Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761

User Renejs and telling the truth about sources
If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources.revi

User being reported:

User notified:

Reporter: Zerotalk

Summary: Two incidents show Renejs lying about the contents of sources.

Background: Renejs has been in Wikipedia for 6 years but recently returned after taking a break. Most of his/her edits are to the articles Nazareth and Nazarene (title), where he/she is known for promoting a fringe theory about the ancient history of Nazareth. His/her contribs show an aggressive style with large numbers of reverts. His/her talk page shows many complaints from other editors. There was a complaint of disruptive editing on this noticeboard and one on the 3RR noticeboard that led to article protection.

Incident 1. Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation in Nazareth:
 * "However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area. "

This text and citation was added to the article by Renejs in 2007. I located the source and found that that no such information appears at the stated place, so I removed it with a comment that the source was fake.

About 9 hours later, Renejs reverted me with the summary "The reference is in Bagatti. It's not at all fake. Just check it." I retrieved the source again (it is beside me) and checked that the given information is not only not on Plate XI but not anywhere else in the book either. Then I asked on Renejs' talk page, "I want to ask you if you have verified that 'B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.' is a source providing the information 'However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.'" Renejs replied, "Bagatti provides a chart with the slope of the hill. Measuring that slope provides the information that it averages a 14% grade. That is very steep."

The book is the report of archaeological excavations made in Nazareth. Renejs' reply to my question indicates that he/she knows what is in the source at "Plate XI, top right" but is not telling the truth about it. What appears there is a sketch map of the excavation area, approx 200m by 340m. There are two vertical cross-sections showing a total drop of 16.59m in the long direction (4.9%) and 15m in in the short direction (7.5%). (These drops are written in the source, they are not my measurements.) There is no value of 14% here and in any case the diagram only shows a small part of the nearby hill that has the shrine Nebi Sa'in on it's peak. There is also nothing written about whether the slope is appropriate for ancient dwellings. So Renejs is misrepresenting what is actually given in the source. But he is also misrepresenting the book's viewpoint, since its author is completely confident that ancient dwellings existed there and never says anything else. Since he himself added the material in the first place, he does not have the excuse of trusting another editor too much.

Note that the "slope was too steep" argument is a standard part of the fringe theory Renejs promotes (represented by the book The Myth of Nazareth by René J. Salm) and Bagatti was one of the archaeologists whose work had to be discredited in order to prove the theory. Falsely painting an opponent as an ally is a serious offence.

Incident 2. In this edit at Theudas, Renejs removed the citation "" with the summary "No mention of Semitic etymology of 'Theuda' in the given reference of Schurer." However, Semitic etymology is mentioned exactly in the place indicated.

Scans of both sources are available from me, just send me mail.

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources. Zerotalk 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth. For example, consider this whopper:


 * "Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation" --Zero0000


 * That text was added in July of 2007 and in the five years it has been there you have made hundreds of edits to the page. Suddenly you "just noticed it" and did not bother to check to see who added it and when? Riiiiiiiight. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * Contrary to your "hundreds of edits", I have edited Nazareth exactly twice, both in the past 4 days. Administrators: Can someone tell such bare-faced lies on this noticeboard with impunity? Notice that Guy Macon reinserted the challenged material after seeing this report, despite admitting that he doesn't have the source. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tracking down when the text and its phony source were first inserted. I didn't realise it was inserted by Renejs!  This means he/she doesn't have the excuse of trusting another editor too much. I'll add it to his indictment. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(Goes back and checks) You are correct. I searched for Nazareth in your history from July 2009 to July 2012, and it picked up a bunch of edits that were not to the Nazareth page. It did not occur to me that a person would use the word "Nazareth" so often when editing other pages. And even then, I should have said "tens" not "hundreds". I apologize for the error.

I would also note that my revert was proper. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and then ponder why it is that we have a citation needed tag if, as you claim, the only allowable response to a sourcing question is deletion. Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement regarding the slope of the hill and how the slope disqualifies the assertion apparently is not found in the source cited. If that is true then the problem is that of Original Research. If I remember correctly, a violation of Original Research is not protected under WP:PRESERVE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shootings
Standard notice about a recent event that will likely draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article. --Rschen7754 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's our policy in order to inform readers that it may not be up to date. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rschen isn't saying that the current events template is a problem; this is simply a reminder for experienced editors to keep an eye on the article or add it to their watchlist because these type of events tend to "draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article." Chillllls (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User Renejs and telling the truth about sources
If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources.

User being reported:

User notified:

Reporter: Zerotalk

Summary: Two incidents show Renejs lying about the contents of sources.

Background: Renejs has been in Wikipedia for 6 years but recently returned after taking a break. Most of his/her edits are to the articles Nazareth and Nazarene (title), where he/she is known for promoting a fringe theory about the ancient history of Nazareth. His/her contribs show an aggressive style with large numbers of reverts. His/her talk page shows many complaints from other editors. There was a complaint of disruptive editing on this noticeboard and one on the 3RR noticeboard that led to article protection.

Incident 1. Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation in Nazareth:
 * "However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area. "

This text and citation was added to the article by Renejs in 2007. I located the source and found that that no such information appears at the stated place, so I removed it with a comment that the source was fake.

About 9 hours later, Renejs reverted me with the summary "The reference is in Bagatti. It's not at all fake. Just check it." I retrieved the source again (it is beside me) and checked that the given information is not only not on Plate XI but not anywhere else in the book either. Then I asked on Renejs' talk page, "I want to ask you if you have verified that 'B. Bagatti, Excavations in Nazareth, Plate XI, top right.' is a source providing the information 'However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.'" Renejs replied, "Bagatti provides a chart with the slope of the hill. Measuring that slope provides the information that it averages a 14% grade. That is very steep."

The book is the report of archaeological excavations made in Nazareth. Renejs' reply to my question indicates that he/she knows what is in the source at "Plate XI, top right" but is not telling the truth about it. What appears there is a sketch map of the excavation area, approx 200m by 340m. There are two vertical cross-sections showing a total drop of 16.59m in the long direction (4.9%) and 15m in in the short direction (7.5%). (These drops are written in the source, they are not my measurements.) There is no value of 14% here and in any case the diagram only shows a small part of the nearby hill that has the shrine Nebi Sa'in on it's peak. There is also nothing written about whether the slope is appropriate for ancient dwellings. So Renejs is misrepresenting what is actually given in the source. But he is also misrepresenting the book's viewpoint, since its author is completely confident that ancient dwellings existed there and never says anything else. Since he himself added the material in the first place, he does not have the excuse of trusting another editor too much.

Note that the "slope was too steep" argument is a standard part of the fringe theory Renejs promotes (represented by the book The Myth of Nazareth by René J. Salm) and Bagatti was one of the archaeologists whose work had to be discredited in order to prove the theory. Falsely painting an opponent as an ally is a serious offence.

Incident 2. In this edit at Theudas, Renejs removed the citation "" with the summary "No mention of Semitic etymology of 'Theuda' in the given reference of Schurer." However, Semitic etymology is mentioned exactly in the place indicated.

Scans of both sources are available from me, just send me mail.

If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth about sources. Zerotalk 11:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are correct. If there's anything we don't need in Wikipedia, it is editors who don't tell the truth. For example, consider this whopper:


 * "Recently I noticed the following text with a strange citation" --Zero0000


 * That text was added in July of 2007 and in the five years it has been there you have made hundreds of edits to the page. Suddenly you "just noticed it" and did not bother to check to see who added it and when? Riiiiiiiight. --Guy Macon (talk)


 * Contrary to your "hundreds of edits", I have edited Nazareth exactly twice, both in the past 4 days. Administrators: Can someone tell such bare-faced lies on this noticeboard with impunity? Notice that Guy Macon reinserted the challenged material after seeing this report, despite admitting that he doesn't have the source. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for tracking down when the text and its phony source were first inserted. I didn't realise it was inserted by Renejs!  This means he/she doesn't have the excuse of trusting another editor too much. I'll add it to his indictment. Zerotalk 09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(Goes back and checks) You are correct. I searched for Nazareth in your history from July 2009 to July 2012, and it picked up a bunch of edits that were not to the Nazareth page. It did not occur to me that a person would use the word "Nazareth" so often when editing other pages. And even then, I should have said "tens" not "hundreds". I apologize for the error.

I would also note that my revert was proper. Please read WP:PRESERVE and WP:BRD and then ponder why it is that we have a citation needed tag if, as you claim, the only allowable response to a sourcing question is deletion. Reverting to the last stable version before a content dispute erupted is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement regarding the slope of the hill and how the slope disqualifies the assertion apparently is not found in the source cited. If that is true then the problem is that of Original Research. If I remember correctly, a violation of Original Research is not protected under WP:PRESERVE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shootings
Standard notice about a recent event that will likely draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article. --Rschen7754 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's our policy in order to inform readers that it may not be up to date. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Rschen isn't saying that the current events template is a problem; this is simply a reminder for experienced editors to keep an eye on the article or add it to their watchlist because these type of events tend to "draw a lot of traffic and vandalism to the article." Chillllls (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Stungrenade
User appears to be wiki-stalking me and exhibits strange, erratic behaviour. My guess is this user is a previously blocked user considering how much they know about how WP works. Two blatant edit summary violations here [phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stungrenade&diff=503254818&oldid=503254530] and here making a blatantly false report about my username here  Vandalism which the user tried to "justify" here. (Not entirely sure why some of the links wont work, may have to copy paste xD) --Τασουλα (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Stungrenade has vandalized multiple times (that's what the warnings or alleged stalking is about). Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to propose an indefinite block here, as Stungrenade appears to be a vandalism-only account. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's this users erratic behaviour and accusations of slander and libel that worry me the most. Per WP:DUCK this user is most likely a user who has been blocked in the past. And yes, I agree - a permanent block. The users ridiculous attitude warrants one too I think. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Τασουλα
From the moment I joined up today, user:Τασουλα has not left me alone. The user continues to make innapropriate comments towards me on my talkpage here, which include slanderous accusations of being a blocked user here and here as well, before removing a valid complaint I have made about his username here, note please, the continuation of his abuse and slander in the edit summary. I now feel threatened by this user, as after less than an hour of being registered on this site, he continues to hound me for spurious and unprovable reasons. I request that action be taken to prevent his abuse. Stungrenade (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're hilarious. I cannot believe you are accusing -me- of wikistalking you. And it is obvious you are a previously blocked user. --Τασουλα (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are continuing with your slander and harrassment on this page? You truely know no limits to your hatred of me, do you? Stungrenade (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further slander and lies from this user have been added to the username report. [|The user claims I have said things which I never did]. Stungrenade (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He is not stalking you. It's called a vandalism warning. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hatred? I'm following standard procedure, something you are not. I am not slandering you and I do not hate you. Your behaviour is erratic. My original issue with you was with your vandalism over at ITN/C which you got a standard warning for. You removed this as vandalism which is a violation of edit summaries and not assuming good faith. You then went on to file a false report about my user-name. You then admitted it was a false report and when I removed it as such, you restored it even after admitting it was false. You then proceed to accuse me of libel and slander which is completely untrue. It is blatantly obvious you are a user that has been blocked in the past per WP:DUCK. Again, stop with the slander nonsense. You did admit it was a false report! You even apologised, thou I doubt that was sincere. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have never, ever "admitted" anything to this user, he is continuing to lie through his teeth. I have never "apologised" for anything either. I am now genuinely fearful for my offline safety, if this user can so easily come up with such blatant and outragous lies about me, what could he do given access to my personal information? Stungrenade (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I REST my case. This is getting really boring now. I have not threatened you in anyway. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And you failed to apologise for your wide slander and abuse, so I came here. I guess reading and comprehension aren't your strong point. Shame really, they would be much better talents than your current hatred and grudge holding. Stungrenade (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No abuse. No slander. I am trying to go through standard procedure but you are making it difficult. And that's just a personal attack in regards to my literacy skills. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All you have done is abuse me. And until you can actually provide evidence that I have had an account here before (which is not true whatsoever), it is slander. It is also not a personal attack to point out the shortcommings in your reading skills. Stungrenade (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Convencience links: This edit by Stungrenade most certainly appears to be vandalism, Stungrenade later defends these as edits as "correct", and labels Τασουλα's Uw-vandalism1 warning as vandalism. I can't judge the merrit of this and the previous edit by both parties. – sgeureka t•c 11:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The one edit Stungrenade made in which he wasn't harassing Τασουλα, is blatant vandalism. Obvious vandal/troll who is getting way too much attention here. Just block and be done with it.--Atlan (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies if that edit was a little too...hasty Sgeureka. I've tried to handle this in the best way I can but it is extremely difficult. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your apology did not cover the slanderous comments you continue to make about me, the harrassment you have subjected me to, the lies you have propogated about me and the generally hostile attitude you have had towards me from the second I became a target for your venom. Stungrenade (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... really, that's enough with the "I hate you" comments... I don't hate anyone... --Τασουλα (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Clearly you do. There is no reason for you, an experienced editor to be targetting me, someone who is brand new to this site and who just wants to improve it for the benefit of everyone else. Stungrenade (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are clearly not a new editor! Your first contribution here was nothing but vandalism and all you're doing now is wasting everyone's time. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Prove that I have had an account here before. You can't, because it isn't true. Until you can do so, you are slandering me. Something which needs to stop right now. Stungrenade (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "WP:DUCK" - that is my sole basis for this. I have not just come up with it because I have something against you. You have a lovely day now. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest an indef block as a disruption only account. Clearly a returning user (though who exactly, is not clear.) First edit was a reversing of four people's votes at a discussion and all others have followed from that and demonstrate close familirity with WP processes. I'd block myself, but am currently on a machine that doesn't have Firefox to give me easy access to the tools. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Stungrenade for a week for disruptive editing. I am happy to extend or shorten the block according to consensus. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A week? What kind of arbitrary length of time is that? All the disruption happened within 2 hours. Just block indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A week seems about right, considering the circumstance. Likely not to be the last block, but we should assume good faith in all things and give everyone a second chance to contribute.  Still not holding my breath. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ...And we can try to match this sock in the meantime, which would change everything....Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's standard procedure to start off with a non-indef blocked. I'm off to spend time in my garden ^_^, and apologies if I didn't handle this as well as I could of to all those involved. I actually have this distinct feeling that I've dealt with this editor before but under a different username. I have no idea why I get this feeling. --Τασουλα (talk) 11:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zip. Although I was going to propose an indefinite block, we'll see what happens in a week. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice goodbye message. Yeah I really want this guy back in a week.--Atlan (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * x2 Indeffed per these two personal attacks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've revoked his talk page access for continued personal attacks. See?  The system works.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  12:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, you got there a second before I did. Ah well, drama over - back to building an encyclopedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Evil
Ok, this is getting ridiculous. Why is accusing other editors of evil allowed to stand? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6&diff=503228637&oldid=503223797 I perceive that I am dealing with a hateful opponent bent on complicating my work in wikipedia, that's just what it is, there is no rational discussion possible.]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6&diff=503258846&oldid=503230806 I won't blame you...not compromised by the past evil.]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6&diff=503278830&oldid=503271475 ...outright lying or being deliberately cleverly deceptive, i.e. evil, in that comment]
 * Why are you ratcheting this up at ANI again? I haven't cared enough to follow the last incarnation here, but it seems you are digging up edits just to bring up the sequel.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Digging up edits"? Those are all in the past 12 hours, not much need to dig here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 12 hours is not digging up the past. Sarek, quit eating babies and raping nuns.  Wait, you aren't doing that.  What reason is there to call you evil except as a personal attack?  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not in that thread at all, actually.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is ridiculous (Orlady is at the receiving end of the first diatribe). I hate civility blocks, but this is seriously uncivil. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, Drmies, I agree that it has appearance of being uncivil. You can look at the full discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6 and fairly deem that it appears I am at fault there.  In a larger context of following edits, of Orlady over approaching 5 years, and of SarekOfVulcan in tag-team fashion during the last year or two, and it can look differently.  ANI is not the place to have it out, for a long horrible history that I do believe amounts to wiki-hounding and horrible behavior.  In which I have lashed out, lashed back at times, and have been punished (often unfairly in my view).  It is just more complicated than one new ANI is going to solve, or at least not solve fairly.
 * If the topic of this ANI is the civility level at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_6, I offer to settle that by dropping out of the discussion there, or being scrupulously civil from now on there. If the topic of this ANI is anything and everything negative that can be said about me, well this isn't the right forum, and SarekOfVulcan should not be leading it.  -- do  ncr  am  16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * [EC] When I saw the subheading "Evil", I was pretty sure I knew what the discussion was about. Doncram's attacks on me have gone on for a very long time, such that a civility block wouldn't make a bit of difference. At one point, I even compiled some examples of the verbiage that he had used in discussing me in just one series of WP:AN discussions. Choice entries in addition to "evil" included "consistently hateful", "vast, poisonous negativity", "reckless disregard for truth and for my reputation", "sadistic", "bullying", and "malicious and intellectually dishonest". --Orlady (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) It does, however, seem particularly ridiculous to be accused of "evil" for requesting the renaming of some categories whose names don't follow Wikipedia naming conventions. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Before dropping out, I urge you to redact the phrases. No matter how much you might feel that some editors are interested in simply poking, you cannot possibly believe that characterizing a differing opinion as "evil" could possibly result in a good resolution.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say this as gently but clearly as possible. If you are incapable of discussing the use of an acronym in a category name without accusing other editors of embodying Absolute Evil, then you lack all sense of perspective. If there's an issue with Orlady, then that issue needs to be addressed through this site's dispute-resolution pathways, not with constant swipes and accusations of hatefulness in random deletion discussions. MastCell Talk 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't condone personal attacks. Secondly, however, I have tremendous respect for both doncram and Orlady.  Have worked constructively with both and think they are both great contributors.  (No criticism intended of Sarek by not mentioning him; I just haven't worked with him.)  I really don't care to get into a "blame" or "fault" game, but the relationship between these good people has been very negative for more than a year.  I hate to see Wikipedia lose doncram, who is an incredibly hard-working editor, with yet another block.  I don't see him reacting with similar venom except toward Orlady and Sarek.  Given the past history, any criticism he receives from Sarek and Orlady is received with extreme sensitivity.  I'd really like to see a solution where there is some dis-engagement.  Because I believe much of the problems here flow from past hostilities, I'd like to see a solution where the involved parties dis-engage for a time.  If doncram, Sarek, and Orlady would be willing to agree to this, I would be willing to commit that I will personally review all of doncram's work over the next 30 days (doing so at least twice a week) if they will step away during that time.  If there are problems, I will either fix them or discuss them with doncram or bring them to a larger group at the NRHP project.  If I miss something that Orlady or Sarek find troubling, they can discuss it with me.  It's a significant time commitment, but I'm willing to take it on in hopes that it might help three very productive editors get back to being productive. Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, too. Much appreciated, Cbl62. --Orlady (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I could agree to comply with this, with respect to my continuing mainspace work in wikipedia and any related supporting Talk pages etc. Cbl62 would have been welcome to review my work anyhow, as he occasionally has in the past, but I appreciate that he is taking on a potentially time-consuming obligation.
 * However, in the same edit, what Cbl62 proposes does not explicitly address two ongoing actions that Orlady and SarekOfVulcan have launched, one a CFD launched by Orlady which could lead to removal of NRHP architect category from more than 400 articles, in my view causing unnecessary disruption of an ongoing major program of my work, and the other being an AFD launched by SarekOfVulcan that could cause deletion of 14 of my recent articles. About the CFD in which I think SarekOfVulcan has not entered, could Orlady agree to withdraw the CFD (not entirely in her power, but Orlady's request would carry some weight) as long as the 3 categories are restored to hidden type, returning to a previous status quo?  About the AFD, could both agree to withdraw their recommendations of deletion of the articles, which would carry some weight with other participants?  I would leave it to Cbl62 to make some appropriate statement at the CFD and at the AFD. -- do  ncr  am  19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Doncram, if you want to make those categories "hidden" again, I suggest that you make that change (also, it probably would be best to remove the parent categories that I added) and request that the CFD be closed. If any other CFD participants object, they can do so, but I doubt that anyone would object. --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC) I've already gone on record saying "Returning them to hidden status would be a good alternative to renaming them." --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

IP reverting edits following making their first edit on Jimbo's page
This User:109.64.207.52 has been reverting the edits of a number of established users. After being warned I blocked them. They are now editing as User:109.65.205.91. They may be related to User:Nenpog who edited under a number of IPs before being blocked for disruptive editing. Anyway I am away for a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've blocked .91 for obvious block evasion. 28bytes (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Another one User:79.182.231.224. In the same range as Neupogs other IPs User:79.182.199.172, User:79.182.215.205, User:79.179.224.214   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User now becoming disruptive here thus blocked this IP as well.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Might need a range block as they simply keep switching IPs User:79.182.196.246 now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopped IP's again, now posting on the talk page as 79.176.213.139 Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs a rangeblock. See below. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Talk:Jesus
As can be seen at the page Talk:Jesus, User:Cush has been engaged in some regular editing questioning the use of sources which are considered reliable enough by major independent reference books that they are used regularly in their articles on the subject. He has provided no reliable sources himself to support his contentions, but simply seems to be declaring that his opinion must be adhered to by some form of personal fiat. Also, as has been pointed out on that talk page, Cush has a fairly significant history of such edits, as History2007 found regarding the number of times Cush has been the subject of two RfC/U's regarding this matter already, as can been seen at Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive, been brought to ANI before several times as can been seen in the ANI archives here. I believe it is not unreasonable for the question to be raised as to whether this individual should be made subject to some form of sanctions, as I myself have already said on the talk page in question. Under the circumstances, I personally believe a topic ban from matters relating to the historicity of Jesus and the early New Testament be considered. I do however acknowledge that my own previous involvement in the discussion might prejudice my opinion, and believe that the matter in general, and the possibility of some disciplinary sanctions in particular, be reviewed by an independent editor before any such action take place. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Some evidence and examples of Cush's behavior:
 * "Religious authors are never reliable sources for issues about core components of their respective religion. Objectivity is simply impossible there. And those authors who rely on religious authors without conducting their own scientific research are not reliable as well. Of course because so much time has passed, the chain of authors who rely on what others have written before is very long. But the chain breaks at the first religionist author or the first author who relies on hearsay (e.g. Josephus)." - He dismisses individuals like Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, and other scholars cited in the Jesus article because they do not go out of their way to "prove" that Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist.
 * Here he dismisses Géza Vermes and George Albert Wells (both non-Christians) for their affirmation that there was some historical Jesus of Nazareth, despite their earlier denial. No matter how many scholars are provided who affirm the historicity of Jesus, no matter how many sources are provided that state "most scholars" or "the majority of scholars" affirm Jesus's historicity, he denies that most scholars affirm it because a fringe minority exists that he agrees with.
 * "But what exactly is a scholar? The word lumps real scientists as historians and archaeologists together with frauds as theologians and any other believers - he then goes on to advocate his own theories, presenting no sources for them.
 * "historians who work for Christian institutions or adhere to certain Christian beliefs are in a conflict of interest and are not reliable sources" - with some rather Birther-esque demands for a minor religious teacher in the boonies, in an era without mass-communication or even mass-literacy.
 * Here he argues that because there is no consensus on exact details regarding the historicity of the Tanakh, none of the general agreement by most scholars is valid. Again, pushing for his own unsourced POV instead of what the sources say.
 * Here he dismisses the Gospels as politically and religiously charged, without acknowledging that the Roman sources (indeed, almost all sources from that period) would be as well, and ignoring that our articles do not cite primary sources but secondary sources by professionals trained to interpret the primary sources.
 * Here he argues that editor disagreement with sources (even if they meet WP:RS) trumps WP:V. He also makes some more Birther-esque demands, yet I fail to find him treating Socrates or Siddhartha Gautama in the same way.
 * As JohnCarter has pointed out, when Cush is called to present any sources for his constant assertion that no real Scot- I mean scholar-- accepts the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth (or for any of his claims, for that matter), he doesn't put forward any (except for one instance where he linked to a youtube video that is essentially a religiously anti-religious blog).
 * This is only on Talk:Jesus, and doesn't even begin to cover his similar behavior elsewhere.
 * As JohnCarter has pointed out, two RFC/Us have been filed in the past, as have prior ANI reports, all to no avail. He was previously indefed for anti-Semitic speech, and only unblocked on the condition that he not use such inflammitory language again, which he later violated anyway.  In both instances (and others), he revealed a highly problematic bias on any topic relating to Judaism and Christianity.
 * As History2007 points out, Cush's insistence that "no reliable historians exist" is similar to:
 * Someone going on the page for earth and saying: "the earth is flat"
 * When asked for WP:RS sources by geologists, they refuse and say: "no reliable geologists exist".
 * Given multiple chances to provide sources by scholars, professors, etc., they refuse and continue saying the same thing with no sources.]
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I support some type of end to this un-merrygoround. How can the assertion that "no reliable historians exist" be accepted any more than "no reliable scientists exist", unless Phlogiston is real after all. That will be the day. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This debate is long and boring. Not too long ago almost every single person with an education was a believer. Cush's latest edit on the article itself is dated 19:13, 10 June 2012. He has edited the talkpage a couple of times after that. If someone has WP:IDHT problems on a talkpage you can simply ignore them. If that person edits the article without consensus, gets reverted and starts an editwar over it they will be blocked. Arcandam (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * An important question: You say this is only his behavior on Talk:Jesus. Can you provide evidence of his behavior elsewhere on the project, recently, that shows similar problems? Someone saying this kind of thing on one talk page can be ignored, per Arcandum, as someone who doesn't realize we're not a message board. Someone saying this kind of thing across multiple areas, or editing in article space to push this POV, should be topic-banned at the very least. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an article about everything: Historical Jesus. Oh look, a shitload of sources in the section Denial of a historical Jesus. More info can be found here. Arcandam (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But you are discussing content now when referring to Historical Jesus. Is "just ignore him" a policy? As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking. And please do stop being vulgar here Arcandam. This is a family encyclopedia after all. History2007 (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a family encyclopedia if you are using the word "family" as a euphemism for censored. And I wouldn't recommend reading Wikipedia to people who are offended by the word shit. We even have pictures of it! Please read Method_for_consensus_building. It is not a policy, it is an essay. Arcandam (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Just ignore him" when dealing with just being dumb on a talkpage is in line with the spirit of WP:DENY. Arcandum saying "shitload" or any other swearword not actually used to insult a person is WP:NOTCENSORED. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, yeah, yeah. But WP:Common decency should still prevail. And WP:DENY is an essay and of no relevance to policy. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is a cultural difference, it was obviously not my intention to offend anyone and where I am from this word is not considered vulgar. I live in Amsterdam, the Netherlands BTW, the social norms are different here. Arcandam (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not watch Dutch TV, so I do not know how often the nightly news on Dutch TV uses that word. Most US TV networks avoid it, for all I know. History2007 (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Warning: links may contain offensive content! The newschannels probably won't use it, but we have television programs like Spuiten en Slikken that would be considered extremely offensive by some. A lot has changed since the days of Phil Bloom. You wrote: "As for your link to Christ myth theory, the first paragraph of that article states "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established". So please read before linking". I am not sure why you are mad at me but the reason I posted that link is because that article contained that sentence. Arcandam (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:DENY being an essay rather than policy doesn't mean it's not a good idea, and much of policy and guidelines are promoted essays. Also, on the term Arcandum used, it's really a mild vulgarity. And WP:NOTCENSORED is policy. There are no rules against swearing. Period. That said, if your request on the vulgarity is a polite request not to use that term unnecessarily in conversation with you, Arcandum may or may not agree to your request, but they ought to consider it. In sensitivity to your opinions, I myself will refrain from swearing in this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. History2007 (talk)


 * The true issue here is that History2007 tries to own the Jesus article. On the talk page every second or so post is his. And he seems to keep out all who do not share his view on the article and its encyclopedic subject.
 * Archaeology and History are based on evidence, not on speculation, and not on the authority of any academics. And it does not matter whether a layman or an academic does the speculating. I am not saying that there are no reliable historians. I am saying that historians who provide no evidence are not reliable sources for an encyclopedia. Conjecture, even if is is done by some respected high-profile academic is still conjecture and must be presented as such in the respective articles. Without primary sources (i.e. writings form the lifetime of Jesus from people in his personal vicinity or from people who report about him as there are report about other persons from the same time frame and area) History2007 can claim some "academic consensus" all he wants, but this has no substance. Historians who only reproduce what ancient writers had put down from hearsay when Christianity already existed as a religious group, are not reliable sources by any meaning of the word. And this is not about Jesus as a religious figure, but about Jesus to be established as a real historic person. There is no definitive establishment, and the article must reflect that.
 * And as for the tendentious editing. I have been here long enough to know that WP has a strong bias towards a religious POV and that many editors tend to insert religious claims and doctrines as facts into many articles. That goes for nearly all articles about persons, places, and events mentioned in the Bible. My suggestion would be that there should be a policy about reliability of sources in the context of articles that are also in the scope of religious subjects. A policy that is much stricter than the current requirements for the reliability of sources. That would solve a lot of problems. &#9798; CUSH &#9798;  20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cush, the problem is that you seem to see yourself as the arbiter of what is reliable and what is not. Do you have some kind of advanced degree in historical studies that makes you more reliable or authoritative than the historians that are being cited? ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if he has an advanced degree or not, but the statement that ""no reliable historians exist" can just not be supported. What if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist"? Will that cause a problem on the page for physics? It will for sure. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It won't cause a problem for Wikipedia if someone insists that "no reliable physicists exist", because that person will be ignored by the majority of our users, but if that person is stubborn it may cause a problem for that person because it is likely that person will end up being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your "it is likely that person will end up being blocked" statement. That seems to be what needs to happen here. One can not keep supporting Phlogiston for ever in an encyclopedia while refusing to provide sources. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a note, there is a relevant cleanup tag to that: religious text primary. It's for use when an article attempts to use a religious text as a source for anything other than what that religious text says. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Funnily enough I do no seem to have edited Christ myth theory for as long as I remember, but it says the same thing. So no ownership issues there Cush, but WP:V issues against you all over the place. So your "content based argument" is not valid. And again, and again, and again, you have never provided any sources for your assertions. Sigh.... History2007 (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As the two prior RFC/Us and various ANI threads demonstrate, Cush has a long-term problem when it comes to handling issues pertaining to Judaism and Christianity. I'll grant that he's useful elsewhere, but when religion is involved he's insanely bigoted. In the past he's claimed that mainstream views, if they coincide with religious views, should not be accepted on the site. While he's entitled to hold whatever beliefs he wants, he cannot edit based on those beliefs, just as we do not allow other extremists to push their beliefs on the encyclopedia. There have been calls for topic bans on Cush pertaining to Abrahamic religious topics, and he just waits until the trouble dies down before starting up again elsewhere. For some more examples of problematic behavior over time, see Requests_for_comment/Cush and Requests_for_comment/Cush_(second_RFC). It is not simply a matter of him disagreeing with religion that is the problem (again, he can believe whatever he wants), it is his refusal to respect any possibility of objectivity or intelligence from anyone who is not religiously anti-Abrahamic, and his calls to reshape the site to reflect that view. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A topic ban to prevent more time-wasting may be a good idea if there is another big war in the mainspace and if Cush is not willing to accept the fact that he is not going to get his way. But it would be kinda cool if we could explain that in a way that is acceptable for Cush. Arcandam (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On the talk page, we have repeatedly asked him to provide sources. We received none. We tried to avoid ANI, as on the talk page. We did not get far. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should point out that he's behaving more like the boogey-man religious extremists he imagines all theists are. After all, he has no problem complaining when someone religious presents a claim without evidence while ignoring evidence to the contrary, it's only hypocrisy to then go on and do that himself.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (multiple e-c's later) Like I said earlier, some of the New Testament sources are considered reliable enough that they are used to substantiate content in existing academic encyclopedias which have no apparent bias in favor of any individual beliefs, like the Mircea Eliade/Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, probably counted as one of the two best reference sources currently available on religion. What it seems we are talking about is, basically, an assertion, which is apparently unsubstantiated, that because Cush doesn't like these sources, we can't use them, even if the leading academic reference sources in the field do. Also, in response to some comments above, I don't know if Cush's problematic conduct has extended anywhere else recently. However, the record of his conduct regarding such material over time is also available, and it seems consistent on this point. Bluntly, I think that, given his failure to reasonably deal with the two RfCUs, his multiple problems which have been brought to ANI and elsewhere, and so on, the time has come for a topic ban on this subject. That is more or less what I said at the start of this thread. Would anyone care to respond directly with their own opinions? John Carter (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, the situation is really simple. If you go on the page earth and keep insisting for ever that it is flat, and refuse to provide sources when asked for again and again, and say "no reliable geologists exist" you will get topic banned from geology. Same here. History2007 (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Cush proposed by User:Jorgath
I propose the following solution: '''User:Cush is topic-banned for six months from the subjects of Jesus of Nazareth, the history of Christianity, and the history of Judaism, broadly construed, in all namespaces (except in appealing this topic ban). Violations of this topic ban can lead to the topic ban being extended to an indefinite topic ban and/or blocks.''' Cush is also strongly encouraged to read WP:STICK, and to re-read WP:V and WP:RS. They are also cautioned that in the future, they should bring up questions about the reliability of sources at the Reliable sources noticeboard rather than making unsubstatiated claims against sources on article talk pages. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support... but I am not holding my breath that it will not be back here in 6 months and a day. I would suggest a topic ban altogether. He has been on RFC/U and ANI for far too long and we have repeatedly offered him the avenue for using sources I do not think anything will change in 6 months. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Given his other edits, I'm willing to hope he's smart enough to learn from this experience that while we accept editors regardless of their beliefs, extremism for those beliefs (whatever they are) is not accepted here. If he does fail to learn from this, we'll have this to point to and something'd better be done about it then.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not just "belief" but WP:RS sources. The point is that we have used the WP:RS/AC mantra for long, to no avail. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you misinterpreted: Ian.thomson was referring to Cush's extreme belief that those sources are not reliable. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, I am sorry. But still, sources should rule. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have copyedited the proposal to say "namespaces," which is what I meant to say, instead of "mainspaces," for which I . - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support But I think we should extend it to anything under the scope of WP Christianity and WP Judaism. His tirades have not been limited to just Jesus, and the History of Christianity. He has called all theologians frauds as well as called the entire Hebrew Bible prior to the divided kingdom religious folklore. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the accusations were more than "folklore," which could have a historical basis but is more important for non-historical matters (and thus is the term I would personally use off-site to describe a lot of the Tanakh). He dismissed it more as complete fantasy, and from there dismissed any secondary sources that mention the Tanakh without calling it fantasy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support but I might propose changing the subheading name to "proposed topic ban of Cush" or something similar to make it a bit easier to find if, for whatever reason, it has to be found and referred to at some point in the future. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Extremism doesn't further the building of an NPOV encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Belief or non belief, extremism exists from all sides of any issue. Cush's editing is inappropriate.  I support an indefinite topic ban, with the option to appeal, on all religious topics.--v/r - TP 23:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would prefer an indefinite ban from articles relating to early Christianity and early CE Judaism with the option to appeal after a year myself. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I would support that too: Indef topic ban, with the option to appeal after a year. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good solution too... but I think it needs to be expanded to Christianity and Judaism as a whole. He has shown radical bias against not just early or historical perspectives, but contention against all of those who hold those religious views. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - Should we end up here again after the end of the ban, the next one will probably be indefinite, but I hope Cush changes his attitude towards mainstream academic sources (at least on Wikipedia). Huon (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose topic ban. Normally, topic bans are only imposed on highly disruptive editors who for instance edit war. Going by Cush's editing of Jesus and its talkpage — I haven't looked further afield than that — I really can't agree that they're being disruptive or unreasonable. I have trouble understanding the repeated IDHT accusations, and they certainly haven't edit warred. They has a POV, yes. So do John Carter and History2007. As somebody pointed out above, the last time Cush edited Jesus was 10 June 2012; even if their editing were disruptive, would 19 July be a good time to topic ban them? They have edited the article 8 times altogether, not disruptively as far as I can see, spread out between February and June of this year. See this page for the article's overall editing stats (History2007 is by far the most prolific contributor). Cush has contributed many more times to the talkpage (54 posts in 2012 (and altogether), last time 11 July) than the article; but topic banning or restricting people from talkpages is an extreme measure which should be kept for extreme circumstances. Disagreeing with the majority of the editors of Jesus is not an extreme circumstance.
 * I agree with Cush (above) that History2007 is a dominant presence at Jesus and its talkpage. It's scarcely too strong to say that s/he owns the talkpage by force of the number, volume, and repetitiousness of their posts. While I wouldn't call him/her "disruptive" either, these stats impel me to propose a polite request to him/her to practice a little voluntary restraint. 350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day, every day, for the past six months. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
 * If you read my user page, you will see that I am becoming less active on Wikipedia. And that I had stated on talk that it would be best not to end up here. And your inference about "an average of two posts a day" is flawed logic, because there can be several posts on one day in a conversation and no post for a few days by any user (say July 11-18 2012), and a single statement may have 4 edits as typos are corrected, etc. But, given that you astutely observed that I am not disruptive, I will quit Wikipedia when I feel like it, at my pace, after I have tied up all loose ends, and added references when they are needed, not before. But rest assured that I have lost faith in the project. WMF just started a travel guide... when most encyclopedic items are far from sourced, with more glaring errors than one can count. Next step: a 3 way merger with Facebook and Tripadvisor.com. Way to go...Yet Cush's behavior is inexcusable. I hold to that one... And I view your defense of "source free behavior" as unacceptable. This type of waste of time debate about fringe views only hinders the lost dream of an error free encyclopedia. So do not support source free behavior. Go on physics and say "no reliable physicists exist" and see what happens. Try that one, ok? Just try that one. History2007 (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also note that, with Johnbod, History 2007 has gone through an extraordinary amount of effort to get the article up to GA status, recognized or not. In fact, if you check the talk page, you will see I looked at the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is counted by the religion field as one of the two best reference works in the field (there's some argument about whether it or Brill's Religion Past and Present is better), and found only a very few, rather slight, variations regarding Jesus in other faiths. And, yes, the article is, whether we like it or not, probably one of the central points of POV pushing in wikipedia, and regularly subjected to "my side says this" edits. I would not fault History2007 for commenting as often as he has. Other editors would have just reverted or used the user talk pages of editors involved. If anything, I think the frequency of his edits to the talk page may well indicate that he has held himself to a higher standard than most other editors, including admins. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this thread is not about yours truly, but Cush. So let us not get sidetracked. Anyway, I will stop watching here for a while. I have had enough of this repetitive, and obvious issue. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * History2007, you must have missed the word "average" in there when you called my statement that "350 posts to that talkpage in 2012 means an average of two posts a day" "flawed logic". It's the simplest of arithmetic, not what I'd call an "inference". As for what this thread is about, are you familiar with WP:PETARD, an essay much cited on this board? A common statement on noticeboards is 'this isn't about me, this is about them'. There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is 'changing the subject' and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. Anyway. I don't mean this in a bad way, John Carter, but you're not exactly an independent voice in your intepretation of History2007's massive posting as a sign of virtue. Do you regard his apparent compulsion to respond to every objection here on ANI in the same light? I'd be interested to see someone without a dog in the fight engaging with the points I made. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC).


 * Except that you've hardly demonstrated misbehavior on History2007's part. If you provided some diffs showing that his messages have WP:OWN problems, or that he was inserting biased sources into the article, or misrepresenting sources, etc, etc... then you might have something.  As there's plenty of posts, it shouldn't be hard to build a case if there is one.  Until you do so, the explanation that he's simply working hard to make the article a GA is the most reasonable one under WP:AGF.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I haven't been very active on Talk:Jesus, in my interactions with History2007 in other places he has always been an exceptionally knowledgeable user with supreme knowledge of the relevant sources and the willingness to bring articles in line with what these sources say. If there's any flaw in his conduct, it's a short temper when Randy in Boise pushes his private pet theory. Regarding the number of talk page edits: As he said, he tends to use several edits to get a talk page comment just right where I would use only one (and typos be damned). I'd expect the number of independent edits is much lower than two per day. Even if he really wrote an average of two posts per day, I'm with Ian.thomson: So what? Huon (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not even see a need to respond to Bishonen further, given that in his opening statement he acknowledged (I said astutely so) that my posts have not been disruptive. So I posted on there and I have not been disruptive. So what? History2007 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread is not about History2007. If you want to make a complaint about History2007, you are more than welcome start an ANI inquiry regarding that, but please stop trying to distract from the discussion at hand by shifting the focus off Cush and his behavior. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread is about the events surrounding Cush's behavior, including the behavior of all of those involved such as History2007. The argument "this isn't about me" is pointless and will generally be ignored.--v/r - TP 14:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. - have any of you posted on History2007's user talk page, and have any of you raised issues about History2007's behavior in an appropriate venue before coming to WP:ANI with the drama? Elizium23 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page" - None of us have posted a grievance. We are discussing the grievance that John Carter posted which to be investigated and acted on appropriately and with all information weighed and considered requires inquiry into each individual participant.  But now you and I are both just wiki-lawyering and again, it's just going to be ignored as an attempt to derail any scrutiny of the OP and other participants.  Rule of thumb: do not bring issues to ANI unless you yourself are ready to be put in the spotlight.--v/r - TP 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * However, no evidence has been provided for the accusation, no matter how much it is asked for. That is why this needs to be dropped, unless someone has a nice diff to show.  Even then, that does not dismiss the case against Cush.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support topic ban. The user doesn't seem to understand the principles of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. His behaviour is disruptive enough to justify a topic ban, in my book. If he shows willingness to abide by policy in the future, maybe it could be lifted later down the road. Right now, there's no constructive reason for him to remain an active part of that talk page, or any related ones. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support editors get patience while they learn what reliability is. This, however, is a case of disruptive IDHT.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. I see a total inability to adhere to NPOV. While I don't think it is intentional, that doesn't change the fact that it exists. While I don't normally like solving conflict through topic ban, I think it is the only real solution in this case. Trusilver  07:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Meh These articles will always attract editors with strong beliefs. The content squabbles (for lo! that is what they are) involved here are rehashed arguments that have been going on for some considerable time, and neither Cush nor History2007 have covered themselves in glory by the way they are interacting with other editors.  16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Arguments given are simply not sufficient, or at least should not be, to apply a topic ban. In this I agree with the post made by Bishonen, there are only a few edits made by Cush on the Jesus article and these do not appear to be highly disruptive or unreasonable. Topic banning someone for activities on a Talk page is an extreme measure which should be reserved for extreme circumstances and this is not it. This ban attempt appears to be little more than a group of editors with their own POV trying to hound out an editor who they believe has an opposing POV. A bit more (religious) tolerance wouldn't hurt.--Wolbo (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for admin closure based on consensus
The last vote here was cast about a day ago and there have been no major discussions about the user in question since then, although peripheral discussions have taken place about the statistics of how often I type on a talk page.

Yet, statistics aside, the existence of consensus for a ban here is clear: the reasoning among the ten users who support it is uniform and no one is even debating the issues about the user in question any more. And the supporters amount to 90% of those voting. That looks like consensus to me.

The only discussion in the past day has been about my talk page statistics, yet all those commenting have considered my edits non-disruptive. As stated by others, if someone has an issue with how often I post on a talk page they can, of course, start a new thread below and say "this fellow types too much" and we can discuss that. No problem at all.

However, the current proposal for a ban seems to have clear consensus and should likely be concluded so we can move on. The length of the ban should, of course, be determined by the closing admin based on the comments above. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As you know, consensus is not decided on !votes. If there is still discussion happening, then there is reason to keep this open.  If you don't like folks discussing your behavior, then I am inclined to review my !vote and investigate your behavior a little more closely.  I'd suggest you just quit while your ahead and let this thread develop on it's own without you trying to steer it in a direction you prefer.--v/r - TP 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should stop puffing out your own chest and relax a little bit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nothing here to 'puff out my chest' for. I'm uninvolved.  When a directly involved person tries to close a thread after two days of discussion when the attention starts to shift toward them, I get curious.  Please don't attribute an emotion to me that doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 15:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI TP, the reason I wanted to get this over with (and had hoped we never started it) is that these things eat my/your/everyone's time (i.e. life) like Pac-Man. ANI is an amazingly time consuming endeavor. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can understand that, but my advice would be that if you've said all you mean to say then just leave it be and let it flow naturally. It's already leaning toward a topic ban, there is no need to hurry it.  I won't be surprised if some wandering admin closes it today on their own.--v/r - TP 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will do that. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted Deletion
Hello,

This is SupremelyYours. I tried to submit a professional and unbiased contribution to the article of Lady Gaga, and this was removed on the grounds of an account named "Tay" finding that adding information on natural gas fracking is irrelevant, grammatically incorrect, and unrelated to the section of "Political activism". Please note that my contribution was about Lady Gaga recently signing up in support of an activism website of celebrities opposing natural gas fracking. "Tay", and another account called "Drmies" (whom remarked that my information was "tangential" to political activism), both commented that I needed to cite reliable sources. I cited three in response, directly inserting those sources into the contribution. I was not making a brand new section, I was making a sub-section for a section already in existence.

"Drmies" felt my addition was irrelevant because we cannot add everything to an article, which would make sense to me if I wasn't adding information that was perfectly related to the section of "Political activism", and natural gas fracking is a hot topic that I was revealing Gaga's position on in a short contribution.

"Tay" and "Drmies" were at least professional, though I didn't see their reasons to remove my addition. "Tay" ended the conversation by saying that I might have my editing abilities "blocked" due to "disruptive editing"; oddly enough, "Tay" had accused me of "vandalism", and later admitted I hadn't vandalized anything, even though falsely accusing someone of "vandalism" is also mentioned as wrongful doing in the disruptive editing article. Even after admitting I hadn't vandalized, Tay accused me of such again.

I would like the consistent deletion of my contribution to stop. I have always been a thoughtful and careful editor, and author of two articles, for this website. I am offended by the idea of having my editing abilities "blocked" when I have only worked to preserve the good in Wikipedia and improve the site.

I thank you for reading this appeal. I have disclosed the exchange between myself and the two other editors below.

Yours Truly, SupremelyYours — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremelyYours (talk • contribs) 04:53, July 19, 2012‎ (UTC)

''There was text here copied directly from SupremelyYours' talk page. Elektrik Shoos removed it and put a link here instead for the sake of brevity.''


 * I've removed the text copied from your talk page, as it doesn't need to be copied, you can just link to it as I did above.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (I also notified both and  on this user's behalf. Forgot to mention that before.  elektrik  SHOOS  (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC))
 * A couple of problems -- it's an article about a living person, and you're trying to use "beforeitsnews.com" as a source. User-generated sites such as that are not acceptable sources for BLPs (please read the policy link).  Also, if all she's done is "signed up in support" is that seriously important enough for an entire section in a biographical article?  By the way, as this is a content issue, you should discuss it on the talk page for the article.  Oh, and what you did is certainly not vandalism, unless there was another edit I missed.  No one should be accusing you of that.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It was to make a robotic comment with boilerplate wording, and yet another example of what Twinkle looks like from the receiving end. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The brevity of my contribution was certainly not more than a hair shorter, at the most, than the immigration sub-section. Also, no it is not seriously important enough for its own section, which is why, as I said in my appeal, I didn't make my own section for it. I was putting in a sub-section on her political activism. If there is a reason why a political topic cannot be covered in "Political activism", I would like to know, but why refer to it as a "section" when it wasn't? --SupremelyYours (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you made it a section not a subsection. You'd need three equal signs (===) around the header text to make a subsection.  Notice where it appears in the TOC (5 Natural Gas Fracking).  If you feel this is important enough to include in the article you need to discuss it on the article talk page, not here, since ultimately it is a content dispute.  Is there something you would like an administrator to do?  Also please read WP:BRD; if you insert something, and another person removes it, rather than inserting it again and again you need to get consensus for its inclusion on the talk page, or at the very least make your case there before attempting to put it back.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The inputting was done repeatedly, mostly, due to the fact that Wikipedia was running very slow in uploading the change, so I assumed something was wrong with the upload each time it didn't appear. It wasn't until later that I saw it was an editor taking it down. I did put the addition back in a few times after talking to the editor, feeling that all disputes were discounted or resolved, and yet it didn't seem to make any difference to this person and it was pulled as the correspondence kept on. I feel this issue, which I honestly didn't anticipate would be problematic, isn't worth any more time from anyone. But, please, if all a contribution needs is the deletion of one bad source, or a couple more = signs, to make it correct, then it would be much more efficient to just make a couple of small edits like that instead of automatically pulling it down. Of course, Antandrus, I know you weren't the one pulling it down at all. Let's try a little simplicity in fixing simple problems from now on, and let's also not worry about this dispute any longer. --SupremelyYours (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

RM bot inactive
This bot, which maintains the list of requested moves, suddenly stopped working after 17:30, 18 July 2012‎. I'm asking this group if anybody knows how to kick start the bot. I recall the bot has been stopped before: Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 7, but it seems to be a different problem this time. The last request to be processed, Talk:2012 Damascus bombing, seems to have been redirected or moved after its move request was submitted, so possibly may be the culprit that crashed the bot (if it crashed) – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this seems to happen every now and then. Bit irritating, but I'm sure things will be resolved in time. The bot op,, has been notified of the problem. Jenks24 (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Best not to rely on the bot op to fix it, as their last edit on Wikipedia was 18 February 2012 – we could be waiting a long time. The earlier problem I linked to was resolved without the bot operator's help. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Wbm1058, the last edit was to 2012 Damascus bombing which has now moved. However, a request I posted yesterday was processed by the bot, just not posted on the RM page. So the bot seems to be partially working still. If 2012 Damascus bombing crashed it, could temporarily recreating the page fix it? I'm thinking of quick fixes as we now have a broken bot without an op, and an increasing backlog. MatthewHaywood (talk) 12:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is perhaps what might be called an edit war between 18 July 2012 Damascus suicide bombing, 18 July 2012 Damascus bombing and July 2012 Damascus bombing. They certainly are not waiting for the RM process to come to consensus before moving and redirecting the article.  I don't know for sure if this is the problem, but it is the last request that made it to the Requested moves/Current discussions page. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So if I create a 'new' page at 2012 Damascus bombing, and then make an identical move request on its talk page, could that kickstart the bot? I'm no expert on these things, but it seems to be worth a try as the bot is still working as far as modifying talk page requests goes. As I said before, quick fix... MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt the Damascus move broke anything. Articles are moved quite often while still listed at RM (probably more often that they should be) and I can't recall it ever breaking anything before. Matthew, the Replica Titanic RM has not been processed at all; it isn't listed at WP:RM and that's all the bot does. Jenks24 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted the standard move request, and it was modified to what you can see on the talk page now. Surely this is a bot at work? MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, my mistake, there isn't a bot edit in the history. The standard request notice must be modified before it is posted, somehow. No activity at all from RM then. MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen others say that the RM bot did that as well. But I think it's just template transclusion. This simple edit jump started the bot in the previous incident I linked above. It could be something as simple as that.  Wbm1058 (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Think you're right about the transclusion, didn't know much about that. Can't say I understand how the previous incident managed to crash the bot, how did it know that new1 and new2 were the wrong way round? More to the point, what crashed it this time... are we still looking at 2012 Damascus bombing? It would make more sense to say it was the move request which came immediately after that which did the damage, ie. the first request not to be posted up. How are we going to find and correct it as per the previous incident? MatthewHaywood (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, one-time Substitution, not transclusion. I'm no expert on it either. you could be right about the next request. The previous incident didn't crash the bot, rather it was misbehaving—and not posting new requests. I don't know how to tell it it is running or crashed, but apparently no admin has blocked it, as happened in the prior referenced incident. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh true, as in "{{subst:requested move". Anyway, I've been trying to put together a search to find the request made immediately after 2012 Damascus bombing, searching in the namespace talk with the terms  "requested move" "18 July 2012" . 128 results. Is it worth sifting through them, or is there a better way of finding it? MatthewHaywood (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried, but I can't find the request which has affected the bot. Just to clarify after this long string: '''RM bot has been down since 18 July, and therefore no new Requested Moves are being processed. The user running the bot has been inactive for months.''' I'm out of my depth, and no-one seems able to sort it out. Without the bot the Requested Move process is inoperative, across the whole of Wikipedia. Can anyone assist us here? MatthewHaywood (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if this is an admin matter. Have you tried posting about it on WP:VPT?  Perhaps someone there can jump in and help re-activate or fix the bot. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a notice at Village_pump_(technical). Thanks. MatthewHaywood (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Continual harassment by Youreallycan
Youreallycan has been blocked on many occasions in the past for harassment of other users. I recently blocked him for harassing another user on his talk page (and then proceeding to bring it to ANI and edit war over the closure of the thread), a block that, while obviously warranted, I eventually allowed another admin to undo because the whole process regarding the issue was shady (I should have asked for another admin to block on ANI rather than performing it myself).

A mere week later, history is now repeating itself and he has now taken to not only harassing me on my talk page, but edit warring over it, then harassing via gravedancing of Fae, an editor he had a dispute with, and edit warring over that addition.

Youreallycan is not listening to requests that he stop his behavior nor has he learned from his mentoring. Together with the long-standing history of drama that this user gins up, he has become a net-negative on the project. I request that this Youreallycan is blocked for an extended period of time or indefinitely. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Not that it's relevant to the subject, but because it will certainly come up: I do not respond to questions (on my talk page or elsewhere) which are worded at me in an aggressive manner, as this one was to me. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Youreallycan notified. --   Luke      (Talk)   16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Crikey! If you'd given me more than 30 seconds... Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)
 * This really is a poor report, allegations of Harrasment are serious indeed - and one that you failed to notify me of - Your continued allegation of "grave dancing" in regards to Fae is undue indeed - additional detail - User_talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0 -  You  really  can  16:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse someone of failing to notify you 3 minutes after their edit was saved. That's just unrealistic. All sorts of real life events can cause delays. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, the accusation was made after Magog did notify him . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While I thought YRC's comment to Fæ was in poor taste, Fæ seemed not to have a problem with it, so I think that part of this thread, at least, can be laid to rest with no further action. Why YRC thought it wise to edit-war on Magog's talk page to reinstate comments Magog removed is a bit of a puzzle, though. YRC, you know you're not supposed to do that, right? 28bytes (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0 -  You  really  can  17:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, well "I only replaced it once" is not quite what I'm suggesting you do. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "I only replaced it once after he removed my complaint about his actions without even a edit summary and when I replaced it I added a question - he just deleted it again without an edit summary and as the user/admin Magog the Ogre had escalated to revert warring on another page I stepped back" - this worthless attacking report is a shame on the user/admin User:Magog the Ogre that opened it - You  really  can  17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, you are the victim of an ogre-attack? Sounds unlikely. Arcandam (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments are unhelpful. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  17:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Irony is helpful Arcandam (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - FYI I wrote this up before Fae had responded (I was hoping the issue would be resolved in non-admin channels, so I wrote it up and let it sit for a while before posting). Fae is certainly taking the high road, which he is certainly not obligated to do, and that is noble of him. I still have my opinions about the way YRC handled that (I think it's textbook gravedancing), but I suppose we all could also take the high road on the matter and not pursue them. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * - @Magog the Ogre - Your inability to accept how wrong you were after I and the user in question had commented against your position and your apparent inability to accept and update your position reveals your total failure in regards to this report -  You  really  can  17:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:NOTTHEM? Arcandam (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair warning, YRC: I have been defending you here but that comment was not really helpful. Don't push away your allies. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither editor here has been blameless and there's clearly a personal history between them. Neither one has really done anything all that terrible, either. A one-sided indefinite block sounds excessive. There are much less restrictive things that could solve the problem, such as a temporary interaction ban. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please be so kind to post some WP:DIFF links? I am especially interested in the "Neither editor here has been blameless"-part. A indefinite block may sound excessive, but a long block would be a good idea, check the blocklogs. Arcandam (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Was reverting YRC's comment really necessary? I think YRC had a right to question the appropriateness of being told to "grow a backbone." And I think Magog's characterization of one revert as edit warring was an exaggeration. Magog also intervened on Fae's talk page when it doesn't appear he had to, as Fae took the comments in good faith and YRC actually ended up leaving very civil comments. If anything, Magog was edit warring just as much as YRC. Then reporting this to ANI and suggesting an indefinite block just didn't seem proportionate. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should add that the previous blocks for incivility are not irrelevant, though. YRC should take extra caution to avoid confrontation. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: YRC has been renamed, here are his old blocklog and his new blocklog. Arcandam (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Arcandam, everybody knows that; Rob has never made a secret of it. If you want to start a case against him, an RfC/U is a more proper way to go than adding on to an ANI thread which seems to be winding down. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair to Arcandam, I actually was not aware of this fact. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I shouldn't, WP:ROPE. Arcandam (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that his previous account, Off2riorob, was abandoned last November after the 11th block for disruption and edit warring. Off2riorob changed to Youreallycan and continued much as before, logging further blocks in January, February, March, April, May and July of this year. He's been the subject of noticeboard discussions about poor behavior:                                              . I agree that this editor is a net negative to the wiki. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been commented - if you feel there are issues - open a RFC user - all of these previous issues have been previously dealt with and  blocks and unblocks resulted -  this specific ANI report by User:Magog the Ogre has imo no value at all -  You  really  can  18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We will all be back here in a week to discuss your behaviour again if we don't deal with it now. Arcandam (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As has been commented - if you feel there are issues - open a RFC user/drama fest (I get blocked when I violated policy and I doubt strongly I am a net loss to the en wiki project would get consensus) - all of these previous issues have been previously dealt with  and  blocks and unblocks resulted -  this specific ANI report by User:Magog the Ogre has imo no value at all - there has been no harassment at all -  You  really  can  18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do repeat yourself, that is very helpful. Repeated short blocks haven't helped you to change your behaviour. So we should probably try a longer block. Arcandam (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. You are obviously not a net positive to this project. Many experienced editors have spent quite a bit of time to try to help you. There have been many noticeboard discussions about your behaviour. We could've spent this time more productively, for example by improving Wikipedia.
 * I am not seeing any sarcasm - I am stating my case and will continue to do so - please sign if you are able - lol  You  really  can  18:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did sign, please stop adding unsigned to my signed post. Arcandam (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Request - Requesting this report be closed - there is no evidence been presented to support the reporters claims and request for admin action - You  really  can  18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's post shows an abundance of evidence. The question is: will the future offer us more?  The answer is surely yes.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block I have been thoroughly unimpressed by YRC's behavior on this thread. I thought Magog's initial report was unnecessary, but YRC is apparently having fun with ROPE. Indefinite is still too harsh for me, but a block is warranted. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  18:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block indef or long. Arcandam (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not only do draconian solutions not work, in this case I rather think MtO has been in over-reactive mode. Fae and YRC have an interesting relationship - but that is not one where MtO should have berated "gravedancing" per the actual edits.  Admins who pride themselves on not answering questions are, moreover, likely to engender confusion and bewilderment.   Meanwhile, harassment, as a rule, is an ongoing behaviour - and the case at hand does not meet that necessary condition.   BTW, blocks are not punitive, and are absolutely not given for having been blocked before - which may enter into length of a block for which actual current reason exists.  In the case at hand, such a precondition has not been met.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read the links provided by Binksternet. WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR are both excellent reasons for a indef block in this case. Arcandam (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that MtO overreacted, but consider the contrast in the way the two users have reacted here. I critiqued MtO's report and received no undue attention in response. YRC has by contrast needlessly entered the fray, in the worst ways possible. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support block Any length One week time out for some introspection. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Block of 1 month, but not longer. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block: Youreallycan is well-intentioned and his contributions are often useful. Periodically he goes over the line and becomes unreasonable. I can't think of any way other than a block of getting his attention, unless he will volunteer something. If he doesn't make any appropriate offer here to change his behavior, I would support a block. The great length of his block log suggests he should be open to a concrete proposal to change his ways if he wants to remain active on Wikipedia. If the community choses to ignore this problem they are sure to get more of the same. His above request for this report to be closed suggests an unwillingness to cooperate in any way. The next longer reasonable block would be for one month, barring any sincere negotiation. Looking at his old and new block logs there seem to be 19 genuine blocks. An RFC/U should not be needed for someone with such a huge block log. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block -- no awareness that the edit-warring was inappropriate, and we all know that without an extended time-out the disruption will continue and we'll waste more time on this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - FYI, I will be glad (even eager) to respond to any questions from YRC or another user on my talk page regarding any past conduct of mine (which was far less than stellar and which I really want to get cleared up). However, I really don't like responding to questions which are worded at me in a condescending manner. I don't want to see YRC blocked believe it or not; I'd rather see him admit fault and change his behavior. Unfortunately, he's been absolutely incorrigible in regards to "please stop abusing other users" (a rather ironic cry in view of how often he's called for others to apologize or be censured for their words against him). For crying out loud, if he would just stop poking at other users it would all be fine!
 * YRC, if you read this, please consider not doing things like saying "I told you so" when a user is forced to retire (no matter how much he deserved it), or posting things like "wow you screwed up, lol" (do you have any idea how aggressive that comes across?). If you would just admit fault for the past and state that you won't do it again in the future, this whole matter could be resolved. But as is, the only thing I and other people on ANI are seeing is stubbornness and all but stating that you'll continue to do it in the future. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what your saying - but its clear and I am happy to be loud about that - I support User:Fae's ability to continue to contribute to the en wikipedia project and I thank them wholeheartedly for their recent quality contributions and I sincerely hope that moving forward they are allowed to continue making such - You  really  can  18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Magog should probably receive a random acts of kindness barnstar for that. But, to be honest, even if YRC admits his faults, apologizes to a long list of Wikipedians and promises to stop he is still incompetent. Competence is required. I am not going to speculate on why he is unable to contribute in a positive way, although I know some people have their suspicions, but we have to acknowledge this fact. Arcandam (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I recently had an exchange with Rob on the BLPN in which he made it plain and clear that he is not interested in collegiality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support block of at least one month - The community has exteneded far more good faith and/or WP:ROPE to ORR/YRC than virtually any user should ever expect to get - indeed, with his record, most users would have already been indeffed - and yet he always continues in the same way as before, which leads to a continual cycle of block/unblock ad-infinitum. The only way to break the cycle is to make it clear that disruptive behavior that creates an uncomfortable environment for other users will not be tolerated. At a certain point it doesn't matter how good a user's content production is - if they refuse to conduct themselves in a fashion that is compliant with policy, they are not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If someone genuinely thinks an RFC would do anything, by all means open one. Otherwise RE above, how many blocks already that have failed to have an effect? Whats a longer block going to do other than give people some peace and quiet for a month... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * An indef block until YRC proves he has become competent? Arcandam (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, where does "competence" play a part in this? Alleging that one is incompetent because you perceive them to be incivil at times is a rather deplorable personal attack on your part. I suggest you choose your charges to level more carefully in the future. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And I suggest you do a bit of reading before leaving comments like the one dated 18:59, 20 July 2012. Arcandam (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman. Do you have an actual response to how you think it is a valid comment to claim that YRC is incompetent because he is incivil?  As it stands at the moment, that is quite a dick move. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A strawman argument is when you misrepresent your opponents position, and then attack the misrepresentation, right? Did I? Arcandam (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did, when you ignored what I asked of you and instead focused on my initial misinterpretation of what Magog was asking for below. Are you going to continue to be evasive about your slandering of Youreallycan as incompetent? Tarc (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the article strawman argument. You seem to misunderstand what a strawman argument is. Slander is legalese, I suggest you stop using big words like those before someone mentions WP:NLT. You claimed that I "think it is a valid comment to claim that YRC is incompetent because he is incivil". Would you be so kind to show me the WP:DIFF links? Arcandam (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm quite content with both words used. If you do not wish to be accused of such things then perhaps you should, y'know, stop doing them. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC);
 * The dangers of using words you don't understand: slander is, e.g., oral; you mean libel, & even then it's probably incorrect DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

*Moot - User is unblocked already, so the supports & opposes are rather pointless. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you made a mistake. Magog wrote: "I request that this Youreallycan is blocked for an extended period of time or indefinitely". Arcandam (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see now that this is a request for a new block, my mistake. In that case... oppose as incivility blocks are generally worthless junk. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So, what's your preferred solution? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How are we to enforce the civility policy, then, if not with blocks? - The Bushranger One ping only 19:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason why incivility blocks are for the most part worthless, is that they are used against long term incivil editors. Who have absolutely no intention of ever changing. One-off/mild incivility is nipped in the bud with warnings, quiet words on talk pages etc. What would you suggest for someone who ignores policy over an extended period of time, and which 'corrective' actions have had no effect? Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in offering suggestions as I don't think it is that big of a deal to begin with. We keep Malleus around even though he gets dragged to ANI every month or two. Tarc (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So perhaps it would be better to just scrap the civility policy then? If no one is willing to take to hand the people who most abuse/ignore it, whats the point of keeping it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You act like it is actually enforced to begin with. Civility policy is only enforced on this project selectively, e.e. when enough people show up to ANI to bloc vote, or for the very new or inexperienced incivil users who do not have the wherewithal to mount the defense that an experienced user can.  Try filing an ANI on Malleus for anything, or on an admin who recently said "grow the fuck up" to a user".  See how far you get. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's obviously true, as Arcandam says, that time spent helping YRC, and participating in noticeboard discussions about his behaviour, could be spent improving Wikipedia. However, nobody is forced to engage with YRC or any other user, and neither are we forced to participate in noticeboard discussions. So I don't share the perspective that YRC is somehow to blame for our choosing to do so. Also the YRC persona is nothing like as obnoxious as the Off2Rio one - in large part due to Dennis Brown's impeccably reasonable, considerate and ongoing mentorship. I believe that, like many of us, YRC can be a pain but that he's also a net gain; that his value to Wikipedia will only increase over time under DB's guidance; that this thread itself will concentrate YRC's mind (he's not stupid); that a block is therefore unnecessary; and that this thread, having aired various concerns and impressed them on YRC, yet having failed to produce evidence of harassment (the basis of MtO's request for a block), should be closed. Writegeist (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If the problem was just harassment between YRC and Magog this thread would've been closed a long time ago. I am quoting Magog: "Youreallycan is not listening to requests that he stop his behavior nor has he learned from his mentoring. Together with the long-standing history of drama that this user gins up, he has become a net-negative on the project. I request that this Youreallycan is blocked for an extended period of time or indefinitely." You wrote: "he's also a net gain". Would you please be so kind to show us some WP:DIFF links? Arcandam (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure.      . Just a random selection. I can't be arsed to link any more. There are hundreds, probably thousands, like these, protecting BLPs, in his contributions history. Would you please be so kind as to check his contribs for yourself? Writegeist (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, maybe I was unclear, I am not a native speaker. What I meant was: Would you please be so kind to show us some WP:DIFF links that support your claim that he is a net gain? Arcandam (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose No evidence of harassment. Recommend reporting user Magog the Ogre be sanctioned for wasting this august body's time. T. trichiura Infect me 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC) — Trichuris trichiura (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Sanctioned? On what basis?? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: YRC/Rob is solely an emotional drain on the community. We should not have to spend time helping him or participating in threads about his behavior if his behavior was not so incredibly deleterious that it required this input. We cannot ignore the fact that he is utterly recalcitrant in his ways, arguing with people to the point that they are bullied off of articles, and refusing to accept anyone else's input. His value to Wikipedia is negated by how much time we have to waste dealing with him, so getting rid of him is the only option at this point .— Ryulong  (竜龙 ) 19:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Users that have recently had a content dispute with YRC and want him banned sign here -"getting rid of him is the only option at this point" - lol -  You  really  can  19:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had no prior interaction with you and I already understand why people have lost patience with you. For your own sake, learn how to do some damage control. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but then again the list is getting pretty big. Does that suggest anything to you? Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well - BLP violators who write off wiki attack articles about living people such as yerself should avoid editing en wiki articles - you know that though don't you - you want me banned - of course you do - You  really  can  19:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a violation of BLP when it is supported by dozens of reliable sources. Your continued dismissal of any dissenting opinions shows you are incapable of working on a collaborative project. While it may be true that we were recently in a dispute (and apparently that dispute is still happening), I have never encountered you before this situation, at least on either of your accounts, but this one week of disagreement has completely soured my opinion of you. You refuse to acknowledge you might be wrong, and you refuse to back down despite several people disagreeing with you. You cannot work with others, and that behavior is not welcome on this project.— Ryulong (竜龙 ) 19:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly support policy driven consensus edits - You know me from when you were de-adminned - had your admin status removed for policy violations - You  really  can  20:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice Ad Hominem. My interaction with you has been limited, however I've watched some of your interactions with others and to say that you are a royal pain the petunia sometimes is a bit of an understatement.  I haven't bothered to look at your contributions, but from what I've read of others it appears you are a valuable contributer.  Just because you are acerbic nuiscance is no reason to have you banned.  I do think a brief, but total break where you reflect on your interactions would others would benefit both you and the project. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If this block is enabled, is he restricted from OTRS as well? Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ''That was done a while ago. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He should remove himself from the OTRS volunteer category then. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Request. I've had differences with YRC as well, but I'd ask that if this "do not edit" request is ratified by the community, then I ask that it be a ban from mainspace rather than a block.  The reason being is that I've noted that User:Dennis Brown has expended a great deal of time and effort with YRC, and I do believe there have been improvements.  I'd ask that Dennis and YRC continue to be allowed to interact because of this.  Indeed, YRC is very passionate about the areas he works in, not a bad thing in and of itself.  If Dennis can encourage some self-moderation, then we gain a valued editor.  Perhaps some time off is required here - but let's not "throw the baby out with the bathwater."  (euphemistic - not an insult)  Just a thought. Chedzilla (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That interaction could take place on YRC's own talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis has set up specific pages that they have worked on in the past - but I'll let him (Dennis) respond to it. Chedzilla (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose block. I don't see what the fuss is about. Magog was out of line reverting him, and once the post was left, he and Fæ had a civil and friendly exchange.  J N  466  21:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not really about Magog v.s. YRC anymore, it is about YRC. Arcandam (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is the way I remove pugnacious statements on my own talk page "out of line"? Or removing clearly pugnacious comments from another user's talk page "out of line"? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't help noticing that YRC thinks this whole thing is "lolz" . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support ban. How many times does this user have to show up on this noticeboard before the community declares itself rid of him? This is less about civility than about social competence in a collaborative environment. Shrigley (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose block. I don't know what this latest issue is about, but I keep seeing YRC being blocked, or threatened with a block, for relatively minor issues that could be sorted out by having a quiet word in his ear instead. But a dynamic seems to have developed where one block inexorably leads to the next, an old story. I know that he is very good at sorting out BLP problems, and that at times the BLP noticeboard seems to depend on him. He has made around 8,300 edits to it since August 2009 with his two accounts. It would not be good for WP if we were to lose someone willing to do that work, and if he keeps being blocked that's what's going to happen. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Suggestion
YRC's problem is that he suffers from "last word-itis" (a problem with which I sympathise). Instead of using a blunt tool like a block, how about simply preventing him from continuing a disagreement beyond say three "back and forth" responses (unless the person he is having a disagreement with waives this sanction). In other words, this is an automatic interaction ban for the future. The exact wording I think may want a great deal of discussion but surely this is better than removing an editor entirely? Egg  Centri  c  20:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim without any diffs that, "YRC's problem is that he suffers from last word-itis" - I reject this claim completely and regularly have multiple discussions in which your claim is easily rejectable and diff able - You  really  can  20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are loads of diffs above that could support it. This is a volunteer project and I am not going to bother - I don't have to and it isn't important that I do so. I do hope though you recognise the fact that there is something up is self-evident by all the supports above (even if is that is just that everyone else is wrong/vindictive and you just happen to attract all those users).
 * You don't have to, no you don't - but you shouldn't have spouted your allegations then - This is a perfect example of the false unsupported accusations that abound here -  You  really  can  21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. I have not brought fresh allegations here. I have brought my interpretation of existing allegations here. Egg   Centri  c  22:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal is actually in your own interests, by the way. Egg   Centri  c  20:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What would really be helpful is if YRC could talk about his own actions and intentions, rather than everyone else's. That would allow us to think of surgical solutions instead of blunt ones. Until that happens, it will be hard judge what he is even capable of. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  20:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am here and required to only answer the single accusation of this report - and I have done that - there is no admin action required and this report should be closed - You  really  can  20:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:ADMIN. There is admin action required, admins are the guys with the blockbutton. Arcandam (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok - I have not committed any offense that would require the removal of my editing privileges to protect the project - You  really  can  20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically, edit-warring on someone's talkpage does meet the policy-based requirement to remove your editing privileges to protect the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @User:Bwilkins - One revert with the inclusion of an additional question when reverted without explanation  - is a poor claim of edit warring - lol -  You  really  can  21:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * YRC, let this be a honest, good-intentioned teaching moment, okay? Your point here, that your actions were only in the loosest sense of the phrase, edit warring, was correct. That is why I initially supported your cause and thought MtO was overreacting. But just say that and don't make the comment about Bwilkins. Don't call it a "poor claim"; just say you disagree and explain why. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  21:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, I do think we need to block people like yourself to protect the project. We are trying to build an encyclopedia here. You are wasting the time of constructive editors who normally would've improved the encyclopedia. Overall the edits you've made (I mean the good ones) do not outweigh the disadvantages of allowing you to edit Wikipedia. Arcandam (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps YRC would do well with a community 0RR restriction on any discussion pages (e.g., any talk pages, deletion discussions, etc.). I cannot speak about his disruption elsewhere, but in the dealings I've had with YRC, they all could have been avoided if he hadn't edit warred to restore the material I considered (and still do consider) disruptive. Also, I am not impressed with YRC still not even admitting to doing any wrong in this entire escapade. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)~ You should look at your own actions Magog the Ogre - less than optimal in this dispute - You had and still have no authority to act on the users behalf and I am in a good faith discussion with them - You  really  can  21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are proving Magog's point. Please read WP:NOTTHEM. Arcandam (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not them is a guideline for people that are blocked - I am not blocked - You  really  can  21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think the text in that information page does not apply to you? Arcandam (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would he concern himself with a guide for blocked users when he's not blocked? That doesn't make any sense. T. trichiura Infect me 21:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you use the word "he"? It seems unlikely that that word makes sense. Arcandam (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, ORR/YRC is pretty clearly a "he", and "he" is the pre-PC generic term for somebody. Let's not play wikilawyer over puny pronouns, we have enough of a fracas here as it is. Secondly, while WP:NOTTHEM is indeed a guide for blocked users, it is also relevant to unblocked ones in the sense that when your conduct is an issue, you shouldn't adopt the tactic of throwing mud at your accusers and hoping that it sticks. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Arcandam, are you aware you have already commented 24 times here? Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruption/Manipulation of this discussion
I believe needs to be removed from this discussion, based on behavior above. Repeated sarcastic commentary, one noted by an admin as "unhelpful", for starters. Second, I called him out on his assertion that YRC's incivility is ground for a WP:COMPETENCE block, and his responses to this point have been evasive. Finally, there is the obvious WP:SPA-ness going on here of an account created March 11th that did not post until yesterday, and in a 2-day span has contributed almost exclusively to ANI and to the Help Desk in a decidedly less-than-new-user fashion. There's even the added irony of an SPA tagging someone else as such. Obvious sock is obvious here. Tarc (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tarc seems to be a little bit pissed off ever since I pointed out he made a mistake. Using legalese certainly did not help. Arcandam (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, no. ANI is drama-filled enough without having to deal with evasive sock-puppetry, so I would simply rather see one removed from the equation. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Do you want me to believe you are not acting out of revenge because I pointed out a couple of mistakes you made? Please read WP:SPA, you seem to misunderstand what a single purpose account is. Also please check my contributions, I think you've missed a couple. Arcandam (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I only made one mistake in misjudging what Magog was asking initially, I looked quickly at YRC's block log and thought that block/unblock happened today, that is all. You're still being evasive and coy on the other aspect.  You stated earlier "But, to be honest, even if YRC admits his faults, apologizes to a long list of Wikipedians and promises to stop he is still incompetent.", and I find that to be rather below-the-belt. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you made more than one mistake. You wrote: "an account created March 11th that did not post until yesterday, and in a 2-day span has contributed almost exclusively to ANI and to the Help Desk in a decidedly less-than-new-user fashion". Is that true? Using legalese was another mistake. Arcandam (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Oy. Can we have a third-party admin take control of this thread, please? -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is what I am attempting to do here, by asking for this trollish behavior of this "new" user to be curtailed. Tarc (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA violation. Arcandam (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, Tarc, I asked for a "third party" because you are one of the "two." -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He knows. Arcandam (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Arcandam has 9000 edits to his name and edits a ton of other topics. Are you sure you are referring to Arcandam? Am I missing something? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I had edited the SPA part out before beginning this section, sorry, didn't see til now that part of that sentence remained. I will still stand quite strongly behind the disruption and generally net negative input into the YRC discussion, though.  Incivility is not incompetence. Tarc (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I should be the one to accuse you of having a generally net negative input into the YRC discussion, but dude, we are on the same team, I love you. Apology accepted, lets not waste too much time on it. I know I am a terrible person to debate with. You wrote: "his assertion that YRC's incivility is ground for a WP:COMPETENCE block" and you used this editsummary (on another edit) but I don't think that everyone who is incivil is incompetent. And as far as I know I never said I did. I just reread every single comment I made on this page, and I was unable to find it. I do think YRC is incompetent, and I do think he has been incivil in the past (if you want me to I can show you many difflinks) but I agree that competence and civility are two seperate things. Arcandam (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User at IP address 67.172.39.136 has been disrupting the Monsanto article
I have notified the user at his/her talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.172.39.136

Please see changes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monsanto&action=history

I've never requested a block before; sorry if I am doing it wrong. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, here's how it goes, for next time: the IP has been warned a couple of times, and what they're doing is vandalism, according to our definition. So, after a final warning you report them at WP:AIV, where an admin will look at the case and block or not. In the meantime, I've blocked them for 48 hours. This board, ANI, is for things that require more attention; look at the top of this page for the smorgasboard of options we have. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you!Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Clean Block
Based on the username alone, I would assume that this is a sockpuppet who is circumventing a block somewhere. The editors first three edits were to create a copy/paste move without attribution, redirect the original page, and admit to circumventing the block. Can an admin step in and is there any desire to have a checkuser figure out who the sockpuppeteer is? Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * try Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol. Pops up here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice and fast, thanks! Ryan Vesey Review me!  03:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Bias by Adjwilley
User:Adjwilley seems to have decided that God is only acknowledged by three religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) and all other reigions, including major religions, should not be mentioned in the God lede. I propose some admin intervention here please. Examples of this POV includes:
 * In this edit he removes sourced content regarding various major religions including Hindusim, Taoism Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Baha'i.
 * He justified these removals with saying Zoroastrianism has 20,000 members (which is false) and Baha'i is the same as Islam (which is false)


 * In this talk page edit he explicitly makes clear that Hinduism/buddhism and other religions should be "exluded".
 * In this edit he removes all mention of atheism/agnosticism/deism from the lede.

His edits violate several WP:LEAD principles and I've tried to discuss with him. This is among the worst biases i've ever seen on WP. I propose a warnng or a block. Pass a Method  talk  04:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a content dispute, not something for admins to block someone over. Please take a look at Dispute resolution for advice on going forward with this, or Dispute resolution noticeboard for mediation of a dispute. -- Avanu (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also, note that WP:LEAD is an editing guideline, not policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Request review of block by arbitrator Risker

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

, a member of the Arbitration committee, recently blocked  for allegedly being an SPA who was not here to participate in building an encyclopedia. NewtonGeek had, it is true, primarily contributed to the Fae ArbCom case, but they were being constructive, not disruptive, even if they had limited edits to article space. In my opinion, this is a massive WP:BITE. In several other opinions, it has been suggested that this was a failure to WP:AGF and possibly a WP:INVOLVED matter. I request input from the larger community on this matter. I will notify parties shortly.- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For more information, visit the following pages:
 * User_talk:NewtonGeek
 * User_talk:Risker
 * Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ/Proposed_decision
 * --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Notified. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a single purpose account is not in and of itself a blockable offense. There is also no requirement specified anywhere in policy that an editor must edit articles in order to remain in good standing here. I have asked Risker to provide evidence of some apparent wrong doing on NewtonGeek's part, but he has not yet had a chance to reply. It does appear from Risker's notification that Newton was blocked that Risker is open to other administrators undoing the block if they can be convinced the block is in error. So, I don't think there would be any sense of wheel warring if it was undone. A careful administrator should contact Risker before undoing the block, however. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is probably a good idea to be a bit patient in this case. Arcandam (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of that account, I have to say I'd be spectacularly surprised if it turned out they're not just here to make a point about either Fae, Wikipediocracy, Arbcom, or some combination of the three. In that sense, I think Risker is right that they're an SPA, and I would add my speculation that they may be a reincarnation of some other user, here to push whatever their Fae/Arbcom/WI POV is - in which case this wouldn't be biting a newbie. Those things said, however, NewtonGeek doesn't appear to have been particularly disruptive on the Fae case pages (in fact, they appear to have been one of the calmer voices there), and I'm struggling to see the reason for why this block, for this reason, at this time, was needed. We have a lot of editors who sort of fail at contributing to mainspace at times. Unless there's underlying disruption, we generally don't block them for it, so I wonder if there's something else going on here that Risker just hasn't managed to explain very well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I would have had absolutely no problem if Risker had decided to ban NewtonGeek from Arbcom pages or something like that. But indef? I have a problem. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Involved"? Admins who see "remarkable" behaviour by a "newbie" are not automatically "involved" just because the newbie is commenting on pages in which they are "involved" ex officio as members of ArbCom, else no blocks could ever be made by them for behaviour on ArbCom pages. So much for that. "Limited edits to article space"? Did you view the actual edits? I find it incredible that Minerva sparng forth fully-armed from the head of Jupiter, and this is less likely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that I do not believe Risker was WP:INVOLVED, but the suggestion was made (by Hammersoft) and I thought it necessary to relay it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the Cirt case there was another such new editor, and he/she was not blocked rather his/her contributions to the ArbCom case were removed. In that case the editor actually took part in the evidence and the workshop phase, posting proposals there. Count Iblis (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can see, NewtonGeek fails the WP:DUCK test and is a single purpose account. They are welcome to comment in project space anywhere as long as they use their primary account, unless they are already banned from the project (please see WP:ILLEGIT). Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What arbcom does in managing its own case pages is none of ANI's business. T. Canens (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Technically an indef block is well beyond 'managing their own case page'. However I concur with the general thrust of the argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd note that Risker was acting as an administrator, not speaking FOR THE COMMITTEE (and if they were being for the committee, they weren't explicit about that fact). Actions as an administrator are the business of ANI. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if NewtonGeek is a high profile editor (e.g. Jimbo) who used an alternate account in order to be able to make some comments without his/her mere presence there becoming Wiki-Breaking News. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Lulz. No, this is no Prince and the Pauper tale, Newton is a user tied to the  stuff from a few months back, and is a user also (along with Facts) recently banned at the Wikipediocracy.  These are an odd pair of users who first ran into difficulties here, went to the 'ocracy as a general refuge, were generally rebuffed, then kinda glommed onto the whole Fae affair near the end of their stay. Tarc (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – @Fluffernutter and others: NewtonGeek isn't a sockpuppet. He was editing Citizendium before coming to Wikipedia. That's why he's familiar with wikis. NewtonGeek learned about F&aelig; from Wikipediocracy. WP:AGF. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as an outstandingly bad block. If arbcom pages don't support the building of an encyclopedia, then why do we have them in the first place?  If they do support the building of an encyclopedia, then contributing to them is building an encyclopedia.  One might as well say that working in the court system is unproductive labor because it doesn't produce tangible goods.  In fact, a working court system supports the production of tangible goods, so working in it is productive.  NewtonGeek is trying, in a clumsy way, it's true, to act as part of this community, and it is harmful to this community to slap him down for it.  He has not been disruptive, and his edits to the arbcom pages show no discernible POV pushing as far as I can see (so much for the duck test). Blocking him serves no useful purpose.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Further Comment: WP:BITE says, at one point "13.Avoid using blocks as a first resort. Consider talking to a user before you block them." Risker didn't talk to NewtonGeek before blocking them. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) You do remember that the WP:Admin page says Administrators "are never required to use their tools"? Yet I see over and over, these bad blocks where someone acted on a questionable basis and instead of asking AN/I preemptively for guidance, AN/I has to review the block instead. The Admin summary of "Not here to build an encyclopedia - 2.41% contribs to article space" is completely and utterly out of line, and I don't know when our Admin corps is actually going to start doing some self-reflection on what it means to do the job well. The fact that this isn't already reversed is simply an example of a system that fails to protect our editors from emotionally-driven, reactionary use of the tools. Take a break, eat a sandwich, and think before pressing that button, especially when it is something that isn't causing immediate harm. I would hope that is a reasonable request. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The status of the block at the moment is uncertain. It was discussed and agreed by four members of the Committee before Risker enacted it. I would suggest that the block is not undone until it has been established if it is an ArbCom block or not.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment makes it even more clear that the person shouldn't be blocked right now. If you're not even sure of its validity or whether it was requested, AGF and remove it until it is certain that it is actually the *right* thing to do. -- Avanu (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, SilkTork said nothing about its validity, just about its status -- namely, whether it was an ArbCom-imposed block, or one by Risker acting alone as an admin. The second could be overturned with an unblock request -- the first would require a strong community consensus. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heck, if it's decided that this is an ArbCom block, rather than a Risker-as-admin block, I still would disagree, but I'd be inlined to retract any request for an overturn. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it can be an Arbcom block unless Arbcom has voted on it? Cardamon (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This kind of editing is similar to what, , etc have done. I'm not saying that this is another sockpuppet of , but editors who suddenly involve themselves in arbcom cases in this way always arouse suspicions. Just knowing that these processes exist on wikipedia makes it highly unlikely that they are new editors. The declared criterion (< 2.41 % content editing, or should that be ≤ ?) is presumably not intended to create a precedent. Mathsci (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been a trend recently of new accounts turning up in arbitration cases and then becoming very prolific posters there. It's happened three or four times now. Up-to-date figures are not currently available, due to the server lag, but NewtonGeek seems to be the most frequent poster to the PD talk page by some margin – which is very odd behaviour for an account that has never edited before. I'd say good block.
 * I'd propose that editors wishing to comment at arbitration cases should at least have 200 mainspace edits and have been here for 3 months (unless they are themselves a party to the case, of course, or have a disclosed relationship to one of the parties, or a clear prior interest in the subject matter). I've opened a discussion at a more suitable location.  J N  466  16:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How is this NOT a case of WP:BITE? ArbCom members should really know better than to engage in this kind of abuse. WP:SPA does not appear to have any prohibition against the kind of commenting NewtonGeek is making. And given the number of admins who make their name operating primarily in the user space, I can't see how this sanction is valid at all. Why is the admin caste and ArbCom moving in this direction of shutting down debate with blocks and struck edits lately? T. trichiura Infect me 16:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA is also just an essay, not policy. T. trichiura Infect me 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of single-purpose accounts... Tarc (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking of violating WP:AGF ... T. trichiura Infect me 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at your contribs (as have others, i.e. your spat with Nobody Ent) and see nothing but a user hiding his original editor's account for whatever reason, there is nothing remotely "new user" about you. AGF is set aside when there is clear evidence to the contrary. Tarc (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that. You're obviously just trying to discredit my contributions with wrong and irrelevant opinions. I looked at your edits and see an editor who's bent on towing the administration and anti-new user line. T. trichiura Infect me 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now that Tarc believes civility is optional. No need to address him any further, per WP:DENY and I'm glad we can ignore his attempts to distract the discussion. T. trichiura Infect me 17:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's Cla68 and his ad hominem schtick when you need him? :P That's as classic an ad hominem as anyone could hope for. Assuming Tarc does believe that civility is optional, surely that doesn't invalidate his point that you're an alternate account being used for wikipolitics? MastCell Talk 23:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Alf's comment is well taken, also aren't there usually supposed to be warnings and discussion with the User first (although the User maybe any number of bad things, absent repeat vandalism, it seems like some graduated warnings should occur). If it's a new g/f user they may be really confused right now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

((ec))::AGF and remove it? Or AGF and wait at least until it's explained, especially as it wasn't just Risker who is a respected editor, acting alone. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exclaiming "I am a new user - don't BITE me!" is very snide, to say the least. In any case, I would be happy to send Here to build an encyclopedia to MfD in the near future, but I'll wait for more information and/or developments. --MuZemike 17:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This was a good block. There's a long-standing precedent that alternate and throwaway accounts aren't to be used in ArbCom proceedings (or, ideally, anywhere in project-related discussions). I don't think anyone seriously believes that NewtonGeek was a brand-new user. I'd have made this block myself if I cared enough to follow the ArbCom case in question. More broadly, I don't see any convincing rationale to start allowing random sockpuppets to participate in ArbCom cases, which are messy enough as it is. MastCell Talk 18:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * NewtonGeek was advised by one of the case clerks,, to take a break from the discussions. He failed to abide by that. Recall that there has been heated arguments on that page, where we are expected to keep everyone civil. Adding fuel to fire does not help here. It is very likely that, should the block to be found to be not-initiated as ArbCom, NG would be banned from the Fae RFAR case pages for the duration of the case, for the exact reason that I pointed out. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 18:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting a sentence with "I think" doesn't send a clear message. Lord Roem's comment shouldn't be treated as if it were a clear, stern message or a warning. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The full text was, "I think taking a break from the discussions wouldn't be a bad idea. They can get heated really quickly, and it doesn't persuade anyone when it gets to such points."  That is anything but a warning to stop. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While the parent statement is technically correct, the fact that advice in the first link on Lord Roem's talk page at 12:24, 19 July 2012 was not followed when this user edited a different page at 12:25, 19 July 2012 is not surprising. The two posts are a rounding error away from having been done at the same time- if they had been on the same page it is likely there would have been an edit conflict.  It is unreasonable to expect a user to be following advice one minute after it was given, and I think characterizing the second edit as a failure to abide by the advice offered a minute prior is quite unfair. --Noren (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see an argument for banning NewtonGeek from the case pages, but I think it's a stretch to say that an indefinite block is necessary. Is there really a case for saying that he should be thrown off Wikipedia rather than, for instance, simply asking him to refocus his interest on a different area of the project? Why was a gentler approach apparently not considered here? Prioryman (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support block, since I had reached a similar conclusion about NG after reading his contributions to the Fae case and then examining his contribution list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reduce to a week, or whenever arbs feel the case will be over. Presumably there will be a Jimbo appeal, but Jimbo knows how to ask people to leave his page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose block. The stated rationale, regarding edit ratios, is invalid, because the WP:SPA/WP:HERE/WP:NOT prohibitions concern new editors who spend all their time making personal pages - not those who contribute to policy discussions. These are not a blanket ban on opinions.  Note that systematic enforcement based on this precedent would alienate Wikipedia from the world audience, because the answer we usually would give to readers who complain about anything from Muhammad images to biased articles is that they are free to start an account at any time and get involved.  Once you break that, once you say that giving an opinion in a case is a privilege for the good editors (I actually saw someone in that discussion saying anyone with <1000 edits wasn't even a contributor) ... then you're making the editors (and by extension, admins and Arbs) an elite jealous of their special perks. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have been following the arbitration case very closely, and I consider the block to be a very complicated matter. First, let me say that I see zero merit to the argument that Risker has a COI or acted out of policy in any way. This is a controversial block, but it should be evaluated on the merits of the account blocked. I'm leaning a little bit in the direction of wanting to let the block be lifted, but I recognize that this isn't a simple decision, and I'd like to lay out what I know, in the hopes that the Arbitrators can take a look at it, and maybe it will be useful. I've been reading the comments about the case at Wikipediocracy, and based on what I've seen there, I'm pretty sure that Newton Geek and User:Factseducado are connected to some extent. I'm pretty sure also that we are dealing with two people here, who are husband and wife, although I'm totally at a loss as to which is which at any given moment. (I also haven't educated myself about Factseducado's history that led to them getting blocked.) On the one hand, I think that there is a good likelihood of sockpuppetry and block evasion going on. Perhaps, that right there is reason enough to keep the block, case closed. On the other hand, I have to say that I have never seen anything Newton Geek has done during the arbitration as being disruptive or unhelpful, in terms of what they have written. (That stands in vivid contrast to a bunch of users who have repeatedly been derogatory and downright nasty during the case discussions. And some of them, if not literally canvassing, are coming razor-edge close to it at Wikipediocracy, egging one another on and sounding like they are getting red in the face over things that are mostly in their heads and not in the real world. I point that out because no one is blocking them, and there usually has to be a good deal of requesting just to get their comments hatted.) I see no reason to question that Newton Geek wants to contribute positively to the project, just that they don't get it about the right way to have an account. I do think there is some WP:BITE in all of this. I think that a case can be made for a conditional lifting of the block, accompanied by a ban from commenting on the Fae case, and some sort of supervised editing, all conditional on Newton Geek acknowledging any non-clean start and committing not to repeat that infraction. Beyond that, I see absolutely nothing that the block is preventing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good block (perhaps reduce or restrict to arbcom space if there are indications of an interest in writing an encyclopedia). It is obvious that someone arrives just to sti the pot in the Fae case is not an encyclopedia writer but here for another purpose altogether, and probably here through off site alerts. Bite does not apply. WP:MEATPUPPET/WP:CANVAS probably does.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maunus, you had the arguably bad luck of commenting just after I did, so it's going to look like I'm arguing with you, but I really don't mean it as criticism directed at you. Rather, I want to draw some logical distinctions. Newton Geek isn't stirring any pots, although a lot of others on the case pages are. I don't think Newton Geek particularly agrees with or is either parroting or rebutting anything at Wikipediocracy, so they aren't a meatpuppet of others there (and we aren't blocking the editors who are). This block tests us as Wikipedians: do we just tick off boxes on a checklist and say, yes, block, or are we mature enough in our thinking to actually look at how the user conducts themselves, and make a decision based on that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view anyone who clearly demonstrates that they are here for the politics and not for writing an encyclopedia should be on a very short leash indeed.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I was talking about, when I said that this block tests us. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not exceedingly familiar with the account in question, or the ins and outs of the case. All I'd like to say is that we are not Conservapedia. We don't have a 90/10 rule (i.e we have no requirement that a certain percentage of edits must be to article space), and with good reason. If NewtonGeek is here only to cause trouble, then that should be dealt with via the appropriate channels. If they haven't actually done anything to deserve a block according to actual policy then the current block should not remain in place. OohBunnies!   (talk)  19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - As with a couple of the comments above I don't feel particularly strongly about this and if the account was doing something wrong, which it doesn't appear to me then fine the block is valid. If however it was a constructive account and wasn't violating one of our thousands of rules, policies and guidelines and the block was just based on Risker's gut feeling that this user might be a sock, then I have a problem with that. As it is I think the Arbcom ruling on the Fae case was one of a series of bad decisions that Arbcom has had in recent months so I have a rather tainted view of good faith at the moment. Kumioko (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose block - per comment by OohBunnies. My feeling regarding this matter can also be found here. Tamsier (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Shouldn't the bar be set higher for ArbCom members when it comes to AGF? While NG showed a more than keen interest in the Fae case then one would expect of most new users, it is plausible that he truly is a new editor and not a sock having learned about this case off-wiki.  And even if he were a sock (in that case tsk tsk), he might want to be protecting himself from future retaliation from Arbcom or other participants. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Observation - I would suggest reserving judgement for now. There is more history than the contribs show.  I'm the first to speak out on a bad block, but I think everyone should assume good faith in this particular block while waiting for more information.  Situations like this are never as simple as they seem at first glance, and I'm confident more info will be coming soon.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What info are you looking for? It all appears to be right there, the user was blocked for making less than 2.41% articlespace edits. It was a vindictive block, obviously. Arbcom didn't like the way the user was acting in the case, since they were being mostly calm and managing to knock down their arguments, so they had to come up with some reason to block the user. I just wish they had actually come up with a plausible reason. Silver  seren C 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Risker either screwed up the block because she's wrong - or she is right but screwed up by implying it was due to the ratio of edits when there is another reason (SPA, troll, whatever you want). Either way Risker screwed up, handsomely, and should, of course, consider her position. Let's make no mistake here - whatever the other issues an active arbitrator has just blocked someone for not editing in the "right" places. Conservapedia would be proud. Pedro : Chat  20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It does appear that some mistake was made, but as I explain a bit more below, there are more things going on than just this one Arb case. Until then, I thinking keeping an eye out and waiting for an explanation is worthwhile, but jumping to conclusions and drama isn't.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose block This entire thing is just blowing my mind. Did Risker seriously just block someone for making <2.41% articlespace edits? Seriously? Is that the precedent now? Because there's actually quite a few long-term users I know of who have very low articlespace contributions, so I suppose we should be going after them now. Silver  seren C 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhat amusingly, it appears that Risker themselves has only four mainspace edits in their last 166 edits. Not saying anything, just sayin' Resolute 03:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just so we're all on the same page here: policy explicitly forbids the use of undisclosed alternate accounts to comment on ArbCom cases. That's not a gray area in any conceivable way; it's written down at WP:ILLEGIT, second bullet point. This is obviously an alternate account of an experienced user, so Risker's block was explicitly supported by policy. It's blowing my mind that people are commenting in apparent ignorance of the underlying policy. I suppose one could argue that NewtonGeek should be unblocked and simply instructed not to comment in project-related discussions, but that argument would have to be made with an awareness of the underlying policy supporting Risker's actions. MastCell Talk 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's blowing my mind that people are commenting in apparent ignorance of the underlying policy. -- Really? How long have you been editing here again? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was tongue-in-cheek. Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember when ArbCom actually ordered someone to "familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it" as a remedy. MastCell Talk 21:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you know it's an experienced user? If you mean experienced as in a prior contributor to Citizendium and Wikipediocracy, then yes, they're "experienced". Doesn't mean they were a prior user on here or, if they were, it was a long time ago and it's an account they've abandoned. Silver  seren C 20:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MastCell, I understand your point and think I am on the same page, but there are varying degrees of experience when we talk about "experienced users". I have the sense that this is someone who is experienced enough to have formed opinions about dispute resolution, but not to have educated themselves about policy. I fully agree with you that Risker did things just fine, but I don't see Newton Geek's conduct in such black-and-white terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your starter for 10: In which current arbitration case is a (former) admin about to be sanctioned for failing to respond to criticism of or questions regarding their admin actions?  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverse block — WP:SPA is an opinion essay, not a manifestation of policy. Whereas Conservapedia will block users for insufficient articles to mainspace, at Wikipedia there is no such formal prohibition. Creating a new account for a specific purpose, such as commenting on the Fae case, is no different than an individual signing out to comment or making use of different accounts for different purposes, like, ummmmmm User:Fae, for example. In short, there is no doctrinal grounds for this block, other that the pique of a more or less involved administrator. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Overturn - No proper grounds for block presented. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for alternative solution
Given the comments above and my own view that indeffing Newtongeek is disproportionate to the perceived offence, I'd like to propose the following solution which resolves the issue of their participation in the Fae case while respecting the rights of the arbitrators to manage case pages:

User:NewtonGeek is unblocked with immediate effect but is henceforth banned from the Fae case talk pages until and unless an arbitrator grants permission for them to resume their participation on those pages; and NewtonGeek is counselled to refocus their interest on other more productive areas of the encyclopedia. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I fail to see and have seen no evidence indicating Newtongeek anything wrong other than have few contributions to mainspace, which is not a blockable offense. If ArbCom wants to forbid someone from editing their wp:own anyone? pages fine, but the block is completely out of line barring presentation of evidence of disruptive behavior. Therefore, the latter half of your wording is inappropriate. It presumes he was being unproductive. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it presumes that arbitration is unproductive, which I think is probably beyond dispute now... Prioryman (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. We're still waiting to hear from Risker and/or Arbcom about the reasoning behind and status of this block. There's nothing to be gained by hastily unblocking before Risker/Arbcom is able to provide some explanation of what's going on here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a somewhat similar suggestion above, but I think that, additionally, there would need to be an acknowledgment by Newton Geek of problems with a not-clean start of their account, and a promise never to repeat it. I also agree that we should wait for ArbCom to evaluate the information. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that NewtonGeek had a previous account? I believe someone said they were a Citizendium contributor so they would have some established familiarity with editing a wiki, if that's the case. Prioryman (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is. You can look, in part, at my comments above. I think there are also privacy issues, per what Dennis Brown is saying, and the bottom line is that I'd like to give ArbCom some time to review things. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is premature as we don't have all the facts yet. I only know enough from my previous multiple emails from NewtonGeek (I've never emailed back, answering here instead, his YGM are in my talk page history.) and his SPI investigation months ago, and many other events, that there is more than meets the eye here, which is why I have asked people to reserve judgement.  We want the answers, but should be a bit more patient.  I don't know if the block was good or bad, but I know this isn't likely to be as simple as it looks based on my experience helping NewtonGeek. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but this is shooting first and asking questions later. The block doesn't appear to be time sensitive, but it is preventing NG from participanting in the case talk page.  Since that might be closing soon, this block should be reversed ASAP unless there are reasons otherwise not known. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree it's unlikely to be simple - given that Risker should have either taken no action or justified her action by proper policy, ARBCOM or similar mandate. As it is Risker has made it appear to be a block based on her perception that the editor doesn't edit in the "right" areas. As a sitting arbitrator this sort of incompetence is not acceptable. Self evidently we now have a huge and likely pointless debate because or Risker's lack of clarity. Pedro : Chat  21:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I put off responding here until I thought s/he would have, instead of just on their talk page. SilkTork made a comment above that it was based on 4 Arbs, and no one has come back to clarify that yet, and it is a bit different if it is an Arb decision or an individual Admin decision.  The whole situation is less than optimal, to say the least, but reverting the action without discussion from the block admin (Arb committee?) isn't without its own drama as well.  I'm not condoning, just trying to be a little patient while waiting for an answer that might be coming from a committee instead of an individual.  My patience isn't infinite, however. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  21:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FYI Pause 1. There is a current halt on review on NewtonGeek's talk page because Arbcom has not made clear whether this is an Arbcom block according to SilkTork, and 2. NewtonGeek is denying all the bad things thought of him. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, it would be nice if there was a presumption of innocence for Newton since nobody has proved anything about him. Deny? How about someone PROVE something for him to deny? (not voicing this at you specifically Alan) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now per my favorite sandwich. Arcandam (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Unfortunately for purposes of the discussion, I do so based in part on non-public information that I can't share on this noticeboard. I'd ask that speculation about what I'm referring to be avoided, although I have zero hope that some people will honor this request. I also note that Risker, who in my experience has extremely sound judgment on matters of this nature, has been away from the keyboard this afternoon, and that no action should be taken until she has had an opportunity to comment further. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While there is undoubtedly more to the story than meets the eye, ArbCom has been quick to sanction Fae and parties to previous cases for failing to respond to good faith concerns about edits or admin actions. Arbs should at the very least hold themselves to the same standards as they hold other admins. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Brad, since you are endorsing the block "in part" for privacy reasons, can you clarify if you would endorse it absent the private reasons? To clarify.  Do you agree that an account that only comments on arbcom cases without being disruptive should be blocked?  204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with 204.101. Let's be clear -- if Risker had said that he had confidential evidence that this was a "sockpuppet" account, then he'd have a better case.  However, I believe that the sensible way to interpret the ban on "undisclosed alternate accounts" editing ArbCom pages, etc., is to prohibit the use of more than one account to do so, not to arbitrarily designate one account the "alternate" and prohibit it from activity.  Specifically, I think that it would be understandable for an editor in this contentious case to leave his normal account out of it and to use a different account to do all this for privacy, given that the normal account isn't also editing the same or related pages to provide a false sense of extra support.  And no matter how confidential the evidence is, can't Risker still take it to one checkuser-admin for a formal WP:SPI so that you have the finding on record and you can block for "confirmed sockpuppetry" rather than "not enough mainspace edits"? Wnt (talk) 10:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Although I understanding the reasoning behind Prioryman's proposal, I am somewhat in agreement with Hammersoft. I see no evidence to prove that NewtonGeek has done anything wrong. All I am seeing is "presumption of guilt" with no tangible evidence to back that up. Where is AGF in this? I also believe it is grossly unfair that NewtonGeek, who is the subject of this discussion, is not even allowed to come here and defend his/her name. This issue has been raised above by Fasttimes68 and I strongly agree with it. Tamsier (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as that's concerned, NewtonGeek appears to be monitoring this discussion and replying to some points on their talk page. I urge all editors paying attention to look in there too. That was me, sorry. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 22:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as being beyond the legitimate purview here. If ArbCom decides that the block is improper, I trust it will, sua sponte, remove it. If it is proper, it is not up to us to remove it.  In either case, this proposal is thus ill-formed.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on the propriety. If this is an ArbCom block, you are correct, of course. But that has not been decided or declared. In the absence of a declaration that this is an ArbCom block, I am treating it as if Risker were acting as an administrator. Per WP:ADMINACCT, any admin must be responsible to the community for any decision they make as an administrator. Obviously ArbCom operates by different rules, but if an arbitrator is operating in an "administrator" capacity rather than "for the Committee," then it is proper for us to review their decisions. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 00:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

How can this possibly be an ArbCom block. The original block notice says "..If you can convince another admin that..." here is the whole thing from NG talkpage. I am copying the text instead of a diff because it seems to me that many people are commenting without having read it. "NewtonGeek, having reviewed all of your contributions, I note that you have a grand total of 166 edits, of which exactly four are to article space.[1] It appears that you have a mistaken understanding of what Wikipedia is about, and are treating this site as some sort of opinion forum or social website. This is not what Wikipedia is for. It is time for you to move on. I am blocking you indefinitely. Unless you can persuade other administrators that you will restrict yourself to building encyclopedic content in the article space, I do not see a reason for you to continue to participate here. Risker (talk) 9:17 am, Today (UTC−4)" I asked Risker on NG talkpage, in less temperate language, how where another editor chooses to contribute can possibly be any of their buisness. Should I be cowering because I have very few edits? Jbhunley (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Update
The block is being discussed with the user on his talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, it appears more that Risker continues to fail to provide evidence of negative behavior by Newton while insisting Newton conform to his demands under pain of not being unblocked. Brad, I respect your previously stated concern about private matters regarding this block. However, Risker is not behaving in a way that confirms this. Risker's behavior is highly objectionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No admin has overturned it thus far: her block. Not a newbie at all, so BITE doesn't apply. No brand-spanking new editor jumps to an Arb page for their second edit. Maybe a "forward observer", but definitely no newbie. Doc   talk  05:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, clearly not a newbie. If this was a new editor, I'd be concerned. Given that it clearly isn't, I'm supporting the block until someone comes up with better reasons to unblock. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If is correct, and Factseducado edited ...  Doc   talk  06:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, while I normally think that Risker displays pretty good judgement, I think this is a poor block. I share the concerns and as far as I'm concerned, NewtonGeek fails the duck test.  That said, it's nothing that a ban from the case pages at ArbCom couldn't fix; an indef block is pretty heavy handed.  Given that much of NewtonGeek's activity consists of criticising the direction that the Fae arbcom case is taking, and because Risker is obviously an active arb on that case, I think that a better course of action would have been to allow someone uninvolved to review the situation and issue the block if appropriate.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC).

I promised myself I wouldn't get involved with this 3 ring circus, but I think that this is not the first time NewtonGeek has bumped up against specific users who also happen to be arbitrators. This SPI discovered a non-related linkage to the main investigating account, but did discover a linkage to annother account that was in the process of self destructing. I encourage caution when considering taking actions with respect to the account. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what now?
It seems to me that putting this under the name of an "Arbcom block" is inappropriate because the block reason is clearly not one that falls under such a purview and is an extension of Arbcom's power that they were never meant to have. The reasons that have been hinted at as being secondary reasons for blocking are also not ones appropriate for an Arbcom member to do and are also not something that most would block for at all. Furthermore, it appears that calling it as such a block is an attempt to have the community not have a say in it, since if the community voted against it and overturned it, it would embarrass the member of Arbcom (and the rest) who implemented it. Silver seren C 00:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This block continues to be discussed by the Arbitration Committee, which has been in contact with NewtonGeek. Nonpublic information is involved in this situation, warranting the Committee's involvement. The block remains in place pending any further action by the Committee.
 * The speculation contained in Silver seren's last sentence is false, and any suggestion that the arbitrators would cause a user to continue to be indefinitely blocked just to save the feelings of another arbitrator is really unwarranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then can you please explain the block reason of <2.41% articlespace edits? Is this meant to set a precedent for such things? Silver  seren C 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I posted in my observation on Risker's talk page, I believe that the % comment was more of an aside rather than the main thrust of the block rationale. Not that it really matters what anyone says at this point, as you are obviously hell-bent on ramping up the drama surrounding this in multiple venues. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean the main thrust of "we don't like what you've posted about the case", then I guess that would be what is focused on more. And I don't think you have the right at all to talk to me about ramping up drama. Silver  seren C 02:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All this micromanagement of what Arbcom does (obviously the committee will review Risker's action) is unhelpful. Arbcom was elected to protect the community that builds the encyclopedia, and there is no better method that could be used to manage this site. The arb case is highly contentious and the arbs have read private information—it is very plausible to assume they have reasons to support this unusual block. Any alternative explanation (we AGF that NewtonGeek merely feels a need to help the community by focusing on the case) is very implausible. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggest community patience for the moment I would like to urge us as a community to be patient while NewtonGeek and Arbcom discuss the situation privately. Let us wait and see what Arbcom says. My sense is that there is a stronger reason for this block than has been announced in public. Perhaps Arbcom's concerns will be resolved and NewtonGeek will be unblocked, and perhaps Arbcom will conclude that the concerns aren't resolved and NewtonGeek will remain blocked. Either way, I urge us as a community to be patient with the process. After the private discussions conclude between Arbcom and NewtonGeek, the community can decide how we want to proceed.  Pine ✉ 06:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose closing this thread
I've read through this thread and the various threads at User talk:NewtonGeek. Based on the extensive discussion at the user talk page, I don't see any need to keep this ANI thread open. Unlike most new users, this one has engaged in extensive e-mail correspondence with arbitrators on a variety of topics, as they have stated: "This block was enacted on July 19 when the e-mail Risker has indicated this block pertains to was sent on June 28. As far as I know that June 28 e-mail appears never to have been responded to despite my having in the intervening time much subsequent correspondence and communication with multiple Arbs on both related and unrelated topics." This is in itself a red flag of sorts - what new user does that? From my reading of the oblique references made on that user talk page to the contents of the e-mails there are good reasons for leaving it to ArbCom to sort this out, even if it is technically 'just' an administrator block. See also the comments at NewtonGeek's talk page by several other arbitrators. If there are issues with Risker's handling of the block, that should be raised first at her talk page rather than here. Appeals of NewtonGeek's block can be handled on that user's talk page or in e-mail correspondence with ArbCom. That leaves nothing for ANI do so, so this thread should be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't address the idea of whether it is legit to block a user for having the "wrong" set of editing statistics, nor does it address whether an admin can directly intervene in the middle of an ArbCom situation without its permission. Risker hasn't suggested that the block was for a legitimate policy purpose, and the vague "Not here to build an encyclopedia" is a piddling excuse if there ever was one. Reverse the block or reimplement it under a legitimate policy basis. But otherwise this is *still* an AN/I matter. -- Avanu (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, any issues with Risker's rationale can be raised with her on her talk page. An ANI discussion thread is not going to be able to resolve those issues, and certainly isn't going to end up lifting the block given what has been said on NewtonGeek's talk page since this thread started (please read that page and Risker's talk page if you haven't done so). ANI is just the wrong venue here, full stop. If you want to bolster existing admin policy to forbid 'not here to build an encyclopedia' blocks, then you need to raise that on the policy talk pages (and anywhere else that relates to that issue). Carcharoth (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is incorrect. It has been repeatedly asked whether this is an Arbcom block and no answer has been forthcoming, though it has been implied that it is not. Therefore, if it is not an Arbcom block, then the community is fully within its right to reverse it, regardless of whether certain Arbcom members are in discussion with the user. Silver  seren C 07:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * AN/I is actually the only proper place for this debate. While Risker or Newton's Talk pages are viewable to anyone, they do not have the same visibility as this page. A block is supposed to be preventative. What exactly is being prevented in this case, and why isn't that specified via the block summary? The existing block summary is incompatible with policy, and civility as well (if it is an accurate summary), and Risker, having taken the action, should either take the fairly easy step of correcting it or it should be dropped, or a suitable ban or warning given. At present, this block is untenable and inappropriate, and that much is obvious to many of the editors that have commented. -- Avanu (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing that we abolish Arbcom and resolve everything by perpetual public argument here? All the concerned users posting need to understand that obviously there is more to the case than appears on the surface—we know the presented rationale is inadequate. The worst interpretation is that Risker has gone rogue and blocked an editor who otherwise would have made helpful contributions. If that is the case, Arbcom will reach a suitable resolution in due course. We who have not followed all the details (particularly not the private details) should not try to micromanage Arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) You are both wikilawyering the letter of policy without looking at the specifics here. Clarification is needed, but that can be obtained by reading and posting to the two user talk pages I mentioned. Just because you disagree with a block is not a reason to drag the issue to ANI without discussing with the administrator or the blocked user first. Courtesy suggests that you both discuss with the blocking administrator first (and wait for a reply), and also contact the blocked user and ask whether they intend to appeal the block or not, and then guide them as appropriate. ANI is certainly not a place to be used to increase the visibility of an issue or to soapbox on issues you feel strongly about, or to appeal on behalf of someone else. It should be used to resolve ongoing and current incidents that need to be and can be resolved quickly (this block falls into neither category as it is a complex matter [obvious from reading the user's talk page] and there is no emergency here that can't be dealt with by a standard unblock appeal). Only when those avenues are exhausted, should the matter be raised elsewhere. And I have to ask this, have you both actually read the discussions at NewtonGeek's talk page? If you feel it would be inappropriate to post there (though others have done so, with some helpful suggestions) but are posting here so as to 'have your say', then you are missing the point of what has been said on that talk page. Let the editor sort out his issues with ArbCom and move on from this one way or the other rather than becoming a cause celebre. Carcharoth (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: this account and the User:FactsEducado account are now ArbCom blocks. Checkuser evidence apart, in all likelihood the user is trolling and/or has competency issues. Roger Davies talk 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's something, at least. Alright now, next transparency step, what's the evidence for "trolling and/or has competency issues"? Because, as was pointed out in discussions above, the user appears to have been one of the most competent posters in the Fae case thus far. Silver  seren C 08:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like it's over. Time to move on? Doc   talk  08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, no, not until there is proper evidence given. Otherwise, this will be yet another "sweep under the rub without explaining" block. Silver  seren C 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Good block initially executed poorly. There was no emergency requiring a block first and post explanations later action -- they should be concurrent. Not because the individual editor is particularly important but because of the signals sent to the rest of the community. Personally, I'd like to know if there's going to be some new must make x% edits mainspace policy; if there is, I'd prefer to fade away gracefully rather than logging in some day to find myself indef'd. Nobody Ent 10:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As I've tried to say in other places on Wikipedia, the reason stuff like this ends up attracting so much damn ink on a non-issue is not because most of these editors cared particularly one way or another about NewtonGeek's fate in particular, but that you admins recognize and realize that following policy and doing things right does matter a lot. Arbitrary-looking actions do not sit well with anyone, and while there seem to be a large group of its-good-enough-to-get-by-editors, there are also those of us who care about fair treatment because in the end it is an expression of respect and civility. I'd like to thank Roger Davies for actually having the guts to step up and take the simple act of giving a correct, albeit vague, block rationale. Those who are admins among us know that a lot of trust was placed within you when you were chosen. Please always do your best to live up to that trust and bear that responsibility with honor. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

John Chivington
Hello, I am writing with regard to User:Fat&Happy who keeps trying to remove the word infamy from this article. Chivington was the officer who led forces which committed the Sand Creek Massacre. U.S. volunteers attacked a peaceful camp full of elderly, women and children. After killing everyone, they took male and female body parts as war trophies, and apparently even put dead Indian babies on the end of lances.

Even by the standards of the day, this was considered a barbarous act. Chivington would never be able to shake off the reputation.

The definition of infamy is notoriety gained from a negative incident or reputation, if this is not the case then I want to know what other thing Chivington is historically notable for? User:Fat&Happy has already reverted me twice, ignoring the usage of the word. Chivington has gained infamy for what happened at Sand Creek, that's what made him well known (and remains well known in history. In fact he's so "infamous" they even renamed a road due to his association with mass murder). I cannot see how anything else bares any consequence other than the massacre, to try and do so is frankly WP:UNDUE. Joe Pierce 109.145.117.87 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * AN/I is not the best place for a dispute over one specific bit of content; it might be better to take it to the article talkpage, or a relevant wikiproject talkpage, or the Neutral Point of View noticeboard, or to third opinion or some other form of dispute resolution. Personally, my first question would be "What do sources say? Do they use the word "Infamy"?" bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I found a couple that do, but I am still looking for a reliable one. Arcandam (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Carry on. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are much too quick. Arcandam (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also,, , , . Kleine moeite, groot plezier. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And well done. "Nits make lice" was his excuse for telling his soldiers to kill them all, babies too. Search YouTube for Peter La Farge's marvelous song "The Crimson Parson". Infamy is almost too mild. Dougweller (talk)
 * Not that it makes a big difference, but that quotation doesn't seem to have been an original of Chivington.  Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your second source says "Echoing an English officer in seventeenth-century Ireland, and more recently H. L. Hall in California,Chivington often stated his view that "Nits make lice."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, I actually try to read over the content of sources before I post them. I was just mentioning that there were at least three others to whom that particular little bit of wisdom has been attributed before Chivington.


 * On a related note, I'm not familiar with the La Farge song. I may look for it later, but in the meantime, is it also appropriate to include in the pop culture section of the actual Sand Creek massacre article? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, since we're at AN/I, I'd like to start by requesting that anon-109 be cautioned about personal attacks on other editors, as contained in this posting.

As to the subject at hand, "infamy" or "infamous" is clearly a contentious label, which is "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution”, so even if we now have several references to use of the term, it should be included as "described by writers as..." or some such phrasing not using Wikipedia's voice to make the judgement. Amazingly, we seem to have been able to develop lengthy, neutral articles on Caligula, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Ivan the Terrible, and Pol Pot without referring to any of them as "infamous" (though we do say Stalin gained infamy – for participation in a robbery), but for some reason use of the term in the lead to describe Chivington – who was responsible for civilian deaths in the low hundreds, not the millions – is mandatory? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Not low hundreds, but probably not more than high hundreds - you need to include the several hundred whites killed as the aftermath of the massacre. But yes, not in Wikipedia's voice, but this was an act of savage barbarism. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Did he gain infamy yes or no? Reliable sources say yes, and I haven't seen a source that contradicts it. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The determination of whether the term is "widely used" would not depend on how many sources say he was not infamous; it would depend on how many sources – or more accurately, what percentage of the sources – do not say he was infamous. In any case, even if widely used, it needs attribution. And if we're going with attributed opinions, I think Dougweller's description, "an act of savage barbarism" is equally effective and perhaps more evocative. (I don't find that exact phrase anywhere yet, but "barbarity" and "savage cruelty" seem to have been used by the Congressional investigating committee.) Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic comment) If anyone is taking a look at the John Chivington article because of this ANI discussion, the unsourced Later life section would sure benefit from some references. Shearonink (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Continuing disruptive behavior by User:Earl King Jr.
User:Earl King Jr. is continuing to attack me and continuing to accuse me of acting in bad faith. I filed an ANI regarding his disruptive behavior only a few hours ago, and I also filed yet another AN/I on his personal attacks several weeks ago (the first AN/I was also due to the fact he deleted one of my comments on the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement.

His behavior continues to constitute WP:HARASSMENT. He is intentionally targeting me, and his purpose is to make me feel intimidated, to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, to undermine me, to frighten me, and to discourage me from editing.

He has been increasingly emboldened by the fact that almost no action was taken against him on the two previous ANI's. The closing of the ANI a few hours ago was especially hasty and erroneous. Earl's comments constitute uncivil and disruptive behavior and create a nasty, ugly atmosphere and environment on both the Talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement and on the on-going DRN. On the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, Earl openly discussed the material in my user page, which is irrelevant, because WP policies clearly limit the discussion on article Talk pages to focus exclusively on the topic of the article. As if discussing my user page is not bad enough, Earl took the extremely unusual, irrelevant and highly offensive step of copy-pasting a box from my user page directly onto the TZM article talk page. He then called me "a member advocate of Zeitgeist", "Your user box states explicitly that you advocate for Zeitgeist," "Your changes which as you being an advocate, seem biased and opinionated instead of neutral and accurate." Thus Earl has repeatedly attacked me and accused me of acting in bad fate. And he repeated his attacks five more times on the current, on-going DRN for the Zeitgeist movement. His most-recent attack is particularly nasty, ugly and offensive.

(My edits on The Zeitgeist Movement were based on an editorial (content) disagreement with him and were not sufficient reason for him to attack me personally, and his repeated attacks are definitely not "an entirely reasonable thing to do, under the circumstances" as the administrator who closed the previous AN/I erroneously said. As can be seen from the talk page of The Zeitgeist Movement, the specific content dispute between Earl and me was resolved practically instantly when editor Bbb23, who has firmly established his credentials as a fair, impartial, and reasonable arbiter on several preceding content disputes between Earl (and several other editors) and me, intervened again. I fully accepted all of Bbb23's recommendations and reverted all my edits.)

I'm requesting that an administrator take action against Earl to put a stop to his harassing me.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see where any action is necessary. I think Earl acted in good faith with this comment and focused on Ijon's contributions and not Ijon as a person. There is no obligation for Wikipedia editors to sugar-coat constructive criticism they give. —C.Fred (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no constructive criticism. There is an on-going series of comments intended to harass me, pure and simple. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple question. Are you a member of, or do you advocate for, the Zeitgeist Movement? And if not, why do you state that you do on your user page? You have apparently voluntarily chosen to make this information known, so why do you object to people commenting on it? In the recent ANI discussion, I suggested that a topic ban on you might not be the best course of action, but am beginning to wonder whether I was mistaken. Can you point to anything in Wikipedia policy that makes pointing out that someone has a userbox indicating an affiliation with the subject of an article constitutes 'harassment'? As for you being 'frightened', I have to ask how someone who apparently advocates the abolition of capitalism, a fundamental reshaping of the economic system, and a complete shift in the locus of political power expects to bring this about without suffering from at minimum the occasional personal insult? You are familiar with the writings of Marx (or at least, you claim to be), and you are no doubt familiar with past history in regard to previous attempts (no matter how flawed) to bring about such changes. Do you really expect such change to come about without any signs of personal antagonism? Is TZM really that clueless, or is it just you? Either way, I suggest you either accept that political advocacy of necessity requires a thick skin, or find another cause to promote... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ijon, did you not notice that the last ANI basically you barely escaped a topic ban or some other administrative action, with another frivolous ANI hours later if WP:BOOMARANG doesn't apply now, I'd be highly surprised. A topic ban might now be in order, to give you a little time to contemplate your behavior and learn how to get along with people of different views. — raeky  t  04:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem getting along with other people. And I'm not the one doing the personal attacks. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're just practicing WP:TE and WP:IDONTHEARYOU and other disruptive editing behaviors right? WP:HARRASMENT is very clearly defined, and noone except you thinks he's violating it. Just because someone disagrees with you and starts to get frustrated at your relentless repetitive behavior is not harassment. — raeky  t  04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you like to reread this and reconsider your claim of not doing personal attacks? —C.Fred (talk) 04:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment you are referring to has not been posted on an article talk page or a DRN, like Earl's comments. It is an attempt to provide constructive feedback to an administrator whom I feel has made a mistake, and was posted on the administrator's talk page. Yes, AndyTheGrump has posted ugly, mean-spirited, disgusting, invective-filled, offensive, childish and juvenile comments on the current DRN regarding The Zeitgeist Movement. (His first few comments on the DRN were great, but got progressively worse. And by the way his comment above regarding 'thick skin' is very good, insightful and helpful.)   And did Earl ever finalize his "feedback" to me with civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes, like I've done in the comment you are referring to? IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be "civility and positive words of encouragement and good wishes" such as " You still have a long way to go before you become a good administrator"? Are you out of your mind? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "My best wishes for you, I hope you continue to grow and learn and develop as an administrator, and especially learn from your mistakes. Take good care and regards" IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The "ugly, mean-spirited" string is what I wanted to point out: starting this ANI thread over personal attacks really looks like the pot calling the kettle black. —C.Fred (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How would you characterize comments such as "bollocks",  "By implying that there was a link between L. Susan Brown and TZM, other than the one in your head? Or can I add a link to David Icke to to the article too, because former goalkeepers who think the world is run by shape-shifting lizards are under-represented both in Wikipedia and in TZM (or at least, I hope they are...)?"   "We aren't the slightest bit interested in your bullshit,"  "you clearly have some intelligence, try to be a little more creative at least". Andy's comments were disruptive to the DRN discussion (e.g. my exchange with Judith, with whom I got along just fine and had a productive exchange with). And again keep in mind I did not post my comment on the TZM article's talk page or the DRN but only to point out to an admin. that he may have missed the 'bigger picture' in making, I believe, a hasty decision.  IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you C.Fred, Andy, and Raeky for providing feedback and for your insights. All your comments and recommendations will help me become a better WP editor (and more), and especially Andy's first comment above, which is full of truth and wisdom. Truth, knowledge and understanding are not easy to come by, and wisdom is especially rare. Thank you all (especially Andy). Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

[p.s. Your comments motivated me to delete the comment I posted on the talk page of Kim Dent-Brown, the administrator for yesterday's AN/I. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)]

Proposal
I think that this has now gone on far too long - IjonTichyIjonTichy clearly either doesn't understand why he is getting to be a pain in the nether regions, or doesn't care. As an involved party, I should probably leave this to someone else, but it seems to me that the result is a foregone conclusion, and therefore propose that IjonTichyIjonTichy be topic-banned from any articles relating to The Zeitgeist Movement, to Peter Joseph, to The Venus Project, and to any other matters concerning politics or economics which might, loosely construed, be seen as related to the policies of TZM, until IjonTichyIjonTichy demonstrates through his contributions to Wikipedia on unrelated issues that he is competent to contribute constructively to the project as a neutral and constructive editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support Since I don't think he's malicious in his intent but just unaware. This should be a temporary topic ban maybe only one month, then he goes on a strict zero revert, and any more of this kind of behavior would make the ban permanent, maybe also forced mentoring. — raeky  t  04:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - yes 'unawareness' (or a reluctance to admit to being aware) may well be the fundamental problem - which is why a time-limited topic-ban would make little sense in my opinion. What is needed is for IjonTichyIjonTichy to demonstrate such awareness in the context of articles with less personal involvement. He clearly is a person of some intelligence, and as I've argued before, is preferable to some of the other TZM advocates/spin merchants that Wikipedia has had to deal with - but by all evidence is incapable of changing his behaviour as long as an alternative course is available. A time-limited topic ban will merely postpone the inevitable, as far as I can see. If he is a net liability to the project now (as I'd argue is self-evident), I can see no obvious reason why the mere elapse of time would change this - we need him to change his behaviour, so why not make this need explicit? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support One month as well, though I suspect he will be blocked by then. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. An editor who describes this is a personal attack on themselves is unlikely to be able to contribute in a WP:NPOV way to these topics. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support one month per above reasoning. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I respect the views of the editors above, and I'm only saying the following because most of them may not be as familiar as, say, Andy, Earl and I are with the history of the TZM article. I believe most of the wording in the current version of the TZM article has been contributed by me, including the largest portion of the 'Criticism' section of the TZM article (the first paragraph), and including almost all of the TZM responses to the remaining criticisms. And including the lead, philosophy section, 'See also' links and the remainder of the article ('External links' etc). And please note that even Earl has said "... the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally ...." Also, Andy's first comment above provides wisdom on how to deal with future disagreements with other editors, such as Earl (and Andy). And please note that I've worked very effectively on editing the TZM article when collaborating closely with neutral, unbiased, impartial editors/admin such as Bbb23. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Response. You don't get to decide who are "neutral, unbiased, impartial editors/admin". That you assume (or claim) that you can, while simultaneously advocating for a controversial 'Movement' is yet another illustration of the problem with your behaviour. And yes, it may well be true that much of what is currently in the article is due to your efforts - but much of what isn't in the article is due to the efforts of others to prevent you inserting spin, WP:OR, your own personal opinions, and who knows what else, contrary to Wikipedia policy, while having to deal with your tendentious Wikilawyering, refusal to actually address the comments of others, and endless, repetitious posting of reams of blather on talk pages, noticeboards etc. When this is combined with repeated calls for sanctions against others (here at ANI), even when it is made perfectly clear that it is your own behaviour that is most likely to be sanctioned, you exhaust the patience of others. Wikipedia contributors are volunteers, we only have limited time, and eventually have to say to those who are unable to work in a way that is actually of net benefit to Wikipedia (judging not just by article content, but by the amount of effort involved in arriving at such content, and in preventing other unacceptable content being added), that they must either conform to policies and guidelines, or find another outlet for their efforts. I think that you've been treated rather generously so far, but time is running out. Are you prepared to work within Wikipedia guidelines? Are you prepared to stop using WP:OR, your own opinions, and off-topic waffle on article talk pages in an attempt to add pro-TZM material to articles? Are you prepared to keep your talk page contributions concise, to the point, and actually addressing the concerns of others, rather than merely paraphrasing your previous comments without any new content? Are you prepared to accept that people who respond to endless repetitive blather are entitled to describe it as 'bollocks', or at least accept that in politics, those who engage in advocacy can expect the occasional negative comment, deserved or not? And are you prepared to accept that repeatedly running to ANI over supposed 'harassment' that nobody else can see is unacceptable, or at least counter productive?. If you aren't prepared to work with us in ways that the rest of us expect, you may well find that you can't work with us at all. The choice is yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to all your questions is yes. (And thank you again for taking the time and effort to provide yet more excellent feedback.) Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what your saying now in light of a pending ban, I still think a one month break might do you good. Allow you time to read and understand policies, contribute constructively in other areas of wikipedia totally unrelated to these topics, and learn. I really don't think anyone here believes you when you say you've suddenly reformed and are going to change your behavior right now. Not after two frivolous ANI's to try to silence your opposition and the DRN to try to push your POV through. — raeky  t  18:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect your view but may I explain. When I filed the two recent ANIs I did not have an intention to silence anyone; I (mistakenly) believed an editor was trying to silence me and intimidate me, but I realize now that (as Andy and several other editors explained in detail above) filing these two ANIs was the wrong course of action, and I apologize for wasting everybody's time with these ANIs.
 * I filed the DRN not because of any POV pushing but because I was convinced the addition of the link would benefit our readers, for the specific reasons I listed on the DRN, and more generally because my philosophy on 'See also' is very inclusive - my philosophy is identical to that of Isaac, who contributed to the DRN. [To prove this, note that when I originally expanded the TZM article more than two months ago (based on citations from reliable secondary sources) my original 'See also' section contained several dozen links - I can provide a diff to prove this. I enjoy browsing the 'See also' links on other WP articles and I feel disappointed when a WP article that I find interesting and exciting to read does not have more links, so I naturally added lots of links when I expanded the TZM article.] (And please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl [and possibly even Judith] did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM; we disagreed on whether it was proper to include her in 'See also'.) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have stayed out of this debate, but will comment. Ijon I wish you would stop using a phrase that you use in most of your posts, our readers, example I filed the DRN not because of any POV pushing but because I was convinced the addition of the link would benefit our readers end quote. It may just be a rhetorical device to say that phrase but, we do not shepard Wikipedia readers or mollycoddle them toward certain viewpoints. Not so sure that you accept that line of thinking. Its just not neutral point of view for an individual here to lead people in their own personal direction of interest unless there is a direct, notable and verifiable connection. Also in your statement above you say (And please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl [and possibly even Judith] did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM; we disagreed on whether it was proper to include her in 'See also'.), end quote, that is a disconnect from what happened and the tone and direction of what happened but you are unwilling to let go of your opinion still that you were right. There is no connection to Zeitgeist material and Brown regarding the two viewpoints beyond remote tangents that are not really connected, so it is beyond 'rhetorical largess' to imply that others agreed with you on that in much of any way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. This is exactly the sort of spinning that I find troublesome - the misrepresentation of what other contributors say or do in order to imply some sort of agreement. IjonTichyIjonTichy wrote "please note that on the DRN Andy, Earl [and possibly even Judith] did not seem to disagree with me that Brown's ideas are very similar to those of TZM". True, I expressed no opinion one way or another on whether the closeness (or otherwise) of Brown's ideas to TZM were sufficient to merit inclusion in 'see also' - because my opinions on whether Brown's ideas match TZM's are irrelevant. We do not base articles on our own opinions. I asked for evidence that external sources had made the connection, on the grounds that this was how we should make the decision.. That even now IjonTichyIjonTichy fails to get the point seems yet further evidence that he is unfit to be editing articles in which he has such an emotional involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, regretfully. Tom Harrison Talk 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This comment is long because it is a combined response to both Earl and Andy's comments. Apologies for the long comment. Sorry Earl and Andy, it seems my last comment above is unlclear and confusing. I should have made it clear that I accept your explanations on why Brown should not be included, especially after reading Judith's comments, which were important for me, because I opened the DRN to seek fresh views from the larger editorial community, not only those currently involved with editing the TZM article. (The views of involved editors are important, but fresh voices are sometimes needed. Judith's and Isaac's feedback on  the DRN were insightful and productive to the discussion, and they helped me learn several new things.) I should have made it clear I have no intention of pursuing the DRN further. (I should have posted this on the DRN to allow an admin to close it, I have not checked the DRN status recently.) I was not trying to spin anything or misrepresent editors' positions e.g. to  imply Andy and Earl support parts of my argument. However, I do admit that I have to be much more careful in the future with wording my comments because, among other reasons, often my wording looks, feels, smells and tastes like I'm trying to spin, misrepresent or imply things. Additionally and generally, I have to be more aware of the impact my words have and use a more neutral tone not only in my edits but also in my comments.
 * Because I promised to keep my comments short, I did not go into details in my response to Raeky, and I tried to limit the scope of my comment to only show to Raeky that I was not acting in bad faith and I was not trying to push a POV. I tried to show to Raeky that I was not trying to imply that e.g. Brown supports TZM or that TZM are anarchists etc. (I'm not saying nor implying that Raeky accuses me of pushing these specific POVs, but I wanted to make clear I did not push a POV, e.g. POVs such as these.) Because I wanted to keep my response to Raeky short I did not discuss the details of Earl's and Andy's positions on the DRN. I assumed Raeky, as well as all editors here, have read the DRN and were fully aware of everything that happened on the DRN and the tone and direction of the DRN and thus I did not repeat (or explain, or summarize) Earl's or Andy's DRN contributions in my response to Raeky. Also, Raeky's comment made me realize I was probably guilty of pushing my general philosophy on 'See also' (without intending to do so, but the effect was probably one of still pushing). (My 'See Also' philosophy applies equally to all articles, not only to TZM articles; this philosophy is basically the same as that of Isaac, based on Isaac's comments on the DRN. Based on the DRN I am having doubts about my philosophy and I intend, in the near future, to post my 'See also' philosophy on one of the WP discussion forums and solicit insights from the larger editorial community on whether I should discard this philosophy. [And I'm OK if any editor would choose to call my philosophy 'bollocks' or any other name, positive or negative... smile.] [I'm not saying or implying any editors are strictly demanding I discard this philosophy. My words should not be interpreted as describing any editor's position on this issue.])  And I'm only using the phrase 'our readers' as a rhetorical device and have no intention to shepherd WP readers or mollycoddle them toward any viewpoints. I've seen other editors use this phrase or similar phrases on other talk pages so I naturally assumed it was OK to use it (e.g. Isaac used the term 'readers' on the DRN [which is not the same as 'our readers']), but Earl's comments on this issue are constructive and helpful. I admit that using this term, as well as my other actions and my comments and edits, can seem like I'm trying to direct readers towards a certain POV. (I'll post on a WP discussion forum and solicit further advice on whether it is a good idea to stop using the phrase 'our readers'. [I'm not saying or implying Earl is strictly demanding I stop using this phrase. My words should not be interpreted as describing Earl's position on this issue.])
 * Again my apologies to Earl and Andy for seeming to spin or misrepresent their views, positions and contributions. I thank them, as well as all editors, for their feedback and consideration. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ijon has some very specific problems that frustrate other editors and impede progress on improving the article. One, he is way too verbose. Volumes of material with links, diffs, whatever, go on for paragraphs. Second, he compounds that problem by repeating himself, even after his comments have been addressed. Third, if he doesn't succeed at the article or the Talk page, he runs to other forums like WP:DRN and here, forcing everyone to respond repeatedly to what amounts to the same mantra but with perhaps a few immaterial twists. And frequently he resorts to other forums over fairly minor disagreements (the Susan Brown thing is really a big nothing - do we have to expend all this energy on whether to include a See also article?). Finally, he's invariably dignified and civil, which I think, combined with everything else, drives some editors bananas. I don't see any changes in his behavior over time. Whether he's banned or not, I just wish he'd go contribute somewhere else on Wikipedia, for his own and the project's good.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to Bbb23. (a) All my comments here have been short, with the exception of the last one which responds to multiple editors and addresses multiple issues. And I believe all my comments on the DRN have been short, with the exception of perhaps a single comment. (b) I've contributed several edits on the TZM article from July 17 to date, and I believe none of these edits have been reverted, with the exception of Andy who reverted me twice, I reverted his reversions and no other editors (Earl, Tom, OpenFuture, Andy etc.) have subsequently reverted or significantly modified my edits.  (c) Almost all of the other issues discussed in Bbb23's comment have been discussed by Andy in his second-to-last comment, and my answer to all of Andy's questions is still an unqualified 'yes'. (d) I explained in detail why my opening the two recent ANI's was a mistake and apologized for this mistake. (e) No, nobody has to expend all this great energy e.g. on the recent DRN. I opened it because I sought outside counsel and a fresh voice. A short time after I received specific input from Judy I stopped pursuing the DRN. The DRN (and this discussion) have been very productive - for example in the sense that we'll be able to clarify via RFC when and where my, and Isaac's, philosophy on 'See also' may be valid to other WP article - even if it is not valid for the TZM article. [Advice to Andy, driven by great respect and admiration for him: when you become very frustrated as you have with the DRN, please apply the same advice you gave me in your first comment above, as well as WP:DGAF. It would have saved you time, frustration and care.] (f) Thank you Bbb23 for your kind words regarding dignity and civility. The same applies to you. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In addition to my promises to Andy in my 'yes' answer above, I intend to voluntarily greatly limit my work on the TZM article, because, as Earl said, "... the article is now pretty good, as far as being explained neutrally ...", and because of personal issues I'm not going to have almost any time for WP editing anyway. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The see-also link is up for discussion in yet another forum. Tom Harrison Talk 22:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear - we now have IjonTichyIjonTichy making proposals which would of necessity require revision of WP:OR policy. Yet further evidence that he just doesn't get it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is an RfC and not a proposal. It is an attempt to learn, gain insights and develop an understanding regarding the interpretation of a WP policy. (The RfC does not mention any specific WP articles, and is not an attempt to revive the rotting corpse of the debate regarding L. Susan Brown or to find some sort of back-door way to insert Brown [or any other link] into the 'see also' section or the body of any TZM-related articles.) This AN/I is probably not the right forum to discuss our views on this issue - the RfC itself is the right place, and all editors are welcome to comment there, or, alternatively, to follow WP:DGAF and take the time to enjoy your weekend. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb keeps restoring articles that got redirected per AfD consensus
These articles have all been redirected via AfDs:
 * Thessalmonster (Articles for deletion/Thessalmonster)
 * Kopru ‎(Articles for deletion/Kopru)
 * Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (Articles for deletion/Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons))
 * Jermlaine (Articles for deletion/Jermlaine)
 * Energon (Dungeons & Dragons) (Articles for deletion/Energon (Dungeons & Dragons))
 * Astral dreadnought (Articles for deletion/Astral dreadnought)‎
 * Athach ‎(Articles for deletion/Athach)

Yet User:Joefromrandb apparently decided to unilaterally restore all these articles (examples:, , , , , , ) apparently labelling all attempts to enforce AfD consensus as "disruptive", and not making any attempt at discussing, or contacting the users who took part to the AfDs, that I can think of (article talk pages remain empty). Joefromrandb is now revert-warring to push his POV, and is responding neither to mentions of the AfD results nor to links to the AfD archived discussions. I can't see how the user could be reasoned with, since the slightest mention to previous AfDs earns me a "rvt disruption" edit summary from him, and so I ask a temporary block for Joefromrandb.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's not just asking for a block. He has guaranteed me I will be blocked if I "ever again touch any of the articles he mentioned". It takes two to tango; Folken is at 3 reverts himself on most of these pages. As I too am at 3 reverts on some, I have stopped reverting, and have sought outside assistance. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad you have stopped reverting - that saves the need for anyone to ask you to do so. The other user is correct that when an article has been through an AFD process, and the outcome was "delete" or "redirect", it is not permissible to simply recreate the article as if the AFD did not occur. For example, Articles for deletion/Athach. Please respect the AFD consensus, or start a discussion in an appropriate forum if you feel that the situation with respect to a particular article has changed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't recreate anything. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have restored those that had not been restored, and full-protected all the redirects listed above. Yes, a block is guaranteed if Joe continues down this path (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead and indulge yourself, by all means. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that there is anything intrinsically improper in recreating pages when the AfDs were four years ago, after all consensus can change. And if someone can force an undeletion discussion just by pointing out there was an AfD in the past this sets an unfortunate precedent. Were there only one page, I would say the appropriate action by Joe should have been BRD re-creation. With this many articles, I think creating a few pages then running some test afds is the way to go. Egg   Centri  c  12:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Intrinsically, I agree. but "recreating a page" is more than simply restoring a previous version that had been deleted via AFD :-)  It's one of the reasons I actually prefer the "delete and redirect" method in many cases. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, doesn't it? But alas, judge-jury-and-executioner BWilkins doesn't seem to think so. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You really know how to make friends. Note that Wikipedia is "collaboratively edited", which suggests you take the knife off the table while this conversation is going on. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do think that the precedent is important; we should not need to re-discuss AFDs over and over, just because they were not recent. So if there are objections to the recreation then an undeletion discussion is worthwhile. In this case I think there appears to be a general pattern that these articles were originally restored by IP users, and unfortunately it was not noticed at the time that the IP users were going against consensus. However, the point of the AFD is that they can be referred to after they are closed. I do not know whether the D&D wikiproject is very active, but they would be a natural group to discuss how to apply notability standards to these articles. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * So how do I do that? How can I recreate those pages and request AfDs, now that BWilkins has locked the articles permanently and unilaterally decided that the 4-year-old AfD results will stand forever? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As the history is available to you (that's the benefit of the redirect), you can userify the content and work on improving it to address the concerns of the AFD. Once you've done this, you can then approach the closing admin and ask to have your changes reflected back into it. If you can't address the concerns of the AFD, however, that likely means the redirect will stay that way. --M ASEM (t) 13:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * BWilkins and I have not decided anything about the content of the articles; we are just responding to the immediate situation. His response to edit warring (by two editors) was to lock the articles. They will not be locked forever, just until things are worked out. My suggestion is to pick one article that you think has the strongest chance, and find a suitable place to discuss the recreation of that one article. You might get Folken to agree to let the article be recreated and nominated again for deletion, to see whether it would withstand a new deletion discussion. The point of locking the articles is just to stop the edit warring so that a solution can be worked out. We are not trying to force that solution in any particular direction. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * [ec] First of all, this is a public forum, so BWilkins is not the only person looking at this. Any admin can undo their decision if they think it is no longer necessary to protect them: there is no need to get personal. Second, you could write up a new article in a sandbox, making sure that it's better than the ones that got deleted, and then ask BWilkins or someone else. Or you could go through the Articles for Creation process (WP:AFC), at the end of which in this case an admin would come along and override the protection if there is a consensus that the new article is worth keeping. Drmies (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He may not be the only one looking at it but he's the only one who waved his big admin-phallus around and threatened to block me. Why didn't you chastise him for personalizing things? We both know why. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just point out that several AfDs on similar topics with similar sourcing recently happened and gave no indication that results could be any different than 4 years ago. Users thinking about undeletion discussions should first consider whether the old consensus still holds or not, as far as I can see, it still does. In this context, Joe should be proceeding very carefully because any undeletion discussion might be (and with reason) seen as an attempt to game the system, a trump card to disregard a recent consensus he doesn't like. If Joe really has concerns that hasn't already been dealt with in recent AfDs, that he honestly thinks might cause an overturning of the consensus (I personally don't believe so, but...), then he can try to discuss it. But I think it would be better to drop it entirely, in the current context, it'll be a very bad move. But in any case Joe should discuss rather than try to push his POV through edit-warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And citing a 4-year-old discussion as "consensus" to delete isn't gaming the system. Are you listening to yourself? In any case, you can't fight city hall. They could all be recreated as FAs; no admin would ever override the ex cathedra edict that has already been given. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, because said consensus has been reached fairly and under administrative supervision. If you want to override it, you'll have to do something else than edit-warring and recruiting soldiers to continue warring when you've reached 3RR.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that our requirements for stand-alone articles have only grown tougher in four years, a four-year old consensus from AFD is likely still going to hold true. You need to show that you have been able to address the concerns of the AFD before they can be recreated in mainspace, though. --M ASEM  (t) 14:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * These childish, idiotic accusations make me think that this editor is unlikely to turn anything into an FA. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The user also recently went 4RR at pound for pound although there was no pre-existing AFD against that, he's clearly edit warring on multiple articles. In my opinion he is being generally disruptive.Teapeat (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't previously notify admins about him being over the 3RR limit, it didn't look like he had been tagged before, but it's now clear that this is a general pattern of his behavior, and I support a block to cool him off.Teapeat (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If admins believe it necessary, I'll add more elements. A few hours before starting to mass-revert my redirects, Joe wrote several agressive comments in a related AfD, directed at me and the AfD nominator:,, . I didn't report him at that time or answer to him, because I thought it was a minor incident that wasn't worth the trouble, but seeing how things have escalated now, I'm afraid this might not be over just with article protections. I also noticed that around the same time, he posted similar aggressive comments, not directed at me, in an unrelated AfD :, .Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies but I failed to check that this thread was continuing - I have had other issues on my plate today. I did, indeed, whip out my gigantic "admin phallus" (it's huge) and somewhat successfully temporarily resolve the current situation: the edit-warring.  I made the protection indefinite, which of course is not infinite.  Knowing that recent AFD's on D&D monsters have continued to lead to redirects, I saw the changes back to articles as problematic, and the edit-warring across a host of titles even moreso.  If someone can, indeed, turn them into useful/valid articles that will actually pass an AFD today then they are welcome to fill their boots (or their shoes).  Obviously there was no personalization of anything: edit-warring and disruption by anyone will lead to a block, not just the specific users involved this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That other issue was probably socking with your VOA account, here. BTW, File:Erection Development V2.jpg was stuck in that same article by the same editor--can we get that on the list of Not to be Gratuitously Placed Penises? Drmies (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Joefromrandb - It doesn't matter how old an AfD result is, if an article is recreated in a form that is essentially similar to the way it was when it was deleted, then it's going to get G4'd, end of line. These D&D monsters are not sufficently notable to be included as stand-alone articles, as AfD repeatedly proves, and especially not as FAs - they belong in lists. This is Wikipedia, not D&D Wiki (and, given the state of that site, thank heavens for that!). Most of those monsters will have nothing but primary sources, and while primary sources are allowed for noncontroversial facts, they can not be used to establish notability. Taking a look at two of the articles in question: Thessalmonster had five sources - all primary. Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) had 7 sources, six primary and one that only mentions it in passing (blink and you'll miss it). For some critters - Beholders, Mind Flayers, and Drow (which I am a particlar fan of) you can almost certainly make very good articles, but for the vast majority of the Monster Manuals they are textbook examples of WP:NOT and belong only in the Lists of D&D Monsters. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to add one thing before I depart from this nonsense. My statement "they could be recreated as FAs" seems to have been greatly misunderstood. I did not mean any of these articles had the potential to be an FA. I meant even if they were recreated and improved to the level of FA material, no one is ever going to override an admin's decision here. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be the case - if they were improved to FA, GA, or even B-class level, they would no longer be "largely the same content", and, therefore, the previous AfD decisions would no longer apply. The fact is though there are no secondary, reliable sources to ever improve these articles beyond the same state they were in when they were deleted. Sourcebooks and Dragon magazine are primary sources and, thus, ineligible for establishing notability. - The Bushranger One ping only


 * Joe keeps referring to Folken and others as "troll" on their talk page. I've given them a level-3 NPA warning, knowing full well that that's on the mild side. I encourage your attention and oversight; this is getting silly. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this. Didn't realize that's why my friend Dennis had come to my talk page. The above comments and warnings by Drmies have nothing to do with this thread; it's revenge for my discussing BWilkins' administrative misconduct elsewhere. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: please see the rather heated "discussion" (read: shouting match) at Articles for deletion/Death watch beetle (Dungeons & Dragons), which in my opinion is related to the above. Both requesting and nominated users have been involved.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Joe and I are chatting on his talk page regarding Drmies concerns. Staying out of the mix here, just trying to reduce the heat a bit there.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  17:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not. He's certainly correct about how silly this is. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

jmh649 Darkness_Shines Yobol
'''User:jmh649 is edit warring. Cardiovascular_disease history shows that he has reverted a revert without discussing first at the talk page many times. Block him.'''

'''User:jmh649 edits are followed by identical edits by User:Darkness_Shines and User:Yobol. These users are puppets of User:jmh649, where User:Darkness_Shines is already facing complaints of violating 3RR. Block the puppets too.'''

In addition User:Darkness_Shines User:Dennis_Brown deleted this complaint. Clearly abuse of privileges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.193.77 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 July 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Hmmm...you continue to re-add the same information into an article against WP:CONSENSUS. Multiple editors all remove it.  However, they're all edit-warriors and sockpuppets?  Your original post was deleted because it was unsigned, contained no links, did not have a subject line of its own, and did not appear to belong to the thread it was included under.  Have you been welcomed yet so that you understand the rules of Wikipedia?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Blocked for evading blocks. I've already nailed him a few times myself, he keeps hoping around.  Look up.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  20:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the action - was hoping to actually get a reasonable response to see if we were dealing with someone willing to discuss (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't play it all naive Bwilkins.
 * You know that reverting a revert is edit warring and reason for a block.
 * You know that if you disregard the puppets, the consensus was against jmh649 (and his puppets).
 * You know that sending people/socks to do your reverts is also reason for a block for both puppeteer and puppets.
 * You know that the complaint included a subject line, with the "== jmh649 Darkness_Shines Yobol ==", and Darkness_Shines and anyone else could have gotten the signature from the history.
 * A link was provided to Cardiovascular_disease history.
 * Instead of fooling around, and inventing excuses, why don't you admit the obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.196.190 (talk • contribs)
 * Don't forget to read WP:EVADE. Once you are blocked, it's YOU the person who are blocked and not permitted to edit the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that the first block was performed by that edit warring puppeteer administrator, who blocked that user in order to win the edit war. Instead he should have gone to the talk page to discuss the issue after the first time, that his edit was reverted. He knows that, but he doesn't give a crap about the Wikipedia rules.
 * So, I beg your forgiveness, but I think, that the best suggestion to that blocked user is to NOT read WP:WHATEVER, while you, the one who has suggested it, clearly don't give a crap about the Wikipedia rules, and just invent excuses for an edit warring puppeteer administrator and for his puppets, and while that administrator, his puppets, and perhaps everyone else ignore these pages too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.200.149 (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I reverted you for violating WP:SOCK Darkness Shines (talk)
 * User:Darkness_Shines, oh allow me to apologize (sarcasm), in my naivety I thought that you reverted the complaint in order to avoid having to explain you being a puppet for jmh649, and edit warring while a 3RR violation complaint is held against you. Please forgive me!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.196.190 (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do I need to semi-protect this page? Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Would a rangeblock work? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to issue a partial Class B block, personally. It looks like a pretty big range, plus another network, so collateral damage is pretty real here.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  22:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see Tim has already semiprotected the page, good. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  14:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Rangeblock is impossible here. Too wide to block. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arcandam
Someone may want to step in and abort Requests for comment/Arcandam before it spirals into any more uselessness than it already is. Not a properly-certified RfC to begin with, and the filer is edit-warring to keep his threaded comments intact. Arcandam is being unfairly hounded by an SPA here. Tarc (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm edit warring? He's already reverted 3 times and I have not, so please get your facts straight. You would also do well to not (again) accuse other editors of being SPA without supporting evidence. You are way out of line here. T. trichiura Infect me 22:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is as I laid out in that RfC, and can be confirmed by looking at your contrib history. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That RfC should be closed immediately, via SNOW and a bunch of other acronyms, with an indef block to follow. I do wonder who this roundworm is; someone here may have a clue. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do. Arcandam (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree that RFC isn't going anywhere, unless T. trichiura is identified as and blocked as a confirmed sock and it can be deleted WP:CSD G5, I think he is entitled to the 48 hours to attempt certification. Monty  845  04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Should I start writing a checkuser request? He is obviously trying to hide his identity, I am not sure if it is succesful. Arcandam (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think you know who it is and that they are evading restrictions, then SPI is appropriate. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 05:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't the RfC just been deleted or closed outright? There aren't two cerifiers, and there is no prior dispute resolution. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See here. Arcandam (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked as a likely sock editing project space in violation of WP:ILLEGIT, point 2. T. Canens (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that saves me some time. This can be closed, Trichuris trichiura has an indef block and YRC is blocked for a week. Arcandam (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User creates and messes
The User creates many unnecessary articles and redirects and keeps promoting those article on various other articles. The original article Bekaboo Navya is under AfD at Articles for deletion/Bekaboo Navya and it was promoted many times 1, 2, 3, 4. The article now redirected to Bekaboo and this article is merely copied from original. I guess the user hasn't yet discovered "move". I have requested for CSD on this and it has ofcourse been removed by the time i type this complaint. The User seems to also be assisted by various IPs.
 * This IP has helped the user in promotion 5 and tried to redirect the said page 6.
 * This IP reinstated the original version of the said article after my cleanup, also removing the AfD templates. 7
 * This IP also did the same 8
 * And so did this IP 9
 * This IP is promoting the same article like others did 10 and 11

The editor has also created another unnecessary article Muslim's in Bollywood which is also CSDed by me. I suppose that tag will also be removed soon.

I was confused as to where to lodge this complaint; WP:AIV or WP:SPI. Hence i thought of trying it here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention; the User is blocked on Commons for a day for uploading many copyvio images on same subject. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * After nominating the Bekaboo Navya article for deletion, you forgot to add the AfD template to the article, so I've done that for you. You can replace the CSD templates on the articles if the author is removing them, but don't get too bent out of shape as a bot catches them most of the time and re-adds the template. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 10:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I had added the template on Bekaboo Navya. And had also reinstated it many times after those IPs removed it. Now i have stopped doing it. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hurraayyy!!! I found the sockmaster and have reported it Sockpuppet_investigations/Mr_Hamza. Its that famous User:Mr Hamza. Anyone reading and taking action on this need not bother now. SPI will happen in due course. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner mass moves away from diacritics against consensus
Kauffner has been engaging in a series of mass-moves of articles with Vietnamese diacritics to names without them, contrary to current consensus built up over many years of editing and creation of VN articles. He has started an RfC here to eliminate all use of VN diacritics in the wiki here, Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese) which has not yet gained consensus; he nonetheless continues with his page moves, carefully editing the redirects after the fact to prevent anyone reverting the move. In almost all cases, when contested at RM Talk:Bun_bo_Hue, Talk:Cần_Thơ/Archive_1, Talk:Ho_Quy_Ly, Talk:Com_tam, Talk:Bat_dau_tu_nay the consensus is against these moves. I'd thus like to request advice and admin intervention to ask Kauffner to stop with the mass moves, and ask that if he does want to move these articles, to do so via RM and not via unilateral page moves, as he knows these moves are controversial. Note: Kauffner often provides misleading google book hits to support his moves, but in many cases due to OCR errors the google book hits numbers are incorrect, and books he claims as *not* using diacritics, in fact, do. (for example, see here during Édouard Deldevez RM - Kauffner claims a huge disparity in sources, but many google book sources he claims as not having diacritics, in fact, do!) --KarlB (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You should first discuss the issue with Kauffner and use content dispute resolution if you do not come to an agreement. TFD (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It has already been suggested several times to Kauffner in RMs that he stop doing the moves, but he has not been responsive. Per Moving_a_page, controversial moves should not be done in this way, and Kauffner knows it. Could you give me a link to the specific forum you think this should be placed at? Sorry I'm not familiar with all of the venues - in any case I'm happy to close this out here and move it - just not sure where is the best place. Thanks.--KarlB (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been editing Vietnam-related articles for several years. I have not noticed any activity in this area by KarlB until the last few days. In that time, there has been quite a flood of lengthy harangues and highly uncivil remarks. The RMs mentioned above are still open. So how can they be the basis for an ANI complaint already? From other things he has posted, I gather that the issue is not so much these articles as various page moves that I made six or eight months ago. I put this issue up for an RfC and the response so far has been supportive. Kauffner (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about your other conributions to the VN articles; and it is also not solely about your moves from 6-8 months ago. In the past month, you have moved at least 50 articles, stripping their diacritics. Several of these that i hav elooked at, a fair amount (and sometimes majority) of the sources actually *use* diacritics (ex: Ngo Si Lien). In any case, it should be clear to you that these continued moves are controversial, and should thus be dealt with via an RM (or a bulk RM), and not via page-move;edit-redirect.--KarlB (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

When I sue Wikipedia (any time now)...

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This stuff probably has something to do with that stuff. Arcandam (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The ip was already blocked for it and the block logs notes it is linked to the sockpuppet. Ip addresses aren't usaully indef blocked, see WP:IPB for why. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The sockpuppet investigation has a huge list of socks, but the categories aren't fully populated because someone marked all the accounts "retired" and locked them, and blanked all the IP pages with "OTRS 2012062410000386". Question: assuming this was done because of a request through OTRS, does the fact that this person is still actively socking supercede? Or should the new IP sock not be tagged? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Grace Saunders thing has been going on for years. Honestly, I think at some point this goes beyond the ability of the community to handle this disruption.  I don't know whether arbcom or the foundation should be involved, but given the complexity and annoyance this causes everyone in the general population, and given the tools and access to additional information that the bigwigs have, I think that it is time this problem is dealt with by someone with real powers... -- Jayron  32  16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/78.148.97.79 – Grace is back with another IP address. Wrestling-related revisions? Check. Removal of a sockpuppet tag? Check. That's him alright. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked I blocked 78.148.96.0/23.--v/r - TP 13:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for Grace_Saunders
I propose a community ban of. While a "de facto" may seem obvious, there has been a fair amount of back and forth over the years, with admins replacing sock and puppeteer templates with "retired" tags, which gives the appearance that this user can just come back under fresh accounts. This needs to be clarified and solidified, the accounts need to be properly tagged and someone probably ought to start a Long-Term Abuse page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Adios. Fasttimes68 (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support great idea. Arcandam (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, if this is the user who has been making the legal threats, the user is not permitted to edit until all threats are withdrawn, as described by the policy. That's probably sufficient. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd think so, but clueless people keep trying to cover for him and without a viewable history, there's the appearance that he can just come back under new accounts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - this user has outlasted the community's patience. The "de facto ban" stuff just means that all they have to do is say "oh, no, I won't sue" and they get unblocked by anybody - which is not something the community wants, hence the formalised WP:CBAN requiring the community's consent for any return. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support baby, bath water, bath, bath tiles all out Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - it's been a long time coming. GiantSnowman 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Close
Can a non involved admin please close? Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm neither an admin nor am I involved, but I went ahead and added a template to their userpage. As has been said above, she is already under a de facto community ban; if everyone wishes to make it de jure, then so be it. That said, I think this discussion is perhaps best ended. It's never good to use AN/I as a venue to parade people on donkeys; better to just let them go peacefully.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

's contributions need to be verify by a contributor and administrator. See where a he inserted a wrong information. Skull33 (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can see how the diff you provided could be considered vandalism, and his edits seem to be mostly calling people Jews, along with some clearer vandalism. A possible case of anti-semetism, though it may be hard to prove. Next time, try WP: AIV. Robby The Penguin   (talk)   (contribs)  00:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the IP's edits have been reverted by various people. They have one warning on their talk so far. -- Dianna (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Jason Russell

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not really looking to start a discussion about this here, but I would appreciate it if a few admins could go check out the situation at Jason Russell. There has been a slow-motion edit war being waged for the past couple of weeks regarding whether or not a video is a reliable source for the statement that Mr. Russell was naked during his public breakdown earlier this year, and/or whether or not adding that info to the article would constitute a WP:BLP policy violation. I've extirpated myself from the situation and do not consider myself an involved party, but seeing the constant back-and-forth in the article via my watchlist has me concerned. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My statement above has been challenged by a non-autoconfirmed user who can't post here. I don't know what the problem is now, but someone please go check it out. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 03:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have restored a previous version of the story, and put a note on the talk page. I no longer have the option of acting as an administrator on this article, as I have edited it. I hope others also have time to look. -- Dianna (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fully protected the page for 10 days. Hopefully a consensus on this BLP can be reached by then. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

*yawns* Wikipediocracy again, most likely
I apparently seem to have ticked someone off over at Wikipediocracy for supporting NewtonGeek. I must be doing something right. They're probably concerned about the dirt NG has on them. Anyways, here and here. First one is a personal attack, second one is a more subtle (not really) personal attack based on my involvement in the furry fandom. Blocks and whatever, if you would please. Would it be fishing to have a checkuser run? I know it's got to be someone from Wikipediocracy. Silver seren C 06:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the 'Halfnakedlabrador' account, indefinitely. Other stuff probably should be done here though. Rjd0060 (talk) 07:00, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So, about the SPI/checkuser thing? Silver  seren C 07:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SPI would be where to go if no CUs have seen the request here. Rjd0060 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing whether it would count as fishing or not would help, rather than wasting time opening an SPI. :/ Silver  seren C 09:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The checkusers are the ones to make that final determination. If a checkuser is not run, the IP can still be blocked on behavior too. --Rschen7754 09:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SPI opened. Silver  seren C 09:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The checkusers are the ones to make that final determination. If a checkuser is not run, the IP can still be blocked on behavior too. --Rschen7754 09:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * SPI opened. Silver  seren C 09:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Spam filter gone nuts
At Green Lantern (film). Not sure what's set it off, but I cannot save any edit to the article whatsoever as of right now. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 07:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just able to edit, but there's a citation error on the page that I can't get rid of. I'm seeing "Cite error: Closing missing for tag; see the help page" and "Cite error: There are tags on this page, but the references will not show without a template or a  00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * CSBot appears to be back in full form; I'll keep an eye on it for a bit. Reactivating it was fairly simple, but having Madman's being ready to take over should be high on our priority list so that if one breaks, the other can take over in short order.  The years have shown that we really need to have working copyright assessment bots.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and, it appears to be sane (that's a copy from us, but the match is good).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that this can be closed? Arcandam (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Abitoby's disregard and continued "vandalism"

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per User talk:Abitoby, specifically User_talk:Abitoby, User_talk:Abitoby and User_talk:Abitoby. Hes also previously been here and then admitted to a "friend" account which doesn't edit here (these excuses have often come up at SPI). He has the major ownership issues, he doesnt discuss (after i initially vinvited him toread the guidelines and ask for help. Ive repeatedly warned him about a block he could face but he seems to want to challenge it and just an hour or so ago posted similar edits. Virtually all his edits are reverted by someone or the other and he fails to be adding anything contsuctive. He also pushed a pov and personal view, as well as twice adding strange ownership notices. Its not the first time, but i cant keep going to that and warning him and reverting him. He is new, but he was nicely told to ask and read. As an aside, hes also had multiple copyvios in images and in text (posted to 2 articles, then claiming he wrote it Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note that User:Abitoby blanked this section with this edit. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one of three times he did that. I blocked 24h solely for that ongoing disruption, without considering the behavior that led to the initial report. DMacks (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They've started edit warring over the block notices. I've just reverted their second removal. Blackmane (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shoudlnt there be a discussion on the issue itself for a possible extension?
 * Hes possible engaging in sockpuppetry, as no one else add his bengali povLihaas (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun a little. I know that decline block reviews on an active block aren't to be removed by the user. Does this apply also to notices about active blocks? WP:UP isn't exactly clear about thatBlackmane (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes: the wording is "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: ... any other notice regarding an active sanction". An unexpired block is an active sanction. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh good, I must have skimmed over it, reading too quickly. Thanks Blackmane (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Shouldnt there be a discussion on the issue itself for a possible extension?Lihaas (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the editor has again removed the block notice despite the edit summary explaining it was not to be removed, with the potential of UP privileges being bocked. -Rrius (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring over the block notice is moot now that the block has expired. However, their tendency to edit war isn't inspiring. Would an admin mind dropping by there page and having a few stern words with them? Blackmane (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Followup comment Lihaas, I suggest that you take a rest from checking on their edits. In all good faith, you are cleaning up after them but they may feel hounded by your constant attention. I might just drop by and give them a bit of a heads up. He obviously hasn't got a good idea of how wikipedia works so lets not bite his head off Blackmane (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats good enough, because i tried to tell him (and advise for help) but he shows no good faith. A stern warning soould do it.
 * Though the continued warring on the page after the block above should indicate somethign oo..Lihaas (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't hold a lot of hope for him. His first thing to do the instant the block wore off was to vandalise the blocking admin's, DMack, page with a 24hr disruption block notice. Subsequently warned by SpacemanSpiff. I foresee the hammer to fall soon, followed by socks and what not. Blackmane (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James Eagan Holmes
A n administrator needs to step in and redirect the article and lock it down. There is no clearer appliation of WP:BLP1 / WP:PERP than this. There is no need for "discussion" and even if there were, the offending content should be removed until there is a consensus reached to WP:IAR and includee it. -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with a WP:BLP1E merge and redirect, but it's not clear what content is "offending" and I'd prefer to see as much of it as possible merged. What is the "offending content" here? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This editor has so far been reverted 5 times, there is a proper merge discussion on the talkpage - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting the article more than 3 times is a violation of WP:3RR.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We are directed to remove BLP content "without discussion" and removal of BLP content is exempt from 3RR -- The Red Pen of Doom  01:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is only the case if the info presented is Bias, the info in the said article is well sourced. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Which specific content do you think is in person's article which violates BLP or otherwise should not be included in the event's article? 75.166.200.250 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Claiming a BLP exemption in these circumstances is inherently problematic, particularly as there so many editors participating in the merge discussion. What may seem obvious to you (and no doubt to others) is that there should not, at least at this point, be a separate article on Holmes, but edit-warring during a discussion is not helpful. Many times there have been discussions like this without someone insisting on a redirect before completion of the discussion. Finally, substantively, I see little harm to Holmes at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To avoid a 3RR on me I cant revert the article at this point Red Pen has so far been reverted 6 times by at least 3 diffrent editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Now reverted again for a 7th time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Red Pen, the NPOV (BLP) pillar is paramount, but unless we are presenting bias in the article, its going to probably be strongly sourced. I agree that the additionals there need to be stringently policied for the time being, but this ends up happening every time we have a big news event. -- Avanu (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Seven reverts and counting. Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not count. :-) I gave him some leeway because of the BLP exemption claim. I've left a final warning on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a big discussion of whether to merge at Talk:James Eagan Holmes that has yet to garner even one full planetary revolution's worth of editorial opinion. I know, because I was the one that applied the notices in response to the request at the BLP Noticeboard and I know how long it has been since I did. &#9786; So far, we've had fairly daft bikeshedding edit wars on where to place the merger notice on the target article, and edit wars over just redirecting straightaway without discussion. This sort of unilateral instant action usually happens at AFD in these cases, and then we shuttle between AFD and Deletion Review. At least this time this isn't a wheel war with the deletion tool. But an edit war with the edit tool isn't good, either. Dennis Brown, your protection of the article has this administrator's support. TheRedPenOfDoom, this is a notability issue. (Notability is more than a simple keep/delete dichotomy, and here does not involve the exercise of the administrator deletion tool, merely the ordinary edit tool.) I encourage you to participate in the ongoing merger discussion and try to persuade those who oppose the merger to change their minds. After all, to have such a discussion, properly, with a broad spectrum of editor involvement and on the article talk page, in the way that merger discussions are supposed to happen, is why I triggered it. &#9786; Oh, by the way: Insulting people's language comprehension skills on this noticeboard will get you exactly nowhere. Remember that. Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've fully protected it for two days. Work it out on the talk page please.  Any admin is free to change this protection if the reasons for needing it changes. No other action should be needed, no blocks are necessary. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just of note Red Pen had placed a request over at Requests for page protection to have the page redirected and locked. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Red Pen, I don't know the particulars, I just know that this needs less action and more discussion. Have a cup of tea, discuss it on the article talk page, work it out.  You are certainly capable of persuasively expressing your concerns and ideas, and waiting a couple of days while this can reach consensus will not negatively affect things in the long run.  If the consensus is against you, we must live with it.  What I don't want to see is you getting blocked because your passion gets the better of your judgement here, so I've taken the necessary actions to hopefully insure this doesn't happen.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 01:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And to be clear, if Red Pen will simply agree to not revert back, any admin has my blessing to remove page protection. He is an honorable guy, I trust his word if he gives it.  We just can't have all the reverting going on.  And Red Pen, removal of BLP material is NOT exempt.  Only removal of BLP violations is.  It appears the consensus is that this isn't violations, although some of it is contentious.  I only ask you respect the consensus here, and work on the talk page instead of redirecting, that is all. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 02:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are people too lazy to read WP:PERP or simply to incompetent to understand basic English? " A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For perpetrators The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.[9] The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[10] Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." --  The Red Pen of Doom  02:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where in the article does it imply he is guilty of the crime? Rather than talking this out your first thing to do was revert things, something in this case that does not help, you made your point clear wait for people to respond or for things to be settled. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my request per analysis from BlackKite. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose banning Andrew Crawford from wiki editing
The guy is quite clearly a fan of the former club Rangers FC and also of the Newco Sevco 5088, think wikipedia really needs to watch the stuff this guy is editing as its done out of a sense of what he wants to believe rather than what is fact, and that goes against the integrity of wikipedia. Rangers FC the club are no longer, their assets where sold to the Sevco consortium and Mr Green being the head of that consortium has formed a new football club, Its not rocket science.This is why I strongly question Mr Crawfords motives, how can wikipedia stay an honest reliable impartial encyclopedia with people want to make up rubbish to suit an agenda,pitiful stuff,sad really. what Mr Crawford want you to believe is if Camilla Parker Bowles adopted William and Harry, if she changed her name to Diana,if she brought all of Diana's assets moved into her house and took on all her former roles then she would infact BECOME Diana, thats it in a nutshell. Sorry Andrew Rangers FC are now consigned to the history books, they are no more, they dont exist, they had a proud history and that will live on in your heart and the heart of many fans, but it will absolutely NOT live on with the Sevco consortium,you have a football club you had a football club to be proud of, and in time youll have another football club to be proud of,but it is sheer ludicrous to suggest they are the same club.

Talk:Rangers_F.C. the ip user user:101.113.94.179 has jsut posted the above in the above article because of a dispute and that they do not agree with me, i am in he process of a request for comment, if i was trying to get it to be one article out of motives then this request for comment which isnt finished yet would only list sources for my side of the argument have a look here user:andrewcrawford/mydraft i am really offended by this because it is attacking me for using reliable sources on this dispute to say both sides of the argument are correct-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC) beloiw is what they put on the talk page, since they think i should be banned i am hapyp to be investigated to-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 10:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Disgraceful accusations by this IP which are not only offensive but grossly inaccurate. This whole debate stems from the fact there are numerous reliable sources treating rangers as the same club despite a change in the company, yet the article presently misleadingly and inaccurately claims the club no longer exists. This does not follow the precedent on wikipedia as many examples have been shown where a company has faced liquidation but the club continues. And the current wording in the article had no consensus at all, but was locked in place when the page was fully protected. This has been going on for weeks, and the IP shows up making such claims. There appears to be overwhelming consensus on the page that there are reliable sources saying its the same club, so claims to take that position is based on blind loyalty for a football club is shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

British watcher are you for real ? Ive read the comments on the now liquidated club that was Rangers FC, you could be an alien from mars,a peasant from Mogadishu, facts are facts Rangers FC do NOT exist not even a little bit, their assets where sold, to discredit that FACT discredits wikipedia as a whole and calls the integrity of the whole organisation into serious question.further more Id even suggest that you and Andrew Crawford(if your not one and the same)are in cohorts in an attempt to somehow 'save' the Rangers page, shame on you and shame on wikipedia, the non Scots/Irish might not understand the connotations of your user profile name but its more than fair to assume you also used to support the club that was Rangers FC.Charles Green clearly bought the assets of a liquidated club,he did not buy the club, the club where liquidated http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/14/rangers-administration-scottish-football http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/charles-green-consortium-buy-glasgow-883273 So guys enjoy what you have done,its lies and you know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.180.137 (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of reformatting this so that the offending text is above in the hatting. Diff is here. Ironically, the IP's attempt to attack andrewcrawford for their perceived POV reveals their own non-neutral POV. Blackmane (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, hang on a minute. Where is the threat? All we have here is a 'proposal' posted on a talk page, by the anon IP. Bans cannot be imposed by fiat at the whim of talk page contributors. You have already pointed the IP out to the correct place to start such procedures (here) - though the proposal looks a complete non-starter to me (and the IP needs to read WP:NPA). As for the dispute over Rangers/Newco, that isn't a question for ANI. Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say, not on what contributors think - frankly though, the whole question is ridiculous anyway: is Newco a 'new' club, or is it a continuation of Rangers FC? As far as I'm aware, supporting a football club does not require a doctorate in epistemology, and it clearly can't be answered through Boolean algebra. In some ways it may be 'new', and in others it may not be - and it isn't up to Wikipedia to 'make a ruling' one way or another. Report what the sources say - and if they contradict each other, report that too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * that wha ti have bene trying to do from teh begingin but users on both sides of the argument are not willing to accept that and it seem sbecause i am the main one trying to get consensus i get attacked, the threat i perceive is the ip user acutally trying to get motion to get me ban that why i broguht it here to let admins decided if i have done anything worng i accept the ban but i cant see wha ti ahve done wrong as i support both sides although due to reliable soruces i am swinging to one side a bit mroe than the other but i stil want to protray the article in both senses but that unliekly to happen as no consensus will be reached-- Andrewcrawford ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE I AM NOT TRYING TO GET THIS DIPSUTE RESOLVED HERE I AM POSTING THE SORUCES I HAVE BEEN COLLECTING FOR BOTH SIDES FOR THE REQUEST FOR COMMENT I AM DOING BECAUSE THE IP USER WANTS TO DISCREDIT ME, A LOOK AT THE TLAK PAGE HISTORY WILL SHOW I ARGUE WITH BRITISHWATCHER A LOT I AM NOT BRITISHWATCHER IF THE IP USER HTINKS I AM THEN I WOULD LIKE A SPI DOEN ON ME I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE I AM ALSO POSTING EVERYHHTING ABOUT THIS DOSUPTUE SO FAR, I AM DOING THIS TO SHOW I AM NOT PUISHING MY POV-- Andrewcrawford  ( talk  -  contrib ) 12:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Main Arguments

 * Firstly the main arguments revolve around how other clubs in the same situation have come out of this type of situation, such as Leeds Utd which has one article, Halfix AFC having two articles. But since both sides of the argument are POV pushing and either discrediting the opposite side sources and arguments then it just goes around and around in circles.
 * Secondly the reason for the disagreement relates to firstly to whether there is a potential biased towards Rangers by opposing team fans within Scotland and by Rangers FC fans who might not want to accept the club has died. Neither side is willing to back down because Rangers fans do not want rival fans mocking them, and rival fans are making the most of the situation.
 * Thirdly reliable sources are contradicting each other: some say the club is alive and some say the club is dead, in few cases within the same news article it says both.
 * Fourthly news sources is also dependent on the journalist view of the situation which can be different for each journalist. Also depending on there bias ie if they are a rangers supporter there more likely to say same club but if a rival supporter more likely to say new club
 * Fifthly the citations from the sources can be presented in different ways depending on the wikipedia editor's perspective and their way of reading a source.
 * Sixthly references in news sources etc that say Oldco and Newco being taking to be Old Club and New Club, but as some sources have said Newco means New Company, and Oldco means Old Company thus allowing them a easier way to distinguished between the two companies but not necessarily the club or clubs.
 * Seventhly a lot of news sources just repeat what another says, so one posted at 1pm then will be posted by other about 10 minutes later so means the duplication of the same news story but with no grantee of checking of it as it is word for word

Main articles affected
Where is there a reliable article that states that Rangers FC where not liquidated ? Do you understand what Liquidated means ? Rangers football CLUB where liquidated,(that means wound up, ceased to exist) the assets of that club where sold and a NEW club was formed, in what way is that new club the same ? I can find a million articles about liquidated companies from every walk of life that do not exist anymore, its physically impossible, and thats why the very integrity of wikipedia is called into question,ofcourse the fans that used to follow Rangers will want their new club to be considered the same and I dont think thats unreasonable for them to want that, but thats not the same as the cold hard fact that Rangers FC where liquidated and thus dont exist anymore. I just want this encyclopedia to stay honest and true to its founder, to be impartial, whats happened in regards to the Rangers FC page has (other than the fans of Sevco 5088)ruined the impartiality of what Wikipedia stood for and certainly questions its integrity, I mean if the page can fall for a nod and wink from a couple of supporters of the deceased club what other forms of impartiality is it breaking ? politically and ethically ? I certainly wont be using wikipedia as a reliable source of information in the future if it cant even go with plain black and white fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.180.137 (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles that will need altered depending on the outcome of this dispute
All the below articles are in dispute allow not having content wars, they are in dispute because depending on the consensus of whether it is new club or the same club affect what happens to the pages and templates below.



There could be many more articles relating to rangers in some way that might be affected in some way depending on the consensus.

There is also other articles relating to Scotland or Scottish football that are affect for example

Current Dispute resolution
The dispute started on the Rangers F.C. talk page and since then discussions at 40 and 50 topics and here, here, here, here, here, on the topic. Also after the creating of the Newco Rangers page discussion has started at talk to For various users involved in the dispute, talk pages: see below for users involved, some editors have archiving set-up and some discussion might be in archives. After the creating of the new page The rangers football club Ltd renamed to newco rangers now. There was a AFD and the result was keep. The dispute then went to wikiproject football to get wider non biased view on the situation several times: here, here, here, here Each time no editor is willing to get involved in this sensitive topic. There was also a indirect one here Then the dispute went to the dispute resolution noticeboard however no volunteers where willing to help mediate the situation and no consensus was reached again. The next stage was to be informal mediation but this has closed. It has also went to the administrators noticeboard which led to a new AFD. An attempt to make a comprise is being tried with the sandbox version but no guarantees it will be accepted by both sides of the argument. However no agreement can be reached on this.

Users involved in the dispute
Not all users listed have been heavily involved but for fairness i have listed all those who have contributed to any of the discussions in the dispute.

As such i would understand less involved users not wanting to take part or to be directly involved in this disputer and to strike there names out but it clear they had a part in it, it be nice if the one heavily involved where not to take themselves out.

This list does not include editors either register or ip who have edited the articles but only those who have spoke on talk pages.

This list only includes editors that have been involved in the Rangers F.C. talk page, Newco Rangers F.C. talk page, AFD's, wikiproject and Dispute resolution noticeboard, it does not include editors who have been using the talk pages of all the other pages involved which could make the list grow even more.

Club liquidated or Club/Company are the same
"June 14 - Charles Green completes purchase of Rangers assets and business following the club's liquidation, hours after a consortium led by former manager Walter Smith makes a late bid." "Both Steven and I and our agent fought hard with administrators during negotiations to insert clauses that offered protection to staff and players at the club. I am extremely proud of the actions we took but I am disappointed and angry that Rangers Football Club no longer exists in its original form." "Green needs seven other clubs as well as the soon-to-be liquidated Rangers to vote in his favour at a meeting next Wednesday and, unless there is a U-turn from at least one chairman, there will be no top-flight football at Ibrox next season." says club is liquidated "The decision means the troubled club will now be liquidated with prospective owner Charles Green hoping to confirm his newco which will be known as 'The Rangers Football Club'." "Rangers duo Naismith and Whittaker reject contract transfer to new company Whittaker remarked that: We owe no loyalty to the new club, there is no history there for us." " The consortium led by Charles Green believe the players' contracts should transfer from the old, soon-to-be liquidated Rangers. " "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers. Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club." "Green's Sevco consortium bought Rangers' assets after the club was consigned to liquidation with debts that could reach £135million, mostly to the taxpayer." "The clauses were inserted amid speculation over the Glasgow pair moving to England or into a European league but they have proved costly after Rangers went into liquidation last month." "Charles Green's Sevco consortium had their application to replace the old liquidated Rangers in the Scottish Premier League rejected last week." "The demise of Rangers hasn’t quite sunk in yet, not if the Scottish media is to be believed - apparently it is they who are still going strong and Scottish football that is on life support.

The Glasgow giant ceased to exist as an entity several weeks ago, yet reading the columns of several Scottish newspapers and listening to the multitude of pundits on the TV and radio, one could be forgiven for thinking that Rangers are still alive and breathing."  "Rangers, who are being relaunched by a new company after the former incarnation could not be saved from liquidation, had their application to replace the old Ibrox club in the Scottish Premier League formally rejected on Wednesday."   "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."   "However, the club's recent liquidation has complicated the process, with the newco club having not yet registered as a member of the SFA. "  "We owe no loyalty to the new club. There is no history there for us."  "The club, which dates back to 1872, will now be wound up by liquidators BDO after a thorough investigation into its financial affairs over the past few years."   "The issue of where to place Rangers originated when the club could not be saved from liquidation and was relaunched by a new company."   "THE SPL have issued placement money to each club for last season – with the exception of soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."   "The SPL have issued the placement money each club is entitled to for last season – with the exception of soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."   "The Ibrox side went into administration in February after Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs lodged a petition over the non-payment of about £9 million PAYE and VAT since Craig Whyte's 2011 takeover. It later emerged the club's liabilities could total as much as £135 million. A CVA with creditors was later turned down by HMRC - consigning the club to liquidation."  "But, following Rangers’ liquidation and demotion to SFL Division Three, the legendary Glasgow fixture won’t happen until the 2015 season at the EARLIEST — unless the rivals meet in the cup."   "With the old Rangers heading for liquidation, the Scottish Premier League clubs rejected an application for membership from the consortium led by Green that bought the club's assets."   "The consortium in charge of the new Rangers is threatening legal action against the administrator who sold them the old club's assets. ... Sevco was denied a place in the Scottish Premier League and the fresh dispute comes in the middle of negotiations with the Scottish Football Association for a membership that would allow the new club to start life in Division Three. ... Duff and Phelps, which remains in charge of the old Rangers until it goes into liquidation, refuted the allegations."  "Charles Green's consortium is looking to persuade the SFA to shelve a transfer ban imposed on the old Rangers before it headed for liquidation. ... The new Rangers need the membership so they can start life in Division Three."  "And the former Sheffield United chief executive will seek a deal over repayment of transfer fees and other debts owed to clubs by the soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers. Green said: Part of the conditions for the newco to meet to satisfy SFA membership is that there are certain old club debts to European clubs."  "Brown gave up his job as a Rangers scout to lead takeover attempts after the consortium led by former Sheffield United chief executive Charles Green bought Rangers' assets for £5.5m after the failure to avoid liquidation."   This is a video you will have to watch it, at around the beginning of the video it states it as a new club "The new rangers club have been admitted into third division"   "Sevco Scotland, which now owns Rangers' assets after the old club headed for liquidation, needs the membership to play in Division Three this season."   "The players' union, PFA Scotland, had argued that the players were free agents because the old Rangers was heading for liquidation and the players had refused to have their registration switched to the new company." "The players had refused to have their registrations transferred from the old Rangers, as it headed for liquidation, to Charles Green's Sevco consortium, which is now due to start life in Division Three." "But the clubs rejected the proposal, saying that sporting integrity was better served by the new club, formed as the old one could not be saved from liquidation, starting in the bottom tier."

Club not liquidated
"Season ticket income looks vital if he's to avoid pitching the club back into administration. So Charles Green now has control of the assets, but faces hostility from his customers." "the club's assets have been transferred to a new company while Rangers Football Club plc is liquidated. " "specifically the section that states; ISSUE ONE: THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER TUPE APPLY 2. It is now clearly established that, in order to decide whether TUPE apply to a particular transaction, it is necessary to ask two questions: 2.1 does the function which is being transferred constitute an economic entity? 2.2 will that entity retain its identity after the transfer? As TUPE has already been established to apply in the case of Rangers then they must have satisfied the courts already that they are the same economic entity as before and they have therefore retained their economic identity." "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club." "the history of the club remains with the club, so the club moves from Rangers Plc into the new company and all of the titles and 140-year history will remain with the club."

"Rangers' parent company is being liquidated, meaning the new owners need to win the approval of seven other clubs in the 12-team SPL if they are to maintain their status." "The Edinburgh club are still owed £800,000 from Rangers for the player." "The issue is complicated by uncertainty over Scottish Football Association action, with an appeal hearing due against Rangers before Green bought the club's assets and business.'There are sanctions that could withdraw the club's ability to play,' Green said. 'Part of my job is to work through the issues and make sure we're playing football and we're playing football at Ibrox for many years to come.'" " And it stresses that either way, the sale goes on and Rangers, the team, does too." "We are acutely aware that events at our club, brought about by people who are no longer here, have triggered a crisis in Scottish football, he said. Ally McCoist, the staff and players have nothing to apologise for But the club needs to make an apology. It is only right that someone expresses our sorrow and regret. the old company was consigned to liquidation " "Meanwhile, manager Ally McCoist says Andy Little and Salim Kerkar have been offered new contracts at Rangers. Both players' deals to the old Rangers expired this summer and McCoist hopes the pair will sign on with the relaunched Ibrox club." "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green." "Irrespective of what’s decided by the two league bodies in the coming week, the Tribunal, having been handed the case back by the Court of Session on appeal from Rangers, must find an alternative to their original sanction of a one-year transfer ban.

The options likely to be considered are suspension and termination of membership.

Suspension leaves no avenue within the Scottish game for appeal – the only option left for Green would be to lobby the Court of Arbitration in Sport.

But termination of membership would allow newco Rangers an appeal to the SFA Board – who could arrive at a different determination again from either the Judicial Panel or the Appellate Tribunal."  "The re-formed Ibrox club will now apply to play in the Scottish Football League but it remains unclear which division they will enter.

The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company run by Charles Green."  "John Fleck has become the ninth player to object to his contract switching to the new Rangers, with midfielder Jamie Ness also agreeing a move elsewhere – although Kyle Hutton has become the third player to announce he will stay on at the stricken club.

The new Rangers are facing the prospect of being refused entry to the SPL and could be playing in Division One - or even starting over again in the Third Division - should they be forced to apply to the Scottish Football League."  "Charles Green's consortium has since started the process of relaunching the club under the banner of a new company with Rangers FC plc heading for liquidation."   "Rangers FC plc entered administration in February owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors. The company will eventually be liquidated and has been replaced by a new company."  "Many supporters questioned Green’s reasons for buying the stricken club for £5.5million and some have backed consortiums fronted by Walter Smith and John Brown. But a stockbroker is now due to arrive from London next week to help the club launch a share issue."  "The transfer of the SFA membership from soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers to Green's newco could take place at the same time as a decision is made over which league the club will play in."   "However, in this case, the issue is muddied by Rangers FC plc being consigned to liquidation and the newco Rangers having not yet become members of the SFA."   "Meanwhile, Rangers chief executive Charles Green said the 140-year-old club was "deeply disappointed" with the result of the vote and will be applying to join the Scottish Football League - and he will be hoping Regan's plea that they be allowed to join Division One doesn't fall on deaf ears. ... 'If our application were to be accepted, Rangers will play in whichever division the SFL sees fit and we will move forward from there,' said Green, who purchased the club's assets in a 5.5 million pound deal after Rangers went bankrupt in February. ...

Failure to secure agreement with tax authorities led to Green launching a takeover and establishing a new company."  "The old Rangers is currently in administration and will be liquidated shortly. Charles Green transferred the assets to his newco Gers after buying the club for £5.5million. Di Stefano wrote: “I’m aware the assets of the company were sold to Charles Green, but I have spoken with the registrar at Companies House that confirms The Rangers Football Club Plc is a company still ‘only in administration’ and is capable of acquisition, transfer and/or assignment."  "The Light Blues have been at loggerheads with the governing body since their judicial panel imposed a year-long transfer ban because of the way previous owner Craig Whyte ran the club. ... New Rangers owner Charles Green, has already admitted the club made a mistake turning to the courts and he is keen to defuse the situation and for his club to move forward."  "A sweetener of £1m has already been negotiated as the TV companies see an appeal in the novelty of covering Ally McCoist’s new-look squad in a lower league for the first time in their 140-year history."   "And the Teesside supremo insists he was watching the same club on both occasions despite being the man forced to put Boro into liquidation to form a new company as part of his 1986 rescue package. That’s why Gibson has told Rangers fans the club’s 140-year history will live on despite would-be owner Charles Green set to go down the dreaded newco when a CVA is officially rejected at today’s meeting of creditors at Ibrox."  "It says In an asset purchase, all of the good and valuable assets (records, marks, names, trophies, players, staff, history) are preserved and separated from the bad and harmful liabilities (tax bills, bad contracts, creditors), which have put the club into administration and which act to force the entirety into liquidation. By putting all of the assets into a different corporate structure, the assets are in fact rescued from liquidation. Such a transaction would be very similar to the one that occurred at Leeds United in 2007, which simultaneously rescued that club, maintained its proud history and allowed the club to shed its debt burdens so that it could have the opportunity for future success."  "Duff and Phelps, appointed by the Court of Session on February 14, have broken down all the "asset realisations", the majority of which relate to their sale of the Ibrox club to Sevco Scotland Limited."   "A FIFA spokesperson said: 'At the time of writing, FIFA does not appear to have been approached by any association with respect to the international clearance of any particular player currently registered with Rangers FC.'"   "Duff and Phelps have broken down all the “asset realisations” of the deal — the majority of which relate to their sale of the Ibrox club to Sevco Scotland Limited." "Regan argued the 140-year-old Rangers, Scottish football's most successful club, should be dropped just one league to the First Division." "The Scottish Football Association will consider what, if any, punishments to impose on Rangers before granting membership to the new company." "In the email, Mr Regan also makes it clear that newco Rangers will still be responsible for any sanctions imposed because the wrongdoing of previous regimes." "Under new Scottish FA rules, it is a requirement of the outgoing club directors to conduct a full investigation under the fit and proper guidelines. Given Rangers FC's insolvency event, it has been incumbent on the administrators, Duff and Phelps, to carry out the necessary checks on the proposed new directors, as well as our own investigations." "It is a requirement of the outgoing club directors to conduct a full investigation under the fit and proper guidelines.

Given Rangers FC’s insolvency event, it has been incumbent on the administrators, Duff and Phelps, to carry out the necessary checks on the proposed new directors, as well as our own investigations."  "We have asked Sevco to provide further supplementary information and will consider that information this week. Under new Scottish FA rules, it is a requirement of the outgoing club directors to conduct a full investigation under the fit and proper guidelines. Given Rangers FC's insolvency event, it has been incumbent on the administrators, Duff and Phelps, to carry out the necessary checks on the proposed new directors, as well as our own investigations."  "These are old co debts that newco has got to face up to"   "Rangers are due to be re-launched in the Ramsden's Cup first round against Brechin at Glebe Park on July 28 but Green will need to come to an agreement with the SFA beforehand and talks will continue on Tuesday. ... Rangers successfully overturned the 12-month transfer embargo in the Court of Session before Green's Sevco Scotland bought their assets when they were consigned to liquidation."  "The Scottish FA however say they will be able to use the oldco’s financial documentation as a new membership is not being requested. ... Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements."  "A summarised receipts and payments account for the period of this report is shown at Appendix 2. This shows an estate balance of £6,300,287 as at 29 June 2012, including an amount of £5,500,000 received from Sevco in relation to its acquisition of the business, history and assets of the Company (see Section 5 for additional details in relation to the sale process)."  "Should Sevco refuse to meet the Scottish FA’s demands, it will be forced to apply for a completely new membership not tied to the former club."  "The killer section of the document states: EBT Sanctions means (i) the withdrawal of Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of Champion Club (as defined in the SPL rules) of the Scottish Premier League for each and all of seasons 2002/3, 2004/5, 2008/9, 2009/10 and 2010/11: (ii)The withdrawal from Rangers FC, RFC and Sevco of the award and status of winner of the Scottish Cup for each and all of seasons 2001/2, 2002/3, 2007/8, and 2008/9."  "Doncaster admits to being “baffled” that in this country such a distinction is drawn between Rangers exiting administration through a company voluntary arrangement [CVA], as prospective new owner Charles Green will attempt in the coming weeks, and doing so by moving the assets to a new company [newco] as the old one sinks because of debt, as he probably will be forced to do to effect a successful purchase. Doncaster simply does not accept that morality and sporting integrity are served very differently by throwing yourself at the mercy of your creditors, as in a CVA, or simply walking away from them, as in the newco route. A newco, he says, could raise more money for creditors than a CVA. He could give no examples where this had ever occurred in football. However, the SPL chief executive did provide examples from England, with the cases of Luton, Bournemouth and Rotherham, where clubs have failed to obtain a CVA, set up a newco, and retained their same league status, but with a points penalty – as will be one of the new financial fair play proposals clubs will have a third go at voting on come 30 May.

... "Whenever I speak to people about the distinction between a CVA and a newco what I keep being told is that it’s simply wrong that any club should be able to create a newco and shed debt. As if a CVA doesn’t lead to the shedding of debt. Administration is the protection the court gives you when you can’t pay your debts. There are two ways out of that; one is a newco, one is a CVA. Of the six administrations which have happened down south in recent years two went with a CVA and a newco, Palace and Plymouth, and there were four where there was no CVA and a newco. “The distinction between the two is relatively fine. To draw such a huge distinction is just wrong. When Livingston were relegated to Division Three did they cease to exist and start again? Of course they didn’t. Leeds are the same. Every single club which has had an insolvency event has either continued as a football club or has ceased to exist. I’m not aware of any club which sort of started again. Of course it’s not okay to waive £90 million of debt, of course it’s not. But it happens. In football as in business."  "Things may change for a while thanks to recent events but this rivalry has always been one of the classics in club football."   "Rangers "newco" have been relegated to the Third Division of the Scottish Football League after the organisation's member clubs voted on the fate of the former SPL giants."   "The League Cup trophy has returned to Ibrox a record 27 times since the competition’s formation in the 1946/47 season. Celtic have won on 14 occasions, followed by Aberdeen (five), Hearts (four), Hibernian, Dundee, East Fife (three) and six other winners."  "The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season and enter the League Cup at the first round stage for the first time since 1978."   "The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season although they are still waiting to discover if they will be granted SFA membership to compete. If membership is granted then the club will enter the League Cup at the first-round stage for the first time since 1978."  "Rangers will face Irn-Bru Second Division side East Fife in the first round of the Scottish Communities League Cup. The newco club have been admitted into the Third Division for the upcoming season and enter the League Cup at the first-round stage for the first time since 1978."  "We’ve already had a 10-point deduction from the SPL, lost our Champions League place for finishing second last season, had a £160,000 fine, been refused entry to the SPL, been relegated to Division Three and lost most of our squad."   "HMRC had agreed to consider a CVA proposal along with all other options in the case of Rangers but having taken into consideration the extent of funds which will be made available to creditors through the CVA option, they have decided that it is not acceptable given The Rangers Football Club plc's level of indebtedness to HMRC. ... HMRC has taken the view that the public interest will be better served with the liquidation of The Rangers Football Club plc as a corporate entity. The Club will continue to operate as it has always done but within a new company structure."

Club liquidated, Club/Company the same and the club lives on
This section of sources are quite interesting because they refer to it being a new club and refer to it as just the company is liquidated, the one part saying the club is alive or dead is in one set of quotes " " and the other part saying the opposite is within other quotes " "after the first set

"Rangers chief executive Charles Green says he will not challenge the vote by the Scottish Football League to place his new club in Division Three." "Green's Sevco consortium had been forced to apply for entry to the SFL after Scottish Premier League clubs voted against the new Rangers being admitted to the top flight with the old company destined for liquidation." "Rangers’ liquidation and reformation as a newco has ended up with them being kicked out of the SPL." "It is a requirement of the outgoing club directors to conduct a full investigation under the fit and proper guidelines.

Given Rangers FC’s insolvency event, it has been incumbent on the administrators, Duff and Phelps, to carry out the necessary checks on the proposed new directors, as well as our own investigations." "Green might have to accept the 12-month transfer ban handed to Rangers before they were consigned to liquidation. ... And the former Sheffield United chief executive will seek a deal over repayment of transfer fees and other debts owed to clubs by the soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers."  "Under new Scottish FA rules, it is a requirement of the outgoing club directors to conduct a full investigation under the fit and proper guidelines. Given Rangers FC's insolvency event, it has been incumbent on the administrators, Duff and Phelps, to carry out the necessary checks on the proposed new directors, as well as our own investigations." "Green might have to accept the 12-month transfer ban handed to Rangers before they were consigned to liquidation."  "Rangers are due to be re-launched in the Ramsden's Cup first round against Brechin at Glebe Park on July 28 but Green will need to come to an agreement with the SFA beforehand and talks will continue on Tuesday." "Rangers successfully overturned the 12-month transfer embargo in the Court of Session before Green's Sevco Scotland bought their assets when they were consigned to liquidation."   "Rangers are due to be re-launched in the Ramsden's Cup first round against Brechin at Glebe Park on July 28 but Green will need to come to an agreement with the SFA beforehand and talks will continue on Tuesday." "Rangers successfully overturned the 12-month transfer embargo in the Court of Session before Green's Sevco Scotland bought their assets when they were consigned to liquidation." "Rangers are due to be re-launched in the Ramsden's Cup first round against Brechin at Glebe Park on July 28 but Green will need to come to an agreement with the SFA beforehand and talks will continue on Tuesday." "Rangers successfully overturned the 12-month transfer embargo in the Court of Session before Green's Sevco Scotland bought their assets when they were consigned to liquidation." "However, any deal cannot be finalised until the Scottish FA grants membership to the new club" "It is understood the SFA wants the newco club to accept the 12-month transfer embargo handed out to the old company for bringing the game into disrepute." "Thus Rangers, winners of more domestic league titles than any other club in world football, will kick off the new season on 28 July in the Ramsdens Cup, against Brechin City. As this is an away tie for Rangers, they will be visiting a ground, Glebe Park, that holds 3,960 souls and has a nice wee hedge running around part of its perimeter." "Rangers' demise may also allow Scottish football to breathe a little more by providing opportunities to our native young talent." "Rangers have indicated that they will accept a 12-month embargo and £160,000 fine imposed by the Scottish Football Association for bringing the game into disrepute during former owner Craig Whyte's time in control and that they will pay outstanding football debts." "In a strongly-worded statement, McCoist criticised the SFA for releasing a statement on Friday night in which the governing body stated broad agreement had been reached for the transfer of membership between the old club and the new one, which included accepting a 12-month transfer embargo that would start after the completion of this current transfer window." "McCoist was one of those representing Sevco Scotland – the consortium that bought the assets of Rangers as that company headed into liquidation – in the talks with the SFA over the terms of the membership transfer."

Charles Green bought the club from Craig Whyte
"Mr Green completed his purchase of the 140-year-old club's assets with £5.5 million, which is believed to be in the form of a loan that the club repays, having paid just £2 for Craig Whyte's shares." "Green confirmed he had given Whyte £1 – the same value paid – for his 85% stake in Rangers, and said: 'I gave him a pound out of my own pocket too, so he has made a 100% profit.'" "Whyte has agreed to sell his 85 per cent shareholding in Rangers for £2 to Charles Green, who is leading the consortium in place to take control of the club." "Charles Green’s consortium bought the club’s assets for £5.5million two weeks ago, buying out Whyte for a nominal £2."

Other Sources
These sources do not say one way or the other but they give a insight potential to the situation so giving more background information. Just a general sources that does not say one way or the other. Says Rangers Football Club in administration then says "The Company" and "The Club" it does not state whether the club and the company are the same or seperate. It also does not clarify the situation now that liquidation procures have begun. "We’re the original Old Firm, Queen’s Park and Rangers. And now the two Glasgow teams meet again. It has been a while since we met." "The newco club are still waiting to discover if they will be granted Scottish FA membership" "If found guilty, the Ibrox club could be stripped of the leagues they won in 2003, 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well as their Scottish Cup triumphs of 2002, 2003, 2008 and 2009." "Duff and Phelps, administrators of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) issued the following statement today. We have written to all shareholders of The Rangers Football Club plc (in administration) to provide notice of a general meeting of the Company to be held at Ibrox Stadium on July 31. The resolution to be put forward at that meeting is to change the name of the Company to RFC 2012 plc and there will be no other business on the day" 

Important sources possible hold more weight
These sources might hold more weight because they are from people who deal with business transactions and liquidation all the time or the revelent football authorities who would know the situation better. This is a video you have to watch it to see what it says, it is approx 2 minutes in "The administrator says the club is sold to the newco and the history transfer to the newco" "Q. After the liquidation/death of Rangers FC PLC and the creation of a brand new legal entity, when can/does the new company become a new club? A. As of yesterday, the new company operates the club. Of course, it does not yet have membership of either the SPL or SFL, which is an essential rquirement for any professional football club." " This is a petition for judicial review by the Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration. That company presently operates Rangers Football Club (to whom I shall refer as "Rangers"). Rangers are members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA"), and are bound by the Articles of the SFA and by the Judicial Panel Protocol which sets out the disciplinary rules relating to the conduct of members of the SFA and the conduct of disciplinary proceedings to enforce such rules. " This is a video you have to watch it to see what it says, it is approx 30 seconds in "Neil Doncaster he is asked why the SPL will help a club that isn't a member of the SPL to facilitate its entry into Division three. He states that it is an existing club if not a new company." "Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements. ... The Scottish FA has received private and confidential documentation from Sevco Scotland Ltd relating to the above. We have asked Sevco to provide further supplementary information and will consider that information this week. ... Under new Scottish FA rules, it is a requirement of the outgoing club directors to conduct a full investigation under the Fit and Proper Guidelines. Given Rangers FC’s insolvency event, it has been incumbent on the administrators, Duff and Phelps, to carry out the necessary checks on the proposed new directors, as well as our own investigations." "" "Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club" "Founded:1873"

Rangers F.C. founding year
"Founded 1872" "Founded: 1873" "FOUR young men shared a dream - to start a football club. They had no money, no kit - not even a ball. Yet from such humble beginnings emerged the most famous of all Scottish football clubs - Rangers FC. None of those four men could have foreseen what was to happen when they met in 1872. ... Despite this promising start, as every fan knows the official founding of the club did not take place until the following year. ...

The date of 1873 is recognised because that was the year when the club had their first annual meeting and officers were elected. Rangers were becoming businesslike."  "Founded: February 1872"

Perhaps someone could pleas just tell the IP that he must WP:AGF and archive this section to prevent the content discussion continuing here. The IP made a totally unacceptable and unfair accusation against Andrew, and he suggested he should be banned. Telling the IP not to do it again would solve this specific issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The ban proposal by the IP is meaningless, don't give it credibility by even responding to it. And I was beat to the punch by hatting the bulk of this discussion.  Holy cow, please don't do that.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User shows no competence to maintain discussion
Caringtype1 brought up changing images at Awake (TV series) here. I disagreed, and requested TBrandley (the article's primary contributor) to comment. He agreed with my stance, and user made an ultimatum by saying "I don't know, if it's not changes Im un-watching all Awake related articles and will never visit the pages again because the logo is ugly." User then insisted that I do not have concern with improving the article, to which I replied: "I think by "threats", TBrandley meant ultimatums; which is why I offered the above link to WP:ULTIMATUM. You may also want to touch up on WP:CIVIL, because "SHOUTING" comes off as rude, and WP:NPA, because you saying that myself and TBrandley don't want to improve articles goes against "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; the main idea of WP:NPA." User continued to get heated and insisted on making a new section header asking for consensus. The user said that the section header would be neater, but myself and TBrandley agreed that a new header with the user's opinion on top would be an attempt of the user dictating the discussion, to achieve what they want. The user was repeatedly dismissive of all efforts to reason with him/her. I merged her comment from the new section to the section we were in, and she warned that she would report me for moving comments. User is being disruptive and violating WP:CONSENSUS. I admit I got a bit too heated sometimes, and I'm sorry for that, it's just that it was so frustrating for the user to ignore all comments made by myself and TBrandley. I do not know what an appropriate outcome would be, but I think a 24hr block would allow her time to go over some key policies. <font color="blue" size="3px"> TRLIJC19 (<font color="green" size="2px"> talk ) 02:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments: In addition to TRLIJC19's comments, he has attacked TRLIJC19 and me, claiming that we are not following guidelines. <font face="Impact">TBrandley 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Further, his/her talk page here shows another editor complaining about his/her inappropriate behavior. <font color="blue" size="3px"> TRLIJC19 (<font color="green" size="2px"> talk ) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: User has since stated that they are departing the conversation, so perhaps good faith should be taken upon them, and the ANI be closed. <font color="blue" size="3px"> TRLIJC19 (<font color="green" size="2px"> talk ) 03:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To be honest, both of you could have handled that better. Reverting the proposal was improper, even if you felt the proposal was misguided.  You trust it to the wisdom of the greater community to reject instead.  WP:BRD applies as well, and the editor never made a single change, yet you told them they couldn't.  Caringtype1 seems young and a bit misguided on the wisdom of the images, but I felt like you were a little harsh and argumentative.  In particular, the comment "No you're not, or you'll be reported for going against consensus. I have undone your changes; do not perform them again." (emphasis in original) by TRLIJC19 was unnecessarily confrontational.  I understand protecting the integrity of the article, but sometimes being less aggressive is a better solution than biting someone's head off and improperly reverting their talk page edits.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 12:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, and in the future; I will try to handle it better. It's just so frustrating when you're trying to have a discussion with a user and they continue to ignore what you are saying and shout in capital letters. Thanks for the comments, <font color="blue" size="3px"> TRLIJC19 (<font color="green" size="2px"> talk ) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia think I'm 'XxTR1CKZzxx'
The other day my account was auto-blocked, and a message appeared telling me that my IP had been used by User:XxTR1CKZzxx. Now my questions about this are, how would this user get my IP address and use it for vandalism. And secondly, will this occur again? Note that I have not heard of this user before, it just told me the other day that I'm auto-blocked as a result of his vandalism, which seems unfair as I have not vandalised the site and this issue could potentially affect several other users. Any solutions to this not happening in the future? Cheers.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello RedBullWarrior, such things keep occurring. The other day I was autoblocked just because that someone "User:Sandandclaysilt" had used my IP address and created vandalism. You can request the IP-Block-Exempt right, though I did not find it very necessary. All the best, Dipankan001. Dipankan  ( Have a chat? ) 15:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Use the unblock-auto template. Electric Catfish 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most people do not have the exact same IP address every time they connect to the internet. Some settings change it daily, others weekly, some don't change until you reset your router.  (Note: the IP address of your PC/laptop typically remains the same, but it usually connects to the internet via a router or similar device which forces the change of the internet-facing IP address).  So, if last week, someone was a jerk and got blocked, and this week you have their old IP address, voila - you sort of appear to be them.  Will it happen again?  Maybe.  Is it annoying?  Yes.  dangerous  panda  15:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, that makes sense thanks for the help. (Directed at everyone because I'm that kind) ;-)--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User WikiFlier
Diff of notifying user:

This user has described me as Joseph Goebbels and ridiculously accused me of using the 2011 Norway attacks as a springboard for a political career, and continued to engage in personal attacks despite several warnings. The story goes like this:

Following this edit by User:WikiFlier, which given the scholarly sources on the subject clearly doesn't adhere to WP:NPOV, I reverted. The user then reverted again, and was reverted by another user, whom he believed to be me, but continued to edit-war. I reverted a last time, before he pushed some off-topic POV into the article. From that point on, I have not made further edits to the page, but attempted to engage on the talk page. The other reverting editor has likewise made attempts to make the user engage there.

In the process, the user thought it would be fun to make some personal attacks regarding my motivation for getting involved with Wikipedia: Accusing me of using Breivik's killings to bolster my political career. When I warned the user about this obvious vandalism, the user vandalised the talk page of the article in question as well.Deleted accusations of Goebbels-inspired demagoguery I then issued a final warning. This led to the user issuing a bogus warning, which again was a gross violation of WP:NPA.Calling me Goebbels again

Please note that I have not labeled any of the user's content edits as vandalism, although I can understand it if the final warning (the second and third last diffs) has been interpreted as a warning over content, whereas the diff shows that it was related to talk page defamation.

After an administrator intervened, the user has made another defaming edit at the administrator's talk page Calling me Goebbels once more.

I don't know what the appropriate reaction would be. I do not feel intimidated by the user's actions, but this behaviour is clearly inappropriate. Also, I feel compelled to document the case here, to make sure that the user's version of the events at JamesBWatson's talk page does not stand uncontested. The content issues relate to discussions that have moved back and forth on the Eurabia article's talk page for a long time, and there has recently been a very constructive atmosphere with regard to other involved editors.

Best regards, benjamil  talk/edits 07:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated this post using some CAPS. Maybe it will get attention now. Does Wikipedia allow its editors to fling around nazi-labels and accuse fellow editors of profiting on mass murder? Does it accept total neglect of cooperation when sincere efforts to engage are being made in spite of egregious personal attacks? benjamil  talk/edits 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. "Shouting" is the best way to have the issue ignored. What might help is actually some idea of what you want the admins to actually do...a quick glance makes it look like it's informational-only, or content-dispute related. dangerous  panda  16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the advice. However, until I used the caps, no one seemed to even notice the post. As my experience with filing complaints on these noticeboards is limited, I'm not sure what the proper reaction is. Should I not try to explain the case in detail? Seeing Jorgath's comment below, I could ignore him, as I usually do when IP editors harass me. However, this is a registered user. What I would like the most is an apology, but that doesn't seem very likely. So maybe escalating blocks is the thing? How do you handle it when someone's reaction to a single edit of yours is to take a s&%¤ on your user page, use the article's talk page to wipe their a%¤ when you react to it, and then go on to whine to an administrator about you being the bad guy? benjamil  talk/edits 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most admins I know understand WP:BOOMERANG quite well. The best thing would be to keep that conversation together, comment briefly there with proof and walk away.  The other editor sure didn't WP:AGF nor be WP:CIVIL.  dangerous  panda  16:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to say: even this board is not "immediate". It's quick if the problem is clear, and if an admin is not already involved (since you said the conversation was on an admins page, that's where it should have stayed until some form of resolution) - even if you e-mailed that admin to clarify your point, rather than poke any bears.  So, I would expect that's why there was a delay  dangerous  panda  16:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, I propose escalating blocks on WikiFlier for making egregious personal attacks. I also suggest that Benjamil read WP:DENY - while WikiFlier has clearly crossed the line here, lesser trolling is best dealt with by denying them recognition. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have given WikiFlier a personalized final warning for personal attacks. I do not see any such warnings in their history - a bunch for vandalism, and an edit summary that wrongly suggests "defamation".  Yes, being referred to as a Nazi is pretty bad - but how would they know it's that bad?  And, before anyone asks, yes, I think it's currently beyond the scope of WP:WQA  dangerous  panda  16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, a ban makes sense, though I'd almost be inclined to start the escalation at 'permanent', given that this wasn't just a personal attack, it was intentional misrepresentation too - editing material on another user's page to imply support for Goebbels etc. I'm not sure how one could say that it wasn't 'vandalism' either - that might actually be a rather forgiving description of it. A signed personal attack is one thing, but this sort of underhand and cowardly behaviour is another entirely. Wikipedia doesn't need people like that, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I saw the "faking" as merely a means to their real end: the NPA/CIVIL violation. dangerous  panda  16:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RESPONSE by WikiFlier (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It is easy and perhaps satisfying to make snap judgments based on one side's slickly-constructed narrative, but WikiFlier deserves to be heard by the community. But Wikipedia is more important than a past squabble among different editors, so one must really look at the substance (see below). In particular, the Wikipedia community should be careful not to give a "hecklers' veto" to organized interest groups cooperating hijacking "their" subjects on Wikipedia.

To begin with, WikiFlier withdraws and apologizes for using the term "Goebbels" as personal invective in the heat of the discussion. This was overwrought and inappropriate on Wikipedia.

In fairness, it will be seen there is clearly considerable blame on the other side. To the extent that there was an edit war user:Benjamil working in cooperation with user:Toddy1 repeatedly and without discussion reverted careful edits to the lede portion of the Eurabia article.

In violation of WP:NPOV, the lede of the article immediately slurs the term "Eurabia" as a "conspiracy theory" before giving a neutral definition, and even quotes an inflammatory comparison to the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion - the same infamous work of fiction often relied on by - Goebbels, based on the "Eurabia vers" news article once again citing the admitted pro-Palestinian activist Mattias Gardell.

The correct NPOV approach is to first define in the lede what Bat Ye'or and others mean by the term in the lede, then go on to outline both supporting and critical views, with a fuller exposition in the body of the article.

Note that WikiFlier is not saying that critical views - including claims of "conspiracy theory" - should be suppressed from the article. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with briefly touching on contrasting views of the subject in the lede, after an NPOV exposition of the concept. WikiFlier is NOT seeking censorship in reverse.

The frequent claims of academic support for the "conspiracy theory" slur are a red herring. Wikipedia aims to be neutral and "verifiable", NOT to represent the views of one pro-Palestinian activist who happens to have a teaching job at the university of Uppsala (and one other academic writer, Zuquete). Under WP principles, the views of one university professor are entitled to no more nor less respect than those slurred ab initio as "right-wing" writers and politicians in the current version of the article.

Incidentally, the underlying work - Bat Ye'or's "Eurabia" can be partially viewed on Google Books.

Regards, WikiFlier (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: Following the earlier edit war - which has long ended with user:Benjamil's version remaining operative - I made an unrelated edit to the "Eurabia" page adding pertinent background concerning "Mattias Gardell" - he is a pro-Palestinian activist who with his wife took part in the "Ship to Gaza" action as indicated in the cited sources. This is clearly relevant to balance the alleged neutrality of Gardell's judgments implicit in the reference to his status of professor at the University of Uppsala. The new information and sources were taken from the existing Mattias Gardell page (which I have never edited).


 * Since your 'response' appears to be nothing more than an attempt to justify your gross personal attack, and violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, followed by a load of off-topic waffle and a plug for some book or other, Can we assume that you aren't going to contest any block or other sanction against you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's almost but not quite what they said. To translate, WikiFlier basically said "I'm sorry for calling you Goebbels and a Nazi. I should have just accused you of POV-pushing from a conflict of interest, because I'm right and you're wrong." - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And curiously (I'll not speculate why) WikiFlier refers to him/herself in the third person. Strange... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Jorgath agrees that this is indeed strange. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to WikiFlier's edit summary when they removed Andy's comment, obviously what I wrote when I "translated" your giant response included the part where you were sorry. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FURTHER RESPONSE BY WikiFlier (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In case the loud bolding above wasn't obvious enough - WikiFlier APOLOGIZED.

As regards accusations of "pushing a book" - the Eurabia article is about a concept based on the eponymous book, and anyone who really cares about the substance (naive, I know) would perhaps want to take a look.

Sanctions at this stage would be simply payback for a past edit war (which WikiFlier lost) - there is no ongoing issue to be "sanctioned".

Anyone who really cares about Wikipedia should be deeply concerned about the frequency of wolf pack tactics where a small and unrepresentative group cooperates to take control of "their" subject and to silence all dissident voices by brute force.

WikiFlier (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have (sort of) apologised for the 'Goebbels' comparison. You have not apologised for vandalising (to put it nicely) Benjamil's user page. As for the book, it is irrelevant. This is ANI, and the topic under discussion is your behaviour. And do you really think that making yet more personal attacks is doing you any good? As for sanctions, you don't get to decide whether they are appropriate or not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm thinking a competence block for failure to understand the definitions of "apology," civility, and neutral point of view might be in order. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I'm willing to accept the apology. I have resumed editing the article where this issue originated. I invite WikiFlier to discuss the edits with me on the article's talk page, if they still want to. For the harm done to my userpage, I will accept one of these doves as reparations. benjamil talk/edits 19:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Wikiflier has brought my name up here I will respond. As far as I am aware, I am not in a "wolf pack" with anyone.  I reverted a very odd edit by Wikiflier, restoring cited information.  Another user had previously reverted much the same edit.  After another edit by Wikiflier (which another user reverted), I left a comment on his talk page suggesting that he needed to explain why his edit should be made on the talk page.


 * My own personal view is that bringing this matter to ANI was premature.


 * I hoped that Wikiflier would either see reason and discuss his proposed edits on the article talk page, or that he would make a third revert and get a block for edit warring and then go away. I think Wikiflier has a good point in the edit that he made at 1830 on 23 July, at about the same time as I was writing a comment on his talk page.  I have suggested a way of incorporating the substance of this edit into the article on the article talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This ANI discussion has little to do with edits to articles - the issue at hand is WikiFliers gross personal attack/vandalism on another contributor's user page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Need an earnest and honest block review on Airtuna08 and FourteenClowns


I was just browsing pages and happened to end up at the RfA requests, thinking about the editors who are about to become admins, and after looking at the 'good' ones, and then the one that happens to be quite in the red, I looked at one that had 1 oppose (SarahStierch) and wondered what the rationale might possibly be for this 1 oppose. I looked in on the RfA and the person left a vague comment about Sarah not being tolerant enough, and a series of demands came at that point from the other editors, which ended in a block for that editor, FourteenClowns, as a sockpuppet. Fair enough, I thought, but I couldn't find where the SPI was on this person at first.

After looking more I finally located the information that supposedly Airtuna08 was the sock master in this case, and yet, in looking over the discussion, it seems more like an admin blocked the otherwise good editor for simply not giving the answer the admin was looking for. The admin seemed to want a "Yes, I'm guilty", but the user said, 'I have no idea what you're talking about, but here are some theories.'

I have no idea if this is a true sock master or sock in either case, and apparently as various admins and editors have looked deeper, they aren't really all that sure either. As such, I think a formal, professional, and unbiased review of the block is warranted. -- Avanu (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In my judgment, as someone who is not a CU but did read through AirTuna's talk page in the process of reviewing one of his unblock requests: he is not acting like someone who's fallen prey to a mistake somewhere. He's acting like someone who has been caught socking and is now attempting to throw enough dust into the air that no one will notice the sock hanging from his fireplace mantle. Claiming it must be someone else from the library where you edit, and then when CU evidence shows it's not a library, suddenly claiming that it must be someone else in your family, editing from your computer, but you can't identify who or why...these things are not generally claims made by someone who's genuinely caught in a misunderstanding. I have the impression that AirTuna has been caught flat-out, and is now continuously doubling-down on the stakes in the hopes of getting unblocked with a clean record, rather than just owning up to some poor judgment. As I told him in my decline of his unblock, what we need to hear is "this will not happen again, and here's how I will prove that to your satisfaction", not "I didn't do anything I demand you delete my contributions oh it must have been someone else at my computer or library or ummm how about you unblock me so I can go edit a CU's talk page!" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * By honest and earnest, I don't mean a judgement on the tone of the editor's comments, but an actual review of the person's actions. While good faith is not something we hand out like water or go into suicide pacts over, it is something we should be trying to assume at least in some degree. I believe Ryan began a review of these two accounts' actions and was left in doubt as to their connection. So, while your gut is full of truthiness, it is not full of facts. -- Avanu (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My comments are laid out on the talk page and I do not intend to comment much here. I will state that we must make some consideration of Airtuna08's behavior based on the way this was brought to him.  He was convicted before he had a chance to lay out an argument and instantly acted on the defensive.  Most people behave differently on the defensive than they would otherwise make.  Boing! pointed out some similarities to me (they both mentioned the founder in their unblock request) and at present I remain unswayed towards either side. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in full agreement with what Ryan says in his comment. I do not know whether Airtuna08 is in the right or wrong, but I do feel that an earnest review of the facts is in order. -- Avanu (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you ask the blocking admin? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * x2 Avanu, the "hard" facts, whatever they are, are present in the CU log. Neither you nor I are privy to that log, but someone who is says that AirTuna and FourteenClowns are technically confirmed. Unless you have reason to believe that the CU is flat-out lying, the only people who are going to be able to judge the accuracy of those facts are other CUs, not participants on ANI. If you want an ANI review, which implies comment by people who can't see the CU logs (because if you wanted a review of the CU's judgment, you'd be contacting AUSC, not ANI), what you're going to get are people making judgments based on the behavior of the editor(s) and whether that behavior supports or refutes the charge of sockpuppetry. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems like a pretty good explanation from the blocking admin. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 19:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'd possibly quibble with is the block length. Personally, unless it's a particularly serious issue or there is evidence of multiple socks over a long period, I usually block the socks indef and the masters for defined length of time. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's apparent the block is a good one as seen here: User_talk:Airtuna08. A check user also shows that the editors argument was not true. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like he essentially admits that the other account is his in the exchange:
 * Then please explain FourteenClowns (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A seldom used account? --Airtuna08 (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then CU confirms the linkage. So the question remains, is it socking if it is a second account?  If he is voting at an RfA, to comment negatively about someone, so his main account looks "clean", then it sounds like a classic good guy/bad guy abuse situation.  It looks like MuZemike approached him first, gave him the opportunity to discuss it, but Airtuna chose to talk a bit in riddles instead.  Also note, my experience is that CU checks more than IP address, and I believe they would have access to the full HTTP header, which is enough to tell you operating system, update version, webbrowser and update version, which means a "confirmed" is stronger than "editing from the same IP".  The combination of essentially admitting another "seldom used account", then changing to the "my WP:BROTHER did it" excuse, looks bad for Airtuna, no matter how persuasive and eloquently he might protest. Indefinite doesn't mean forever, but it does require a bit of honesty, which seems lacking here.  I'm inclined to think it is a good block, and Airtuna is emailing MuZemike now, we assume, to discuss it. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 21:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I've thought about this whole situation so much over the last few days that I don't want to think about it any more... --Rschen7754 21:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask users to please look at Sockpuppet investigations/GroundhogTheater/Archive for the history behind all this. This is not the first time this sockmaster has tried to pull this off (and he pretty much did the first time, given Rlevse's first unblock). However, along with the CheckUser evidence, I find it very hard to believe that another person, who has the exact same attitude, makes very similar edits, and edits very similar topics (as with all the socks in the archived SPI case from 2009) are two separate people. After checking, the editing on Requests for adminship/SarahStierch and before and after Airtuna08's block indicate did not emanate from any library, which leaves two possibilities – it's either another family member (along with the wife and what other children or whatnot live in the house) or it's the same person. I find it very unlikely for six family members to be editing the exact same types of topics, all converging on the same problematic article,, and all of them displaying similar attitudes. See New York State Route 382, Featured article candidates/New York State Route 382/archive1 and Talk:New York State Route 382, and Articles for deletion/Blanchard Valley Conference (2nd nomination) for examples of this "tag-teaming", if we were to assume that these are all living under the same roof.

Another thing to consider is the failure of Airtuna08 to keep his story straight. As already mentioned above, the user switches back and forth from the "library" reason to the "multiple people under one roof" reason to even the "seldom used account" reason (which the latter may be indicative of good hand, bad hand socking.

I ask one more thing for everyone to consider: User:FourteenClowns has never interacted with SarahStierch before and says something that is wholly contradictory. This out-of-the-blue provocation comes after a period of relative inactivity. --MuZemike 21:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats
During my past wikibreak, two other users and myself have been threatened by a Wikipedia account. The threats were relayed through two talkpage posts (in Serbo-Croatian) and an e-mail apparently from the same user. The other users threatened were and  (producer was threatened in the e-mail, where Warhammer76 demanded his name and address). In Serbian, the user threatened to "slander my name and image" over the internet if I did not cease editing Serbia-related topics - and had actually attempted to do so. However, as Warhammer76's e-mail address is "ignaciojose2006@yahoo.com", I strongly suspect Warhammer76 is a sockpuppet of User:FkpCascais, who was recently topic-banned for another six months, and is a Serbian user joining us from Portugal, wich is quite a unique "combination" (and the user happens to be something of a self-proclaimed "arch-nemesis" of mine). I have limited access to my computer and the internet at the moment, and as the threats were rather serious, I'd like to request assistance in this matter from any willing admin. Someone should probably notify PRODUCER and Peacemaker67, and run a quick checkuser for any connections between FkpCascais and Warhammer76. Regards <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 10:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Somebody should indeed notify those two users - that somebody should be you. You should also have notified the two you are making accusations against - in fact, it is more important you notify them! I've done all four for you. Also if you feel two users are linked, use WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 10:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the Warhammer account, but that of course doesn't really mean much. I doubt we here will be able to link this abuse to any established editor as a sockmaster, so I don't think this ANI discussion will be able to achieve much. You could of course ask for checkuser assistance. The threats are serious enough I'd recommend just contacting Arbcom in private – and getting the police involved. This is not just Wikipedia abuse, it's definitely criminal. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @GiantSnowman. My apologies: like I said, my internet contact is extremely limited at this time (I am, in fact, on a sailboat, editing from an older cellphone). Thank you so much for notifying everyone.
 * @Future. Indeed I have replied to "Warhammer76" making it clear the police and my lawyer shall be notified should any evidence of slander turn up (he has removed the previous "taster"). However as I'm reasonably certain this could be User:FkpCascais' attempt at "revenge", a positive SPI may put an end to this quickly. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have had a similar experience lately. I got a message meant to intimidate me from, whom Fkp frequently chats with on their talkpages, stating "why you make always propaganda against Serbia? Why you do this? You think all users here are blind?" Accounts, , and now have showed up and repeatedly removed any information they view as offensive to Serbia. Threats also followed. . --<font face="xx-medium serif"> <font style="letter-spacing: 0.2cm;">◅PRODUCER   ( TALK ) 11:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I say DIREKTOR and PRODUCER threat to themselves to accuse Serbian users for this to block them. I am sure Warhammer76 is sock of DIREKTOR or PRODUCER. HuHu22 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Checkuser note: I have just run a check on and blocked two confirmed socks. Cheers.  Salvio  Let's talk about it! 13:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Link 128 (at time of writing) is evidently an egregious remark that nobody should have to encounter. I speak Serbian/Croatian so I also get the message but this is very uncharacteristic of FkpCascais. He has on several occasions found himself in battles whereby he has defended his nation against detractors but he has always managed to argue his points without the need to make personal threats. In fact, that looks more to me like an attempt at framing someone, "we know who you are, and when we publish your details negatively, your name will be dirt". Yes Wikipedia does court propagandists from every side of every conflict but this is because it is open to everyone and even invites such persons to make contributions. To that end, there is nothing special about any specific editor ridiculing the Serbian nation, and besides, where it can be proven that an editor really is only out to discredit one nation/movement then it soon becomes WP:DE and the editor in turn tends not to last much longer. Rarely will you find someone who has made 20,000+ edits over the course of several years who is really "bad faith". FkpCascais has been here long enough and knows how WP works not to have to stoop so low. I hope the guilty party is found and thrown out but I'd be shocked if this were Cascais. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for my allegation is the e-mail address. Its rather remarkable to find people threaten you in Serbian from a Portuguese (or Spanish?) e-mail address. If it is indeed entirely unrelated to our resident Serbian user from Portugal (who happens to be topic-banned) it would imo be quite the coincidence (though I imagine the police find it less of a problem to trace e-mail addresses to their owners). <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A description like the one stated above by Evlekis regarding the behaviour of an editor as being someone who "has defended his nation against detractors" is disconcertning to say the least, as it represents defence of obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POV-behaviour. It should not be the stated goal of anyone here on Wikipedia to "defend their nations against detractors" (or of course for anyone to detract other nations), instead it should be their goal to create unbiased articles based on what the reliable secondary sources say. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Direktor, unfortunately, no checkuser can help you confirm or deny that theory, because your harasser was using open proxies... I'm sorry. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 14:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Saddhiyama, a few things. Firstly I am sorry for the indignity you have sufferred because of one malicious individual, believe me I do not subscribe to such cowardly subhuman behaviour - not even in cases where one is defending his nation against attacks. I also agree that former Yugoslavs on the Iberian peninsula are rare. This much can indeed lead to Cascais. I dare not say however that he is the only ex-Yugoslav in Spain or Portugal and as you can see, your antagonist is using open proxies. Be that as it may, click the right links and you have have an e-mail address in any country of the world. I insist that the wording of ther threat is inconsistent with the character of the person being accused. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been spending much less time on wp lately as I am having a golf tournament these days, but this couldn´t be more absurd and insulting for me. First of all, I never ever used no socks or anything similar in my years long experience on WP. The entire Direktor´s first post is very strange, as I had my editing conflicts with him in the past, I reported several actions of his, but beside that, I couldn´t care less about anything other related to him (I think he knows this, as I never took him much seriously as a person). I am mature and aware that the world is full of all sorts of people, and I certainly don´t waste time on some individuals and what they personally think. Direktor saying that I am his "self-proclaimed "arch-nemesis" is so insanely egocentric on his behalve that is as absurd as it can get.

Now, seems to me that this is either an attempt to frame me up, as they did an enormous effort to get me topic-banned and only by accident I ended having my topic-ban extended as I was unaware of how it works (my fault, I recon), or it is a case of Direktor and those other users annoying other people and now are being victims of personal attacks, which they, whithout knowing who is behind, are trying to blame me (?) for... Now, let me say one thing: from the time I entered into a mediation against Direktor, I did receved a couple of wellcoming and congratulational massages either directly on my talk page, or by e-mail. They even indicated me off-wiki websites where the issue of Direktor and his disruption on Wikipedia is explained. However, I didn´t kept any contact with any of them as they had it clear that I didn´t shared their views, just as I didn´t shared Direktor ones (I don´t share radical views), and specially because they saw that I had no interess in contributing to their sort of anti-wiki campaign. Now, this was over a year ago, probably more, and ever since I have no clue what Direktor has been doing and who has he been warring with. All I know is that most of those people were Italian and none of them was Serbian. So, if this people threatening Direktor are Serbian, I have no idea who they are, neither I want to know, much less if they come to live nearby me in Portugal or Spain, as I have no intention of making any new friends, specially not of that kind. Also, those threats should be confirmed.

Now, just as info, there are over 1000 emigrants from ex-Yugoslavia in Portugal, and much more in Spain, and also this is a hollydays destination, so I really don´t even want to guess what possibilities may be around this. Neither I care, and I am asking for an apologies to be provided to me for even suggesting something so offensive to my person. FkpCascais (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I will just make the point that I do not have a clue who is behind the attacks, and nowhere have I indicated that I even suspect you of being behind them. Try to keep your responses specific to what individual editors have said, and don't just lump us in together because it suits your sense of being unfairly persecuted. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don´t mention you in my comment, and, I don´t want to be rude, but I don´t know what was your interpretation of my comment, so next time before providing unasked advices in which you leave sublime indications how I am sort of paranoic and "unfairly persecuted" (it isn´t me complaining about a "group" chasing me here, you mixed the person), try to be sure you understood properly the post. Thanks. FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, is this what is all about? This is either a child, but looking better, this looks much more like a frammed situation, and probably is not even written by a Serb as Karadzic and Mladic are written without a capital letter, so tipical for people disliking Serbs, and I think it is needless to say that a "Serbian nationalist" would certainly write allways those two names in capital letters (simple logic). FkpCascais (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, thank you GiantSnowman for the notece as I wouldn´t even remotely guess something like this was here (and Direktor will pass again not even warned for intentionally not notifiying someone he reports), and thank you Evlekis for explaining some things, although your explanation on how I "defended my nation against attacks" is not kind of correct, as it was about the selective use of sources and the missinterpretation of some of them which lead us to the mediation back then. Cheers. FkpCascais (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to finish, all of my wiki-time has been absolutely absorved for some time now by football-related issues, as it is now that the transfer-window is open and all the transfers take place (my personal favourite subject), so in between updating articles and searchig sources from the specialised media, I repeat, I really have no time neither clue of what wars and conflicts this users have been involved in. FkpCascais (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You have to admit, Fkp, that its quite a coincidence to receive an e-mail from a Serbian user coming from a Portuguese (or Spanish) address, that threatens people you've been in conflict with to stop editing the articles you were in a conflict over - now that you've somehow gotten topic-banned from these same articles again. And you're a Serbian user joining us from Portugal. Now, he's using proxies so this is a moot point (at least for Wiki), but I think my logic in bringing-up your name here is sound. And as for not notifying you, I apologize, but this seemed like a very serious matter and I wanted to bring it to the attention of the community as soon as I possibly could, which unfortunately meant I had to access the net rather clumsily (I'm back for a while now, though).  <font face="Eras Bold ITC">--  Director  ( talk ) 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, Fkp old pal, I'd be interested to hear how you explain the canvassing you're involved in on srWiki? You being so completely innocent and all. Seems there's a reason behind the endless stream of users pushing the same POV on these Chetnik-releated articles and starting edit-wars in perpetuity. It seems they have someone to explain "how things are" here on enWiki, and members of the "Anti-Serbian Faction" are pointed out to them - by you, apparently, at least on several occasions. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 04:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the shady and deplorable behavior of Fkp's past as evidenced by DIREKTOR's diffs the claim isn't far fetched. Indeed the language Fkp used then echoes similarly to the threats recently received. According to Fkp himself, he "fights" "spoiled and stupid Croatian nationalists", referring to DIREKTOR, who he wished to provoke into "biting like a monkey", and me, a "bad Herzegovinian-Croatian copy of DIREKTOR". He recruits other Serbs in this "fight" due to the "impact it will have on our entire [Serbian] history of World War II" and since "the various Wikipedia versions all copy the English version." He does not stop there and states that he "has a list of administrators who help DIREKTOR", which he will "send through email", and mentions how he created trouble for one admin and brought the matter to Jimmy Wales' talkpage. He then continues his conversation off Wikipedia. It appears he recruited at least two separate individuals that we know of:   and  . One can only imagine what arrangements have been made via email and with how many individuals. With this it is clear that Fkp is here with an agenda and has since resorted to other means. --<font face="xx-medium serif">  <font style="letter-spacing: 0.2cm;">◅PRODUCER   ( TALK ) 11:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the other issues above, the links provided by Direktor are worrying. The second, third and fourth appear to be direct violations of WP:Canvass in that they a)dont notify in a neutral manner, b)recruiting to vote-stack in a mediation, c)probably qualify as stealth canvassing due to serbian wiki being 'off-wiki'. Whats really bugging me is the first diff, that basically says 'I have got an opponent banned, now would be a good time to get away with some POV pushing'. This clearly demonstrates that they have no intention of editing in a collegial manner and intend to use meatpuppets in the area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anyone see the dates of those conversations? 2011!!! It was during the time the mediation was going on, so gentleman, I am out from this ridiculous charade. You people really have nothing better to do? I moved on long time ago, I really don´t care anymore about you guys nor the mediation, writte whatever you want, just move on with your lifes. FkpCascais (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * More evidence of Fkp undermining of Wikipedia's rules is present. In another chat with Свифт, he discusses how to manipulate various Wikipedia editors and says "it would be best if we stay in contact via email because they track every word, and will certainly here as well" . In another he discusses that "this group was able to edit articles in a anti-Serbian perspective [...] I oppose the nazification of the Chetnik movement of Draza" and that "admins, who support them and are supposedly fighting against nationalism, interfere with objective editing and allow all this propaganda." In another conversation with Слободни умјетник, he says "since I was unable to win the argument these past days, I will report him [DIREKTOR], and that will be at ANI" and instructs him to contact him through "e-mail this user" feature to avoid him posting his e-mail publicly, he later reiterates "reply exclusively through email, not Wikipedia."  This directly contradicts Fkp's claims and it's evident he initiated a meatpuppetry scheme in order achieve his agenda, which appears to continue to escalate. Again, one can only imagine what they discussed in private via e-mail and what they plotted. --<font face="xx-medium serif">  <font style="letter-spacing: 0.2cm;">◅PRODUCER   ( TALK ) 18:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Producer, I understand that you are mad because of our past disputes, but digging more than 2 years old conversations is really an obsession now. For me, this seems clearly a case where you are doing (again) all the possible and impossible in order to make some complains against me, as you have nothing recent or really important to complain about.  Also, I am really starting to think that the entire "threats" issue was manipulated (possibly even self-created) in order to turn the subject into me and have the attention and place to put all this old diffs you found about my conversations on sr.wiki during (some even before) the mediation. FkpCascais (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, you are intentionally provide phalse translations, "I was unable to win an argument"? How more manipulative can you be? You made up this one. About the rest, well, yes, unfortunatelly that was the case back then (2 years ago!)... FkpCascais (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fkp, I believe the links demonstrate your bad faith very effectively. They also show that you do, in fact, WP:CANVASS users at srWiki. And there is no reason to think you have stopped: you yourself state that you will continue to canvass via e-mail since you know you may be noticed. Furthermore, as you were recently topic-banned twice for six months for disruptive behavior in disputes about these same issues you're canvassing about, to suggest you have undergone a miraculous transformation is quite a stretch. And in the context of your above "outrage", I believe the links demonstrate a dishonest disposition towards the community here (coupled, of course, with your past statements where you explain all about how you manipulate and game the system on this project). To suggest that someone else here is "obsessed" is, imo, just as ironic as your above protests. <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director  ( talk ) 02:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is the link to my topic ban, and as everyone can see, you are abusing when talking about it in order to give some phalse idea how I am disruptive or something. Btw, Producer made a similar exposition there, and it worked, so you must think it will work again. Then, I only got my topic ban extended because I was unaware of what exactly it implied. Now, to be honest, the topic ban worked very much in favour to me, to drive me away from warrior-like people like you.  Weren´t you life-threatened or something?  Is that related to me?  No. I hope you solve that.  Good luck, all the best. FkpCascais (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat or not
| This looks like a legal threat. It's not overt, but at the bottom of this text, a note that this is being sent to "his lawyer" implies possible legal action. I've hatted it with NLT, any admin's welcomed to unhat me (and trout as needed ) or have a chat with the | poster themselves <b style="color:#000">"....We are all Kosh...."<b style="color:#000"> <-Babylon-5-></b></b> 16:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That smells of WP:NLT to me - it's clearly an "oh, by the way..." intended to cause a chilling effect. I'm not sure if it falls under WP:DOLT though... - The Bushranger One ping only 17:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it does fall under WP:DOLT. What is wrong with the material they're demanding be removed? Is there a possible BLP violation going on here? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in question is Raymond Hoser, and it is certainly, um, sensitive from a BLP point of view. The negative material does appear to be supported by sources, but there are some recent IP edits that may involve undue weight.  However, there has not been any recent effort to edit the article itself or to raise these points on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the IP making the threat may be Raymond Hoser Australia's "snake man"  as his edits are to put in Hoser's genus information on snakes, and the users he's complaining about are removing those same edits.   Just a thought.

<b style="color:#000">"....We are all Kosh...."<b style="color:#000"> <-Babylon-5-></b></b> 18:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say without the comment about sending it to the lawyer, it would not be a legal threat. The lawyer part makes it borderline, but I don't think that is enough to justify a NLT block. Probably a warning would suffice, and then see if they IP chooses to clarify that it is or isn't a threat of legal action in response to a warning. Monty  845  17:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of a legal threat. Based on that, and the other comments they made, I have blocked them.  Details here. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

MMA AfD edits by editor with new handle who states, "I can't argue that I'm not a new user, obviously."
User:CaSJer seems to want to use WP:Articles for deletion/UFC 8 to cast aspersions. Earlier I tried to respond appropriately and submitted to a request to strike text from a quote from an administrator's guideline, but today there is a new round of escalation. Contribution history:. Diffs: and. Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to note that in the future it might be easier to use the the SPA template: Template:Spa, to mark editors with few or no contributions outside the subject area. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment is kind of bitey (especially speaking about the user, in a response, as if they're not there). There's no apparent reason to believe the user is being disruptive, or editing in some way that's problematic.  The AFD isn't exactly being flooded with a host of canvassed new accounts trying to create a false picture of consensus.  Unless I'm missing something? Wily D  14:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to escalate, I was just arguing that my vote wasn't in bad faith, as implied in Unscintillating's original comments, but that's for the closing admin to decide. I don't see how anything I said was out of line (or even particularly aggressive), but I apologize if it was.CaSJer (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Community standards are not my creation. The word "implied" is IMO accusatory and escalatory.  Those are the community standards that all editors including CasJer should attempt to follow.  If the community standards apply to CasJer, CasJer should agree that they apply to himself/herself.  Why is CasJer escalating?  Unscintillating (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Implied is accusatory (probably). Whether intentional or not, you first edit did strongly imply you believed CasJer was commenting in bad faith. At this point, unless either one of you wants to apologise (if only for misspeaking), there's nothing left either of you needs to say to the other, and both of you should drop the discussion. The point that CasJar is a new user is there in the discussion for the closing administrator to consider, or not, at their discretion. Wily D 15:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You know it's getting bad when I see the words "MMA AfD" in the section heading and go "oh no, not again." Anyway, I agree with WilyD, above. Both of you have escalated either by misspeaking or misunderstanding what the other has said. This can be dealt with if you both will just drop the stick. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, and I do apologize for coming off more aggressively than I intended to. Wiki soft skills take some getting used to.CaSJer (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mercer Area School District
Likely kids fooling around, but better safe than sorry.

Several vandalism edits over the last few hours contain threats of violence. I've never needed to report such before, but I remember that there is a mechanism for doing such reporting directly to the foundation.

I've revdeled the offending edits, mostly to hide the IP itself in the likely event that this is all kids messing around. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected for two weeks, which should help. This has been an ongoing issue, anyone who thinks it needs longer protection, feel free.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 14:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * See Threats of violence. Monty  845  14:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reported to the foundation. I would consider this to be in their hands now. Thanks. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

190.44.158.38
I reported this IP yesterday (to the wrong place) for its continued massive incivility when interacting with other users, unfortunately, the behaviour has continued here, and also on edit summaries here, such is the extremeness of his conduct, I feel it should be reported again. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything dramatic in that. In a report at a noticeboard, please ensure the first couple of links point to something worthwhile, and add a brief explanation so onlookers don't have to wonder what the problem is. By the way, when you revert that IP (as ), please don't use edit summary "rm vandalism" unless WP:VAND is clearly satisfied. In that case, the IP's edit looked good to me, and it certainly was not "vandalism". Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is fairly clear from the IPs contribs - edit summaries such as "You want to be a dick about it?", "some twat just removed my explanation of why this version is better", "who the fuck says what he's best known for? state the facts", "lazy fucking plagiarists" etc. Whilst their edits are generally good, their interaction isn't.  I'll drop a note on their talkpage (and notify them of this thread, which wasn't done). Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I recognise the Whois information and the style of the writer. Its a rolling IP, the guy is regularly blocked for incivility to any editor who has the temerity to change or revert his edit.  When his IP changes he is back again doing the same.  See also  for example.  Black Kite you blocked the guy last October for edit warring.  Wee Curry Monster talk 12:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, our friend from Chile, I remember now. Will keep an eye on them. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * fwiw, he is also editing the same articles under 200.120.204.246, being just as harsh, and has not acknowledged the dual personalities. It appears he has been warned for the same thing over and over there also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is just absolutely beyond a joke. How are they able to edit without anyone stopping them? Is there a way to block him regardless of his IP? Iamthemuffinman (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends. If a disruptive editor only edits from a small IP range, then a range block is possible. If the range is too big, then the collateral damage potential outweighs the benefit of blocking one editor. Proxies are blocked on sight. But IP hopper socks are notoriously hard to deal with. If their master account is known, then a ban is usually proposed and when passed, their edits are reverted on sight without worrying about 3RR. Blackmane (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I can see there isn't a master account. The guy edits from an IP.  Some are productive but not always. The problem stems from any editor who disagrees with him.  They guy postitively relishes being unpleasant in those cases.  Is there an IP range block that would help here, before we give up on that idea?  Wee Curry Monster talk 17:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This situation isn't serious enough for a range block. I've blocked the IP for 48 hours, and will re-apply if he continues to attack others after the block expires. The 200.120.204.246 IP hasn't been used in 2 or 3 weeks, so should probably be left alone for now. Let me know if he starts using that IP (or another) and I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Anuradhapura Kingdom by User:SriSuren and User:Blackknight12
User:SriSuren and User:Blackknight12 are vandalizing Anuradhapura Kingdom and claim it is solely belonged to Sinhalese and Buddhism and deleting the Tamil and Hindu factors.

The following are the Tamil and Hindu kings who ruled the Anuradhapura Kingdom in the pre-christian era with other kings who may be of different ethnic origin but are claimed as Sinhalese by the modern Sinhalese scholars.


 * Elara (monarch)
 * The Five Dravidians

The above ruled the Anuradhapura Kingdom even before the Sinhalese ethnic identification was emerged in modern Sri Lanka, but are branded as invaders. Ironically they were from South India just miles away from Sri Lanka beyond the Palk Strait; but claiming Prince Vijaya who landed some hundreds of miles away from North India with his colleagues as a legend and the first King of Sri Lanka and who was subsequently married to a princess from the so-called Invader's kingdom.

Even the Anuradhapura Kingdom article appears currently one-sided serving only to Sinhalese ethnicity and not as a neutral encyclopedic work.

In addition to above, when I am trying to add details on the Anuradhapura Kingdom article based on the reliable sources of Karthigesu Indrapala, an eminent historian from University of Jaffna, the content is deleted by the both editors instantaneously. I need Administrators intervention against these serious vandalism on historical articles rather than discussing pointlessly at the talk page.Hillcountries (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Two things. First, I think the term you're looking for is "POV-pushing," not "vandalizing." Secondly, could you provide diffs of specific contributions that are problematic, please? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The problematic diffs are by User:Blackknight12 and by User:SriSuren.Hillcountries (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, having looked at this, the editwarring (on both sides) needs to stop. Now. Then you should open an RFC on the article talk page and invite editors at associated wikiprojects. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, you got reverted, now you need to discuss. It does look to me like you have a point, but you should be adding inline citations to each of those if they're controversial enough for an editwar.- Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * POV pushing is endemic in South Asia related articles, we have special provisions to deal with it as well but just on Caste related issues, may be we need to expand that. Kanatonian (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Its ironic how you guys use the term POV pushing, because that is exactly what I think Hillcountries' whole agenda is here on wiki. Trying to "Tamilize" as much as he can in Sri Lanka related topics and articles. Of course he is not the only one but it would be easier to trust his edits if he were to use or present reliable sources, however he fails to do so, even after you ask him.


 * Concerning this dispute, I have neither edit warred nor have I broken the three-revert rule. My edits are supported by another editor whom I have not spoken to on the issue, and I have stated my reasons why I have reverted and asked Hillcountries to start a discussion if he had further issues. However he has completely ignored this and the that of 2 to 1 editors that disagree on his edits as well as broken the three-revert rule, hence edit warring.


 * Further more he has skipped the steps of starting a discussion in the talk page, asking for a third opinion WP:THIRD or asking the wikiproject about the subject WP:PROJ, and has gone straight to the Administrators' noticeboard therefore not even giving SriSuren or I a chance to start a discussion. This is not the first time this has happened with this editor and I assure you it will not be the last.


 * Side note to Hillcountries' accusations as to being "currently one-sided serving only to Sinhalese ethnicity and not as a neutral encyclopedic work". The article is rated a Good Article and is majorly sourced, as well as being written by User:Chamal N an administrator. Had this article been one sided or POV it would not have received a Good Article rating.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I was expecting your bluff, I brought the issue to ANI strait away.


 * You say, I am trying to "Tamilize" Sri Lanka related articles but it is you or your colleague editors, are trying to Tamilize some article with some ulterior motive.


 * An article which I have created a couple of days ago as "South Indian Immigration towards Sri Lanka" was moved as "Tamil Immigration to Sri Lanka" by User:SriSuren without discussing at the Talk Page. If I am Tamilizing, I might have created "Tamil Immigration to Sri Lanka".


 * Your edit is supported by another Sinhalese editor and not by a neutral editor. You need a chance at the talk page only to twist things and not on the good faith of Wikipedia.


 * It is because an article was created by an administrator or an ArbCom member or Jimbo Wales himself or it was featured many times as good article doesn't mean, it is 100% a neutral article when it is falling under peer review over the time.


 * Can you explain the rationale for your reverts along with User:SriSuren though it cited with reliable source by Karthigesu Indrapala, an eminent historian from University of Jaffna? Hillcountries (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Side note User:Chamal N is a Sinhalese editor though he is an administrator on English Wikipedia; his/her user profile itself confirms it.Hillcountries (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Victor Ponta

 * further reading:

First, a bit of background. Victor Ponta, the prime minister of Romania, is currently going through a plagiarism scandal, accused of copying large parts of his doctorate. This has been widely reported on, both in his country and abroad. Reports on his actions have been published, as well as raw documents highlighting the alleged plagiarism.

User:Fsol insists that, in addition to media reports on the issue, we must also include two PDFs comparing Ponta's thesis to the works he allegedly copied. This seems absurd: we base our articles on secondary sources, and only include primary sources in special circumstances. There is no need for those documents in the article. What initially was a reasonable position by Fsol has now degenerated into monomania: he's re-added the PDF links twenty-one times, accounting for close to 90% of his edits this month. Perhaps some other hobby can be found for Fsol, one that doesn't waste our time. - Biruitorul Talk 14:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So he wants us to link to copyvio? No. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you only needed to point to to give background.  &#9786;  Part of the problem here is the manner of linking, placing these as if they were sources that backed up the text that they were attached to, instead of what they actually are, which is at best further reading material in this context.  Uncle G (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed it and warned him, commented on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And blocked for 48 hours. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fake articles created by MarcsHappyWiki
A new editor, has created several articles about musical albums, movies, etc, and and linked them into related articles, templates, etc. The articles all seem to have also been edited by an IP. As far as I can see, all the articles are fake. The links are dead or go to a different target than expected. Can an admin revert all this garbage en masse? Barsoomian (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Marshallsumter
Marshallsumter was banned. He has removed the banned notice from his talk page in what I see as a violation of WP:REMOVED. I suspect a wholesale revert is appropriate because the added userboxes are irrelevant for a banned user, but I'm on unfamiliar ground. Glrx (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He can put whatever he likes (as long as it is uncontroversial) on his talkpage, but the banned notice needs to stay, and I have re-instated it. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Per Banning policy: Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail. I've blanked all but the ban notices and will protect the page.  Banned users are no longer part of the community.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 10:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I necessarily disagree with your action, but that is a very liberal interpretation of "may be restricted from editing their user talk page". Perhaps you should propose a change to the wording of that text to "are restricted from editing their user talk page" if you believe that is what it's supposed to say.--Atlan (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I took the "may" fairly strictly, and just chose to restrict it based on their use. It wasn't abuse, but they are not a member of the community and using it as if they were isn't consistent with the goals.   And I only semi-protected the talk page, not fully protected it, so there is no doubt who is editing it if they do, yet they still have the option of requesting reconsideration there if a time comes that it is appropriate.  Bushranger came in and fully protected the user page, which I would agree with as they are a non-community member and have no reason to edit it.  I thought it was a reasonable interpretation and implementation, but I'm open to any criticism on it.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 12:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis is right. Banned users are... banned. They can't edit unless they're requesting an unblock. The talk page should should be redirected to the user page and protected to stop the continued abuse by a banned user. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Yaniv256 not getting a clue over Talk Page guidelines
New editor Yaniv256 started a discussion on Talk:Mizar system which he has transformed into an offputting mess for other editors, violating various guidelines in the process. This was explained in detail on his talk page but he dismissed the explanation out of hand. I then explained further and tried fixing the problems, but my changes were reverted (the second time without explanation) and my points dismissed. I know Yaniv256's a new editor need to AGF but the rate and nature of their edits makes them very difficult to deal with.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 01:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The report is correct, and I have restored the talk page to an earlier version as putting labels in front of other people's comments is not how things are done. I also tried to explain at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my case. The readers are advised that they are taking part in my execution of a Reality Change in the spirit of Asimov's End of Eternity. Yaniv256 (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And with that response, a block per WP:NOTHERE seems a formality. Welcome to Wikipedia's reality... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And invoking "Not here to build an encyclopedia" just because the guy is a little different is not very much in keeping with having a positive civil attitude or good faith. I've left the guy a comment explaining that Talk page guidelines exist for a reason and until he gets local consensus for them to change at Mizar system, he'll have to make do. After all, if people can firgure out a better Talk page protocol that works for them, I say by all means, give it a shot. But not until they have at least honored the existing protocol. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please check Yaniv256's edit history (and read Azimov). This isn't just about talk page guidelines. Still, If you think it is better to AGF until the blindingly obvious occurs, ok. But be advised that you are taking part in the usual reality-not-changing when dealing with 'contributors' who decide that mere communication is beneath them when they have discovered the secret of the universe, or some other paradigm-shifting techno-woo. Yaniv256 seems to be promoting something called the Mizar system, which going by its Wikipedia article would need no further promotion - the article does this all on its own. Maybe it is going to result in a 'reality change' - but I'd not hold my breath, given the fact that the sole claim to verifiable notability seems to be that "Papers related to the Mizar system regularly appear in the peer-reviewed journals of the formal mathematics academic community" - and such "peer-reviewed journals" feature Wikipedia articles largely written by no less a contributor than, er, Yaniv256... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'd also recommend a brief perusal of Talk:Mizar system: Revision history: Yaniv256 seems to have been holding a debate with him/herself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly do hope his reality changes soon, or I think it will be changed for him. --Avanu (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "It is fun to have fun but you have to know how" Yaniv256 (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we saw him pick up all the things that were down. He picked up the cake, And the rake, And the gown, And the milk, and the strings, And the books, and the dish, And the fan, and the cup, And the ship, and the fish. And he put them away. Then he said, "That is that." And then he was gone, with the tip of his hat. -- Avanu (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to reader: the book title "Merely a formality." is up for grabs. Yaniv256 (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please AGF and don't bite the newbies. I'm not a Mizar user but I have some familiarity with its subject area and with some comparable software, which is specialized. I've looked at some of Yaniv256's edits to the article and they appear well-intended and reasonably sane in terms of content, and though I haven't checked enough to make an overall assessment, the accusation of NHBE looks plain inappropriate to me. I'd like to welcome Yaniv256 to Wikipedia and invite him/her to join WP:Wikiproject Mathematics. Yaniv, the place to propose something like adding extensive Mizar links to existing math articles would be at the math wikiproject (specifically WT:WPM). I personally don't think adding tons of those links is a great idea but that's just me. In some cases where a formalization is really notable, like Gonthier's formalization of the four-color theorem, it's worth mentioning directly in the article rather than as an extlink, but I would say most routine formalizations are only of interest to formalization buffs who know where to find them. Also (e.g. in the Mizar article), rather than making 100's of tiny edits, it's better to do bigger chunks of work and write them out as single edits. You'll get used to all of this if you stay around. 67.117.146.199 (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but Yaniv256 put a notice at WT:WikiProject Mathematics many hours before this report at ANI started. The report concerned an incident over refactoring of an article talk page, but the matter is currently resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:The Shadow Treasurer
Appears to think that the requirement for a cite does not apply to him because he thinks those who question it just don't understand or aren't familiar with the topic. Explicitly, ""My remarks was based on my memory and I regard your remarks to be an affrontery as you were questioning my memory of the situation." No. WP:BLP policy requires cites to include--especially when questioned--and WP:V policy in general excludes relying on information that is not generally known to our worldwide readership. Per his talk page he is not interested in working collaboratively on anything really, despite being here for many years and receiving multiple talk-page messages about problems in this regard (NB: talk-page messages are routinely removed). DMacks (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As long as he announces that he either (a) is uninterested in any feedback from anyone, or (b) regards his memory as a reliable and adequate source, he should not be editing Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. I'd take this to ANI, with a request that The Shadow Treasurer be blocked until he concedes that he is as bound by Wikipedia sourcing requirements as anyone else, and that he is also obliged to communicate with other contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to show them my edit from memory: Talk:Hot_water_storage_tank. I created a new section, cited what I could find, added {cn} to what I couldn't, and then asked for RS help on the talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

First, this user is aware of this discussion.

Secondly, I start to wonder about the user's state of mind. The following are all from a single set of his recent edits. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quote: First of all don't call me TST. It's The Shadow Treasurer hence making the necessary correction to my name. Or more concretely, he's tampering with somebody else's signed comments so that "TST" becomes "The Shadow Treasurer".
 * Quote: Let me make it clear I do not want him anywhere near me in Wikipedia because if he is for whatever reason it is harassment[...] (emphasis added). Well well. Let's see an example of their interaction, described by HW as removal of material that grossly distorts the cited source. The material in question is The film is notable for a classic nude scene featuring Barbara Crampton and Kathleen Kinmont and the cited source is this review of Ebert's. Putting aside the question of what, if anything, it means for a nude scene to be "classic", Ebert's review does not say that the film is notable for any such scene. Instead, here's what it says about what I infer is this scene: the women go up to the good guys' room, make out for a while, completely strip, and then play the "joke" by pretending they have herpes. What a ton of fun. That's all. Ebert doesn't concentrate on the nudity, he concentrates on the misogyny and stupidity of the film. If HW's removal of this "sourced" nugget of fiction about a film is "harassment", then either TST is deluded or he has a Humpty Dumpty view of lexical semantics.
 * Quote: He has accuse me of vandalisation and that is hypocritical of him doing the exact same thing to me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is a threat to my safety at Wikipedia and I should not be the only one to be concern about it (emphasis added, and sprinkle "sic" to taste). In the context of Wikipedia, does "threat to [one's] safety" refer "factor increasing the likelihood of a block", or does it mean something else? If the former, all praise to HW for attempting to rid WP of fantasy; and if this leads to a block for the fantasist, so be it. If the latter, I again suspect delusion.

I've moved the above from WP:BLP/N. -- Hoary (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the worse it gets. In its current version, the article states Fraternity Vacation is notable for a nude scene from Barbara Crampton and Kathleen Kinmont. Here's TST in the discussion page:


 * That scene is only remarkable aspect of the film and therefore it should be included[...]
 * I added the sources from Barbara and Kathleen's biographies from The Actress Zone and it should be good enough as it did present their work on Fraternity Vacation in perspective. That fact stays in this article and it is the end of the matter.

So Ebert is gone. This factoid is now sourced to two pages, one on each actress, within "theactresszone.wordpress.com". Let's put aside for a moment our qualms about wordpress.com sources and take a further look at what these sources actually say: These sources (for what they are worth) may say that what's notable about the appearance of these starlets in this film is that they take off their bikinin tops. Neither says that the film is notable for this. And note that each source provides merely two or three sentences about one actress within the film; mention of Ebert, who devotes an entire jaded review to it, is cut from the WP article. There's also no mention of this review (conveniently linked to from IMDB), which is so bowled over by the "notable" nude scene that it, uh, doesn't actually note the scene at all.
 * [Crampton] landed a meatier role playing opposite Kathleen Kinmont in the sex comedy FRATERNITY VACATION. Miss Crampton shines as the ditzy Chrissie as she and her airheaded chum, Miss Kinmont, sport bikinis which they end up removing.  Not much of a film, FRATERNITY VACATION was a product of the times, thanks to the success of such crude humor films like PORKYS.
 * [Kinmont] had a little more meatier role in the college antics flick “Fraternity Vacation” as Marianne. Kathleen played opposite Barbara Crampton in “Fraternity Vacation” as the two lovely blondes discarded their bikini tops for a little youthful lust-romp.

Competence is required. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC) There is something odd, long term, going on here. Looking at I see the claim that "Phase5 has been harassing me everywhere I go and would like the Wikipedia staff to stop Phase5 from posting on this page again.". In fact there is exactly one edit in Special:Contributions/Phase52010, no deleted contributions for that account, and no such account named. Phase52010 was referring to edits like in an article that had nothing to do with Doctor Who and. That was in February 2011. In May 2007, we have against the nonexistent phase5 and the nonexistent michaelmanus. In December 2011 we have that people don't use User talk:The Shadow Treasurer without getting permission in advance. And then in April 2011 we have being. So it seems that The Shadow Treasurer has a years-long pattern of claiming harassment and seeing personal attacks at the drop of a hat, sometimes from people who don't exist. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As an editor who hasn't previously been in conflict with him, I engaged with a warning and invitation to discuss here (or elsewhere). Hopefully he starts discussing properly; it would be marginally acceptable if he just stops the problematic behavior.  Continuing without discussion would not be OK at this point, as I see it.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, if someone called you "Ho" and you edited the comment to read "Hoary" to avoid confusion with (c.f.), the old "tampering with signed comments" would seem a little much.  This is a wiki, not one of those WWW discussion fora.  Signatures aren't magic wands that make things strictly uneditable.  The more concerning part of those edits is that they were replies made directly in a discussion archive. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention that, Uncle G. An unrelated editor likes to refer to me as Hoar. (See Talk:Malcolm Gladwell, and its edit summaries.) It's his little joke, and who am I to deprive him of this? But yes, you're right, TST is editing an archive and signing without dates. And as you go on to say below, there are problems galore. Such "behavioral" matters aside, I brought up WP:COMPETENT because it seems that when there's a dispute and TST makes a clear, straightforward declaration (e.g. that source X says Y), he's capable of getting his facts very wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Stupid question, has anyone actually explained to him that he doesnt 'own' his talkpage and under most circumstances cannot prevent people posting to it regarding his edits? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of but not directly. I'll rectify. This editor's behavior is entirely unacceptable. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester  Son of the Defender  13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As a note, it's likely that The Shadow Treasurer is also editing as this anon IP: Special:Contributions/122.106.80.3. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester   Son of the Defender  13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/Phase52010 may have made only one edit, but was obviously a returning user. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of PJHaseldine for a banned editor who created a series of identities from "Phase1" etc on. The Shadow Treasurer's comments about the mysterious "sanctions" may be difficult to decipher, but I suspect he is referring to something that really happened. Paul B (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you're way off the mark. I finally put this little lot into Google Web and tracked it down.  It's some tiff from, and it is there that those account names exist, complete with the same  stuff.  It's a conflict entirely imported to Wikipedia from elsewhere, and, going by the elsewhere, the only sockpuppetry that we should be looking for is a  or a . Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I just suggested one possibility. In any case it was clear that the dispute was more than just the product of paranoid fantasies on the The Shadow Treasurer's part and that some sort of regeneration into new actors was taking place. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, this fellow's in serious need of a mentor, however long he's been signed on to Wikipedia. High degree of cluelessness in someone around for this long.   Ravenswing   19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA vandalism
Disruptive vandalism in this area is particularly disruptive. I've been blocking, deleting, and creation protecting for the past hour and a half. But I have to do something else, now. I leave this in your hands. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles
 * Articles for deletion/Israel and state terrorism
 * Sockpuppet investigations/MahdiTheGuidedOne

Block of User:Ciaran Sinclair + User:Archimaredes
After receiving this notice on my talkpage about a sock investigation, with the sock page in this state, I found that the activities of and  to be highly suscipious given their more recent contributions, and suspect that both accounts have been compromised. Someone else already blocked Archimareses indefinitely, but I placed a 31 hr block on Ciaran just as a precaution as the actions were being disruptive beyond that sock. I have no idea of these actions were in relationship to that Sock, and at least with Ciaran, who I have edited similar pages, I'm aware of zero bad blood, so my suspicious of compromise is pretty high --M ASEM (t) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  20:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone who has, er, issues with spiders, might I advise not viewing the content of recent edits by these accounts. Don't be like me and end up with nightmares tonight... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Checkuser needed Request checkuser to get to the bottom of this. They may compare data to confirm hacked accounts, a potential sockmaster and flush sleepers.
 * Checkuser comment: Both accounts' connections have been consistent for the previous few months, which discounts remote hijacking of the accounts. While a room-mate, sibling, or friend could conceivably have accessed the account, the fact that both have always engaged in bog-standard trolling and edited pages like My Little Pony makes it obvious this is a pair of GNAA trolls. Indef and WP:DENY. AGK  [•] 20:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Aaaaaand now I see which I am sure is tied to the above. Blocking that account permanently but fearing they're going to keep coming back... --M ASEM (t) 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Numerous warnings given; now continues edit-war @ Falun Gong for the 2nd time today. Never uses talkpage. Article is subject to ArbCom-sanctions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the user's talk page history and the fact that he was warring against several people, I've levied a 24-hour block for edit warring, since a 3RR violation is not required for an edit-warring block. Do the Arbcom sanctions impose 2RR or 1RR on the page?  Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nyttend: nope. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

From Articles for Creation/Redirects
I have been advised to post this here. Maybe someone could look into this. Thank you. 31.18.251.64 (talk) 21:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The declinations that User: Huon has are perfectly valid. It looks that after Huon declined your request to create Uship (which would be absurd, because the first letter in the searchbox is unaffected by capitalization), you went on some sort of personal crusade against Huon, eventually leading up to this discussion here at ANI. That's what we refer to as a WP: BOOMERANG. Nothing to see here. Create an account and move along. Robby The Penguin   (talk)   (contribs)  22:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the bitey reference to WP:BOOMERANG; the user only brought this here because he was advised to do so. Also, note that (e.g.) Nforce3 does not automatically bring you to nForce3 from the location bar, so the request was reasonable. --Lambiam 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am perplexed by some of Huon's declines. Redirects are cheap, and when we have an existing page with a certain capitalisation, it's never inappropriate on implausible-redirect grounds to create a redirect to that target that's the same except with no capital letters.  Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am aware that I'm one of the more conservative people at AFC/R and try to actively compensate by accepting some of the requests I personally consider useless. I would have created this one too, but was irritated by its previous deletion as a "bad redirect" - I missed that it was only deleted because the target article had also been deleted. So basically I screwed up here. Huon (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The land of Talk
Given my recent experience in your strange land, I am troubled by a question. Allow me to pose the question in the terms of a fable.

The Gods of Wikipedia crated it blank. They wanted it free. They wanted the Great White to fill up with the war cries and laughter of children play. So, they made it in their image.

And they opened the gates and invited us in. And we came. And we liked it. And we liked it a lot. And they smiled upon us and appointed the most thoughtful and devoted to the role of admin and made them rule supreme.

And then they were done. And then joy and hope flowed from the Source and filled the Great White with the endless manifestations of what it is to human and good.

But across the river laid a peculiar land. The gods named it the Talk and left it as such. But we didn't like it. We didn't like it too much. We wanted a forum, as plain as can be. But they didn't listen and they didn't see.

And so my question is this: Are the Gods blind? Do they not see that the only thing that grows in the Talk is a forum? And malnourished and twisted at that. Are they deaf? Do they not hear the suffering cries of the admin. Laboring day-in-and-out, in-the-scorching-Great-White? Are they impotent, too powerless to rise a hand and apply a patch to a bleeding wound? Are they indifferent? Ravishing shamelessly in the free lunch bestowed? Too rich to care? Or are they mad? Possessed by a thought. Whispering in the night. You wait. You will see. No one knows what will be. Yaniv256 (talk) 07:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That must have been Fable 2 because it doesn't at all sound like the plot to Fable 1 or 3. Unfortunately I never played Fable 2 because it never came out for the PC.  That really annoyed me because the original Fable was one of my favorite games.  I was once more disappointed by Fable 3 as I found it to be a very boring game.  It just goes to show that a sequel is never as good as the original (Empire Strikes Back excepted, obviously).  *Cough* You were saying something about talk pages being forums?   Sædon <sup style="color:#000000;">talk  07:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say something about Talk:Mizar system? If yes, what are you trying to say? —Kusma (t·c) 08:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP violations
Moved to BLP/N. -- Hoary (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Request to lift 1RR
I request that my 1RR restriction, that was enforced as a result of this discussion be removed as it was mainly enforced due to perceived baiting of another user's 1RR restriction by an administrator. I declined to recognize the restriction and got my block (18:43, February 15, 2012 by bwilkins) reviewed after which restriction was enforced by the community in the mentioned discussion. Now the other user's 1RR has been lifted and the issue from me can no longer exist. On the other editwar related points raised, I respected the community enforced restriction and never violated 1RR and have only one unreverted block in my blocklog since the restriction was imposed and it is not for editwar or 1RR vio (also the reverted ones are not for these and were invalid anyway). I ask for this because I've been finding it pretty hard to keep up the spirit of BRD and find my self reverted repeatedly by editors who do not follow WP:BRD and take advantage of my 1RR restriction knowingly. Atleast 1 of such editors got a 1RR himself for gaming my restriction and am currently being editwar with on single edit as per RFC closure ... (these are just examples and I'll not like to involve any one here for now). Based on this I can say that 1RR is no longer appropriate for me. The topic area is also about to get Discretionary sanctions apparently and the editwar issues by all users should be dealt with accordingly on their own merits whenever they occur. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm torn TopGun. On one hand, the ethical response to DS having their 1RR restriction removed is that yes, you should also have yours rescinded. My question is this: have you been blocked or warned for EW/1RR violations since the 1RR was finally acknowledged? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I've never violated 1RR or editwarred after that (some editors watch my every single edit, had I violated, I'd have been blocked right away)... I already addressed that above with a link to my block log. My reverts now usually have days between them. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it an arbitration sanction (which you should probably be asking on the WP:AE noticeboard) or is it a normal administrator imposed sanction? &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester   Son of the Defender  10:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First line of TopGun's request has a link to the original community support sanction here on ANI. 160.44.248.164 (talk) 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)← that was me Blackmane (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As Blackmane said, it's a community sanction, I'm at the right place. It's supposed to be lifted through this noticeboard. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * TopGun, would you be willing to accept a conditional removal? I'm thinking a probation where if you edit-war (including 3RR) at any time in the future, your 1RR restriction would be reinstated. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 14:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No conditions were extended to the other user (whose restriction led to mine), and as I said, my record is completely clean so I don't understand the point of such a condition. Anyway, this condition is moot as Discretionary sanctions are now applicable on the topic areas I edit; all editors can now be sanctioned at the occurrence of editwar etc. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the restriction should be unconditionally removed. TopGun (and this applies to DS as well) is a veteran editor who understands the difference between edit warring reverts and other, more benign, reverts and does not need to be explicitly warned if he gets into an EW situation. At this point, a 1RR restriction is merely bureaucratic overhead.--regentspark (comment) 12:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of restriction
For the sake of simplicity (and to keep this board clear!), I propose unconditional removal of the 1RR restriction on TopGun unless there are substantive objections to the removal. Unlike the restriction on DS, this one was made with community consensus so, I guess, it needs community consensus to be overturned but we can take a lack of objections as support for removing the restriction. --regentspark (comment) 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, TG has recently broken his 1RR restriction and he has had a slow motion edit war for quite a while on Soviet war in Afghanistan. I was not going to comment on this but his recent disruption leaves little choice. He is removing reliably sourced content from Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article claiming they are an Indian POV, these are western authors from western academic publishers. I cannot but believe if he is given the right to revert 3times a day he will edit war on a regular basis. Note as this will be brought up. I was recently reported for editwarring myself having reached 3rr in a 24hr period and have undertaken a voluntarily 1RR restriction. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DS, is there some reason for you to believe that edit warring on the part of TopGun cannot be handled through the normal process, much as, say, it would be on the off-chance that you (or I) edit warred on an article? The fact that someone is reverting or contesting material on an article is insufficient reason to believe that they will get away with edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 21:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * DS is an involved editor, and should better stay away from here when I did not comment on his request for the same. I've not editwarred or violated the restriction, however DS might be blocked for editwarring against multiple editors against closed consensus... the report is still at AN3. I'll not like this to be made a disruptive WP:SOUP that messes with the original request. Also note that this reply comes after I (once) removed the RFC tag of a restarted rfc that was once closed and was returned with a highly uncivil reply . As for the soviet war article, socks have since long vandalizing information out of that article and I made a total of three edits with quite sufficient time between them and then left it alone, so as not to even appear to be editwarring against genuine editors. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Yes, for the same reasons he got off with all his IBAN vios. He wins by attrition, posts walls'o'text and creates a smokescreen. You must have seen how he is acting on the article I just mentioned, tell me, is he being even remotely reasonable? He also just reverted an RFC I just started, give him the chance and he would no doubt revert it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not about winning, and this tells what DS thinks of the disputes. I avoid posting long texts at all and this is just in response to the current irritation of DS by the content dispute where he took advantage of my 1RR already and reverted multiple times knowing that I would not be able to revert till he was reverted by others. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry TG. No one is going to take this objection seriously. :) --regentspark (comment) 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wondering why would an admin like RP say No one is going to take this objection seriously when DS had a proper argument He is removing reliably sourced content from Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War article claiming they are an Indian POV, these are western authors from western academic publishers. --sarvajna (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Turnabout is fair play. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there are no objections to this (other than that of DS above). I'm removing the restriction and closing this request. --regentspark (comment) 19:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: I think so too. Justice007 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fair. The 1RR can always be reimposed if problems arise. AniMate 21:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support If one user has their restricted lifted, it is only fair that the other should have their's lifted completely. Besides, it is clear that TopGun's conduct as far as the restriction was concerned has been better, as can be seen from the fact that he's never received a block or violated it.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, can we please just block this bad editor already?
About a week ago, was brought up here because all of his edits violated WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:RS; and because he ignored all messages, reverts, and attempts to start discussion. Instead of being blocked (if for a few days only to get his attention), the three most recent articles he worked on were fully protected to try to get his attention instead.

For the week the article was protected, he went to Talk:Religion in Africa, asked why he couldn't edit, and responded repeatedly to explanations of and links to WP:RS with "but I know people in Africa," "people who have been to Africa know those religions are there," "I have been to Africa," and "This is wrong." It was only on the 22 (five days later) he agreed to try to edit more responsibly next time, immediately asking to edit the page. During this time, users explained WP:RS and WP:UNDUE some more, and he even agreed to try to only use high-quality sources.

As soon as Religion in Africa was unprotected he restored his old material, including a fantastic portrayal of all Indian religions has having a continuous presence in Africa ever since Ashoka sent a few Buddhist missionaries to the Middle East, using unreliable sources that do not even mention Africa. He had already been told on the talk page that those sources were unreliable. There was also plenty of unsourced material, as well as other cases of misrepresenting what sources state (for example, citing article stating that Sikhism and Taoism are expanding in parts of the world besides Africa to say that they have a growing presence in Africa). He also continued to cite Wikis, despite having been told on the talk page not to do so.

After leaving a message on his page explaining every individual point I undid, he goes ahead and restores his edits, once again portraying all Indian religions has having an African presence since Ashoka sent a few missionaries (despite the sources only mentioning some Buddhist missionaries being in Egypt before Egypt's conversion to Christianity and Islam). He also cites Wikipedia, even though he was told not to cite Wikis of any sort, both on the talk page and in messages to him. He was reverted again. He also continued to misrepresent his sources claiming that Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism have a growing presence in Africa using sources that specifically say their increasing population is because of increased birthrates in India and nothing about conversion anywhere else. He was again reverted, and asked to discuss the matter on the talk page. He ignored this request and tried again, with the usual misrepresentation of sources, misrepresentation of facts, and use of unreliable sources he had been told repeatedly not to use. He was reverted again, asked to discuss matters on the talk page, and he instead just restored the same bad edits, and only responded with "Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit." After that, no further discussion, [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Africa&diff=prev&oldid=504199557 just more edit warring with deliberate errors and misrepresentation of sources]. I reported him for edit warring about 12 hours ago, and the only response has been affirmation from one of the other editors dealing with Krizpo that he needs to be stopped, pointing out that he's restored the material a sixth time.

The thing that doesn't make sense is that he has shown he knows how to stick to mostly reliable sources. He knows the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, but still uses unreliable sources.

Any admin who says "content dispute," "WP:AGF," or "WP:BITE" gets trouted, any non-admin who says the same thing I will only be able to assume is either trolling or not paying any attention to what they're responding to. Krizpo is not a new user, but he is continually lying about the content of his sources, completely misrepresenting the presence of Asian religions in other parts of the world, snubbing all advice and discussion from other users, and edit warring to maintain it. He has also demonstrated that he knows what he is doing. The period of grace is over, the period of good faith is over, block Krizpo right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'm afraid this was to be expected. Blocked 1 month. (But I think you'd make this easier if you cut down on the strident rhetoric a bit.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Threatening admins with trouting if you didn't get your way was not the best way forward.  dangerous  panda  15:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, we admins could all do with some trouts, I'm sure. If Ian wants to invite us all, I know a nice cosy riverside place that serves them grilled under shady plane trees. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You, sirrah, are making me hungry for fish... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 16:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe if I was an admin I would find it less funny, but the trout threat was hilarious to me. That's the first time I've seen someone wield a fish as a weapon. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you, sir, are in need of some Monty Python!  Nik the  stoned  15:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I did it was because last time the only thing that happened was that anyone arguing for a block was attacked, told "he's a new user! you should teach him to work better!" and so on. Of course, the people saying he should be taught didn't do a damn thing to help with him.   Ian.thomson (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they were not attacked, nor was there a statement that "it's a new user...be gentle". They were told to follow the processes and that blocks were to be a last resort, not first.  The reason they're blocked now are because those processes failed - but we all at least tried.  Nobody let them "run amok" to damage the project for a week: nothing's broken, after all  dangerous  panda  17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what thread did you read? From the original thread:
 * "if I had 2 dozen messages from the same person, I'd say "who's the WP:DICK and why won't they just leave me alone...I'm going to ignore them". It's also possible they don't see the shiny orange bar." - ridiculous and self-contradictory, unless one is talking about a new user who doesn't know how to check their messages. Krizpo had more than enough rope to hang last time, the only reason to give him more was to avoid biting a supposed noobie.
 * "It certainly seems as though User:ian.thomson is on a mission to get editors banned here." - an accusation of misconduct without evidence is a personal attack.
 * "stop trying to pick fights" - says one guy who, despite not paying attention enough to be able to differentiate me from the guy who first reported Krizpo, asked me to quit addressing my concerns about how Krizpo was handled because he didn't care to read them beyond the general stance.
 * As Fut.Prof observed then: "we should also not bite and insult editors who are trying to do the difficult work of keeping articles free from tendentious disruption," which was exactly what was going on.
 * Nothing in WP:BLOCK says "last resort, only after a disruptive user has gone through all the hoops to appease the Vogons." It says that it is meant to prevent disruptive editing after a user has been given warnings and explanation (it even recommends using templates).  It says that it may be used to protect the encyclopedia from singular bad editors, such as when page protection would fail because the bad editor is not focused on any one article.
 * It is completely false, incorrect, and ignorant to say that the call for a block last time would have been blocking as a first resort. Krizpo had been editing over a year, and had over a dozen final warnings.  This was not a new user who people tried to block on his first mistake, this was a long-term bad editor, and to say "first resort" shows no understanding of the situation.
 * Good faith was assumed a long time ago for a long while, but no one seems to assume good faith from established editors when they find a bad egg. No matter how much proof is provided, people want to pretend they're the one defending the innocent new user from the BITEy editor, and so they defend bad users until they have gone through and found for themselves that they made a mistake.  Or, they don't bother helping at all, thinking they've done enough by just preventing a block that should have been made.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the above happened after a bunch of people argued that they had no need to follow due process. As much as Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy, process is important to maintain the checks and balances.  If the person had been blocked the last time, they would have had complete grounds for unblocking.  Instead, they were given some WP:ROPE and they hung themselves with no viable grounds.  Looks like a success for you  dangerous  panda  19:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

People, why is this again escalating into this kind of fight? This is not helping anybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)