month block would be appropriate at this point. Looie496 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, TFD, this does appear to be a part of a larger pattern and "garbage" does not appear to be even close to the worst things that have been said and directed at users, not arguments. Silverseren^C 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can dismise "Mis-attribution of vandalism" and "inappropriate canvassing" I don't think these hold up really. The issue of PA is different and there does indead appear to be an issue here. He has called users Slimey, Delusional and insincre are PA. I also have to say that as the usre has been repeatedly blocked to do so again seems a waste of time, if he has not learnt by now he nevert will.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED, in the sense that 1) I've warned him for BLP violations, 2) He's called me "Collect's lackey", and 3) he's tried to start an ArbCom case against me on the basis of my cleaning up History of World Wrestling Entertainment. Diffs aren't that hard to dig up, and I can do so if desired, but I'm not seeing how this user is in any way, shape, or form a net positive to Wikipedia. I'll be happy to vote for a topic ban from the Linda McMahon or professional wrestling arenas if he continues to not get it, or an outright ban once he exhausts the patience of the rest of the community. Jclemens (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack by user:72.183.253.122

72.183.253.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has just posted this to user talk:Paralympiakos. Even if the IP user and Paralympiakos were haveing disagreements, that doesn't excuse "your not the boss. you should stop before your account gets deleted for being such a fag." Some admin intervention would be appropriate, in my view. EdChem (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said on my talk page, I don't really know who this IP is. I've had limited discussion with him/her and that was of a friendly nature (him/her asking if I was attending an upcoming event and me responding). Paralympiakos (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Recommend the anon be blocked, rangeblock if possible to keep the from popping up on another IP. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

After some looking into it, this is about this issue. Currently, the official website doesn't say which fights will take place on the main card and which are not going to be shown. I came up with that compromise as it doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL which the IP is crossing. (Excuse the MoS heading problem by me though, that was collateral damage in the undo). Paralympiakos (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, what's going on with this then? The user has stopped editing since and I'm fairly indifferent about seeing them blocked, considering they can on occasion come up with positive quality edits. It's just that I'd like to see resolution one way or the other. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Multiple accounts all spamming references to a single book

The following IPs and accounts have all been adding references to a particular book to various articles about drugs, the British penal system, and towns in Yorkshire and Humberside over the past couple of days:

It's probably not a good case for a sock puppetry report, because the socking is so blatant. These are edit-only accounts following a pattern of edit warring and sockery:

• 86.139.198.225 (talk · contribs)
• SteveDollarPound (talk · contribs)
• StanCrafti (talk · contribs)
• MikeyJBC (talk · contribs)
• DaveyBoy12 (talk · contribs)
• Nailclipper1 (talk · contribs)

The book is "Lowlife: Life in British Prison with Drug Dealers, Gun Runners and Murderers" by Simon Eddisbury (John Blake Publishing). The editor is using the book as a source for facts on a number of articles, but the pattern seems to be consistent with a spamming campaign to advertise the book.

The book's official release date was a couple of weeks ago but the publisher's website doesn't even mention the book on its front page. There are no published reviews yet and this is the author's first work so there's no way of assessing the book's reliability. --TS 17:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate use of Wikipedia, whether the book is reliable or not. I've reverted the outstanding edits you didn't get from the above, and warned them all about promotion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

See also:

• GarryHomestead (talk · contribs)
• BeverleyStandChair (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed:

• MikeyJBC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DaveyBoy12 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SteveDollarPound (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• BeverleyStandChair (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• StanCrafti (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GarryHomestead (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Nailclipper1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 07:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Non-working bot code snippets

I want an outsider(s) to comment on this dispute. --Kslotte (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and doesn't seem to require admin attention. Is there a particular complaint which does? Also, the request seems to be the very definition of a request for comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a RFC suits better. --Kslotte (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Globalstatus

User:Globalstatus is a relatively new WP:SPA who for the last month and a half has been pushing hard a single point at Russia and Talk:Russia: to add a statement to the article lede that Russia is a recognized superpower. I feel that this is a fairly bad case of WP:PLAGUE POV pushing and the user's presence at the Russia article has become considerably disruptive. The relevant threads there are: [[Talk:Russia#Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010]], Talk:Russia#Article is being abused request to close editing again, Talk:Russia#Superpower status, Talk:Russia#A proposal to settle down the superpower issue, Talk:Russia#Requestioning sources on Russia as great power. A number of other users in these threads have been engaged in working out a reasonable compromise but User:Globalstatus would not budge and keeps repeating the same thing ad naseum, even though objections to his position have been raised on several grounds (that there are a number of sources disputing designation of Russia as a superpower, that some of the sources cited by Globalstatus are themselves biased, that the term "superpower" is POV laden and its discussion may not belong in the lede, and others). User:Globalstatus has been engaged in attacks and questioning good faith of other editors, e.g. [54] and inserting his comments in the middle of other users' comments rather than below them (see the same diff). He has also been trying to ram through actual edits to the Russia article that do not reflect consensus at the talk page, e.g. his recent edits here[55][56]. I feel that this editor's presence at Russia and Talk:Russia has become seriously disruptive and threatens to derail the ongoing GA reassessment where more serious issues have to be dealt with, see Talk:Russia#GAR and urgent work needed. I think there is sufficient evidence of tendentious editing by User:Globalstatus to justify a block for disruption and/or a topic ban for a couple of months for Russia-related topics. In any event, I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think Globalstatus' involvement in the dispute is disruptive, especially his edit warring. I hope an uninvolved admin will do something about it, but I'd like to remind that Globalstatus is a new user and in the spirit of WP:BITE we should not treat him too harshly because it could cause him to leave the project completely. I already asked him to step back from the dispute for a week and take a break, but I guess it did not help. Perhaps if an admin asked, it would have more effect? Or perhaps a short block is in order if he doesn't listen. Offliner (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As s/he is a new editor, I have tried reasoning with Globastatus on how to behave (see here). Others have tried similar approaches. But s/he will not listen at all. S/he continues to take matters all over people's talkpages, with a clear POV, and a lack of interest in working with others. The comments from Globalstatus are becoming more and more incoherent, suggesting a rather heightened emotional involvement. I think a block might very effective at bringing him/her to their senses, calming down and either realising that wikipedia doesn't work the way s/he thought, and so work differently, or find another forum.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that a short block is probably in order. It should be supplemented with a note on how the user should improve his behaviour. After the block we will see if it helped. Offliner (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response from User:Globalstatus

I am responding to discussion as User:Globalstatus- here is my side of the story:

I have mentioned this to User:Nsk92 here about the new intro version [57] and I have posted it on the talkpages here too [58]. The intro is confusing because I have asked and asked questions in favor for sources and no sources have been provided but only comments without sources instead[59][60] here I mentioned that there was no sources under United Nations Security Council by User:Greyhood I replied again to User:Nsk92 and User:Greyhood under the talkpages and ask before these questions by making a new topic of request for answers here[61] and before that I even provided my own listed sources[62] that really went unanswered, I even sent this over to User:Greyhood asking him for more answers [63] but simplying was not providing sources[64][65] and going back to the talkpages asking here[66] and I provided there sources here [67]

In my case for appealing this block I have tried to get the heart of the answers but the content in the intro was changed marely overnight without acedemic sources and not enough time to consensus [68] done. In most cases it should be given sometime to over the talk than rushing to change the intro as User:Nsk92 do not respond with answers but undoing the article [69] (but Nsk92 said it was before 1991 cold war that but there is current superpower status article in the earlier situation which is misleading the reader) even when the consensus was not final. Originally it was User:Nsk92 who wanted to call Russia a great power back in August 8th 2010[70] providing non-acedemic sources on to the intro page. I commented then [71]but I allowed it even though I disagreed with it.

Now that the issue has come back User:Greyhood first went changing the intro page before consensus [72] which stike my attention to stop. User:Greyhood carried on with the editing but less than 24 hours the intro is changed without a single source stating Russia is a great superpower, no one source. Between User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner have not provided a single source of acedemic sources or even some sources to the article. It seems unfair that we have a open article that confuses the readers when Googling "Russia Superpower" [73] but under articles Superpowers, potential superpowers Russia is considered a emerging superpower and no sources but under great powers there is no acedemic sources Russia being a great power either as User:Greyhood said to find the information but he has refused me to look up acedemic sources but he has not replied anything. I even replied to look under United Nations Security Council but no sources of anything that says Russia is a great power which User:Greyhood said there was and nothing exist there either.

I am appealing as I think there is a misconeption here that as much as I have tried to ask I have been denied the answers from User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner but editor User:FellGleaming undid the intro himself and admitted there was a problem[74] by agreeing with me[75]

I also asked User:Nsk92 to respond in providing sources here [76] but he did not respond in anyway.

Like post these sample sources to see my point on Russia as a superpower with titles dates, authors and media sources below here: "Will Russia Be the Superpower That Will Stop Iran from Going Nuclear" - The Middle East Media Research Institute By A. Savyon July 29, 2010[77], "Why isn't anyone taking Kyrgyzstan's calls"; Foreign Policy By Steve LeVine Friday, June 18, 2010 [78] or "Georgia: An Insecure Foothold for the United States" - The Globalist - Martin Sieff June 02, 2010 [79] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament by Sergei Karaganov" - Project-Syndicate News April 4, 2010 [80] or "Azerbaijanis, Armenians can be good neighbors" (Superpower Neighbor Russia) News Az - March 2, 2010 by Akper Hasanov [81] or "Perspective of Karabakh conflict settlement unreal in current conditions" - News Az - June 2010 by Vafa Guluzade[82] or "The dangers of nuclear disarmament" - TODAY’S ZAMAN News May 1, 2010 by Sergei Karaganov[83] or "Sergei Karaganov: Weapons that save us from ourselves" - Scotsman News: 05 May 2010 Sergei Karaganov [84] or "Obama restricts America’s use of nuclear arms" -San Diego Conservative Examiner by Robert Rische April 6, 2010 [examiner. com ] or "Right after the uprising" - Sunday's Zaman April 17, 2010 by Dogu Ergil Kyrgyzstan conflict [85] or "The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" - Saint Petersburg Times By Sergei Karaganov May 4, 2010[86] or "PM's visit underlines rising Indian interest in Ibsa", Bric - Business Standard News; Jyoti Malhotra / New Delhi April 16, 2010[87] or "Russia’s mission is Eurasian integration" - RIA Novosti by Xing Guangcheng August 8, 2010[88] or "Guam Back to Life" - RIA Novostiby by Bogdan Tsirdya August 3, 2010[89] or "Armenian base part of Russia's quest for 'superpower' status" - News.Az By Leyla Tagiyeva August 30, 2010[90] or Boost for nonproliferation - The Japan Times April 10, 2010[91] or "Syria asks Russia to lean on Israel" - Asia Times Online By Sami Moubayed May 14, 2010[92]

Now this is 17 sources, I have about 110 total on Russia being a superpower but what gets me is no one is replying to these sources as these are recent sources from this year. I am confused to User:Nsk92, User:Greyhood, User:VsevolodKrolikov, User:Offliner they are imposing on me as asking too many questions but they don't supply back with any sources to say that Russia is a great power over what I have provided as Russia as a superpower for example. Seems very unfair to me but also to the readers this is confusing them and willing to provide sources to state my claim here.

So I ask is there needs to be either more consensus on this topic to have editors supply answers with sources. If you look at the article currently there is not sources Russia after the works Russia is a great power, not a thing said and User:Nsk92 erased my version when I added this recently twice [93][94] which said: Russia is a great power although such characterization is disputed by some analysts Russia is characterized as a superpower by a number of sources

User:Nsk92 said I was pushing the edits is not true when you see my discussions on the talkpages here[95] yet User:Nsk92 originally wrote this clause back in August 8 [96] by saying: although such characterization is disputed by some analysts.. Which I am writing what he put on the article intro back then applying it again but now he is opposing it. I think User:Nak9 is failing the complaint against me when he was originally apart of this edit conversion from Superpower to Great Power back in August 8, 2010. Seems he is blamming me for something he orginally wrote himself in August 8 but I provided sources to the text for example. You can compare the examples here - this is User:Nsk92 version [97] and mine here version [98]. I am questioning this as it seems User:Nsk92 is more concerned with Russia being called a great power than reading new sources on Russia being a superpower or even them providing sources to other editors vice versa on this discussion. I feel there is something is bothering in this intro because it says Russia being a superpower and User:Nsk92 User:Greyhood rightly oppose it but they did not provide any sources back to support their edits to the article to change Russian from superpower to great power.

I have not bothered anybody but tried to get realible sources using the talkpages (and talkspages on Nsk9, Greyhood and Offline) and I have been denied requested source from answers concerning this matter. I ask for is some from of resolution for a continuing this intro section on the talkpages so sources can be reviewed and able to see and agree in some fashion as there is no sources here and I rightly disgree to this article as it stands which should be addressed. Also the big issue too is allowing acedemic sources and media sources to support Russia being a superpower or even a great power in that in regards too. Can we simply then use sources such as media sources if any sources such as acedemic sources are not available to promote the article? I think this would probably give the article a chance to base it on its available sources to agree with or not depending who provides the sources if Russia is up for being displayed as a superpower or potential superpower or emerging superpower for example? --Globalstatus (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Global, you've made 10 edits to your response. I'd request that in the future that if you're making addendums to your comments, you not refactor what's already on the page as it makes it easier for other users to see what you've written without having to reread six paragraphs and figure out what the difference is by memory. Thanks. elektrikSHOOS 01:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Elektrik Shoos - Sorry I was only trying to fix my add ins I found on my edits I have added to my case for example. I also have made a few misspellings and some words I missed as examples.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted image from GA with no explanation.

Hi. I was just wondering if anyone knew why File:Cheryl cole 3 words video.JPG was deleted, even though to my best knowledge it was properly accredited. It would be appreciated if when images like this from the music video section are deleted from GAs or FAs, someone makes it a point of courtesy to inform the user who took the article to GA. If not for this reason its at least good, for a user such as myself who contribute to lots of articles, to know the error for future reference. In no wat I'm I having a go at whoever deleted the image, rather the opposite. If there was a genuine issue its useful for me to know for the future when uploading images. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted on Commons, not here, so we cannot see the reasons for its deletion. Better to ask an admin there. Rodhullandemu 00:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware it was moved to the commons. Thank you anway. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm now not so sure about that; I can find no reference to that image even in your deleted contribs; but neither can I find any deleted uploads from you of similarly-named images. Do you have diffs to show that the image ever existed? Rodhullandemu 00:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Local log shows it deleted by Fastily, who is now retired. The specific reason he used was "Criterion 8, because the image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding." If someone wants to dispute this further, an admin might as well undelete it; I don't think it's a huge deal if it was used in the appropriate section of the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a really rotten screen grab of a video. I really can't see what value that could possibly add. Out of curiosity why are we promoting articles to GA if there are issues about the use of non-free images in them? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

GA has guidelines but not fixed criteria. Promotion is up to the people who conduct GA reviews, although it is subject to later review if there is disagreement. In any case many GA's have issues of one sort or another -- GA means good article, not perfect article. Looie496 (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I enjoy seeing as many images as possible of girls that look like that, the article looks fine as is with the other images. It might have been polite to give a heads up to the other projects that it was being deleted but these things happen.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're having a laugh aren't you Spartaz? We've promoted articles to FA before with non-free image issues, let alone GA. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

User:AJona1992

Ajona1992 has a long history of copyright problems and personal attacks on other editors, not to mention WP:OWN issues on the Selena article. He was blocked from 3rr a few weeks ago, and he refuses to listen to other editors advise. Now comes this edit, in which me and SandyGeorgia agree he should be blocked for that. He's just going to disrupt even more, especially once the Selena article gets unprotected. A block is warranteed, and a topic ban as well. Thanks Secret ^account 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I notified him for you, Secret... Doc9871 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

She was attacking me. I only attack people if they attack me. First of all those pics belongs to my family and me just becuz u guys found 200 of the same pics on google.com doesn't prove your right. AJona1992 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"They did it first" i not an excuse. IMO there's an inferable WP:TOV in the diff provided, and would support a block at least. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a "threat of violence", I'm quite sure. It's a little "heated", but no way is it an actual threat. A block may happen for other reasons, however... Doc9871 (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly I do take other editors advice! esp when people wanted to help me I LOVED it I was happy that they wanted to help me on wikipedia I needed it after being attack by all you guys telling me that my pictures are in violation, my magazines are fake, etc, etc. Once someone asked me if I needed help I always say "yes" except to you becuz all you do is this, I add a source from a magazine and all you do is REVERT IT becuz YOU don't have it or know about it. AJona1992 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also I am having issues with her on here (Wikipedia:Featured article review/Selena/archive1). So maybe this can help you guys decide weather or not I should stay here. Also you guys should look at my contributions as well. AJona1992 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Also? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes also she keeps talking about me and the magazine that is not currently listed as an unreliable magazine, that's all she AND you keep bringing up. AJona1992 (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

As someone who has come across AJona1992 more than I want to remember, I'm not surprised to see that his behavior hasn't changed a bit, nor his has his editing habits. His continuous addition of copyright violations text here on en.wiki and copyright violations in image form on en.wiki, Commons and throughout several other different language Wikis that have yet to be deleted is just the beginning of this user's edit history. His astounding immaturity and complete negligence of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, as well as his overall intolerance to admit he can be and is often wrong on multiple levels with multiple issues, whether is being sourcing issues, categorization, policies, etc., really makes me wonder if he'll end up being blocked indefinitely before the new year. His claims that his grandmother took these pictures are utterly ridiculous, as many of the admins who work with images and copyright here and on Commons are well aware of (note in point, he claims this image was taken by his grandmother and the quality of the picture is attributed to being scanned, yet this higher quality, high resolution and uncropped version was somehow published before the supposed scan, huh). You can offer him all the help in the world, but once he disagrees with you, he resorts to naming calling, personal attacks, incivility and the typical "HAHA lulz". Even with all this problematic behavior, I still haven't even begun mentioning his block for sockpuppetry and 3RR, as well as his attempt of meatpuppetry and inappropriate canvassing to push his Selena WikiProject proposal through. The community is simply wasting far too much time on this one individual. — ξ^xplicit 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• • Sockpuppetry as well, and claiming copyrighted photos was part of her family collection wow I'll endorse a indef block of the user right now, he's more trouble than he's worth. Secret ^account 03:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
    • User:CHICOGAGA should be blocked indef as a meatpuppet of Ajona. Secret ^account 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All I can say to you is "wow" I tried asking advice from you, yea I bet your saying again "stop the mellow drama" but I was really asking for some advice. Anyways I understand where your coming from but the thing is my grandmother/mother really did take these pictures I mean I am not going to let you guys get away with the comments you have said about it either. The sock thingy I only did ONE TIME and I didn't know about the rule to begin with. Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards. I do have anger issues and nor should I talk about my life here becuz it doesn't involve in this. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). AJona1992 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm another thing here the people who helped me and encourage me, I never disagree with them and even if I did we never argued! you can ask every person who was willing to help me and and I accepted it I got along with them very well, you know why? becuz they never talked to me the way you guys are, they are more calm and more pleasant to talk to they don't go around here sticking their heads up in the sky thinking they run stuff, no they actually, even though told I was trouble, stood by me and helped me. AJona1992 (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in California Secret! And my IP address confirms that, so next time go do some research before accusing me of something that I didn't do. AJona1992 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the 3rr was to prove a point about me editing Selena and it being reverted becuz it's not up to your guys standards—please take a look at WP:POINT. I like editing here but the thing is if you even try editing here all you get is being banned before you even know that you was doing something wrong (socking), (unreliable magazines). Well, you're not banned. And if you do something wrong, there is a negative consequence. Your talk page shows that many people have tried to help, but yet you have continued some of the things they have asked you to stop doing, like posting copyvios. You *yawn* at it here and then again (bigger) here. That's just counterproductive. If you treat others like that, who are also here on their free time, you will not be helped and encouraged much longer. It's just rude. So yea… Airplaneman ✈ 03:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, I read a little about it after my episode to prove that "Q-Productions" was a great external link. And what I was saying there was that I was banned from sock and 3rr and I didn't know there was a rule about socking I just only wanted to get my project approved. Yea I need to work on that but I don't want to abandon the Selena article because I feel that a "FA" should include and not limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a strong warning, such a strong warning that I had to break WP:CIVIL in order to tell him the truth, but a WP:IAR could be used in my case. But with it I think he understands the situation now. I'll work with him. Thanks Secret ^account 03:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Ajona: You don't seem to understand sourcing requirements for featured articles, as evidenced by a review of the Selena talk page and FAR, and there seem to be quite a few other problems with your Wiki editing. Your participation has been disruptive, and your post to the Selena FAR was certainly a breach of WP:CIVIL, if not a WP:TOV. Wikipedia is not MySpace, and we're here to collaborate to (hopefully) produce high quality articles; editors who don't understand that might do better to spend their time on the internet elsewhere. If you don't learn and follow Wiki policies, admins will help you find another place to spend your time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, folks, WP:TOV "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." See WP:VIOLENCE - do you think the local authorities should be contacted because of this "threat"? "Accordingly, if there is any possibility at all that a 'real world' threat has been made with genuine intent, the best thing to do is to immediately report it to authorities." It's not a real world threat with genuine intent... Doc9871 (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Doc, again SandyG I only edit the page Selena if I find something that should belong there (most successful singles of 1994 and 1995, Best Latin artist of the decade, best 1990s singer, now don't you think these belong on a article?) with sources from Billboard. If it's to revert to prove a point than yea I have done that but I was only doing that becuz I had sources and everyone was just dead against me expanding the article which is kinda dumb (in my point of view) becuz I believe that a FA article shouldn't limit itself. AJona1992 (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the guidelines people have cited say otherwise; it's not just what you think is correct. Please understand that this is probably why you ended up here in the first place: not taking in others' advice. Airplaneman ✈ 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I left some "friendly advice" on AJona1992's talk page and he'll hopefully consider it: and he seems to be civilly working with the same editor who reported this thread (and who intially called for a block and a topic ban). Hopefully this should cool down quickly, and time will determine if they can't work something out. His userpage (if accurate) is very open about his RL identity, and he is a young editor who hopefully can learn policy. His bad behavior is noted, and if he's disruptive again at all it will be dealt with swiftly, I'm sure. One more chance, maybe? Just my 2p... Doc9871 (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I will suggest mentorship to Ajona1992. Perhaps that will help. It's a tool that I think sadly doesnt get used often enough, especially for those people who seem honestly desiring to contribute, but simply cant grasp that things on Wikipedia are different than how one would write about or discuss them in the "real world" (wherever that is). Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 07:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation and harassment by socks of a banned user

Recently, PaulFagburg (talk · contribs) was created as an impersonation and harassment account, see for example [99]. A sockpuppet investigation revealed that the account was probably a sock of banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs), and revealed several other co-located socks.

What can I do to expunge the account that was used to harass and impersonate me? Can I force a username change of that account through WP:CHU?

More importantly, when are admins like SlimVirgin and JzG going to stop trying to tie my hands when I deal with repeated ban evasion? At the time of SV's message, I was reverting 2-year-old edits from socks of a banned user, and SV, JzG and Rkitko stepped in. That same rationale would not apply to the fresh edits I just finished reverting; "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban." Pfagerburg (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know little of the case, but have been musing on a solution to this. I will post on the talk page of Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ask a crat to rename the impersonation account. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the request is pending. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not free to revert any edits you please, as has been explained to you on your talk page. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Qwasty (talk · contribs)

Does anyone have prior experience with this user? Goes on bizarre campaigns of "reverting vandalism", dumps unsigned final warnings on my talkpage[100] (and apparently others[101][102][103][104][105][106][107]). Fails the Turing test: apparently revert-wars based on byte-counts (reducing article size = vandalism), does not appear to be willing or able to consider the issue or the argument presented.

Probably just an overzealous kid, but imho it's an ANI item because of the bizarre final warnings and the silly cries of "vandalism". WP:BATTLEGROUND. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing seems like a content dispute. The only problem is that User:Qwasty ignores WP:AGF and WP:DTTR. Instead of attacking everyone who reverts his edits, he should be told to bring his dispute to the talk page first. Ishdarian|lol^wut 09:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of dispute it is. So far, hundreds of edits that aren't even mine are being reverted without any justification (mostly bot formatting edits). Verbal abuse similar to the above does not constitute discussion: "Fails the Turing test", "overzealous kid", "silly", etc. It's tough to assume good faith from a fountain of insults and mass destruction of hundreds of edits from numerous editors, with no edit summary. Dbachmann SEEMS to have concerns worthy of discussion, but I haven't been able to get him to discuss them in the talk page sections addressing my best guess of what his concerns are. Qwasty (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing complaint

I'm going to be away from my computer for a while, so can someone please look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Barry Wellman where there is an outing complaint and the edits and edit history of the IP there and what I assume is the IP's account MultimediaGuru (talk · contribs). I think there's a case for some rev/del and possibly a block, which I would support (and might have done myself had I more time to check again) unless there is compelling evidence not to block. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevertigo's Pattern of Problematic Editing

I am User:Steve Quinn. User:Stevertigo continues a pattern of problematic editing across several articles. Furthermore, I state that this is not a content dispute. This is about replacing sourced, referenced, and cited material, with WP:OR. Hence, such a discussion includes the untenable position of inserting original, unsourced material into the lede of article. I say untenable position, because Stevertigo argues as if this is type of behavior (and this position) is valid on the talk pages of several articles. Furthermore, this includes the actions of other editors pertaining to the articles, explaining to Stevertigo the rationale for these actions, and Stevertigo's refusing to acknowledge that unsourced material cannot be accepted. The articles involved are Time, Time in physics, Punishment, and, I think one other. In any case other editors have encountered Stevertigo in other articles around this same time period.

I first encounterd Stevertigo at the article entitled "Time" on August 2, 2010 [108] where I removed WP:OR and replaced it with content supported by references already in place. In addition, that first statement was incomprehensible. I also added "Please stick to reliable sources, avoid OR". This was a general editing statement, directed to editors of this article in general. In addition, I had selected "Time" as the theme of the month for the Physics portal. Therefore, the portal was linked to this article. With the next edit, I was surprised that an editor, User:Stevertigo, reverted this edit and replaced with the unsourced and unreferenced statement, [109]. In addition, it is incomprehensible: "Time is a physical paradigm and non-spatial dimension in which reality is macroscopically transformed in continuity from the past through the present and on to the future."

Also please notice that although this part appears to be cited, some other editor had placed the this template: {{failed verification|date=July 2010|reason=much of this, the part Stevertigo sourced to "moi" (himself) is very clearly not in citation}}.

I believe at around this time I did head over the talk page, and was again surprised that Stevertigo had already created a new section, with my User-name as the section title [110]. He apparently quoted my edit summary, and gave what may seem like a level-headed response. However, keep in mind, he just replaced my edit with original research and incomprehensible wording. Next he made an inconsquential edit in this section. Next, is my response [111]. Also I changed the name for the section title because I was uncomfortable having the section titled with my name. In any case, using my name as the section title is an indication of focusing on the editor (me), and not on the content. Furthermore, being on the recieving end of this type of thing, and in retrospect, it has the appearance of a personal attack. The essence of my response was "The statement I removed was not supported by references. The statement I replaced it with is supported by references. There is no requirement to "vet" a statement not supported by references, and hence is considered WP:OR." There is a little more for anyone who cares to read it. However, this is not a content dispute.

With the next edit my response on the article talk page has been removed, and the title reverted back to my user-name [112]. This in addition to my comment of how such a section title might be percieved. Also, here Stevertigo parses my edit. He also mentions User:JimWae who has also become central to correcting Stevertigo's article insertions. Apparently Jim Wae had been trying to counter Stevertigo's effect for some amount of time before I got to the article.

A few edits later I finally managed to successfully change the section title again so that it was not my user-name. [113]. Also I felt I had to place the following statement in the edit history so it would be noticed: "Please do not use my user name for a section heading. That can be construed as trolling. Also you you have removed my comment from this section. That is against policy"

Somewhere around this time I reverted Stevertigo's ill-advised article-edit. [114]. This was followed by another revert by Stevertigo [115] , who appears to feel insulted by characterizing his material as WP:OR. He then claims my characterization violates AGF and possibly DBAD.

Now, going back to the article-talk page, and after a certain amount of time, I was unable to actually add my response to the section formerly titled with my user-name. So, I ended up placing my response in another section [116], beginning with "I wrote the following in the section below, but somehow it got edited out:"

Perhaps, now is a good time to note what this section is. Unbeknownst to me, Jim Wae had started a Request For Comment (RFC) regarding the lede of the article. The lede is where Steveritgo desired to place his edits. In fact, in the several articles that I will be discussing it turns out that Stevertigo desires to place his POV content in the lede.

Punishment ---- [117], [118].

Time in physics ---- [119], [120]

Physics ---- [121]

Time is illustrated by the above diffs.

In addition, to further illustrate my point, he has the following statement on his user-talk page [122] "My focus has generally been on writing good ledes, which set the tone for the rest of the article."

Also another pattern that has developed, which Stevertigo actually mentions on his talk page: I strive through a conceptually organised approach to craft language that deals with the essence and substance of ideas, [123]. This is linked to his own essay Wikipedia:Conceptualization. He is the actual creator of this page. The signifigance is that he has given priority to concepts which are not based on reliable soures or verifiablity, on article talk pages. Then the conversation can become mired in challenging his WP:OR conceptulizing with the need for deriving facts from reliable sources. Here, [124], he plainly states: "The concepts relevant to time are (off the top of my head)". Please notice that the section is entitled "Concept cloud".

This is then followed by a collapsible info box which opens to reveal, well, a list of concepts, i.e.,

• reality
• physical, physics
• transformation, change
• etc., etc., with about 18 more "concepts" following these (inside the collapsible box).

Perhaps, it is one way for Stevertigo to take the high ground on the talk page and editing the article. In reality, of course, there is no need for a "high ground" when editing or collaborating on talk pages. But, when Stevertigo insists on placing unsourced and unverifiable material in an article, as he does here - [125], and here [126] - well it changes the intended dynamics of the editing process. As an aside, he is welcome to conceptualize and philosophize on talk pages all he likes. It doesn't matter to me. However, as soon as he inserts unsourced material into the article, perhpas it starts to become a battleground.

Getting back to the "Time" article specifically -- three hours later, Jim Wade enters the picture. He was there before me, but this is the first time for me. Jim removes Stevertigo's OR statement [127], and stating in the edit history OR is subject to removal at any time. At around the same time Jim comments on the talk page, "It makes no difference if it says "time is a physical process" or "time is a physical paradigm". Neither are supported by the ref cited and no amount of minor tinkering is going to change that. We do not need the first sentence at all. The 2nd sentence is well-sourced & covers aspects of numerous sources [128]. In other words, the changes to the first sentence are totally WP:OR, and Jim has decided to forgo the first sentence. The second sentence is supported by references, and he has decided to go with that. And I agreed with him [129]. Next, Stveritgo, reverts Jim's article-edit [130], and then becomes argumentative on the talk page [131]. Perhaps to characterize how Stevertigo sees these discussions (same diff) he claims to have found "fatal flaws in every single proposed writing [JIM] has submitted. When it gets down to finding any fatal errors in my writing, he changes tactics and tries a red-herring argument focusing on items that I've already agreed to compromise on."

Also, when Stevertigo reverted Jim's edit Stevertigo makes noises about participating in a discussion [132]. However, Stevertigo carried out this revert, without discussion [133]. The point is he is attempting to use a guideline to gain an advantage (over Jim?) (over Jim &I?). However, editing is not intended to be about gaining an advantage over other editors to place original research material in an article. The original research material is not supposed to be there. And if it is, then the thing to do is to remove it, and it should make sense to all editors involved. However, over the course of three or four articles, where editing with Stevertigo is involved, it has been a constant battle. He is adamant about placing WP:OR in the ledes.

And believe it or not these are just the opening salvos (when I include the other articles). However, how long had this been going on in the "Time" article before I arrived? I went back as far as July 12, 2010. Here is where I first notice Stervitigo's "polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese" in the lede [[134] of the "Time" article. On July 12 (before I arrived) Stevertigo did 23 unchecked edits in a row [135], cullimanting in [136] "rv polysyllabic uninformative POV jargonese".

On August 1, 2010, Jim set up an RFC [137]. I showed up late on August 2, 2010 UTC. Stevertigo continued to restore his unacceptable lede without agreement by other editors:

August 4 -- [138], [139], [140], and so on until his edits are finally altered by User:Modocc [141], [142], and Jim Wae [143].

Ultimately another editor also got involved: User:DVdm. It was a long process as illustrated by the talk page revision history [144]. It looked like Stevertigo was stopped (August 5). Outnumbered, he finally moved on. To where? I don't know.

However, around this same time, other editors and I, had to deal with Stevertigo at Time in physics. It was another running battle of WP:OR vs. WP:V --- [145], [146], [147], [148], etc., etc. There was also discussion on the talk page. It is not an overly long discussion [149]. However, on the talk pages of both articles Stevertigo was sufficiently informed about using only sourced material. From his responses and his editing he refuses to get it, figithing obstinately to have his WP:OR leading the articles. Once again he was outnumbered and he moved on.

In the article Punishment the story is the same (a running battle between WP:OR and WP:V) [150] , except he has not moved on. We (the editing team) established a consensus lead by August 9th [151]. I thought Stevertigo had moved on. Much to my surprise, I discovered that on September 16 he had obssesively edited the lede 16 times in a row, 15 of which were on September 16th [152]. The total edits made by Stevertigo on that day were 23. I characterize the situation on the talk page here [153]. Jim Wade stepped in after 16 edits, and began to counter Stevertigo's WP:OR edits. I noted on the talk page that "it appears to be the same situation as when I stepped in over a month ago - Jim Wade doing his best to counter Stevertigo's unorthodox editing style. By the third Stevertigo edit, two sentenes were added, which were a creation not supported by any added references or those references already part of this article." The next edits were Jim Wade diplomatically countering Stevertigos edits. Ultimately, I restored the consensus lede established on August 9th [154].

I was still not intending to go to ANI. However, when Stevertigo made an audio version of sometihing which he describes as "To better illustrate the problems with your writing, I've made a spoken version of the introduction" [155]. He is refering to me and my writing. I have no problem that he made an audio version of anything, and placed it on the talk page. The problem is this is the same old routine - WP:OR vs. WP:V - only with an audio device.

I also need to expand this complaint to show that Stevertigo is not likely to alter is behavior a result of normal sanctioning. He has had some issues (conflicts) all the way back to 2005. Yet, five years later he still operating as if guidelines and policies do not apply to him.

Apparently, in 2005, as an administrator he unblocked himself four times, threatened to block users who disagreed with him, reverted a protected page, blocked a user for reverting him, and blocked another user for blocking him. He also blocked an admin who corrected his revert on a locked page. [156], [157]. I understand that he was desyoped. Also, he was topic banned regarding Obama articles (it looks like this year) [158]. With this he is Stevertigo is admonished for his edit-warring. Furthermore, Stevertigo is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Is this editing restriction applicable to only Obama articles, or to any article that he edits. Because, if it is general editing restriction he has violated this with this set of articles. I have a page that lists ANIs where some only mention his name, while others are issues related to his problematic type editing. Therefore, I will not provide that link, but I intend to go through it for a more complete picture. The 2005 incidents were started with edit warring in the Viet Nam article. So I would like to do a more complete investigation, including checking out some of his edit history.

Also, his most recent edits (2:37 September 19, 2010) were in the Physics article, Here he started the same pattern of inserting WP:OR material [159]. It was subsequently reverted within 24 hours. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Its 2 am where I am so I'll keep this brief. I have not read all of the material that Steve Quinn has presented, and having scanned it, it looks substantial. At first sight, I am myself almost convinced of SQ's thesis that I am a "problematic editor" and should go somewhere else. However I've been a "problematic editor" for some eight years now, AIUI, five years longer than SQ. I note that I have faced ANI's from people before and they typically consist of the same generalisms and inuendo, always failing to substantiate the points expressed. Note that that after the two or three pages of comment above, SQ's way of informing me of this ANI note was "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 09:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Two very quick points for Stevertigo - we don't rank editors by either edit count or time active on the project so that's not very relevant and the "there currently is a discussion at [WP:AN/I] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved." is the standard notification template {{subst:ANI-notice}} so no foul there. One MAJOR point for Steve Quinn - admins are less likely to read long messages - can you summarise your problem here in one paragraph? Exxolon (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)