Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive883

"In the opinion of the Court, although the material before it raises grounds for grave suspicions about what occurred at Vocin, Croatia has not produced sufficient evidence to substantiate its claim that Croats were killed by Serb forces in that locality in December 1991."^[1]

Does this mean the incident didn't happen? Even I don't necessarily believe that. But if the ICJ rules that it cannot substantiate it then should the article exist? Please advise. I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Thanks. Quis separabit? 22:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

How is this an issue for WP:ANI? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Just asking for advice. Like I said, I have already set up a similar request for dialogue at the article talk page. Quis separabit? 23:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I have been accused of sock-puppetry by user:Thunderlagoon in relation to my edits on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lois de Menil. This user has also taken the liberty of striking all my comments, on the grounds that I am a sock. I have asked that he restore them until such a time as he can conclusively show I am a sock as he as no right to strike other users comments unless the are in breach of BLP or are vandalism. He has not. I have looked at his account. Today is the first day this user has made edits. His account was created this morning. He has just added code to customise his user name. He had opened an SPI about me here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. This seems a bit inconsistent to me. While it is plausible that this user find his way to an AFD on his first day, I think it rather unlikely that the user would also open an SPI based on a very specific AFD he probably would have had trouble finding. I am asking that and Admin restore my comments to their former state as I am not here to edit war. I also would raise the question as to whether the SPI nomination was a malicious one and would appreciate an admins opinion. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have preferred this kept in one place, but I've added User:Thunderlagoon to the list of users to Checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vwikiv. Could we wait until this sockpuppet investigation has been dealt with, and then work out the striking/unstriking of comments based on who's actually the sockpuppets? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you User:Joseph2302 for adding his account as there is a genuine reason for suspicion when a 1-day-old accounts starts an SPI. I do not understand why this was not done earlier. I would however like the intervention of an as-of-yet uninvolved Admin and my text needs to be restored unless I am found to be a sock-puppet. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's all fine for me for checkuser check on my account cause I'm certainly aware of the outcome. Thanks Joseph2302 to put a mute to the meaningless war over a SPI. Thunderlagoon (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think your comments should have been struck out, Trout71, especially without a finished SPI and by an account that is only 10 hours old. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate someone with a neutral perspective. I am not particularly impressed with what is a highly unorthodox SPI being let go ahead, especially when it may be malicious. I am not a sock of users who clearly are from Asia. I live in Ireland. However there might be a silver lining. If he is not blocked User:Thunderlagoon can kindly undo his edit. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• 'I preferred sticking over removing for leaving it to others the reason for striking. All the Oppose votes were mainly made by IPs which is very suspicious. Moreover the actions of this user is bound to be more suspicious. I also stated that any experienced user is welcomed to unstrike if needed as already stated in SPI and AFD. There is no target of personal attack on the user. I have listed for checkuser which shouldn't bother the user if he/she is not a sock. Thunderlagoon (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this?

I changed EvergreenFir's original title "Canvassing by Guy Macon" to the more neutral "Possible canvassing" BMK (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Without looking very closely into the details, I will note that it's not considered canvassing if every contributor to a previous discussion on the topic is notified of the new discussion. It's only canvassing if the editor selects only certain editors -- those he or she believes will agree with their position -- to notify. Is that the case here? Did you ask Guy Macon how he determined the people he notified? Did you follow up to determine for yourself if that was the case. Did you, in fact, do anything at all beside come directly to ANI to tattle on this editor you have "little knowledge of" for an act that you have no real idea whether it broke a policy or not? BMK (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Look at diffs. 100s of article talk pages posted on. Posting here more for clean up than tattling.

re

}} 04:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Then it's not canvassing in any way shape or form, because every editor who reads those talk pages -- pro or con the issue -- will see the notice, which was properly neutral:

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no suggestion of how anyone should feel about the issue, and nothing about the notice which might attract editors on one side of the issue rather than editors on the other. You don't know how he determined what article talk pages to place it on because you didn't bother to ask. BMK (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your interpretation. I see this as canvassing given its scale and feel it warrants admin attention regardless of intent or rationale. I'll let an admin decide. If they agree with you, they are welcome to trout me for this ani.

re

}} 04:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any canvasing here. It's neutrally worded and generally circulated to all. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, my selection method was simple: Every page that would be affected (All biography pages that have "Religion: None", Religion: Atheist", "Religion: Agnostic", "Religion None (atheist)", or "Religion: None (agnostic)" in the infobox). I am well aware of our canvassing rules, and I wouldn't canvass even if I could get away with it, for the simple reason that I value getting an accurate picture of consensus far more than I value getting my way. Right now the consensus is going against my preferences by over 2:1, and if that holds to the end of the RfC I will happily start plugging away at bringing those multiple pages into compliance with the consensus. And of course I expect to be reported at ANI for doing so -- some folks are really, really into making sure everyone knows that certain politicians are atheists.

Given how contentious this topic is, I wanted to avoid the multiple complaints that the last couple of consensus discussions on this subject generated from people who did not like their favorite pages being changed in a way that they felt strongly about without any notice that such a change was being discussed. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I seem to be being stalked by a user called Interference, he is using his 'revert' power to revert every edit I made.

We have edited some articles the same - we are disagreeing about deletion of some new articles

But this user keeps using 'revert' on all the edits I do. Even when they are not related at all. Like this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&diff=659098213&oldid=659098140

I feel like I cant make any edits without him using his rveret powers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You know why I'm reverting your edits and you seem to be avoiding any discussion as to why multiple editors think your edits are in bad faith. Interference 541 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Bobbertybob is disruptively adding and re-adding CSD and PROD tags to articles as well as making fairly useless AFD noms. --NeilN ^{talk to me}

07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you just did this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lamont_Cain&diff=659105814&oldid=659105212

Can sonmeone help me fix the afd thing for that... and stop this person just 'undoing' everything?!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbertybob (talk • contribs) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not 'avoiding any discussion' at all. I will talk to anyone about any of my edits. What is the problem? Why are you stalking me? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your interest in deletion of

WP:DEPROD. Interference 541 (talk

) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bobbertybob_reported_by_User:Jbhunley_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(

WP:GEOLAND) as well as trying it at Lamont Cain but seems to have munged the AfD nomination somehow. Several users including Amaury and NeilN have told him these nominations and reverting properly removed CSD and PROD tags were disruptive. I have reported him at ANEW and I see he has just now been blocked at AIV. Additional disruptive edits can be seen in his Contributions. Jbh (talk

) 08:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Boomerang duly launched. Blocked for 24 hours per the report at ANEW.  Philg88 ^♦talk
    08:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever's happening here needs a mass rollback, aaaand, probably an indef, even though we haven't climbed up the warning tree with him. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Acroterion is on the case. Resolved. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, popups is still showing the rev-deled edit summaries. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not any more; possibly just takes time for the rev-del summary to percolate around the system. (And, with one edit, it is doubtless proven just how small is Lindsay's understanding of computers and WP.) Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This editor first started editing yesterday, and each one of their 5 edits has been either vandalism or spamming an external link. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They haven't edited since receiving a warning, almost 24 hours ago. As it's an IP editor, who might have already changed IPs, I don't think there's anything more that can be done unless they start making similar edits again. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I recently seem to have crossed paths with a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation. It all started when I corrected a link to a disambiguation page [1], standard procedure. This user, who seems to be rather attached to the article concerned, rather bluntly reverted this change, displaying a relative lack of experience with Wikipedia by stating the obvious 'It's a red link, it leads nowhere'. Thus undoing a correction I introduced, and relinking to a disambig page. I then corrected him by explaining why we are making these changes [2], being reverted again: Then we should remove the link, since it leads nowhere. Comment noted, but that's not WP's policy.

But it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page. There I got a longread of incidents this user has already been involved in in just the course of a month, being told off and corrected multiple times, even being told to let it drop, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a block, Please remove that personal attack, Efforts to build Wikipedia are never improved by personal attacks on editors, etcetera, etcetera.

We're talking about a user here who has a good 200 edits, half of which seem to have been to talk pages justifying his behaviour, and repeatedly telling off experienced editors on good standing.

On this occasion, I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice. Upon being reverted, the user came harassing me on another, related, edit I had made, and has been making multiple agressive and/or personal attacks: As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post, Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means and the latest See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice.

Now, my sabre has been getting rather rusty lately, so I am no party for a duel. And this is where I am no longer going to entertain the behaviour of this user. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to be harassed or attacked, not me, not anyone else.

On the counts of harassment, agressive behaviour and personal attacks, I would therefore like to request for this user to be blocked, term to be defined by the admins, although I can't see this user coming to terms with Wikipedia. I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user. Thank you, and regards, --Midas02 (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Removing and inserting redlinks has been always debatable, if enough people have agreed to keep them, then go for that. I don't see any personal attack if someone is telling other to sign their post. SamuelDay1 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly did not expect this masterful storytelling, nor did I expect the need to defend myself. I will try to balance out whatever has been said here so far.

• "a user who, in a very short space of time, seems to have built himself quite a negative reputation"... "it did raise my attention as to who might be making such, rather overconfident and agressive comments, which led me to his talk page"... "I seem to be the latest candidate for target practice"... The condescending Willy Wonka meme comes to mind here: please, tell me more about how YOU were harassed and personally attacked. His heading on my talk page reads "Agressive and inexperienced editing - again".
• The above named heading leads to a seemingly standard warning, except that it was Midas02 who kept restoring content in a rather pushy and aggressive manner, in spite of my expression of valid concerns, on both List of The Blacklist characters and James Jackson pages.
• What Midas02 is calling "personal attacks" are replies to his own aggressive remarks:

1) As for experienced, why didn't you even sign your post is a direct reply to the above named heading calling me inexperienced (he also gave me the wrong warning, but that's beside the point).

2) Show me the guideline that encourages links to non-existent articles. By all means is a direct reply to as an inexperienced user, please inform yourself on the guidelines of Wikipedia. Again, the pot calling the kettle inexperienced.

3) See, now you're just being difficult. You should really follow your own advice is a reaction to Midas02 restoring the content without any explanation for the umpteenth time, right after he told me that repeatedly restoring content in spite of another user's objections is not OK.

• As for harassment, I checked the disambiguation page and sure enough, the name he was battling to keep as a non-existent link was added to the disambiguation list just a few minutes prior to the edit in question. It doesn't seem like a good practice at all, since some of Wikipedia's bad rep is that people can add anyone to these kinds of lists and then claim their validity as notable figures, when in reality they don't even have their own Wikipedia article. Both edits are intertwined, so I removed them. No harassment there, as I already explained to Midas02.
• I am not even sure what to read into his last paragraph here: "I'd also like to suggest further investigation as his editing pattern does not strike me as that of a new user." One minute I'm a noob who should know better, next I'm not? Please help me understand what the heck is going on here. Thanks. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion, posting this on the ANI board is a huge stretch, and requesting a block is ridiculous. This stems from an editing tussle regarding a link (Jamie Jackson) that points to a disambiguation page. Midas02's solution was to disambiguate with "(actor)", though the page doesn't exist yet. After reverting, and conversing through edit comments, EauZenCashHaveIt's ultimate solution was to remove the link entirely, a solution that follows WP guidelines, and one that I approve of. [18] As I see it, the editing issue is resolved, all in a day's work, and there was no behaviour that even comes close to warrant wasting time on the ANI board. At best, it's a 3RR issue, with no talk page discussion, which is now resolved. Willondon (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(The user referred to is C1cada (talk · contribs)) User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The insults are overt and now that he's cursing at me, I believe it's time to report this here. This report is just a small extraction of the disruption and constant insults I had to witness and endure this past week. Seeing that he's new, I kept my patience with this user for quite some time. But he

I warned him over and over again to not insult my English, especially in talk pages, but he just doesn't stop. Even other users, such as Alakzi, warned him about the ongoing insults.

Some examples (and I mean it when I say some):

• Is English your first language, Étienne?
  • Looking at that, the question is within the context of use of "massacre," a word a non-native English speaker could easily misuse as it means a sudden, violent mass killing. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I have to ask you again if English is your first language, Étienne?
  • Again "pogrom," a word with Russian-Jewish connotations which grates when used in a Turkish-Armenian context. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language.
  • Harping nonsense. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is an issue for us at English Wikipedia if your command of English is not sufficient
  • Does not contain that language in either the editor or the comment. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I suspect you need to buy an adequate English dictionary
  • He's having trouble himself User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Étienne, whose peculiar mastery of the English language I should be the first to acknowledge
  • Insulting and intended to be User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• It is simply that English is manifestly not your first language and that does put you at a disadvantage unless you are genuinely both bilingual and literate (schooled) in the language.
  • "you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches" seems hurtful and is a confession of serial offenses. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I compliment Etienne on the remarkable improvement in his grammar at the ANI.
• Once again I have to raise the question of your comprehension skills in English.
  • A duplicate User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• I ask you to stop these pointy semi-literate interventions of yours.

And the more I warn him to stop, the more aggressive his language gets. Here's diffs from just a short while ago:

• So WTF is your problem, Étienne?
• I do think you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches.
  • Last 4 all from same source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been almost two weeks now since he's been

Elsewhere, the user displays a problematic editing-pattern in main space articles as well. He has openly said: "I don't need consensus to correct matters of fact." and has edited to that effect. For example, even with a consensus reached by several users to exclude the word 'pogroms' from the POTD, the user has made unilateral edits to the template:
Consensus:

• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

Unilateral edit by C1cada:

• [23]

Please note the timing of the consensus and the unilateral edit. As you may have noticed, the POTD template revision page is filled with his unilateral edits, much of which were voted against over and over again at the corresponding talk pages. The user was opposed over and over again when he wanted to exclude 'massacre' from the blurb for the Armenian Genocide. That's like excluding 'gas chambers' from the Holocaust. And after failing in that regard, he attempted to play down an entire genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead. That was voted against as well, but as shown above, he still went along with his edit. What's even more troubling is that the user then places the POTD template of the Armenian Genocide in the most important Turkey related articles and portals. He placed it in WikiProject Turkey, Portal talk:Turkey, and the Turkey article in an apparent attempt to

His post where he "responded, oddly enough, in gibberish in other languages [25]" is translated, by Google, "For the rest of it, once again (wearily) ... not import what. And what the fuck is this: Please Etienne, can we the Chat things before hand before changing the blurb yet again ...., Stephen? Talk up the pot calls the kettle black ... shit, an "blurp 'really." User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Riiii...ght, my French is terrible ... I think it's very hurtful of you to highlight it like this, Fred. If it happens again I feel I will have no alternative but to take you to an ANI on it. Google doesn't do very well on "n'importe quoi" BTW. It's the French colloquialism for our weary "yeah right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1cada (talk • contribs) 13:23, 25 April 2015

I will ask him, on his talk page, to not engage in insults. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrepentant. The

"Historic homelands"

, to the Talk page and there has been no dissent save this weird one from this editor banging on about Tehcir law, the duration of the genocide and OR. But there is nothing in my proposed edit that references any of that (it refers to events several years on) and it's thoroughly sourced from two standard histories. Small wonder I question his comprehension skills. I have traced on the Talk page of that article how lack of English language skills leads to significant error.

I have no idea what is with with this editor. He treats me essentially as one of the denialist weirdos who persistently post at the article and whom I do duty reverting. I could add a list as long as his, but can't be arsed, of his insinuations that I am a denialist,. He has accused me (giving him the benefit of the doubt in a passage I find hard to construe) that I am undermining the article by supporting the Ottoman genocide, or something to that effect. He sees fit to remind me that I "may" be blocked for not observing the 1R rule in place there, though in fact I never engage in edit warring anywhere in my edits and haven't come close to reverting twice in a 24 period. c1cada (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is becoming a public forum. This is not what Wikipedia was intended to be for, @

assume good faith. --92slim (talk

) 13:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that, Slim. One reason it's becoming a public forum is that Étienne unilaterally did away with

WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I can sense that Étienne is frustrated with my lively chat, but that's not because it's insulting as such but ... erm, well let's put it this way: I have quite good Russian and from time to time venture an edit on their wiki (which is absolutely excellent incidentally). But suppose I was to edit in some contentious area, say the Ukraine issue. I'm pretty sure I would be taken to the cleaners on their Talk page in short order and would just not be able to cope with their more forthright users, who can be very forthright indeed, and would quickly feel frustrated and aggrieved. Regarding the "Post War Massacres" edit I made, I gave 72 hours notice I intended to provide one and I explicitly invited you to provide it before me. I don't call that being a diva as some grump or other suggested to me on the other ANI, of which I happen to know an honest to goodness Russian one rather well as it happens (sdras!). c1cada (talk

) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Etienne did not "unilaterally do away" with

reliable sources to back your claims. This is where you'd like to start, in order to be taken seriously. --92slim (talk

) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

He did so with his reverts. What is it that you thinks needs citing at

Massacres after Wordl War I? It's meticulously cited. I remind you that Armenian genocide failed a Good Article nomination because of copy edit and citation deficiencies. My edit sets a standard. As for your latest remark on the Talk page, I answered there. c1cada (talk

) 17:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Modified by motion:

"The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the

Standard discretionary sanctions

are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.

Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.

Passed 10 to 1 on 05:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)" User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Guidance for editors

";Decorum Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted; and may remove statements, or restrict or block editors, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct." So what is an appropriate remedy? However, "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." From the way he is acting it seems User:C1cada is not aware that discretionary sanctions cover Insults and personal attacks. Therefore Template:Ds/alert needs to be placed on his talk page. Which I will do once I figure out how to format it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Done User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, this guy has made some pretty nasty slurs on me in the past week or so - namely that I insert into Wikipedia information that is either unverified, or misrepresents a source. Despite numerous requests, he's declined to either provide evidence or retract the accusations, and has instead just terminated our interaction with the words "we're done here, now fuck off". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&oldid=659058143 Which in fairness is at least consistent, it's basically the same sentiment I detected from our very first encounter. You can see the version of the article he's referring to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gunther_Holtorf&oldid=656850534, and the source I've supposedly misrepresented here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html I have a ton of other issues with this guy (Civil, Assume Good Faith), but I've seen enough disinterest from others to know I'd be wasting my time airing them. But given the basic purpose of this website (collation and presentation of sources), I think I'm entitled to resolution one way or the other on these specific two charges.

Some of User:Mighty Morphin Army Ranger's edits on Gunther Holtorf: [26], [27], [28]- not many of these seem very helpful.

Your blocks here are basically just complaining that the article was bad, and completely ignoring the disruption highlighted above, and claiming that "I can no longer assume good faith".

Your current userpage is calling Wikipedia a waste of space.

Your posts on their talkpage here are non-civil and claiming they are a jerk.

All this evidence points to one unhelpful editor, you. I'd recommend a

WP:BOOMERANG. Joseph2302 (talk

) 01:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

My experiences with Drmies have shown him to be a fair, thoughtful, and incredibly patient administrator who is willing to help editors when they ask. You engaged him on his talk page, he responded several times, and then you exhausted his patience at which point this occurred [29]. If you've exhausted Drmies patience to the point of where he tells you to 'fuck off', you crossed a line you never should have gone over. From what I can see,

WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate where you and this report are concerned, Mighty Morphin Army Ranger. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

01:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Someone should take Gunther Holtorf to AfD. BMK (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the book he's written, the article subject seems to have received enough coverage worldwide to meet

WP:GNG. The article, however, is pretty poorly written and at this time relies on only one source. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

02:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Of Ranger's edits, the following demonstrate

WP:DRAMA

:

• "Seriously, is this a joke? Is this how you usually treat people who put HOURS of their night into improving articles here?" - Nevermind the years of work others have done around here, their experience isn't needed.
• After being blocked Ranger started to get it and even admitted "I don't have a fucking clue how to do it," and yet refused any offer for help, saying "This isn't an encyclopedia, it's a politics club." He descended into wikilawyering and posting pointless walls of text and out of context guidelines, eventually exemplifying
  WP:NOTTHEM
  .
• Ranger was clearly keeping up with what was going on on Drmies page, but interpretted what could be a mistake (given that the name is a clear play on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers) as a personal attack, which is just plain hypocritical given his attitude and continued overt personal attacks.
• He eventually backtracks on his admission that he didn't know how to do references, claiming that it was obvious that he was citing an existing source, despite never mentioning it.
• "If Bbb23 is unwilling to move this appeal along... I'm afraid I can no longer Assume Good Faith"
• Admitting he has no interest in working on anything else on the encyclopedia - Normally, I don't have any problem with someone who creates an account to make a single change and not bother with anything else. When that single change becomes a week-long temper tantrum, that's just disruptive editing.
• Rejecting any attempt by Drmies to end the issue.
• Creating a user page that is nothing but complaining about another user.
• Starting this thread.
• Other posts hostilely addressing or referring to Drmies: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

That's about thirty links right there to problematic posts, out of (as of this post) 48 user talk page edits. Notable posts that do not address, mention, or reference Drmies include:

• confusion that the admins haven't immediately dropped everything they're doing to address him specifically
• taking a general statement about Wikipedia not being used for promotion way too personally

Could Drmies have been clearer and more professional in explaining reversions? Sure. Did Drmies actually violate

willing

to contributing to the encyclopedia in a mature and civil manner?

TL;DR: Mighty Morphin Army Ranger is

doesn't have the required patience. Ian.thomson (talk

) 02:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple editors have recommended that you drop this. You keep ignoring this advice. More editors keep recommending you just move on. If everyone kept pointing out that you were on fire and recommended that you let them pour water on you, would you start arguing that it was actually quite chilly and don't want to get a cold? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If a fireman accused you of arson, then refused your requests for evidence, then eventually told you to fuck off, would you care one bit how many other people told you to drop it, when it was as plain as the nose on your face that not one of them was remotely interested in whether or not the accusation was true, they just think the fireman was a stand up guy, and any misunderstanding between you two is of course entirely your fault? Is that really how you conduct yourself here? Is that how little self-respect you have? Or is it more the case that you're only saying these things because you've not really considered it from my side at all?

• Smelling a mighty strong whiff of
  uncivil behavior and inability to edit collaboratively. This ANI is just the latest in a long line of aggressive and disruptive postings. Softlavender (talk
  ) 02:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And considering he's got this long list even though all the time he hasn't been blocked adds up to less than a day? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention how I kick puppies too. This is ridiculous. I might as well put on an auto-reply, people are just repeating things I've already responded to, without even bothering to consider my earlier replies to the exact same things. Is that Civil? Acting like I'm not even here? I know it's not, as I've read the page many times these past few days. And how can someone who has written, and then re-written, and entire article, not be here to "build an encyclopedia"? If anyone wonders why the above is my "sole participation on Wikipedia", then I have to wonder if you possess the competence to judge me at all. I came here to improve that article, which was pure dogshit when I found it. I then spent a week blocked. When that expired, since nobody else had done so, I rewrote it, rather than leave it in the shitty state it had yet again been returned to, for reasons completely unknown, and never explained. I have spent precisely two days on Wikipedia not restricted to my own talk page, yet the way people are talking here, I'm supposed to have written articles on umpteen subjects? As well as arriving as the perfect editor, fully conversant in all policies, and prepared not to get upset if other people he encounters do not appear to have the same level of competence. What level of competence is it, to be still telling people to fuck off even after being here years? Or is that the reason for it? Do you all after a certain time stop even caring that it's not Civil, and instead as we see here, rely on your socio-political connections to ensure other editors will come and 'deploy a boomerang' on anyone who dares challenge your right to act that way, should you tire of being asked for evidence to back up your false accusations?

Proposal: Block Mighty Morphin Army Ranger

Proposal: Block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, length to be decided by uninvolved admin or community consensus. Note: Has already had a one-week block which apparently didn't work and resulted in only further aggression and disruption. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Mighty Morphin Army Ranger, as proposer. Softlavender (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support defined month-long block - Against better judgement, I'm for giving
  WP:ROPE here. He did initially come here to help, he just utterly failed at playing well with others. Ian.thomson (talk
  ) 03:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Changed to month long, following Winkelvi. I do think that if he continually complains via hasty unblock requests (as he did last time), we might want (if possible) to revoke talk page access for a day, then a week, and then two weeks, before making the block (and revoked access) indefinite -- to make sure he gets the point that we don't support such hostility and help him focus on learning about the site before diving back in. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support month-long block - Time enough to cool down a bit, lose the aggressive
  battleground mentality, perhaps take more time to look around at well-written articles, find some other articles to edit, read up on policy and guidelines, and the like. Such a block would be truly preventative and not punishing. I say give the guy another chance. If he's truly hell-bent on being disruptive, it will become apparent soon after the month block and the correct measures can be doled out. If not, he should be given a chance to be a productive contributor. -- WV ● ✉ ✓
  03:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ridiculous. The block was for disruption of the article, so how did it not work? Unless rewriting the article is disruptive? Since all I have done since the block is rewrite the article and file this complaint report, then any new block would be for one thing, and one thing only - for requesting Drmies be held accountable for his false accusations. Anyone who blocks me, is basically saying he can do what he likes. He can accuse anyone, of anything, and he can even tell them to fuck off if they don't like it.
  talk
  ) 03:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[42]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support lengthy block. I can never get back the time I wasted reading this "editor's" combative, lengthy explanations for why they freaked out and how much they hate evil Drmies. This person is either a troll or utterly incapable of collaborating with others to build an encyclopedia. Time sink. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm neither, but thanks for your feedback. I look forward to the day when you find yourself in a similar situation, and I get to see how you collaborate your way out of it. I actually came here for serious consideration of a serious issue. More fool me.
  talk
  ) 04:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I've got nearly six years of productive editing here with minimal conflicts. Maybe that's because I brush chips off my shoulder, instead of enshrining them on my shoulder with SuperGlue. Also because I make improving the encyclopedia my first priority, as opposed to pursuing trivial vendettas. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not buying it for a second. Either this is not a true recollection of how you collaborate with others (bearing in mind my experience is where you would have been 6 years ago), or you've never been put in this situation before and therefore don't really know how you would react. If your first priority is the encyclopedia, I doubt you'd so easily ignore accusations of this type, since if anyone actually believed they were true, they'd never let you add anything to an article.
  talk
  ) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support block of whatever length the closing admin sees as the consensus. (Because the OP admits to kicking puppies) BMK (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support month-long block Drmies (who I might add MMAR, is a woman) told them to
  chatter
  ) 04:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies is not a woman. They are anthropomorphic, no, that's not right, androgynous, no, ambiguous, ambidextrous?, ambivalent ... well, that will do for now unless Drmies wants to add better words.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Drmies is Drmies. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Bah, my apologies. They are who they are then and I did not mean to offend.

chatter

) 05:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, Drmies would probably be pleased. Ian summed it up best.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• So, two messages on a talk page is harassment is it? Come off it. Some of you aren't even trying to pretend you've looked at what went on. If all it takes for Drmies to swear, is to be asked twice, the second time incredibly politely given her continued provocation, why they were making these false accusations and where their evidence was for them, then their talk page must be like a sewer. But it's not. So what was it about this situation that made them lose their top? I'd like an actual answer here, one that makes sense, if I'm going to be credited with pushing an apparent saint over the edge, someone who is always polite and respectful. I'd also like to remind people that this all started with the way they approached me, and the way they continued to treat me. I'm not an asshole, if there had been at any time, even a hint that they had realised they were being disrespectful and were trying to row back, then I would probably have calmed down as well. But no, every single post from them has contained some element of untruth, mockery or sarcasm. Whoever the person is you people get to deal with and find perfectly reasonable, it definitely isn't the same Drmies I've have to deal with. I suspect (and have even read) that a lot of you don't think they're perfectly reasonable at all, that this 'edge' they have is there, and is perfectly normal. Well, check your rules again, the 'edge' in this case is downright against the rules. You do not get to accuse people of these things, then ignore them, then tell them to fuck off. It's a simple as that. Your various personal experiences to the contrary don't magically negate the basic truth of that assessment.
  talk
  ) 05:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)