Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive822

(Non-administrator comment) FYI - you hadn't notified him of the ANI. I have done it for you. -

^theWOLFchild

20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

As shown in the aforementioned post on my talk page and this post on his talk page, he already knew that I was going to start this WP:ANI. He was well-notified.

talk

) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Having read through the links you provided and looked at the diffs when you mentioned vandalism, I don't see vandalism, I see an edit war between you two which is not vandalism. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

talk

) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've just protected Help:Dummy edit for three days due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good move Mark, it needed that. It seems that Nathan has suddenly taken exception to it, and wants to arbitrarily change it, despite established consensus. Along with that, he did template an experienced editor, warning of a potential edit war - that he was on the other side of ^(wtf?). Also, Flyer did clearly, and repeatedly ask him to not edit her talk page, which he ignored, and continually posted there anyway. She definitely has valid complaints here. -

^theWOLFchild

23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the other allegations, WP:Don't template the regulars may be good form and good manners, but in the end is only an essay and not an actionable offense. Also, I suspect this would hardly be the first time an involved editor gave another editor an edit-warring warning; it wouldn't surprise me if that was the norm. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

@

^theWOLFchild

04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's not the point that was originally made as I read it. If that's the thrust of the argument then whether Flyer's an experienced editor or not is irrelevant. Anyway, I wasn't trying to nit-pick or anything...editors not infrequently confuse essays with policies or guidelines, so I try to point it out to be helpful when I see it happen. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Well the thrust of my comment, was that he abused a template, edit-warred and harassed another editor, which are all policy violations ^{sort of}. Let's face it, no one cares about an "essay violation". Unfortunately, the talk of unrelated (and alleged) vandalism and a needless focus on the OP's seniority have served to be a distraction. -

^theWOLFchild

08:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I pointed out below (in my "01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)" post), there was no "[confusion of] essays with policies or guidelines" on my part. Never has been. Many at this site are aware that I thoroughly know Wikipedia policies and guidelines and am sometimes quick to point out what is an essay; my talk page is one example of that. Either way, just like

talk

) 12:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and haven't fully reviewed the allegations raised, so I should hope that my personal opinions on a minor subsection of this aren't being categorized as any part of consensus on the part of admins.

The point I was trying to make is that ANI cases are touchy enough without raising points that are tangential to items that are actionable. Whether or not you received a templated warning isn't relevant from the perspective of whether or not you're a regular editor since templating a regular isn't a policy violation, and bringing it up, regardless of who is doing so, only clouds this case and, as evidenced, is a distraction from pertinent matters.

I don't agree with the notion that any essay, no matter how well-followed, "might as well be a guideline". Any Wikipedia editor could post an essay expressing an opinion that, coincidentally, is shared by multiple editors; I don't believe it's appropriate or even a good idea to say that that escalates the essay by default.

For what it's worth, while I may be coming across as a voice of opposition, I do hope your issues are worked out and that the harrassment stops. Based on your Talk page discussion I feel you may have antagonized and consequently encouraged Nathan's negative behaviors (a better solution may have been to stop feeding the troll), but that would by no means excuse said behaviors. I hope the admins will take a more assertive stance regarding this filing. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that you are not an administrator. As for the rest of what you stated, I disagree, with the exception of wanting Nathan Johnson to stay off my talk page and that I am not to blame for his ridiculousness; this is clear by my responses in this section already. Even though Nathan Johnson has several or more administrator friends and is seemingly thought of as an administrator by more than that, and I therefore feel that this is why not one administrator has yet warned him to stay off my talk page, to me, your initial comment is what distracted from the more serious matters at hand in this discussion. And now it's a further distraction. I don't think that anyone who has participated in this thread needed a reminder that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay. Thewolfchild, as shown above, clearly understands why I brought up the ridiculous templating matter (and I obviously explained below why I brought it up). I will always bring up such ridiculousness.

I responded to Nathan Johnson how I felt he should have been responded to. It was not to antagonize him; it was to let him know how I felt about him/his editing and that I would not put up with his disruptive behavior. That I don't put up with such behavior (in fact, generally have zero tolerance for it) is not a surprise to a lot of people at this site, especially those who watch my talk page (which you were doing before you excused yourself from it due to my interaction with Nathan Johnson). You have a different way of dealing with such matters. Okay then. That is your way. Obviously not my way. I cannot take the blame for Nathan Johnson's behavior whatsoever. And as others can attest to, and as touched on below by others, he is ill-tempered and has very questionable editing. I generally will not take it easy on someone just because that person has a problem with self-control, and I'm beyond tired of certain editors coddling such people at this site...essentially stating, "Oh, it's expected of him. The opposing editor should not have tempered matters." There is no tempering matters which such editors; the situation is always tempered, just to lesser or higher degrees, because that's how that person is. If I want someone off my talk page, I will state it instead of ignoring that person; that person should then stay off my talk page...unless they have a very valid reason to still be posting there (such as my being blocked and that person being the blocking administrator who is validly explaining matters). I see nothing more to debate with you on this.

talk

) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And there is

WP:TTR, also. I should probably push that back into project space someday soon. DES ^(talk)

19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten, is there a way that the page could protected so that only this user's edits are rejected? Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a technical feature that would work that way, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Since editors have decided to focus on WP:Don't template the regulars instead of the serious matters at hand here in this discussion, such as an editor refusing to stay off my talk page and therefore attempting to force me to read what he has to state and to retract a valid accusation, let me state this: I brought up WP:Don't template the regulars because I see no valid and/or good-faith reason for Nathan Johnson to have templated me; I see Nathan Johnson as having used it to intimidate me and make it seem like his efforts to remove the wording were correct while my efforts to retain it were wrong. He templated me to make it seem like the WP:Edit war was on my head alone. I am familiar with his editing, have had past conflict with him before, and I know how he operates when it comes to editing. Every very experienced Wikipedia editor knows that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay, but it is an essay that very experienced Wikipedia editors generally follow. It's not the norm at all for a regular to template a regular, unless the regular being templated is an editor who has been registered with this site for years but is significantly inexperienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, unless both regulars are not very experienced Wikipedia editors...or unless it's an administrator issuing a block on a regular Wikipedia editor. Yes, I'm also well aware of DESiegel (DES)'s less-followed essay arguing why it's good to template the regular; I generally don't agree with that essay, as should be clear.

talk

) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who has yet to have a single pleasant interaction with Nathan Johnson, I understand Flyer22's concerns. Nathan's approach is frequently crass and when he thinks he's right about a guideline or policy, he doesn't hesitate to edit war. I've also seen some questionable editing such as adding a blatant BLP violation to the Dan Savage article. Then there was this unfortunate tirade. The bottom line is, if Flyer22 wants him off her page, he should honor it except for required templates (noticeboard notifications, final edit warring notices, etc.). If he can't exercise that minor level of self-restraint, then blocks are always an option. - MrX 02:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• My impression of Nathan Johnson is that he has a bit of a temper and tends to shoot from the hip. (See this archived thread from my talk page for an example or two. In that case, he quickly apologized and everything turned out fine.) If he'd choose his words more carefully, he'd be likelier to avoid this sort of conflict in the first place. Sometimes it would be better just not to say anything at all; earlier this year, Newyorkbrad gave him some good advice about avoiding stressful discussions. Having failed to avoid this one, he turned stubborn and declined to honor a fellow Wikipedian's request to stay off her talk page. That is disruptive behavior. Edit warring to remove relevant content from a help page he's citing when criticizing that editor . . . well, that's disruptive, too, to put it mildly. One would hope this could all be resolved with an assurance that the disruptiveness will stop. Rivertorch (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing all that out,
    Flyer22. Please use that charge with great care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it
    08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think there is a serious
  WP:BLP is utterly unacceptable, and I wonder how long it'll be before he falls through the trap door that is an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here)
  14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Without at all suggesting that Nathan is in any manner in the right, it would certainly be nice to hear from him here. That said, he hasn't edited for the past couple of days either. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

While he does have the option of commenting here, it certainly is not requirement that he does, for an admin to take action. As I said above, the OP has a valid complaint - Nathan did harass her on her talk page, did abuse a warning template and edit warred. She has every reason to expect that an admin will act on these issues. -

^theWOLFchild

18:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Without meaning to snark at you, you're not really telling me anything I don't already know; I'd simply like Nathan's perspective on the matter. DonIago (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No 'snarky-ness' received. I understand your point, but just the same, a lack of comment on his part should not prevent an admin from acting. And by this point, an admin, any admin, should do... something, even if it's just as warning and/or some guidance. Perhaps Flyer was looking for more (I don't know), but there's obviously enough here that there should be some kind of response. -

^theWOLFchild

11:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (but for me, I've lost interest, this is my last comment)

• Without delving into specifics here, I'd like to make a few comments:

1. editors have fairly wide leeway on the management of their talkpage. This can include requesting that someone "stay away"
2. as long as that person has been reasonably-well advised of that request, then future posts there can be considered to be harassment - and blocks may occur accordingly
3. the only time such a limitation should be broken is when advising them of AN, ANI, or other admin noticeboard filings - templates, etc should be placed by someone else, if valid
4. if you have "banned them" from your talkpage, then you should consider it to be a 2-way ban ... you cannot presume to provoke them on their talkpage and not permit a response
5. except where limited above, in ALL cases, templates CAN be used on ANY and ALL editors ... but ONLY if that template is appropriately used - that said, if you template someone, be aware that they're going to respond
6. tit-for-tat templates (try saying that 3 times fast) is fricking ridiculously silly behaviour
7. if you know based on previous behaviour that someone has a short fuse, think twice

Take these comments as you will ES&L 11:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Tobby72 is vandalising this article: [5], [6], [7].It is not political site but i added short info about current human rights issue, and this user started to vandalise the article.He is trying to prove that the Mongols are bad people but Russians and Chinese are innocent people.It is impossible to justify such serious human rights violation: 4, 5, 6, 7. Khereid (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• (NA) Vandalism should be posted over at
  _{Dear Celestia...}
  08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
• This isn't obvious vandalism so would be referred here from AIV. Khereid you need to engage User:Tobby72 in discussion, because at the moment I can't find anywhere where anyone has told them that there is a possible problem with their edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I added short info about the human rights issues (9), because human rights violation is continuing in China and Russia.But this user is adding irrelevant materials on the article.The article is about only one ethnicity, not about whole world.Khereid (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I responded with a comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mongols#POV-pushing -- Tobby72 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Khereid, I don't see what the point is of your giving wikilinks to articles with Roman numerals. Now, there is no vandalism here or in the other diffs you gave. On the other hand, your edits could do with a bit of explaining (like an edit summary, for starters), and the charges you make here are not proven by any evidence. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Can an admin move THIS discussion from the

It was posted here due to the SilkTork/Ahnoneemoos ArbCom issue, but I don't really have any objection against moving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Um moving that very, very long section to here will achieve nothing other than the section being closed very fast. If there is still something that remains to be addressed, may be someone could open a new brief discussion (preferably taking in to account anything learned from that thread) explaining what that is with appropriate evidence. And Caribbean~H.Q., Ahnoneemoos, you Mercy11 and the IP could refrain from discussing the issue amongst each other, at most perhaps including one response to the original request and further followups to be limited to responding to other participants. Alternatively, may be accept no action is forthcoming and let it drop. You could always negotiate with each other in an appropriate place over whatever the problem is. You seem either very very good at it (or very very bad but I'm hoping it's the former) after all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

P.S. While topic bans (or site bans) can be discussed at either desk, AFAIK it's preferred to discss them at AN. Particularly when they are the intention of the thread and primarily arise from a long history of problems rather than in response to a recent incident (even though you will usually also take in to account the history). AN does mention this: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: ....ban proposals ...". P.P.S. I've been wondering whether to mention this and have decided I should particularly since Blackmane said the same thing. Before opening anything further on AN//I, you should consider whether or not it's likely to be rejected due the absence of a

WP:RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk

) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I figure that if a RFC/U is going to be open, then the civility concerns presented by Mercy are more serious and should take precedence. The idea of the thread was not to "punish" Ahnoneemoos (and as such I did not want to enter into the whole "desired outcome" debate), but rather to stop an issue that has been spreading through several of the articles within scope. If a RFC/U is opened, I have no problem in participating in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Caribbean HQ, have you heard of the

WP:RFC/U, I could then contribute. Hopefully an uninvolved admin via community consensus of whatever, can then help this matter to a fair closure for all. Mercy11 (talk

) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't lay the blame solely on Ahnoneemoos. It takes two to tango, and if Ahnoneemoos had been the only one causing the massive wall of text in the AN discussion (in other words, replying to nothing), people would likely have more easily seen the problem with Ahnoneemoos's contributions. It's perhaps fair to say that Ahnoneemoos contributed the most text (although they were the one who's behaviour was most at issue and for which there was a topic ban request) or perhaps the IP. And you Mercy11 contributed the least amount of text of the four primary participants. But ultimately that discussion only got the messy way it was because despite the fact it was supposed to be a request for outside intervention, existing parties to the dispute namely those four I've already named seemed held extensive back and forth with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, you seem to be assuming that having a topic "closed very fast" is somehow not beneficial. What's not beneficial about that? Is closing "very fast" somehow inherently better or worse than having an item sitting endlessly without closure? I am sorry, friend, but your "very fast" comments above are not objective at all and, thus, quite elusive, and as such not beneficial to reaching any understanding. You don't seem to have squarely provided any resolution or alternative to my section move question above. Perhaps you could be more precise? Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing beneficial to having a discussion closed very fast because no one can be bothered reading the extensive back and forth between existing participant parties (from before the discussion was brought to AN or ANI).

The topic in AN will be archived when people stop replying. If you want, someone can close the discussion at AN without the pointless moving, but I don't get the reason why you need someone to close the discussion nor why you would have to bring such a request here rather than at WP:AN, when the discussion could be simply to left to die a natural death.

And I have provided four alternatives before you replied. Either open a new concise request probably at

WP:AN

; open an RFC; continue the discussion among yourselves (which is more or less what is going on in the existing discussion) in an appropriate place (perhaps one of your talk pages) and try to reach some sort of accord; or finally, just drop it.

I don't get what you mean by 'not objective at all' or 'elusive'. I feel I have been fairly clear. And I have no connection to any of the key participants I'm aware of so whether or not my comment was right or wrong, helpful or not, I don't see why I would not be objective.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the discussion seemed to be heading in a bad direction, I did close the AN discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mercy, I will not be baited into continuing a circular argument. The fact of the matter is that Ahnoneemoos is not interested in pursuing an accord. Not only that, but when one points out that he can't continue to victimize himself after a user posted to his page in a

drama sets in

(this coming from the same user that likes to throw "fuckings" all over the place when involved in conflicts and even questioned my mental health in a thinly veiled attack). I am not going to get drawn into a maelstrom of drama, that plays to his advantage.

That being said, I have reconsidered my original position and determined that a simple topic ban may not be enough, notably because the user refuses to see that there is a problem. Hence, I am not really interested in pursuing a partial ban on a RFC/U. Of note is that of the few third parties involved in that conversation that favored him, none justified his actions in the politics/economics articles, they only defended him from a complete ban that wasn't even being discussed there. Even in a stalemate, the fact that even those that favored his position admitted that he "gets carried away" is notable. If the MO continues, then it should be considered regular

disruption and then a RFC/U requesting an actual block could be argued. The ball is on his court. - Caribbean~H.Q.

14:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And I think we accomplished several things: (1) We proved that Ahnoneemoos has issues with various editors, not just you; (2) We memorialized HERE (and later archived HERE!) a historical record of Ahnoneemoos's violations into a single location and useful for future action (hopefully won't be needed); (3) We put

WP:OWN tendency have not gone unnoticed, won't be tolerated next time, and that anyone of them is reason for a RFC/U. Hopefully there won't be a next time. For the record, let me add the following quote by Ahnoneemoos to your "otherwise pointing to his "years editing Wikipedia

" comment as well, for it now appears that it is not only about his tendency to own articles but his tendency to claim ownership of editors as well:

[18]

With Ahnoneemoos's recent Declined history of his ArbCom request in the periscope as well, if

WP:OTHERSTUFF and pointing to unrelated ocassions when Ahnoneemoos did the right thing does not absolve him from cases when the did the wrong: doing the right ALWAYS is what you are expected to do to contribute here. Regards, Mercy11 (talk

) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, but he's back again. You know who: Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Background: in April 2012, Dolovis was blocked for six months after some serious and repeated gaming of the system, and general failure to abide by consensus, specifically when diacritics were involved. He volontarily (?) prolonged his absense until this spring. I noticed that, as his name started showing on pages I have on my watchlist, but I didn't follow his edits around as I assumed he had learned his lesson. There were also no new controversies (at least none that I noticed).

Now, however, after I have moved a handful (recently), or several (over time), articles on various Russian sportspeople to follow

That's all good and well per

As if that weren't enough, he then went on to place the same inflammatory text as a "warning" on my talkpage, adding as clarification to his previous response: "I will also place the above message on your talk page as notice to others that you have been warned about your page moves. Cheers."

Those with a good memory recall that Dolovis has had frequent run-ins with several editors here, and (disclaimer) I was one of them. Without being too paranoid, it's hard to avoid the thought that this might be an attempt to get even, when given the opportunity. It would appear that he is trying to frustrate and/or infuriate me with his formal, but inflammatory, choice of words – but I'm not taking the bait. Be that as it may, this is highly uncollegial behavior, it assumes bad faith, and I think he at least deserves a slap on the wrist for it.

The issue at hand – the notion of WP:RUS generally being in conflict with other guidelines (mentioned above) – I intend to start a discussion on with an RM. (It's not pointy, "D" comes after "BR" in WP:BRD.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Dolovis notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Dolovis: I replied to HandsomeFella's concerns on my talk page here, but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue, he has brought it to this ANI. HandsomeFella accuses me of not acting in good faith, but it appears that the exact opposite is true. I only became aware of HandsomeFella improperly moving articles to new names apparently based on nothing more than original research (i.e. no verifiable sources) because one of his article moves showed up on my watch list. It was only then that I realized that he had recently improperly moved several biographical articles, including

It's definitely not proper to "warn" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, then it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.

Your claim "but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – politely. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As further explained at

WP:COMMONNAME, I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. Dolovis (talk

) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

You're only providing

more evidence

that you're acting in bad faith, the latest example being the accusation of "disruptive editing" above. There was nothing disruptive in my page moves, that were all done in good faith (if that concept is familiar), following a guideline that I may (or may not) have misunderstood.

It's not that I don't understand what user warnings are about, as you pretend to believe. You're assuming bad faith and using inflammatory wording, obvious for anyone to see. I suggest you retract it.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Has it ever been considered that Dolovis may be is under a topic ban? "'For obvious and repeated gaming of the system, User:Dolovis is indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed.'" This may not be a violation of the ban, but the user is already on a very short leash. Epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this ANI does not concern diacritics, and even HandsomeFella admits that contesting his article moves is “all good and well per WP:BRD”.[19] The issue brought here by HandsomeFella is that he is upset that I placed a warning on his talk page about his improper article moves. If he didn't like the warning, he should have removed it from his talk page and moved along. Instead HandsomeFella has chosen to create a lot of drama and is making a mountain out of a molehill. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is true that I didn't like the warning. It is also true that I didn't like the bad faith assumption that was its very foundation, and was even more emphasized by the totally baseless accusation of "disruptive editing" above. When one approaches an editor in good faith, as I did, such a response is totally unacceptable, and such behaviour should be strongly discouraged. That is what I reported you for. Had you just responded in kind – with an emphasis on kind – you wouldn't be in trouble again. You need to learn quicker from your experiences. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a matter for ANI, but I randomly clicked on one of the articles listed (Sergei Akimov (footballer)) and there aren't even any sources in it. So Dolovis's rationale isn't sufficient for undoing ALL of the moves. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 17:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs)

From their first comment they admit that they have communicated with the user before. Blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@

p

00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously an alternate account, but unless you can point to an actual violation of

WP:SOCK (which posting talk page comments normally is not, unless it is to appear as multiple voices in a discussion) or unless there is good reason to think this is al already blocked or banned editor, I see no reason for a block. DES ^(talk)

00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Behaviorally, there is very strong evidence that the account is being used by Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I've just blocked him indef for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And why was Arnhem 96 blocked? And their talk page access withdrawn? No-one has pointed to an editor (blocked or not) of whom they are a sock. Their only crime seems to have been embarrassing Werieth, in the SPI of Betacommand where Werieth had just admitted to 9,000 edits under another identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley the edits where not under a different identity, Please review Wikipedia:Unified login Werieth (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And its not like I was hiding them, commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth and see the link on my user page. Werieth (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Just like Betacommand, you still haven't learned the grammatical use of "where" vs. "were" (although per both of your usual practice, you'll now edit your grammatical error to hide it). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor ([20]). Regardless of the result of the other SPI, this is a block-on-sight issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a CU been run on

Betacommand's accounts than we do to link Arnhem 96 to another randomly picked account. Andy Dingley (talk

) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

...apart from the fact that this account admits it ... I give up on this one and won't comment further. You're obviously not a stupid person, but if you want to continue to ridiculously defend an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user seemingly on the basis that they agree with you, well knock yourself out. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Well its nice to meet you too! i always enjoy meeting socks impersonating other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that this Formal Appointee person has been blocked, but would any admin consider revoking his/her talk page access too? S/he is using it to trade insults (and judging from the

list of names at the top of his/her talk page, I doubt his/her behavior will cease. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???}

09:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll find a way through their local library or whatnot. Epicgenius (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Won't we need a checkuser to verify that? It may just be some teenager that created an account and tried to act stupid. Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – TheDailyFlows blocked by User:Mark Arsten. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The templates at the top of

I started to take a look but it looks like User:TheDailyFlows has already been blocked for edit warring (8 or 9RR is a bit much), so I think this can be marked resolved. 28bytes (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may be a moot point, the other editor managed to trip 3RR, so we'll have to wait 24 hours to see if this request is still necessary. If the issue re-appears I will re-file as a fresh request. In any case, if at least one administrator can watchlist the page and the corresponding AFD that might help avoid a return trip here. I am truly sorry that this new editor managed to get off on the wrong foot here, he's had a frustrating last day or two. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule is clear, AfD templates should not be removed while the AfD discussion is open, doing so is a form of disruption even if 3RR is not breached, and can lead to blocks all by itself. Article issue tags such as {{tl|notability} and {{

refimprove}} should be removed only if the editor also edits to fix the issue, or if the editor thinks the tag does not properly apply, then before or just after removing the editor should start or participate in a discussion on the article talk page, and should not persist in removing if the removal is reverted, pending a consensus on the talk page. multiple removals without discussion can be considered to be disruption also. As to whether the tags belong, that should be discussed on the article talk page if anyone disagrees with them. DES ^(talk)

21:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the tags are moot until the AFD concludes anyway. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: In my dream world (which doesn't exist) every article that is at AFD for notability would be about a topic that actually is notable, and during that week the article would be improved with quality references that clearly demonstrate that the topic is notable and at that time - even before the AFD concludes - all editors would sing Kumbaya and agree that the notability and reference-related tags should be deleted. As I said, that's my dream world it does occasionally happen (minus the musical interlude). In this case, the cleanup templates will probably become moot as soon as the AFD concludes, as it looks like the article will be deleted in about a week barring someone adding references that others have been unable to find. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Can someone familiar with how copyright law deals with describing card game rules deal with [21] and Gkrsoft's edits. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified the user on their talk page that they can simply remove any copyrighted information. After all, nothing on this page is sourced... For this reason adding copyright notices "copyright (c) Ckrsoft" etc is not appropriate as such material should not exist in the article to begin with. It is unclear which content on the page the user is referring to. — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the editor is objecting to the detailed description of the game rules rather than a straight copy of text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that would not warrant removal in itself... I'd say

WP:GNG. — MusikAnimal ^talk

22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I replied on the help desk, no one can claim a copyright on the general concept of how a game is played, at least not under US law. The version of the rules linked to from the help desk did not look to me as if it were close enough to the version in the article to warrant any removals or deletion on copyright grounds. All that said, I feat thsi probably foes not have enough general

notability to survive an AfD, if anyone cared to nominate it. It was PRODed as non-notable in 2010, and restored as a disputed prod earlier this year, it seems. DES ^(talk)

22:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – You're quite welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please check if a larger version of this file exists in the history? It was mistakenly tagged as non-free, and, as such, may have been scaled down. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done, restored. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

1. She was requested to respond in a previous ANI thread. She did not.
2. She was asked to create redirects correctly in the future. She did not.

I would like it if something be done about this user once and for all, though I don't know what should be done, which is why I am coming here.

I have reblocked for a week and asked her again to listen to us and create articles and redirects in accord with policy. If she cooperates and indicates she will stop the problem behavior any admin may unblock without notifying or asking me first, based on your own judgement etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be advisable to look at the all the pages that she created, and delete all of the ones that look like wrongly created redirects.Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Gabriella~four.3-6

Could an Admin please look at the editing behaviour of User:Gabriella~four.3-6 please. They are creating many unhelpful articles and modifying existing, plain disruptive. I believe they have been blocked before for similar. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see the post above. Problem sorted :) Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Good. She also marks all her edits as minor. We really should get rid of that function. I don't see any purpose to it. --

talk

) 04:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to write a article. But Google news is shut down. What do I do? Tommieddd (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you have secondary and tertiary sources enough to create an article? Is the subject notable? --

talk

) 04:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It is Kirk Everist. There may be sources but where are the archive? Tommieddd (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tommie. That's a good question, but this particular board isn't set up to answer it. The editors at the wikipedia

teahouse will be happy to give you a hand, though. Good luck! Garamond Lethet
c

04:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Google News is running for me[23], as is the newspaper archive.[24] Doc talk 04:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@Tommieddd:

See this discussion on the miscellaneous village pump. Graham87 07:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Englishfootballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a sockpuppet of User:Newestcastleman - blocked yesterday by SPI has begun to edit again, could an Admin please block too? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

@Callanecc: Thank you JMHamo (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Noting that I've also filed an SPI with a request for a CU to take a look. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Alexandharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Alexandharrison has been editing Wikipedia since 25 October 2013,[25] and has created a variety of new pages that have been deleted.[26] I went over his/her last fifty edits outside Alexandharrison's user page and found most of them reverted/undone. None of them were productive and I reverted/undid the remainder and posted a warning on Alexandharrison's talk page. He has under 200 edits that have not been deleted[27] If you have time, please go through each of Alexandharrison's edits from October 25th to the 21:12, 25 November 2013 edit. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked for 72 hours

Six months ago, the user received a warning about their edits, to which they responded with: "Hey, Darkwarriorblake, suck my dick." (as shown here). The edit was reverted on 13 December, but BieberLover23 reinstated it several hours later (see here). User has also been instigating an edit war on

I blocked for 72 hours. There's adequate warning here and really nothing to discuss as far as whether the edits were in conflict with policy or not. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Block please? [28] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 17:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a conspiracy amongst Wikipedians (Jewish naturally) to denigrate the scientific theories of Ruggero Santilli: or at least, there is according to the contributions of User:Aabrucadubraa [29] and User:ClenserBlastAaa [30]. Obvious socks of the blocked User:ScientificEthics and his sockfarm. See here [31] for the last ANI thread. I've filed a SPI, but I think further intervention may be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked them. If the SPI turns up anything, we'll go ahead and tag them appropriately. John Reaves 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I've just created

books

} 22:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah - I'd added them to

talk

) 06:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

And before any of the above, there was another SPI, now closed and at

talk

) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This incident involves Vandalism, possible sockpuppetry and threats of violence. I'm not sure where to put this specifically, so I came here.

Within the past few hours, User:Tom Fearer began blatantly editing other editors' talk page comments on Talk:Retail loss prevention. I then noticed that Tom Fearer's userpage redirects to User:Camaro82, his apparent new username. Tom insistently undid my rollbacks, claiming he wanted his name removed from the page - no exceptions.

This continued on and after my

Again, I'm not sure where to put this and I personally have no idea where to go from here. I do not know whether or not this is an SPI/vandalism case with some threats of violence smoke-and-mirrors being made. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The person who last sent me a threatening message is an unknown individual with the IP of 209.222.50.200. Go to my User Page and click on the October 2nd 2013 revision. In addition to this message I have received several threats in the past from fired co-workers since my account originally cited my email. I have had not had an incident that was sourced from this website since 2008/2009 when I was last and active user. I attempted to delete my name off the (retail Loss Prevention) talk page due to it showing up on Yahoo and Google searches with my name. I have also submitted a request for a name change to Camaro82 which I believe might resolve the issue for me and with the users on this site. I just want my name removed somehow, I set my Wikipedia account up when I was my early 20s and had I had the foresight back then would have not used my name. Forgive me for the signature jargon, I don't even recall how to do that properly on this site. — Preceding

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Camaro82&oldid=575373310

I don't even know what this is referencing at all. But what gets me concerned is the KILL part, to me that is a clear cut threat as any. I have received emails from former employees who have been terminated by me and have had a similar vein of tone in the message. I take these threats completely seriously and as I stated before I would like my name reference removed. — Preceding

That seems more like a vandal's way to frame a suicide threat on your user page, than an actual death threat. Would you like your username changed? Epicgenius (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• I did respond to
  WP:TPO. Josh3580_talk/hist
  01:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)