Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568

I have also reported him to

WP:AIV for the same thing. --BlackAce48 (talk

) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When you encounter a situation like this, you should leave a talk page message for the editor, not just rely on edit summaries. And when you start an ANI thread, you should notify the subject about it. I've just done these things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I usually do, but I forgot this time.

talk

) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I told him that I reported him. And I also reported him to

WP:AIV as well. Should I not have done that? --BlackAce48 (talk

) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, user already blocked, but an administrator might want to change the block settings so he can't edit his page per [this]. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice sword. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, can you read/understand the

BWilkins ←track

) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked the account as regards the legal threat. Should they withdraw the threat then they might be unblocked by any admin who thinks that their subsequent personal attack was "heat of the moment" DICKedness. I would comment that indef is standard for legal threats, since it can be lifted as soon as the threat is withdrawn, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The editor posted another personal attack at 17:20.
    talk
    ) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Hoop!, something not ripe!, per this link Blocked user, that editor (User:Xxspirit4musicxx ) is blocked. any new link to show that he made another edit? Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A personal attack was posted after the user was notified and after the editor was blocked on their talk page. In situations like this, the talk page should be protected from the user editing.
      talk
      ) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

could you provide the link please? Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I got it messed up. They were both after the block. The editor was blocked at 16:27. The first personal attack was at 16:30 and the second one was at 17:20. Freshymail, you could have easily found it out yourself.

talk

) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the most recent "contributions" and that should suffice: [37] If I were a bettin' man, I wouldn't put money on him retracting his threat anytime soon. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • No restriction imposed on him editing his talk page, for appealing purpose. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked by Ioeth

This user has attempted to include blatant advertising/promotional materials in the article

He's been blocked for username violation and spamming. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a legal threat or not: "Retaining entries for Dobrian's opponents while deleting his probably violates campaign finance law and risks Wikipedia's 501c status". The comment was made by an

• How I read it, it's more like "you may be breaking the law" than "I am going to take legal action". I'm on the fence here, pending more context and the motives behind this account. MuZemike 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at that and the edit histories of that article and some related articles (There's a little nest of partisan political POV-pushers here, on several sides it seems.), it seems that a sockpuppet check is in order at the very least. And yes, that is a threat of legal retribution, made in order to sway an editorial decision process.

  On behavioural evidence alone, I have indefinitely blocked Hopenope (talk · contribs) straightaway as an obvious sockpuppet of one or both of Superiorsuperstar (talk · contribs) and 98.194.213.19 (talk · contribs), as well as for the clearly politically-motivated BLP violation in this edit. I am now off to file the SPI case. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, well, in the meantime I have posted an explanation on the accounts talkpage that WP is an encyclopedia rather than a news outlet and have different criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of content, and there is no requirement of equal treatment of candidates to public office, and invited them to clarify their meaning in their oppose accordingly. I also did not think of the comment as a legal threat, but rather ignorance in how WP operates. It may, of course, be moot if the SPI comes back with bad news. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• SPI cases:
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superiorsuperstar — case for the person(s) inserting the BLP violations across several politician articles, believed to be Nleobold (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdobrian — case for the person(s) edit warring in the article with a conflict of interest, possibly the same person(s) issuing the legal threats at AFD
• Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks for making

legal threats. MuZemike

23:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Uncle G, there did not appear (at a first read) to be any unsourced material on
  Cody Judy, but it's one helluva story and I can see how the guy might be pissed to see it written down! --Elen of the Roads (talk
  ) 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have a look at the edit history, in particular the edits by 208.81.184.4 and 74.41.224.142. That's undoubtedly part of the cause of the complaint, here. Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the anon's email address that he posted should be removed, along with revisions containing it. Since he's blocked he won't be able to edit it out himself, if that were producing some unwanted results. Equazcion (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy is a strange case: He's incredibly against plot summaries in any form, and is quite happy to edit war and scream about even the most uncontroversial-seeming edits, painting them as an attempt to undermine policy.

A few I've noticed in recent days:

• [40] Reverts "A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this larger coverage." to "sometimes appropriate". Edit summary claims that saying plot summaries are usually appropriate in articles on fiction "encourages bad edited against policy." Polls show that noone, at present, is willing to support him but himself.

• Template talk:Plot
  Huge amount of disruption by him, when it came to a poll, only he supported the version he had been causing so much disruption over.

etc, etc.

Polls have been done on these things.

Not sure what can be done, but I'd appreciate a review, because he's making all plot-related policy pages very hostile environments. It's come to a situation where you can't even edit an essay page without him screaming in all caps at you, claiming you're out to destroy policy.[41]

I have four FAs (I think the count's really 6 or 7 if you count my old account) on works of fiction where I was one of the primary contributors, and have helped on many others. As far as I can tell, DreamGuy has never even worked on one article related to fiction, except to try and get plot summaries removed or gutted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So exactly what admin action are you asking for? Maybe a Wikiquette alert or an editor RfC would help? (ps. I've notified DreamGuy of this thread) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is well known for trying to slip changes into policies and guideline pages without getting any consensus to do so, and, in fact, knowing full well consensus has already been demonstrated to be against him. I was not the only person to revert his most recent string of edits, but his problems with plot-related issues go back well into early 2009 if not longer, and he has always been reverted whenever he pulls one of these stunts. At one point there was serious discussion to try to get him topic banned from plot-related policy pages and guidelines. His attempt to paint this as me being rogue against other editors is yet another attempt to game the system. And the idea that I've never worked on an article related to fiction is both false and irrelevant. Thanks to Tim for having the decency to alert me that SM posted this. I should not have posted in all caps, but it's extremely frustrating to see SM make such changes when he knows full well that he tried and failed to make these changes in the past. It's bizarre for him to pull stunts like that and claim that the people supporting

WP:STATUSQUO are somehow "disruptive." DreamGuy (talk

) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This topic ban will do nothing to harm useful contributions, as he has none in fiction. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide precise diffs of the disruption? The first diff is a good start, but not enough yet. Dreamguy you clearly have several editors agreeing on the wording. I can see 6 people agreeing with it and no one dissenting. You haven't even engaged in the conversation on that talk page.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which talk page are you talking about? The only person I've seen on any talk page promoting SM's wording is SM, but maybe I missed one. SM made a lot of changes in the last 24 hours, so perhaps one part of it is supported somewhere, but we've had extensive conversations on all of this in the past six months, and "6 people agreeing" would be nothing compared to the 100+ people who weighed in earlier. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, there was a massive thread/poll not too long ago, which ended with the status quo being kept. (And I mean the status quo on the WP:NOT page and in the rest of Wikipedia.) I didn't notice this new poll on my watchlist, but to revisit this issue so soon would be inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The one linked at the beginning of this conversation. You made this edit [42], and there is this conversation on the talk page [43]. There isn't a single dissenting opinion in that discussion so to go in and revert the changes claiming no consensus is disruption in my books. If you can provide a link to the discussion where 100+ people agreed on the previous wording please do so.--

Crossmr (talk

) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And here he goes again. I didn't tag all the FAs you mentioned, just the most blatant violations of

WP:NOTPLOT say when you, by contrast, went into Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and added a whole slew of tags claiming it's all dubious and wrong all over the thing so it looks like a tornado hit it. You have a bizarre idea of disruption if my minor edits qualify but your graffiti spree doesn't. And the idea that I should be topic banned from "all fiction related articles" is just absurd. I can't believe you'd think that proposing that would do anything but demonstrate to other people how incredibly unreasonable you are being. DreamGuy (talk

)

He tagged an essay, you've tagged featured articles. Has the policy or content changed significantly since they were promoted? if not, then the tagging seems rather

Crossmr (talk

) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: That essay used to be a guideline until DreamGuy tag-warred with me over it. Hiding T 09:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be something of a running sore for DreamGuy, and while I sympathise—even agree with—his stance on many inclusion-related subjects, the way in which he communicates this can come across as unnecessarily pointy: changing guidelines or essays without consensus, or tagging a newly-featured article with a template that says the plot section is "Too long compared to the rest of the article ... Discuss the work not the plot." I'm positive that would be justified in some cases, but this was an article in which 631 words out of 9,744 discussed the plot—just over 6% of the entire article. Hardly unduly weighted in the direction of plot summary (and for context, that edit came in the middle of a good-faith discussion about the issue in the abstract, where I'd simply used that article as an example). DreamGuy would be more justified in his actions if he targeted articles that genuinely merited such a tag—ones that contain plot and very little else. His current approach is counter-productive and alienates potential allies if nothing else. However, all that said, no administrator intervention is required here; for now, a reminder to those involved that the edit warring should stop is all that's required. Please, work it out on the relevant talk pages, and respect the consensus when it's over, even if it doesn't go your way. Steve ^T • C 08:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is something we can do: As far as I can tell, he has no positive contributions to fiction-related articles, but has caused extreme disruption. Why not just topic-ban him? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite justified yet. DreamGuy's tactics give me pause, and I agree something needs to be done to get him to back off a bit, but I won't go so far as a topic ban yet. I suspect that you and I would disagree pretty strongly as to what constitutes a "positive contribution", too. I've got no problem with a tagging ban, though. He should either fix things or leave them alone, not scrawl graffiti on them. If his version of fixing things results in disruption, we can look at a topic ban then.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A revert limit may also be an idea. Hiding T 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Violations from what I can see, DreamGuy has violated Edit Warring by reverting and removing sections from multiple pages, violated consensus by making a claim about a policy that is not true and removing sections from FAs which had consensus as meeting all MoS and policy standards on content issues without seeking to get new consensus, has made many accusations of bad faith, impropriety, etc, without evidence, and is removing content from multiple pages in violation of point simply because he wants to make a point that plot summaries shouldn't exist on Wikipedia as a whole. The user has made it clear that they wont stop, so a block would be preventative in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like you've covered the issues in both fiction and the Smiley face murders article quite nicely. (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I too do not advocate a block at this point. It will be time enough to act if it resumes; perhaps the realization of how close xe has come will have an effect. Another such outbreak either at a policy page or at FA, or unconstructive tagging, will settle the matter, I think for all of us. Perhaps we can urge xim to start improving some of the nonencyclopedic plot sections, both the inadequate ones that are just teasers and the over-detailed childish ones--I would regard doing both as a very favorable sign. And perhaps to start with the worst ones first, something that seems obvious to the rest of us but which xe has not quite realized. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Banninated. — Jake Wartenberg 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on more or less of a not-really-contributing wikibreak kind of a thing do to work. Nevertheless, I checked my watchlist when I got home from work and saw this. Obvious sock is obvious (contribs), no idea who it's a sock of, but if someone would wield the banhammer and CU that would be just dandy. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for an uninvolved experienced editor/admin who is willing to spend a (potentially longer) amount of time to review the behavior of

Please note that this stretches back a good while in the talk page archives, involves an article with heavy POV disputes and frequent use of reverts and also note that this has been partially brought up (though we are both not part of the case) at [45]. --Xeeron (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What Xeeron has done in that edit, is deleted a whole section, of analysts, after he wrote his version in the summary. I want the reader to have access to the actual version, not Xeeron's summary. As per the Arbitration group, I did not want to bring Xeeron into it, but he came and accused me, leaving me no choice but to defend. I have extended an olive branch multiple times, and each time it has been rebuffed. I believe Xeeron's hatred of me stands as a result of my actions during the "Title Change" debate, where I used the talkpage to make my arguments, prior to doing any edits. The 2008 South Ossetia War, like the Iraq War and the Gaza War is a controversial article. As such, I require editors to discuss their edits, prior to making them. In his edits, Xeeron deleted a bunch of analysts, that he no long deemed necessary; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=317582338&oldid=317582123 this was done irrespective of the wishes of any other editors and irrespective of any discussion. I have been in arguments with FeelSunny and Offliner, over the same thing, as well as with Kober, Reneem, and numerous other editors. This isn't a policy that I only apply towards Xeeron, although, since he doesn't usually discuss his edits, it affects him the most. I have roughly twice as many posts on the talkpage, as I have edits. I expect my fellow editors to be able to explain the edits, prior to placing them in a controversial article and having these edits result in an edit war. I don't believe that asking an editor to explain his edits is too much.

In addition, I believe that Xeeron hates me. This has been clear in at least one edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results "The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins. As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" I have attached the link so that one can get the whole context of the discussion. All I did was notified five editors, all of whom previously edited the article, as recently as a few weeks ago, and posted the voting link thingy on Russia's Talkpage, instead of WikiProject:Russia Talkpage, which was a newbie mistake that I have admitted.

One must keep in mind that the article is a heated one, and sometimes emotions come to the forefront. I try my best to suppress mine, and I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone, is too much of a sin. However, since Xeeron feels this is necessary, I do not object, I only ask that the editor takes into account the heated nature of the article, the threats I faced, and what I have to put up with, mainly Xeeron's editing tactics, where I cannot question the edit, because it is an "expert quote", and therefore in no need of being justified to be included in the article. For instance, one of the discussions was about New York Times, where the NYT claimed that ethnic cleansing was a form of Genocide. For the act of pointing out that such an article, (written in an NYT Blog) cannot possibly be valid, I was pointed to

WP:Source

.

Despite all that had happened, I am willing to give ADR a shot. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought this is what RfC or mediation is for. In my understanding admins are not the right people to ask for such comments, as they are just editors with tools to punish people and may lack the ability to actually mediate in a specific case. Several times I met reasonable mediators who were not admins. (Igny (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

@Igny: Possibly I am not as well versed in wiki politics as you are. If this belongs somewhere else, I'll be happy to go there.

However, I have had to put up with Historicwarrior lying about me for a long time now. He just did it again in the post above: "I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone", is very untrue, because I did exactly that: [46]. Making matters worse, he repeated that lie here, after I already pointed out it is wrong on the article's talk page: [47]. To top it off, this very topic (shortening of the responsibility section after the EU report) has been discussed not only in the section pointed out by me above, but several times before on the talk page, as far back as April and several times since then: [48], [49], [50] (very end of section), [51], [52]. It is common knowledge to all active editors of the article, which includes HistoricWarrior. I can only conclude that he maliciously repeats his lie as part of his smear campaign against me.

The same goes for his "Xeeron hates me" story. I suspect that it is rather his hatred of me that drives his attacks, but who knows. He all bases it on one edit where I stated that I would not forget that he breaks

wiki policy

to push his POV (btw, his "newbie mistake" was to canvass enough people to change a vote on the article title that followed after months of talk page discussions spanning hundreds of post on this very topic) and on the fact that I defend myself against his frequent wrong accusations against me.

He claimed to "extend an olive branch" just a little bit ago [53], only to follow it up with a longish direct attack on me [54] which included the wrong accusations repeated above.

Unfortunately, this is not a singular incident, but only one in a very long list (remember his taking to calling me "Agent Xeeron" for a while? There are many more such cases). This has to stop. I want someone with the authority to stop it to look into it and to decide whether this kind of behavior is ok or not. Of course, I am willing to prevent a very long list of edit summaries, with various infractions, but I feel it is more fair to ask someone to read the entire talk page history before doing that (and it is likely to save time for the person looking into this as well, since most is concentrated on one article's talk page in any case). --Xeeron (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you are very good at provoking me, and then playing the victim. I have not been lying about you one bit. You blanked a whole analytical section, despite being specifically warned against it. I have offered ADR to you several times, and received no response.

Section 513: I have already responded to this on the talkpage. You ignored my response, and posting the accusations here anyways. Section 514: In that one, I am responding to shortening the Battle of Tskhinvali, not the analytical section. Section 515: this section merely placed the edit on hold. I didn't feel I needed to comment, as both you and FeelSunny decided to do it later. Setion 516: I am glad you cited it. This is where Igny states: "Apparently Wikipedia lacks patience. (Igny (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC))" I concur. This is RfC material, not instant gratification, nor should it be approving of you blanking an entire page by force. Section 517: Another edit from the 24th of March. So I am being punished, because I skipped a day of Wikipedia, with removal of a section that I worked my ass off to create, because I was unable to defend that removal. Section 519: It appears to me that you have mentioned it indirectly.

I do not have a policy of going after Xeeron. I do have a policy of going after silly sources. Xeeron has been promoting certain sources in our article, beyond their credibility. Whereas I have tried to stay away from corporate media sources, as well pro-Russian POV sources, focusing instead of neutral sources, such as the Moscow Defense Brief, which has been declared independent by CAST. Xeeron initially introduced Svante Cornell into the article, an "Oil Politics" major. Then he introduced Pavel Felgenhauer, who just happens to publish a book under Svante Cornell. When Felgenhauer was discredited by his own words, Xeeron placed Roy Allison into the article, who again, "miraculously" happened to publish a book with Svante Cornell.

Xeeron boldly critiques me for canvassing, whereas in reality I made a newbie mistake. Besides, the mistake shouldn't matter, as articles are to be renamed, or have their names kept via arguments, not votes. However Xeeron also made this statement, about the Eastern European Mailing List: While following this case, I initially did not want to participate here, since, in my opinion, 2008 South Ossetia war was only a minor "battlefield" between the parties currently investigated in this arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list Only a minor battlefield? In the same votes, 7/16 votes was "minor", whereas the motion was defeated 24 votes to 16. Without the lists "minor" intervention, it would have been a blowout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#2008_South_Ossetia_war In a second voting attempt, 5 votes from the mailing list showed up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move This is "minor" to Xeeron. My newbie mistake in posting this on Russia's talkpage, instead of WikiProject Russia's talkpage, is "canvassing". And I'm the victimizer according to Xeeron.

And Xeeron, you provoke me, I respond. The irony here is that this is similar to the 2008 South Ossetia War, where Georgia attacked Russia, and Russia over-reacted. However the initial attack led to the overreaction. You claim of not being responsible for the edits you make, just because they are mere quotes is silly. You using the word "fucking" on my talkpage is inappropriate. This wasn't just one incident where you made the thread. However, I see my mistake; I should have taken this to RfC right after your threat.

I extended the Olive Branch, and then I saw the edits you made and responded according. You seem to be ok with posting stuff like this: Even replying here, you can't stop framing all your replies as personal attacks on me. "why all the pretense, why can't you just say that you want to change the article's title to make Russia look guilty" Why can't you stop pretending to know what I think? I am defending the name that I feel is more descriptive and fits the article better, yet you consistently allege that I do it for POV reasons only. And you did not point anything out about math. You did however for the umphtens time is LIE ABOUT WHAT I DID AND I AM GETTING FUCKING SICK OF IT!!!! The "claim" of Russians outnumbering Georgians 2:1 was not made by me, not based on any math, BUT COPIED FROM A SOURCE WHOSE EDITOR I AM NOT. No math involved at all, just copying a statement from a source into the article. You know that very well and you attempts to protray me as being unable to distinguish 1 and 2 are nothing but an underhand attack to discredit me. And, FYI, I strife to make my edits NPOV (by only including facts that are backed up by sources and giving room to both sides) and not pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. --Xeeron (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) on my talkpage. Here you are in essence claiming that since your edit was copied from Svante Cornell, the article must put up with the redicilous lie that Georgians were outnumbered 2 to 1 by Russians. (In reality it was 1 to 1.) I did basic math to prove that. I do not think no, or ever, that saying 2+2 = 4 is Original Research. Almost every source you placed into the article, carried Svante Cornell, and the oil lobby's argument, one way or another. You even tried to make this war about oil. And pointing this out, is somehow an attack on you? Granted, I should have been nicer, but in my defense, it is a heated article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Personalized_edits

And now, instead of taking this to mediation, something that you never tried to do, you want instant punishment, instant gratification. I am telling you that Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We must first attempt RfC, as suggested by the more experienced Igny. The section you cited, was discussed for under 24 hours, and then you took action, when I didn't have enough time to respond. Considering that you knew I have worked painstakingly on the analytical section that you blanked, without even giving me a mere 48 hours to respond, was provocative. When I pointed out and inquired, granted, I should have been more polite, that blanking the whole section, that we spent pages and pages of discussion on, where there was at the very least half a page of discussion on each source, that blanking it, just because you and another editor agreed to do so?! I felt it was inappropriate. And I'm not the only user that you blindly revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Removing_Reuters_facts.

So let's follow Igny the Wise, and take this to RfC. And no, you aren't going to be able to blank a whole section, that was validly inserted into the article, just because you were able to make arguments about it that I didn't notice, or had the proper time to respond to. I'm up for RfC, are you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A very quick TDLR: Xeeron provoked me, I shouldn't have typed certain words, and for that I apologize. However, despite my countless suggestions, neither RfC nor ADR was tried with us. I ask that you try that first, before punishing out accounts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if I'm at the right place or not, but if any admins can help I would greatly appreciate it. I have a problem at the above named article with user:hippo43 regarding that user removing sourced information and factual information that has had no problem in being there, and the information is part of an ongoing discussion about what should and should not be a part of this article. Hippo has not attempted to join the discussion going on in the talk page about the direction of this article and this is not the first time that the said user has edit warred and attempted to start an edit war on articles I have been involved in, including Siena College, Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York. I am at my wits-end in dealing with this individual who has on multiple occasions suddenly showed up at articles and noticeboards I work on and edited disruptively. I need help!Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky is implying this is personal - it really isn't, at least on my part. Camelbinky has contributed to a large number of articles - I have edited only a handful of those. In this case, I tidied up a section which was badly sourced. I removed two statements which had been tagged ("citation needed") for six months and tidied up another couple of sentences to reflect what the sources actually said. As far as I can tell, the discussion ongoing is on a slightly different issue. I don't really want to get into a discussion with Camelbinky as my experience suggests it won't go anywhere constructive. Our long-winded and extremely lame discussion at Talk:Siena College took a similar form - I tried to stick to what the sources actually said, while Camelbinky wanted to add his own opinions. --hippo43 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell, Camelbinky hadn't edited this article for six months, before I made these changes today, so the implication that I'm wiki-hounding him is strange. --hippo43 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to address every single one of the spurious charges and get into a discussion with Hippo here, but I have indeed been working at the talk page of the page in question for the last week, so while nothing has been done on the page itself those of us who believe in consensus and agreement before editing have been busy behind the scenes. It is not helpful when someone not interested in the topic itself or knowledgeable of the topic decides to remove information without discussing first. As far as me working on a "large number of articles" I work only on a small narrow focus of articles relating to one topic only, New York's Capital District, and that is it except to help out at various noticeboards. This isnt the place for Hippo and I to just have another argument so I will not comment here again until an admin has a question to specifically ask me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what the point of this "Incident" is - am I being accused of something? Not asking for Camelbinky's approval before editing one of his articles, perhaps? --hippo43 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am little puzzled.argument seems to ultimately be over which of these two communities the college is located in. It seems to be a not uncommon situation where a institution in one physical place uses the PO address of the neighboring one. As they are adjacent unincorporated hamlets, this is another typical example of how a really trivial issue gets magnified into a personal quarrel. All this was back in May. The current dispute seems to be over a probably correct but uncited paragraph [55] that seems to have been used to support or explain one of the versions of the college's location. The appropriate solution for that is to look for a source--though it does seem the sort of obvious clarification we often have in articles, and whose actual validity nobody disputes. There's nothing for an admin to do here. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, what exactly was the source information here you were keeping? It had a cite needed tag from April 2009 and the

DGG said it much better than I could. Nothing for an admin to do here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Apology issued and accepted. No admin or other intervention required. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Marx01 recently wrote the following on my talk page (in nowiki, so the links can be seen):

You have '''''no''''' authority on this website. You '''''will not''''' tell '''my adoptee''' that if they wish to continue editing on the [[English Wikipedia]], they will correct their use of its and it's. I am [[sarcasm|deeply sorry]] that [[Homo sapiens|people]] are not as [[Ignorance|intelligent as you]] and make [[perfect|anything and everything]] [[correct]] every [[time]]. Please [[stop|discontinue]] to be an ''[[Donkey|ass]]'' and '''''[[get a life]]'''''. <span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-size: 12" ><span style="color:#008080">[[User:Marx01|<b>Marx01</b>]]</span></span> ^{[[User_talk:Marx01|Tell me about it]]} 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC) [[P.S.]] [[Hope]] [[I]] [[clarity|clarified]] [[that]] [[enough]] [[for]] [[you]].

Is this sort of behavior really acceptible? 71.182.220.102 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already talked to the IP about this. I apologize for my actions. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) IP, your message first edit here was not really productive, and the start of your comment to User:Cpiral was unnecessarily disparaging. That said, User:Marx01's responses to you were far from ideal, and he has appropriately apologized for his action. Beyond that, I don't see any sense in escalating this dispute further, and recommend that all involved disengage and move on. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

After the apology, I am willing to drop the matter. Thanks, 71.182.220.102 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the attention everyone. But, there is nothing better than one's truly favorite subjects. But for now, a round of Wikihol for all. It's on me.CpiralCpiral 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User indef blocked. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacquiao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another case that's just a little too detailed for AIV. He is pretty much a vandalism-only account. He started out reasonably, with poorly formatted but good faith edits. He quickly slipped into childish vandalism. Since Oct 2008, it's been nothing but vandalism, corrupting film casts, racial slurs, masturbation fantasies, and today image corruption.

He edits rarely enough that people keep stepping his warning level back down to level 2, and he never makes to final warning stage. Despite that, I see no reason for this editor's account to be left unblocked.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Clearly now a vandalism-only account, and not here to make any constructive contributions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC).