Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:28, 22 October 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Editor pursuing feud

On October 3, an IP address editor made a good faith edit to the infobox in Shining Force II which I reverted the following day with an explanation. User: SudoGhost reverted the edit with a summary contradicting my rationale, so I looked up the infobox documentation to see what exactly is supposed to be included in the relevant infobox field. The documentation is unclear, so I posted at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games asking if there was a consensus on the matter. Unfortunately, I only got two replies and no indication that there was a preexisting consensus. So on October 10 I reverted SudoGhost's edit with a summary linking him to the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games topic I'd started for further discussion.

SudoGhost did begin posting in the topic; however, he also immediately commenced edit warring on Shining Force II. Assuming that he was simply unfamiliar with WP policies on edit conflicts, I reverted his edit with a summary directing him to WP:STATUSQUO. SudoGhost responded by reverting my edit with a fraudulent summary and posting false accusations on my talk page (here and here). I posted as friendly a warning as I could come up with on his talk page, but this did no good. His behavior on the talk page was far more in line with WP policy, but here he explicitly singles me out for no apparent reason.

At this point I decided to leave the issue alone. I was still unable to get a real discussion going on the topic at WikiProject Video games, SudoGhost clearly had no interest in resolving the dispute, and the edit the dispute was centered on is far too inconsequential to bother opening a topic on the administrator's noticeboard. However, yesterday - over a week after my last edit at Shining Force II - SudoGhost posted another helping of false claims on my talk page.

I don't pretend to know the motive behind SudoGhost's actions, but his antagonistic behavior throughout the dispute made me suspect that he intends to continue pursuing a feud with me whether or not I make any further response to his edit warring on Shining Force II, and this last post pretty much removes all doubt. As I have a very low tolerance for such harassment, I don't see any other recourse but to report this here.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want here. Do you want both you and SudoGhost to be criticized for edit-warring (no technical breach of 3RR)? Do you want to be criticized for an edit summary calling SudoGhost's edit summary "fraudulent"? This is a content dispute that should have been discussed and resolved after SudoGhost's first revert of your change to the article on October 4. It was at that point that you should have stopped, talked, and left the article alone until there was agreement between the two of you, or, failing that, a consensus achieved with the assistance of others.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, the "should have" you describe is exactly what I attempted to do, with no success. I can't force SudoGhost to justify and discuss his edit like a civilized human being; all I can do is follow that procedure with my own edits.

As for what I want, I thought my post made that abundantly clear: I want SudoGhost to stop pursuing a meaningless feud with me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you should take this to the article talk page and lose the attitude ("civilized human being").--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

...You've lost me. Did you read my original post at all? There is no article talk page for me to take this to; the problem is the editor going after me personally. As I said, I'm no longer concerning myself with his edits to the article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Silly me, I thought you were interested in improving the article. I don't see any convincing evidence that SudoGhost is "going after" you. I suggest you move on and find an article you are interested in improving instead of spending your time here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright, enough. If the responding editor can't even be bothered to read what the problem is he's responding to, obviously there's no point in continuing this. And since I'm not prepared to have SudoGhost continuously harassing me, that leaves me no recourse but to finish up my last bits of business and then take an indefinite leave of Misplaced Pages.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to continue to throw around words like "SudoGhost continuously harassing me", please back that up with diffs, because unfounded accusations like that are personal attacks. If you have diffs to back up your accusations then show them and I'm sure the administrators will be more open to whatever it is you're looking for, otherwise please stop with the unfounded accusations. - SudoGhost 20:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - First off, I apologize for edit warring, there's no excuse for that and it shouldn't have been done in the first place. I know it was probably a case of "too little too late", but I self-reverted until an uninvolved editor commented on the content. I'm completely at a loss at to where this "going after me" thing is coming from; I last commented on his talk page on 10 October and he replied on 15 October. I didn't see that he responded until 18 October, which is when I responded. That single edit is the extent of my interaction with User:Martin IIIa since the dispute and discussion on 10 October.

I mean no disrespect when I say this but I'm not interested in User:Martin IIIa's edits or actions, and it would be a waste of my time to even look through them, not least of all because our editing interests seem very different for the most part. I'm especially not interested in WP:HOUNDing them (unless I'm midreading that policy, I've come nowhere close to hounding them in any capacity). I'm not "going after" the editor and I don't want to try to get them blocked for disagreeing with me or anything like that. I do think that they should be less liberal with their use of "fraudulent" when describing other editors, but other than that I'm content to live and let live. I'm not really sure what administrative action the editor is looking for here. - SudoGhost 20:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sock back using 212.183.128.? range

A recent SPI blocked a range of socks naming Hackneyhound as the master - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hackneyhound/Archive, and it was clear that this sock uses Vodafone mobile IP addresses from the 212.183.128.X range. One of those socks was User:Scandal Bird. Today at De primo Saxonum adventu there's 2 been edits by 212.183.128.109 and 212.183.128.54 reverting to Scandal Bird's version - perhaps a range of IP addresses needs blocking also as this sock is being persistent. --HighKing (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I did the SPI, but that range rotates really really fast. I'd rather someone better with the rangeblock tool had a go at it to minimise the collateral damage. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it even possible to be effective without collateral damage if it rotates really fast? --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I did semi-protect that article for a week. If it is a large or rapidly changing range, we may need to just semi all of the articles that are this person's target. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this a deletion without appropriate discussion?

I'm concerned with the move of an article from article space to name space. There was an extensive discussion of merging numerous articles that resulted, and that discussion is now outside the article talk space. It could be argued that the attempted combination is a content fork, but there has been no deletion discussion that I am aware of. (Of course, it also could be argued that this is a topic in its own right.) The initial move left numerous links from article space to a user page, so I reverted. Since then, Fama Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has undone all links to it and repeated the move. I do not want to make a mess of things, but this is unique in my experience. It seems like the best current action would be to undo the move, leave the article orphaned for the time being, and require a deletion discussion, but I'm just guessing. Even if I am right, a few other opinions would help direct this to the most effective possible resolution.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

All I did was fixing double redirects and remove two "see also" links. After Taylornate's edit war, there was a consensus to (1) keep the articles on individual muscles and (2) Taylornate's article Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. Since then, however, there is no hints that this contributor will actually add anything to this article or anything else on Misplaced Pages. Since the article is an orphan since 6 months, moving the page back to the contributor's user space made sense. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphan is not by itself a reason for either deletion or merging, and Taylornate is not the only editor who could write the article. I suggest it be considered in the meantime as a set index article. Userifying is deletion, and if Fama Clamosa wants to try that route he should use AFD. In the meantime, I've reverted. There are probably some redirects and other tags that need clean-up. Novangelis, I leave it to you--if any of it needs the admin buttons, let me know on my talk page DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP problem and legal threat

A new editor, Treyc1953 (talk · contribs), has added material to Talk:Lester Coleman that is a major BLP violation, and re-added it after I removed it. The editor has also made a legal threat at user:Dawholetruth2, probably thinking it was that editor who removed the material. This sort of thing happens every few months at the Lester Coleman article, which is about a convicted scam artist. I will, with great reluctance, notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. In the future, just let me know via email when this happens. If any functionaries/arbcom want to know what this is about, this should be discussed privately. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please e-mail me with a general description of what's going on, when you have a moment. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Threats by Sayyed Bastami

I was alerted by another user that there was edit-warring occurring at Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adding original research into the article. Upon further investigation I found that the edit-warring Sayyed Bastami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), among other assorted personal attacks, left the following message at the other user's talkpage: One more thing We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us. I think a block is needed asap until this user clarifies who is in the group he is referring to. Δρ.Κ.  02:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a warning on Batami's user talk. The editor that was the recipient of the post does not appear to be put off, so I don't know if a block is warranted. Tiderolls 02:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It's fine by me Tide rolls. Thank you very much for your fast response. All the best. Δρ.Κ.  02:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The "we" part is weird and may require further attention. Just sayin'. Tiderolls 03:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is threatening and a violation of WP:ROLE. Δρ.Κ.  03:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's the slogan of Anonymous (group).--Shirt58 (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I know. I can see where invoking certain slogans could be blockable, or at least lead to a discussion on blocking. Is that the case here? Tiderolls 04:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is this account has edit-warred, personally attacked his "opponent" and also used slogans implying he belongs to a group. Overall I find this eminently blockable behaviour on multiple grounds: PA, EW, ROLE, HARASS etc. Δρ.Κ.  04:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced the account falls under WP:ROLE. As noted, it's just the slogan of Anonymous. More likely, it's some kid trying to sound threatening by coughing up the well-known (though apparently not well-known enough) slogan of a ~scary~ hacktivist group. That said, he's clearly not here to be be productive, so we can probably dump the WP:ALPHABETSOUP and just block 'em already. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Poetic justice if the block notice uses the slogan? Just sayin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Restoring images uploaded by Rootbeerlc

I am requesting an administrator to restore the images uploaded by Rootbeerlc (https://commons.wikimedia.org/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Rootbeerlc), because I think their inclusion is justified from wp:OTRS Ticket#: 2012081110005839.

• License: "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
• Author: Byron Randall
• and the additional tag {{PermissionOTRS|id=2012081110005839}}, for reference.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nahk7 vandalizing David article

Nahk7 persists in removing references to Christianity from the David article after many warnings. He has made three reverts from 3:24 21 Oct to 7:35 21 Oct: 1, 2, 3. He made two others on 19 Oct. This follows a quiet time after previous vandalism and warnings on 4 Oct and 5 Oct. In Sept, he had been warned and blocked for the same behavior.
He has been advised of this discussion. Yopienso (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm working very hard to try and find the vandalism in their edits. Edit-warring for which a block may be needed, yes, but are you seriously calling what appears (for the most part) to be valid attempts to improve the article vandalism? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So when this troll or bigot repeatedly strikes Christian references from the David article, etc. are we then supposed to be extra specially patient with him for weeks and months? Even after he vandalized my personal user page, I and others have all patiently gone to his usertalk page and diplomatically begged him to start using article talk pages in stead of edit war, but he has still yet to demonstrate that he even knows where the article talk page is. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

...and that's a different issue. I see a couple of edits to your userpage about a month ago. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, that's WP:RFC/U. Asking for a block because of dumb edits (barely considerable as vandalism as per the definition) to your userpage a month ago is ridiculous. I have blocked the editor for edit-warring. Nobody has yet to convince me that the edits to the article were vandalism - against consensus, yes, but not vandalism - there's a key definition that must be met. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a violation of WP:NPA. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Bwilkins, I just found this discussion, which I opened late last night Alaska time and then retired. It seems I should have posted it to the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page. I can't recall ever taking an editor to AN/I before, so please pardon my goof.

I considered Nahk7's edits vandalism because they were against the clear facts, against consensus, against previous advice, warnings, and a block. It seemed to me Nahk7 wanted only to disrupt. It hadn't really occurred to me he might be editing in good faith after, from my viewpoint, displaying so much bad faith. I would appreciate any lesson you might have for me as to how to proceed better should such a case arise in the future.

Thank you for giving the article a week's respite from Nahk7's edit warring. Yopienso (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe and biased reverts

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

Heironymous Rowe appears to be blantly removing edits on wikipedia which include european mixed with native american ancestry. His talk page shows his words to another user which shows this hate. Such as this comment Rowe made to another wiki user " Take your debunked hoaxes, ufos, mayan prophecies, and ancient european americans and go elsewhere. And knock it off with the personal attacks. Heiro 00:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" "Take your ancient european americans and go elsewhere". Numerous wikipedia pages which include european and native american mix ancestry is watched by Rowe and any edits which include the mixture is instantly reverted. The Melungeon page shows this type of behaviour as well. These type of actions does not help imporve wikipedia or allow all sides of a subject to be shown. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.174.113 (talk • contribs)

See Melungeon, Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Using non-peered reviewed sources for genetics and this warning. Heiro 15:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your talk page shows wha your doing quite clearly Row, "Take your ancient european americans and go elsewhere." "pseudoscientific nonsense"....comments you make to other wikipedia users who are trying to keep pages up to date and equal on all theories. What you also fail to mention on the melungeon page is the person named Joanne which is mentioned was a co founder of th emelungeon dna project. Yet jack goins and robert estes the other 2 co founders is allowed to be left in the page. So is biased and shows you on a mission just like on your other reverts on various native americna pages t keep native american and european mix people off wikipedia.

No, it is about keeping WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, pseudoscientific nonsense and sources that don't pass WP:RELIABLE off Misplaced Pages. Take your case to the article talkpage please. Heiro 15:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP was directed to reliable source discussions. Although their edits may have been sourced and possibly valid, these sources they used do not pass the validity test at this time. I see no attempts by HR to whitewash, merely to enforce Misplaced Pages's sourcing requirements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Notwithstanding its unreliable sourcing, I read through the most recent addition of this material but the added content does not match up with the rest of the article in terms of style and readability, it also doesn't follow the Manual of Style including technical aspects of adding references. Shearonink (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Then would someone else mind reverting the material sourced to blogs and forums at the article? The IP re-inserted it here, again and I am at 3RR.Heiro 18:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparent competence issue, Part 3 – longer / indef block requested

I am returning for what I hope is the third and final time to discuss editor Davebrayfb, his unsound editing and what I now conclude is an intractable unwillingness or inability to improve. I think that an indef or other, non-trivial block (a month?) are warranted at this point, now no longer to get his attention but rather to stop his editing. My prior two postings are archived

here and

here.

They include all diffs, etc., to support my summary below, and in the interest of brevity and clarity I am not reproducing their combined content here. (NB – on my browser, at least, a comment that ‘no admin action’ is required appears alongside the second archived posting above. Please review the source page of the archive to see that that comment in fact relates to a prior, unrelated item in the archive.)

In brief, Davebrayfb appears to act in good faith but consistently edits in ways that degrade the encyclopedia rather than improve it. He has not responded to my own (extensive) efforts to engage him on his Talk page, nor to those of other editors who also stepped in in an effort to steer him in a better direction. A few days ago he was given a 24 hour attention-getting block, but when it expired he simply resumed editing, with no apparent improvement. Here are three examples:

This edit – while certainly plausible – was not sourced or otherwise reflected in the article text; it removed content that did correspond to the article text; and by reason of a typo, resulted in a redlink.

Here is a careless, obvious typo

Here he restores a prior unsourced edit, again without source despite a request to supply one

The consensus arising out of both of my prior postings was that 1) this editor is in fact disruptive; 2) I (and other editors) have made extensive and exceedingly patient efforts to try to help him improve; and 3) if he does not improve, sooner or later he will need to be blocked. He is not improving. Every one of his edits must be reviewed for substantive or technical shortcomings or errors. I think an actual, preventative block is in order, and ask that one be imposed.

I apologize for the fragmented, tripartite nature of my request but I am hoping this marks the end of it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and harassment

Special:Contributions/38.103.168.4 had a cooldown block for edit warring last week, but their behavior has only degraded since. Post block, this user has:

• made personal attacks against me:
• made legal threats and personally attacked an admin for concluding a page deletion discussion:
• posted disparaging remarks about the same admin on an unrelated page:
• promised more of the same attacks on the admins talk:

In summary, nothing of the axe head remains, and given the large number of warnings on the account, a longer block appropriate preventative action is requested.--E8 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Only one of those diff's appear to be from today, and we cannot block IP addresses for long periods of time...besides, there's no such thing as a "cooldown block" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Bwilkins blocked for 3 months. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Persistent removal of level 2 headings

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

User:24.147.80.78 persists in removing level 2 headings from articles. For these actions they were blocked for a week on October 5 (see this ANI discussion). After the one week block, the user twice removed level 2 headings. I warned the user about this on their talk page both times (see here, also for difs). Yesterday, the user again removed a level 2 heading here. The user's edits are a mix of legit edits, regular vandalism and these removals of level 2 headings (user contribs). They do not react to warnings. - Takeaway (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a shared IP, how about a block in which account creation from the IP is still permitted, but one must be logged in to edit. That way, if someone creates an account and continues we can just block that account rather than the entire IP which may have some people who make constructive contributions. Go Phightins! 18:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:MrRayshon

User:MrRayshon seems to be claiming to be an admin - see his user page. He's only been contributing since September the 19th... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And not just claiming to be an admin either - he's just attempted to semi-protect an article at ] . AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please notify the user of his being discussed here? We request that you do so as a courtesy to the user. If you can do this in a timely fashion, I will then look into the case. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He did, and the user blanked the AN/I notice from his own page. Wesley♦ 18:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just also saw that. Samsara (FA • FP) 18:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

As a first step, he now has a friendly message. Let's see which way he wants to take this. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that Rayshon might have something to do with blocked user:Rayrayzone. Both edited this article. MrRayshon also created his profile at more or less the same time as RayRayzone tried to remove the block notice. - Takeaway (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Takeaway could be on to something here. Rayshon also edited on content within RayRayzone's userspace shortly after the latter got blocked. See here. Wesley♦ 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, they are a  Confirmed match. Personally, my solution would be a WP:CIR block... Salvio 20:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not responding right now, so I've removed the notice he placed claiming to have protected a page, and expect to shortly fix his userpage if there's no reaction from him. If it is a new account for a previously existing user, there's a possibility it's already been abandoned now. The edits I've reviewed could be attributed to lack of understanding rather than malice. May be a wild goose chase. Samsara (FA • FP) 19:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Hot Stop

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

User is repeatedly modifying archived talk page comments with the effect that the outcome of a historical debate is being deliberately misrepresented in current discussion on ITN/C. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

the closure (made by another user) was discussed on WT:ITN and you're the first and only person to object to it. Grow up. Hot Stop (Edits) 18:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

No such discussion took place. This is a simple attempt to alter an archived discussion to make it appear that a different outcome was reached off the radar of people's watchlists. As the archival headers and footers make clear: that discussion is closed. Do not modify it. If you want to resurrect the debate do so in the proper medium, yes, that is WT:ITN, not some page that no-one looks at too closely. I pointed that out on ITN/C, comments you have chosen to ignore. What is this if not misrepresentation? Crispmuncher (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC).

Date-changing user Starships109

Starships109 has made over 1100 small, likely good-faith edits to Misplaced Pages articles since June 30, 2012. The user has never once cited sources, explained any edits, or engaged in discussion, despite repeated comments and warnings—including 2 "last warnings" and 1 "final warning"—about disruptive editing. The edits this user makes are mainly changes to the dates that records were recorded and released, dates of birth of celebrities, and minor copy edits, including date formatting, sometimes against consensus. Sometimes, the user will change cited information. This user also will revisit articles and make the same changes or deletions, even after being contacted about why the edits were wrong or otherwise unacceptable. Due to the user's carelessness, articles are sometimes left with conflicting information in them.

Most of the user's edits go unnoticed because the articles aren't watched by many people, because one unsourced piece of info is being replaced with another, and because the new info is hard to verify. For example, was "Atomic Dog" released in December 1982 as originally written, or on a specific date in September? That kind of info is not easy to come by; either is plausible. But this user has a specific date that's coming from some undisclosed offline source—every time I try to verify one of the new dates in this and other articles with my Google-fu, I get nothing to confirm, and often get contradictory info. And why does the user keep removing 12" from the release formats, when there is photo of the 12" single's labels right on the page in question?

All attempts to engage the user via the user talk page, article talk pages, article edit summaries, and citation-needed templates have failed; the user ignores everything. You can see the numerous warnings on the user's talk page for problematic editing of various articles. Those are just the ones people noticed. The user's edit history can be scanned for more.

I wouldn't be surprised if English is not the user's native language, since the same username is registered on the de, es, and gl Wikipedias (without any edits) and since "Starship 109" was a song popular in Europe in 1978. However, I don't think the problem is a language barrier; the uncontentious copy edits indicate a command of English.

Anyway, the disputes over this user's edits seem like the kind of thing that could be easily resolved if there were a way to force the user to engage with other editors in discussion. What else can we do here, though besides reverting or citation-needed-ing the edits, and posting warning after warning on the talk page? —mjb (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You can use Special:Contributions to see where someone has edited. This user has never ever edited a talkpage - his own, anyone else's, or article talk. I can see all the changes, none are sourced. I don't see any other option but a block - this tactic has succeeded in the past to 'bring users to the table' as it were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

John has decided to call me a "liar", "coward", "hypocrite" and that I am "beneath despicable"... all here posted...is there any administrator about that would agree that this is a bit excessive? I confess that my last statement in the end was less than cordial...what would anyone expect after that level of harassment? I posted to his talkpage and he removed that, calling me a "serial liar"...then decided my userspace was still fine to open fire after I posted originally to my userpage...is this guy really an administrator...still?--MONGO 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC) John was informed of this...but he "flush"ed it--MONGO 21:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that John was rather lenient and forgiving MONGO, as you're far worse than that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't imagine why you'd say that, unless you think you are above our policies, which is more than apparent, Malleus.--MONGO 21:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no benefit to Misplaced Pages to try and hash out which editor (John or MONGO) is more at fault here. Recommend both editors disengage from each other and some one close this. Nobody Ent 21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? John has made repeated personal attacks...how on earth am I at fault for what John types.--MONGO 21:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You do seem to appear every time there is some issue with Malleus and push and prod every sore - why is that? It's annoying. I will warn John, though, as his comments were too far. --Errant 21:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MONGO, bringing this here at this time was extremely unwise. That it's resulted in yet another block for Malleus is beyond childish. John called you a liar yesterday on a conversation that I started, and frankly you were playing very loosely with the truth. This is beyond pointy and baiting - it's ratcheting it all up again. Why? What's the point? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct...I had nothing to do with the Civility enforcement case...I participated in only one or two comments there, mainly regaridng how long it would take arbcom to render a decision. Only after I saw past warnings went unheeded did I decide that enough was enough. I can't see any justification that any editor should be permitted to edit this website when they have called other editors cunts, twats and assholes...repeatedly ad nauseum after being warned to not do so.--MONGO 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please restore Regent Sparks close? Nobody Ent 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Stephan Schultz

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

This admin User:Stephan Schulz has blocked Malleus during an open arbitration case for a minor comment - this block affects the open arb case, is not necessary, and should be removed immediately - Youreallycan 21:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely Nobody Ent 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been undone; admin Boing! said Zebedee's reason for unblocking was "malicious block." CityOfSilver 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to say, I left Stephan a note. It appears the block was levelled because Stephan warned Malleus about incivility and Malleus (obviously) threw it back at him. I left Stephan a note to suggest that him blocking was a troublesome action - although somewhat understandable, I don't think we need to hound him over it. --Errant 21:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good - Steven Shultz deliberate disruption should remove his admin status - Youreallycan 21:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Being embroiled in an ArbCom case has never been a "get out of blocks free" card. ArbCom clerks have transferred comments from user pages in such cases before. In other cases, users have unblocked with the proviso that they only engage in the ArbCom case. I'd be willing to do that here if Malleus is willing to declare that he will only edit his user talk page and the AE page for the next 48 hours. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense - Youreallycan 21:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Reverse the block? No, this is a desysop. Regardless of whether Malleus should be or will be blocked, a block at this time is a crass failure of basic competence and behaviour for an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Before discussing whether Boing! said Zebedee should be desysopped for undoing a valid block without even attempting to discuss this with the blocking admin and without consulting the community, we should at least give them a chance to explain themselves. Boing, care to explain your action? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems that Andy was referring to Stephan, not Boing! – Connormah (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Malleus has arbcom watching and even then, a inch from a ban he insults me and the one admin with the guts to defend our policies is threatened with a desyopping. I'm interested in seeing how a block revert as was done here can be explained.--MONGO 22:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Mongo... guts? lol - User:Stephan Schulz should be blocked for as long as he blocked Malleus - Youreallycan 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • and the one admin with the guts to defend our policies -- Are you trying to sound like Glenn Beck, or is it just you? --87.78.5.129 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × lost count) Given the history of enforcement actions regarding Malleus -- multiple blocks imposed without achieving community consensus, the only logical expectation from a block would be a rapid unblock and lots more mudslinging. We have sufficient mudslinging on the ArbCom page. The block has been reversed -- at this point no real good is going to come from further argument here. None of the prior admins who blocked MF -- with exception of one who engaged in addition inappropriate commentary -- were desysoped, so it's not likely to happen. In any event, it can't happen here. Editors who feel strongly that SS should not be an admin should inquire about recall procedures or file an ArbCom case. Nobody Ent 22:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Everyone should calm down. There is enough drama going on at ArbCom without it spilling over here or anywhere else. We have too many admins issuing blocks that may or may not be technically correct, and then their blocks are undone by another admin, and then there are calls for "off with their heads", although it's not always clear whose head merits severance. In light of what's going on, admins need to exercise more restraint, both in the use of their tools and their mouths (or keyboards). I know there are a lot of strong feelings, but let's try not to make it any worse than it already is.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Stephan Schulz blatantly baited Malleus on his talk page, then blocked him when he responded exactly as anyone would expect. In normal circumstances, it would simply be a poor block - in the midst of the current ArbCom case it was, as I opined in my unblock reason, malicious. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense - unless there's some new rule that one can't speak to Malleus as one would speak to any other editor who made insults like that, there was no "baiting" involved, unless you've somehow redefined the word. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be so naive - you know the circumstances perfectly well -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, "it has been undone" so that makes everything all better now? It was a bad block. It is yet another bad block entered in the log of a user whose block log (bear with me here, I'll get there) consists in the main of bad blocks. It was applied for no good reason, during an Arbcom case, by a baiting administrator. There is nothing good about this block.  pablo 22:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• No one is saying it's all better. We're saying that it's not going to get any better by discussing it further here. Nobody Ent 22:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Uncivility from User:Till

I didn't think it would have to come to this, but this has come too out of hand. This edit summary has been the final straw. When I left him a warning, he deleted the message with the edit summary bite me. Till (talk · contribs) has been having civility issues with Tomica (talk · contribs) over the past couple of months now. It all began with this edit that lead to this discussion. Ever since then, Till has been taking gabs at Tomica on his prose, as seen in this (Tomica re-wrote the lead of the article, and is involved in many editing of Rihanna articles). Here is another example, with the edit summary: "Fix the terrible lead" (Tomica is the main contributor of the article). If you look through his contribs since August, you will see many attacks against Tomica (and apparently a few against me). His favorite choice of words appear to be idiot and atrocious.

Till reported Tomica for edit warring almost a month ago. The discussion there might give you, the reader, a little more insight in what is going on here. I hope I've summarized what's going on enough, as there's been a lot, and I'm sure I'm missing a few things, but I'm sure others will bring them up.

Zac (talk · contribs) 23:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's obvious that this thread has been fabricated because if you go through my contributions I was on a Wikibreak for weeks between August and September! LOL. Till 23:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Till was on a Wikibreak from August 23 to September 4. Not that it actually has anything to do with the evidence shown above. Zac (talk · contribs) 23:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Till could certainly be a bit more diplomatic in how xe says what xe thinks, but for the most part he is commenting on the content rather that the editor, emphasis on "for the most part". In a few of the cases, I'd be inclined to agree with Till that the writing could do with a seriously good going over but like I said, surely it could be done without the jabs. Blackmane (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed, Tomica isn't a natural born English speaker, so he doesn't always get things right. That's no reason to continually be uncivil to him about it. "Copyediting paragraph", "sentence", "lead", whatever works just fine. It's extremely rude and I am sick and tired of this behavior. Zac (talk · contribs) 00:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards