189.5.159.86 (talk · contribs) has been primarily active in mixed martial artists' record tables. Most of their edits either add unsourced content (example) or contradict given sources (example). I've been trying to communicate with them for over half an hour (see this revision of their talk page), but they've been ignoring me so far. Should admin action be taken? —LOL ^T/_C 03:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Block'em, that'll get his/her attention. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The user has hopped to 189.5.181.53 (talk · contribs) and continues to make unsourced additions and changes without any attempts at communication. —LOL ^T/_C 23:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a somewhat frustrating dialogue with User_talk:113.150.9.211, which has not been helped by that user exercising his right to remove content from his talk page. The dialogue has extended over several articles but with reference to this one it originated with this series of edits made by him.

I regarded those edits as being potentially POV pushing and also potentially libellous, as well as clearly being uncited and possibly a copyright violation. Consequently I reverted them here and left a {{uw-unsourced1}} warning on the user's TP. The user blanked that warning and replied with a threat to block me here. The IP user also said that I had not given him enough time to cite, although the bulk of the disputed content appeared to have been inserted as a copy/paste.

I then explained my position with regard to issuing that warning in a series of messages here. These were also blanked and the situation at present stands with a [1] message from me following a further insertion of the material by the IP user, again without citations. It is now over 2 hours since that last insertion of the material into the article and it remains uncited.

To summarise my concerns:

1. at least some of the material may be a copyvio, although I have yet to prove this
2. it appears possibly to be part of a campaign by the IP user to push his point of view across various articles, for example here at Kader Bahini (in this instance, reverted four times by three different users (including myself). I note that one of the IP's responses to a message left by me included the statement that "I understand your reason's for deleting anything that implicates India's wrong doings, that is fine", which seems to suggest a recognition of possible POV (and also does not assume my good faith - I'd never heard of this group before etc).
3. the additions are uncited
4. it may be libellous, if any of the named participants are still alive: an accusation that someone is/was a war criminal is an extremely serious matter, especially if they were not prosecuted. I have no idea if they are alive or were prosecuted, but did refer this to the IP user and got no meaningful response. I don't know enough about the subject to confirm/deny myself and past experience with articles involving the India/Pakistan/Bangladesh area have shown me that searching for named people can bring up more irrelevant hits than relevant ones due to the personal naming conventions in those countries. I appreciate that these events happened quite some time ago.

It is because this is such a wide-ranging sets of concerns that I have brought the matter to this board. I would appreciate thoughts on this issue.

Note: above originally posted at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard but moved here - I was in two minds regarding the most appropriate board, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it as it clearly needs reliable sources. I was reporting on that here when Chrome froze my edit page (which it does at times when I click on the tildes at 'Sign your posts on talk pages: and then I got distracted. I note the IP threatened to block Sitush [2] which is mildly amusing but I also see they removed (as they are allowed to do) a copyvio notice here [[3], Sitush, I think this should be left open to allow the IP to respond. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert. I was on the verge of a war elsewhere with the IP yesterday (he exceeded 3RR, I held back) & so didn't want to push my luck. The copyvio notice was issued by another contributor in relation to that particular incident. Let's see what happens next, as you suggest. There has already been another edit by the IP but it is harmless and merely replaces one uncited "fact" with another. - Sitush (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is regarding User:The Ultimate Koopa. He continues to act in an uncivil manner regardless of how many times or people ask him to calm down. He is constantly attacking others, writing in all CAPS, swearing, etc. Not only that, but he has been brought here, and blocked for this very thing, in the past. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Ultimate_Koopa#AN.2FI and right below it the result http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Ultimate_Koopa#Blocked , so he is aware that what he does is wrong, and continues to do it.

Examples include:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs#Season_20_Region_2. (Majority of the conversation under "Season 20 Region 2".)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs&diff=prev&oldid=424941306
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs&diff=prev&oldid=422090709
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Simpsons_DVDs&diff=prev&oldid=411891281

It goes on and on, but you can get the picture. He's mostly worked up over whether or not this particular DVD set was released in a certain region or not. I really don't know for sure either way, all I know is that his rationale is "I can't find it, so it's not out", so I've undone his edits because his personal experience isn't a valid reason. But I'm not here about that, it's about the general way he handles things. I'm just throwing that out there for context. If he's in the right as far as the article goes, so be it. I just want him to stop ranting and being so rude to anyone who opposes him. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me point out that this gross behavior isn't limited to Talk pages, it is also frequently in his edit summaries, as seen here. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as proved by the bottom three links above. (There's more, though.) Guoguo12--Talk--  22:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked Ultimate Koopa for 2 weeks, as a "wake up and smell the coffee" final warning. I have indicated that I would support an immediate unblock once they confirm they will temper their language - with a note that reverting to such practices will possibly lead to an indefinite block. I am hoping that this action will result in a valuable contributor amending their behaviour going forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there is a difficulty with User:Truthcon, who may be the same person as User:Exconfan, on Bo Lozoff. The editor keeps removing the same bit of text that includes sensitive material which has previously been established through consensus. I do recognize after studying WP:VAN that Truthcon's edits do not count as vandalism as I stated in my edit summaries and that I should have exercised more patience with this editor than I initially did.

Truthcon is totally non-communicative. He or she has been asked multiple times to bring his or her changes up on the discussion page before changing the article again but simply keeps making them without even so much as an edit summary. I placed a welcome message and a warning on User talk:Truthcon Thursday which Truthcon did not respond to at all but deleted the same text once again this evening.

Thanks in advance for addressing the situation. Floorsheim (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Should we report it to WP:SPI to see if they are sockpuppets or possibly block Truthcon for disruption and going against project consensus if necessary? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You could do both, although if it's that obvious, they might turn it down unless it's suspected there is a sockfarm. In any case, an editor with "truth" in its name typically has a short life at wikipedia, as it tends to be focused on righting some great wrong, and nothing else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The first thing you should have done is notify Truthcon of this discussion as required. I have done so and asked them to explain why they're removing the content. Further deletions without communication can probably be treated as disruptive. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and my apologies. -Floorsheim (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

After I asked Truthcon to stop deleting without discussing they've done so twice [4] [5], the last after a final warning. The editor may have a reason to delete but it's impossible to tell with absolutely no communication. Can an admin please step in? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

And again --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like it should be a really open and shut case to me. Has it been dealt with? ==Floorsheim (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it hasn't received admin attention yet. If it isn't handled here then I'll report to WP:AN3 if they revert again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Given a week off. If it starts right back up ping me and I'll indef. If there's reason to believe this is a sock, please open a case for that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We're generating more heat than light here. This is as resolved as it is ever going to get here and now, and further discussion is only leading to dragging the names of one or both involved users through the mud. This is not cool. lifebaka++ 10:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Trouts all round Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC). User:MrDarcy, who claims to be an admin, is accusing me of vandalism because I redirected this practically unsourced and almost totally OR article to the article on the book. Nothing on his User or Talk pages identifies him as an admin, and when I gave him an nor1 warning for reverting me, since the version he reveted to was totally OR, he called my warning "cute". He also claims that "Deleting an entire article without discussion, as you have done, is tantamount to vandalism." ([6]). Since there is nothing on his pages to indicate that he is an admin, and since his revert of my redirect (without so much as an explanation to me) reverted to the OR version, I felt my comments to him were justified. And apparently AGF no longer applies if an admin feels you're a vandal without any justification. Corvus cornixtalk 05:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Admin Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC) That is as may be, but nothing on his pages lets anyone know he is, nor does it have anything to do with his ABF accusations against me. Corvus cornixtalk 05:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC) So, the category listing at the bottom of his user page didn't do it for you? StrikerforceTalk Review me! 05:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) He posted the admin template over 2 years ago. He's got the little admin world globe in the upper right corner of the user page - in addition to the category. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Both of which are completely meaningless. In the world that is Wikipedia, the only sure fire way of telling whether someone is a bone fide admin, is that obscure link above, which I would guess it takes the average user a year or two to learn about. And in this particular case, if you aren't aware of it, an admin whose user page soley consist of the admin cat, is likely to look a little sus. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC) They can be used spuriously, but the OP's statement that "nothing on [the admin]'s page indicates he's an admin" is false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I would definitely call redirection of an article with valid references without any discussion to be vandalism. Close to it, at least. SilverserenC 05:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Apparently there is no such thing as assumption of good faith? Corvus cornixtalk 05:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC) It has nothing to do with assuming faith at all. It has to do with your action itself. Now, maybe vandalism is the wrong word, but your action wasn't valid and was disruptive and was, thus, reverted. SilverserenC 05:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Unless I am exonerated of the charges of vandalism, this will be my last day of editing on Wikipedia. Corvus cornixtalk 05:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Look, you were bold, he reverted, and next you should have discussed (see WP:BRD), but not with a stock warning template. No big deal - just move on. — Satori Son 05:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Okay, forget the vandalism. It wasn't vandalism, that's the wrong term. Let me ask you something. Do you believe that your action of redirecting the article is valid? Do you think the subject of the short story is non-notable? When in a simple search, I found critical commentary here (pg. 74) as the third result, the first two results being the book itself? SilverserenC 05:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC) You weren't charged with anything. You were accused of vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Done. Goodbye. Corvus cornixtalk 05:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Seriously? One person accuses you of vandalism, and when they don't apologize, you take your ball and go home? Maybe Wikipedia isn't the best place for you... --Jayron32 06:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I think the lack of response by Corvus to my comment above kinda says a lot anyways. SilverserenC 06:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I feel obligated to bring up WP:BOOMERANG. That is all. elektrikSHOOS 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Pretty much. SilverserenC 06:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC) It appears that Corvus Cornix got very frustrated. It happens. I notice that this editor has 33,000+ edits over more than four years. I left a friendly message on this user's talk page. Perhaps others might consider doing the same. Kind words are never wasted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC) This is stupid. I'm really sick of the word vandalism being thrown around. You can package it any way you want, six ways from here to Sunday, but you've just improperly compared an editor to someone who replaces a page with "JOHN IS GAY AND HAS NO PENIS." See WP:Hitler - it's childish, people; find new terminology. Unless you really do lack the self-control to go name calling because of your biological WP:MASTADON reaction. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC) I think it's better to say that Corvus' actions were definitely not vandalism, but that they were disruptive. SilverserenC 06:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC) MrDarcy is an admin[7] but it's inppropriate to use terms like "vandalism" if some sane justification is given for the edit. I don't think the redirect was really warranted for that particular article, despite the admittedly skimpy sourcing. For other sorts of articles it would be appropriate. It's a matter of editorial judgment that (for me anyway) is based mostly on how contentious and/or potentially promotional the article content is. The NOR template was also inappropriate (WP:DTTR). Corvus Cornix, if you're stressed out about Wikipedia, taking a break for a while is good way to restore perpective. Come back when you feel ready. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC) The admin said it was tantamount to vandalism,[8] and when someone chops an article unilaterally and without discussion, that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. Corvus copped an attitude, posted a gratuitious warning template, and falsely claimed that the admin wasn't identified as such on his user page. Hard to figure what's up with that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC) With all due respect, "tantamount" means, in essence, "equivalent to," so let's not split hairs and pretend that he wasn't being accused of vandalism just because he was accused of something merely "equivalent to vandalism." It doesn't mean "almost" or "kinda, but not really." And while he chopped the article without discussion, he did offer a perfectly rational explanation in his edit summary that made it extremely clear that not only was this not vandalism but that this was the action of an experienced editor. That said, it's clear that Corvus acted improperly in this little episode, primarily in his followup actions after the redirect (the unfortunate warning template bit, etc.). Most of us have gotten carried away at one point or another and I certainly hope that this doesn't end with an editor with over 33,000 edits and no existing block log quitting Wikipedia! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC) That's what I can't figure. It's really a minor incident. Why did the guy go ballistic? I'm guessing he needs a few days away from wikipedia. That can be good therapy when some situation gets too annoying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Let me just make an overall comment that it is my hope that experienced users make an investigation of a subject before redirection or deletion nomination. In this case, as I showed in a link to a reference above, I find it doubtful that any research was done whatsoever. If it is believed that the article in question is non-notable, then the obvious course of action after that would be to also redirect the rest of the author's works as well, because the article is question is described as being the most famous, most well known, and most commented on of all of her works. It is for this reason, along with the references that were already given in the article before redirection, that it is shown that the action of redirection was clearly disruptive. SilverserenC 07:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Actions taken in good faith are rarely "clearly disruptive". If you're not able to refrain from casting such aspersions on editors then you're best spending your time on a project other that Wikipedia. Corvus's resignation is an overreaction, but your participation in this thread has not been helpful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Everyone makes mistakes; yes, there should have been more careful consideration before redirecting, there should have been a quick review of the redirectors contribution history before even thinking about using the term "vandalism", and there should have been a realisation that templating the other party was a bad idea, and certainly the response to the warning was non optimal. This is an example of how a cycle of bad choices has resulted in the potential loss to the project of a good contributor. BTW - are we sure MrDarcy is an admin? I do not recall any AN/I discussions demanding his flags... perhaps we should start one here, now, to ensure that they are properly noted as a sysop? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) LHVU, yes, MrDarcy is an admin since 2006, see my link above, also here. Is that what you are asking? 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MrDarcy -> [9] -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 12:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Actually, the way I read LHvU's comment, he was referring to the fact that most admins would've been brought here by some disgruntled user calling for them to be desysopped, and as McDarcy apparently hasn't, added a sarcastic/joking remark that maybe such a discussion should start. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Whether the edit was performed by an IP, a brand-new user, or Corvus Cornix, it was not vandalism - it was an editorial decision, perhaps wrong, with which the admin disagreed. "Vandal" and "vandalism" should not be thrown around loosely: the practice debases the word while poisoning the overall atmosphere; it forces an editor to defend himself rather than address the dispute; it is a quick, lazy way to avoid real discussion and explanation; it bypasses BRD, arriving at anger rather than consensus. Users should be discouraged from making ill-founded accusations of vandalism. Admins should be admonished. Jd2718 (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC) 'very cute, but incredibly misplaced', 'completely out of line', 'tantamount to vandalism', 'This MUST be discussed here' ??? This is the supposed high standard of conduct we expect of admins? It's no surprise Corvus cornix believe this guy was an imposter (although his decision to redirect an article in this state stating "nothing indicates what makes the story notable", when it has four references supporting a very long Interpretation section, seems to me to be equally poor). In conclusion, Corvus, stop being such a drama queen, and MrDarcy, perhaps think about an Wikipedia:Administrator review. And no bed time stories for either of you tonight. MickMacNee (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Why an Administrator review? He has not abused his tools, he was simply a little foolish in his choice of words. No biggie - the trouts below are sufficient. GiantSnowman 22:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Comment. Maybe I'm missing something or our WP:V policy no longer exists, but removing unsourced material is nothing less then ideal. If anything amounts to vandalism, it's the continued reinsertion of unsourced content. Back in 2008, I also had a similar incident with Mr. Darcy and was upset over his choice of words. Looking at his edit history, it is apparent that he edits very little, but his editor interactions take up a disproportionate amount of drama. Perhaps as his user page notes, he should just stay retired. This project may be better off. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC) When I consider the stature and reputation that O'Connor and this story enjoy in the field of American literature, I almost think I would prefer to be accused of vandalism over the edit involved than to endure the implications that the edit reflected my knowledge and judgment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Plenty of trouts to go around here CC starts by making the article into a redirect and clearly stating his reasoning. Valid editorial action subject to BRD. MD reverts per WP:BRD. Again a valid editorial action. A trout for CC for reverting the revert using the rollback tool instead of going to the talk page. A trout for CC for slapping a "welcome to wikipedia" tag on the talk page of an experienced editor instead of just saying his peace. A trout for MD for using the "V word" to describe CC's actions on the article's talk page. A trout for SS for throwing around the very same "V word" in this thread. A trout for me. The time I used writting is going to make me late for work :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) CC, MD, SS and RR duly WP:TROUTed, following WP:RITZMAN --Shirt58 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC) All involved are sentenced to one week of civility and kindness. I apologize for the harshness of the punishment, but the law is the law. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC) And can Mr. Darcy go back to admin school for a little while? I am sure they are rusty. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Addendum: How to tell if someone is an admin There are alternatives to hunting for that obscure link mentioned above as a method to determine someone's permissions. Go to the user's contribs page, and click on "user rights management." There you will see a list of their current permissions. Go to your Preferences, Gadgets; and enable Navigation Popups. Then, when you hover over a user's signature, a list of their permissions is instantly visible. Popups is a cool tool that has many other wicked uses as well. --Diannaa (Talk) 17:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Non-admins don't have a "user rights management" link. ;) I wouldn't consider the "obscure link" to be too obscure; it's just at the bottom of the contributions page (MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer). Goodvac (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC) To easily tell if a user is an admin, add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); to your monobook.js. Viewing the person's user page or talk page will then give you the information. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC) importScript('User:Ais523/adminrights.js'); also works; it highlights links to the userpages of current admins in teal, so with the sigs of most admins it becomes obvious who is and isn't one. It does require overriding the local cache from time to time (just like when you first install a new .js), but that's not really a big deal. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Many admins include a userbox with a verify link - that's a big help, particularly for editors who are unfamiliar with checking users and logs (took me some time to figure it out when I first started). See, for example, User:Tide rolls.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC) The admin has also had the little admin globe in the upper right corner, and been listed in the admin category, since December of 2008. If Corvus looked at the user page, he didn't look very closely. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Well I guess my advice was pretty lame :) "Just become an admin, kid, and we'll teach you the secret handshake." Sorry --Diannaa (Talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC) "Secret handshake"??? Corvus comix has been here over 3 years and didn't know that (1) the little globe means "admin"; and (2) category admin means "admin"? 21:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) Can't anyone go into "special" to see? For example: [10], [11], [12]? (Fearful of asking the naive question.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Ah, the easy way: Special:ListUsers/sysop. Just type in the username, and Bob's your uncle. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Everything is "easy" when you know how to do it. And I'm not speaking for Corvus, but speaking as medium-level-experienced editor, I remember finding the Special Users page wasn't easy to do in the beginning. In fact, I bookmarked the page to "remember" it. And as long as I'm at it, the little globe on the upper right-hand corner - I didn't even know that existed until I started reading this section - talk about subtle - kind of classy looking, but still not very noticeable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Also the category. And while many admins will have a userbox stating that they're admins. AGF, I suppose that's what Corvus was looking for; but there's no requirement to do that. But someone who's been here 3 1/2 years ought to know at least one method of determining if someone's an admin or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC) Another indication is to look at their logs list,[13] and observe stuff that only admins can do. There are many ways to confirm that someone is an admin. I have to think that CC was sufficiently annoyed that his logic cells were in shutdown mode. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict) Someone earlier said the category wasn't conclusive, which I assume means anyone can falsely state they're an admin by putting the category at the bottom of their user page. As for the globe, the same person said that was not conclusive, either, which I assume means anyone can add the icon. I haven't verified any of this personally. I do agree that someone who has been contributing regularly to Wikipedia for 3.5 years (it's not just time but also activity) ought to be able to figure out whether someone is an admin. And if they can't, they can ask at the Help desk. It's the kind of question that should get a very quick answer.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC) It's true that the symbol and the category aren't conclusive and that anyone can post them (as the admin did here,[14] and as I just did on my own page - Yee-Hah!) but the OP griped that "Nothing on his User or Talk pages identifies him as an admin", which is a false statement. And even if he didn't think to look for those things, as you note there are any number of ways of verifying or refuting whether someone is an admin. If all else fails, go to a trusted admin and ask, "Is that guy an admin?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC) The greater question is: Why should it matter? Seriously, why should knowledge of whether someone is an admin, in this case, make any difference? It should only matter if a) you want someone to use the administrator tools or b) If you have reason to believe they are impersonating an administrator. Admitedly, MrDarcy's behavior has been less than ideal in this case (including throwing around spurious use of the word "vandalism"), however I don't see where knowing if he was or was not an admin should necessarily change how that should be dealt with. --Jayron32 02:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC) That's an excellent question. It's evident that the OP didn't do any investigation, as he really started the war of words by "templating a regular" (who also happens to be an admin), then comes here and yelps because the admin talked back; and raised the AGF card when he himself assumed bad faith by questioning the admin's credentials, which are easy to verify or refute, as any 3 1/2 years editor should know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Why does it matter? Because MrDarcy, an administrator who one would hope knows that being an administrator doesn't mean that one is infallible, said that CC's vandalism warning was "incredibly misplaced (I'm an admin)" (this after the mocking "your warning was very cute" bit). That is why it matters whether or not MrDarcy is an admin. MrDarcy made it matter whether or not MrDarcy was an admin. I have been biased in favor of CC from the outset because of this particular contemptuous bit of chatter. Maybe it's just me, but when I see two guys acting like asses, and one of them is an Admin, I tend to side with the non-Admin ass, because Admin's should know better. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC) Have you ever gotten a template that suggested its poster thought you had just started editing yesterday? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC) No, but I think an administrator -- or anyone, for that matter -- holding up a badge and suggesting a vandalism warning is "incredibly misplaced" because of that badge alone is utterly misguided. Administrators should be trusted to, I dunno, respond better. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC) All's I know is that this is a story of a very experienced editor getting called a vandal by an admin, even though no vandalism took place. But, hey, let's start this thread off by crapping all over the very experienced editor who was falsely accused, and let's continue finding new reasons to do so! That guy's a monster! He didn't realize that MrDarcy is actually an admin! Because that's the real issue. It's not that an admin called a well-intentioned and highly experienced editor a vandal and then hid behind his admin-shield, it's that the editor didn't notice that the admin-who-wasn't-acting-like-an-admin was actually an admin. How dare someone not realize that they're dealing with an actual admin? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba, an article with multiple NPOV-section tags, has just been added to T:ITN because of overwhelming consensus in support at WP:ITNC. However, as the article contains these neutrality and dispute tags, it's not suitable for the main page and should be pulled post-haste until the tags are resolved. I've already left a note for the posting admin, but on the off chance that they went offline, could another admin handle it? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It was removed, then reposted, by Fox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who gave the reasoning that the person's notability meant it outweighed the NPOV and factual accuracy tags to post on the Main Page. I strongly disagree with this and feel we shouldn't be displaying problem articles on the main page regardless of the person's notability. Requesting further admin input. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The NPOV tag can go FWIW, unless anyone raises new concerns. Once a dispute is expired it is supposed to be removed because otherwise it can be misused as a badge of shame. I took a look over the section and removed one of the worst paragraphs. The rest looks marginal but fine... mostly needs some TLC and rewriting. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Disputes .. expire? I thought they were resolved? (Or not.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Dispute tags should only be used where there's an active debate. They're there to attract attention to the discussion as opposed to simply flagging the problem; they're quite different from cleanup tags in that respect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cooldenny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I just wanted to make Wiki administrators aware that User:Cooldenny has been messaging, IMHO "spamming" hundreds of Wiki users in the past 48 hours asking participation in some survey he's working on. If its an "official" Wiki project thats one thing, but something he's doing all on his own strikes me as an entirely different mattter. I didn't think that sort of thing was allowed. Check his user discussion page and you'll see I'm not the only one irritated by it. If nothing else maybe a warning to him is in need? You folks are the brains of the operation and I'm just a peon in the boiler room shoveling the coal (lol) so I'll leave it up to you. Have a great Wiki kinda day! Sector001 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• I looked into this and found that Philippe Beaudette of the WMF is asking questions of Cooldenny [15] so unless people want to comment on this I'd say admin involvement is moot, but thanks for your understandable concerns. Jusdafax 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I had also left a note on his talkpage (User talk:Cooldenny#Has survey spam been approved by the community?) inquiring about his methods; by doing so, I was hoping to avoid bringing this to ANI, however. I referenced him to a discussion I saw last month (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study) and asked for his response. Since User:Steven (WMF) closed that thread, I left a note on his talk page (User talk:Steven (WMF)#Research survey) requesting he steer Cooldenny in the same direction. I note that Cooldenny's edit count has 0 article edits and 89% talk page edits. BUT, he has not edited in the 12 hours or so that people have been questioning his spamming. So if the talk page discussions pan out, then admin intervention is unneeded. The only reasons for admins to get involved at this point is to monitor his edits; if he makes one more talk page spam before this is settled on his talk page, then a block is required to stop the spamming. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.216.246 (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk page discussions indicate that the spamming has stopped and Cooldenny has contacted WMF via the proper means. He created a meta project page and is apparently in contact with Dario Taraborelli. So for now, I believe this thread can be marked resolved. (Dynamic IP, will change when I log off.) --64.85.221.143 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. There's a lot of history here; I don't care to go into it unless I have to.

Bottom line, Science in medieval Islam was stubbed several months ago. I have just begun to rebuild the article, and User:William M. Connolley is reverting all my changes, complaining about the sidebar I added and the meaning of a word I used in the lead sentence. The problem is, the other editor is not just deleting the sidebar and/or changing the word in dispute, he is reverting all my changes - which are beginning to include cited material as well as formatting and other small changes in wording.

This article has lain untouched for some time. I discussed I was going to work on it and laid out a plan, at which time the OP went to the article and began making changes. Later that day, I began my work, which didn't involve his changes, and he has been reverting my changes daily the past three or four days since (once also by another editor). I am just beginning work on it. Every day I have to restore my changes and get through these tangential issues before I can get down to work. Then I have to be careful how I edit lest I get caught between revisions by an undo or something else. Now I have to come here to ask ANI for help.

In other words, I have been followed and singled out for attention by this other editor, and his actions are disrupting my editing. There is one other person involved, but my main concern at this time is the actions of User:William M. Connolley. My work would be easier, and the end result would probably be better, if I was not under siege for the duration of my effort. I would welcome serious criticism, but the amount of work to be done here is substantial and these revert attacks are pointless and destructive.

Thanks for your time.

Aquib (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit of history on the talk page, for other editors who are not familiar with this case. While WMC's points do have merit and should be discussed, I find the wholesale reversion troubling, as well as the very prickly comments that he made on the talk page. On the other hand, Aquib, have you considered just making the non-controversial changes first without introducing the sidebar or the word "formally", which WMC opposes? Add the things you can both agree on, and discuss the other things on the talk page while you do that :-). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC).

Thank you for your constructive suggestion, Lankiveil. I will defer these 2 changes for now in the interest of the article. However, I hope you agree the final result should not be influenced by the fact there is someone prepared to totally revert out all my work in order to gain leverage in content discussions. The article will suffer if such tactics are employed. Best regards -Aquib (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

As might be expected, there is a much bigger story behind this issue. Some background is at WP:Jagged 85 cleanup where evidence is available to show that there have been thousands of edits involving the undue promotion of Islamic and other non-European scholarship and achievements, with severe misuse of sources (misrepresentation; reporting only one side; quoting out of context; inventing claims). Attempts to cleanup the mess are hampered by editors who do not acknowledge the situation: Wikipedia is hosting plausible yet false material that is being mirrored to hundreds of sites, and the hard-to-access sources which seem to justify the material are often found to fail verification. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked very closely at the situation, but it does look as if Aquib's edits are reverted wholesale with edit summaries that only refer to tiny details that could easily have been changed directly. Full reverts with justifications that could only justify partial reverts is what I usually see when editors with no particular knowledge of a field try to prevent more knowledgeable editors with a fringe POV from distorting articles.

Islamic science is actually a mainstream topic. It's well established that at some time Islamic countries had a florishing scientific culture that had an impact on contemporary Christian countries. On the other hand it's also a topic that is attractive to fringe nationalists (similar to Indian mathematics).

I don't have the time to look at the content (and this is not a good place to discuss it), but one thing seems clear: If WMC and others at that article feel uneasy about Aquib's work because they can't check it, then that's a valid concern that must be made explicit to be resolved one way or the other. Full reverts that mention minor aspects as a pretext are not constructive at all. Hans Adler 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@L: Aquib has a long history of disruption at this article, going all the way up to his failed arbcomm case. Meanwhile, I don't know what you mean by "prickly": do please clarify yourself. But I notice you have no problem at all with the bad faith of William, you seem to have a personal interest in disrupting my edits - can you explain your asymmetrical response, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Note also this kind of thing Does the Islam sidebar make you uncomfortable? implying a sort of facile, covert anti-islam sensibility on the part of WMC Johnuniq.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

In the recent update,[16] Fainites has not provided Johnuniq's diff [17] and appears to have misrepresented the content of that diff (why a second sidebar might not be helpful for the reader). Mathsci (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, the diff I provided above clearly shows the whole post from Johnuniq that Aam responded to, and the whole of Aam's response. How can that possibly misrepresent anything, let alone misrepresent the content. My "recent update" was to correct my earlier error by changing the name WMC to Johnuniq. I would expect anybody commenting here to read at least that whole section of the talkpage, if not the whole talkpage, to understand the context.Fainites ^barleyscribs 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Fainites has subsequently indicated on my talk page that they were puzzled by my comment and guessed correctly that I had slightly misunderstood their own comment, which concerned the response of Aam to Johnuniq's fairly standard post. I am in complete agreement with Fainites that the reaction of Aam was not appropriate. Sorry about the confusion! Mathsci (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The declined arb request is here. Aquib's part in it doesn't look good at first glance, but I haven't checked into it closely. Tijfo098 discusses Aquib a little bit there.[18] 69.111.194.167 (talk) 12:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Are "first glances" into involvement at Arbcom a justification for violating our principles? Then I would direct you to the other editors involvement there in connection with the topic of Climate change.

As for the remark regarding the Islam sidebar. The Islam project has a significant historic and scientific interest in this article. This exchange struck me as odd. There is no question this is a sensitive topic. I will agree we all need to keep AGF and stay focused on the content. But this all has nothing to do with whether wholesale reverts are an acceptable tactic in article development.

Aquib (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No more sensitive than many other topics and I don't see what that has to do with the covert suggestion that WMC Johnuniq is being anti-islam because he objects to a sidebar. (I would find it odd if an article on medieval science in Europe had a Chrisianity sidebar).Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

@Fainites, the remark I responded to was actually made by another editor, but your points are taken. Still, the question and answer seem outside the scope of this discussion. Briefly,

• To the "covert suggestion". Not sure how covert that was, how much was question, how much suggestion. Such are the vagaries of language. My question did not come out of the blue, it was a response to a statement made by another person. And asking someone if they are uncomfortable with a concept is not the same as suggesting they are against it. Rightly or wrongly, I interpreted the strong responses to the Islam sidebar as reactions to a perceived threat. Would I have received such responses if I had inserted either the Science or History sidebar? I am not the boogey-man. Being perceived or treated as such is not going to help me contribute to the encyclopedia.
• To the sidebar. This single word Islam describes a religion, a geographic area and a civilization. The appropriate comparison in this instance is not between Christianity and Islam, it is between East and West. In matters of Islamic science and history, the Islam sidebar is appropriate due to the cultural, rather than religious, significance. For non-Islamic topics, no Western sidebar is needed. Western is engraved between the lines of every article in the English Wikipedia, and enforced through the WP Manual of style.

I appreciate your input, and the opportunity to attempt to clarify my positions. If we got more of this on the article talk pages, it would be helpful. We can take this to a discussion page if you are interested in discussing these matters further, or continue it here if everyone else considers it appropriate.

Aquib (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Well this is en:wiki so I suppose western philosophy naturally predominates through sheer weight of numbers. Don't agree with your attempts to sidestep the comment you made though. It looks as if you may well find it difficult to get consensus on your sidebar. Religion and science don't mix very well.Fainites ^barleyscribs 16:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[19] – ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 14:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot with strong opinions, it seems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Following the edit summary's link to the FAQ, the supposed bot hasn't edited since June 2, 2009. There are some scripts or some such on the toolserver (linked from the FAQ) that do the same thing, and I'd assume that they leave the same edit summary, too. So, the IP is probably using these. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I just saw and deleted personal info that was included in a reference desk question. Is this sufficient action or should the info also be removed from the history? If the latter, I don't have the authority to do so. (I can be reached by e-mail if appropriate.) Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think it might need suppression then email oversight-en-wp‐at‐wikipedia.org (you need to replace part of that for it to work).

In general, if it's just someone trying to give their own name and contact details (for example, for feedback on a question) and they're not a minor, then its having been blanked as has happened in this case, is sufficient. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wanderer57 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – We're agreed that there's no evidence linking Gyrobo to the tweeting of Wikipedia user page contents. Truthkeeper88 is working with Arbcom to help mitigate the issues caused by the tweets. Ceoil's block will expire in less than a day, and by then we expect to have everything sorted. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never met User:Ceoil, and have never interacted with this user in any way. Nonetheless, Ceoil left this threat on my talk page, apparently referencing an innocuous content dispute, in which he was not involved. I have not commented on Truthkeeper88's talk page in over three weeks. I have never reported a threat before, and I'm not certain if this is the correct place to do so. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:WQA is the place for "impolite or uncivil communications", but this seems much more serious than that. GiantSnowman 00:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's what I thought. I mean, I also wondered if it was said in jest, because it's sometimes hard to tell when someone you don't know very well is joking – but this came from nowhere and there were no emoticons or anything for me to judge the tone. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) also, but this crosses the line, in my view. That's a threat of violence. An admin should issue an indef block 'till this gets sorted out. Jusdafax 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

While searching for something on google today for an article I'm reviewing at FAC, the search returned a post I'd made. I then randomly plugged in my username and found that someone has been tweeting posts from my page, with doesn't make me happy, at all. I posted (and then removed that fact) - basically because I'd been chatting with Ceoil who has been on wikibreak, and I had mentioned to him personal plans such as travel plans etc, but won't anymore if my stuff gets tweeted. None of this is hard to find, but I won't be posting it here. Ceoil saw that I was upset, and reacted. That's all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If he gets indeffed you'll have to go ahead and indef me too. But in the meantime consider the implications of women being wikihounded here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what is going on here, but the user conduct involved seems absurd. Could people seriously think before they type, whether on or off wiki. I'm not convinced any further action is required here, unless problems continue, which they really shouldn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with most of that. And please note that human beings are not physically capable of coming out of computers, unless the computer is very large, which most aren't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Being warned not to carry on off-site harassment. Running off to notice boards for help. You should think more. Ceoil 00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Gyrobo (talk · contribs) has been Tweeting your Wikipedia details? And even if he has, there's no need for threats of violence - we have proper ways to deal with stuff like this. GiantSnowman 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to accept snowman if most editors feel that the people who hand around here totally, utterly, unsuited to dealing with these situations. I wouldn't trust most wiki admins with a spoon, much less the privacy of a close friend. Ceoil 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been tweeting anything, I don't even have a Twitter account, and I haven't had anything to do with Truthkeeper88 in over three weeks. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@NYB - my post got lost in endless edit conflicts. I'm not happy to have found that posts from my user page are being sent out on Twitter, and no it's not good user conduct. I've never been to AN/I; I've contributed significantly to this place; if contacting Arbom is the thing to do, then I'm happy to do so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So you say Gyrobo is tweeting your personal information (I'm not sure why you'd put personal stuff on Wikipedia, but that's a separate question) and Gyrobo says she isn't? It would really help to have a link to this twitter account, and some information about how you determined that it was Gyrobo who created it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Posts from userpages should not be sent out (by other people) on Twitter; that seems fairly obvious to me, so I didn't think it needed to be said expressly. To whoever is doing that, don't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To FisherQueen - I thought Gyrobo was being accused of being the Tweeter, not Ceoil? GiantSnowman 01:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I searched twitter and couldn't find Truthkeeper88's name. Did I do it wrong? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

More edit conflicts Here is the thread that's being sent out on Twitter. No, Ceoil has absolutely nothing to do with it. I posted on my page that someone was sending the tweets, he saw. We collaborate. On Featured articles. Sometimes we need to know when the other is around. I should be able to do that without finding people are taking stuff of my page and sending out. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@ FisherQueen - I don't even have a Twitter acct. I don't know why it showed up, but it did. Won't say any more. I am not lying. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

After the original "Vagueness" discussion, Truthkeeper88 left substantial comments on the relevant FAC, which I attempted to address. When I had things to take care of offline, I asked the FAC delegates to close the review in a way that didn't make the reviewers feel as though they'd wasted their time. I never held any kind of grudge against Truthkeeper88, never had any desire to tweet anything about her, and I didn't even know she or Ceoil were women until this discussion. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Question to Truthkeeper88 - nobody here disagrees that fellow editors shouldn't be Tweeting your information. However, where is the evidence that Gyrobo has been the one doing this? GiantSnowman 01:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@FisherQueen again - a.) I've been subject to on and off wiki harrassement before and it's not nice; b., it's no one's business why I post when I'll be around and not; but basically when people collaborate, it's good to know who's doing what when. That's how content gets built; c., no I will not post the what I found on Twitter - you'll have to AGF or not. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

@Snowman - now it's my fault. Great, Just great. Tonight I was to copyedit someone's featured list & instead dealing with this. Wonderful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence that's of a sensitive nature, I recommend that you e-mail your most trusted admin and clue him/her in, on what's up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this it? It looks like a bot to me, republishing random links. What made you think that User:Gyrobo had anything to do with it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Truthkeeper88 - Nobody is saying it's your fault at all; but if you accuse fellow editors of harrassing you off-wiki, but refuse to back up such allegations with evidence, then there's nothing that can be done. GiantSnowman 01:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they assumed it was me because I write about New York's Hudson Valley, and that Barrington Nixon person/bot who has been tweeting says they're from Kingston, New York? --Gyrobo (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Its a bit more than that Gyrobo and you know it. The very fact that you opened this goes to show you a, well, prick. Snowman can you not see the irony in your requst to know more. Ceoil 01:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a hacked Twitter account, controlled by a bot, which spams random web links - nothing more. Can an admin please step in and deal with the original issue at hand i.e. threats of violence made by Ceoil against Gyrobo? PS Ceoil, remove that personal attack please. GiantSnowman 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not accused anyone of anything. I've noindexed my pages. That's all. I don't understand how the victim turned into the perpetrator. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And why am I being shouted at? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ceoil, I just repeated what I read at FisherQueen's link. I keep telling you I haven't done anything, I'm not involved, and I don't have a Twitter account. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned that, knowing that personal attacks are a problem and that there seems to be no evidence supporting her belief, User:Ceoil has gone back to add a personal attack to her recent comment. And why is Truthkeeper88 so carefully avoiding explaining herself more clearly? This is all very strange. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Spectacturaly missed the issue, and point and just rule read. Block me so (Personal attack removed). Ceoil 01:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not strange. You too are turning me into the perpetrator. Ask the questions clearly and logically and I'll answer. Don't make accusations, because I haven't accused anyone of anything. All I've said is that I found my posts on Twitter, hence will be more careful in the future. That's it. What more do you want. Blood? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

oh for god's sake block both of us. then two or three more pages won't be written tonight, but who cares about that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please let someone know why you think I was involved in whatever it is I'm supposed to be involved in? And when this happened? Because I'm telling you right now, unequivocally, that I have not had contact with Truthkeeper88 in three weeks, and that I have never tweeted anything. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Truthkeeper - why are you getting so wound up? Nobody is having a go at you, nobody is accusing you of anything. You weren't involved with, or even mentioned in, this thread until you joined in saying somebody on Twitter has been posting links to your Userpage. It is obvious that the Twitter account which posted a link to your Userpage is an automated bot merely regurgitating web links. This thread isn't about that - this thread is about Ceoil's (unfortunately now repeated) attacks on Gyrobo - not you. Please take a step back and calm down. GiantSnowman 01:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely unfair. I make a post on my page, a friend reacts and gets blocked. Can an admin please block me too. Apparently I'm the liar here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

YOu shout at me and ask why I'm wound up. Go ahead and block please. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I don't live in Kingston. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No one has shouted at you. Your friend is blocked because she won't stop making personal attacks against another user, and it appears, from the evidence that we have, that that user is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing. If that's wrong, and User:Gyrobo has done something bad, we'd love to see the evidence and hear what he's done, so we can deal with it, but that won't make it okay for your friend to make personal attacks. Yes, I do think you are lying, but only because you're really, really acting like you are lying. If I'm wrong, I'm sure that, eventually, you'll reflect on this conversation, see where it went wrong, and explain yourself more clearly. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me - you blocked and then you're going to bed, but first you accuse me of lying. Please tell my what I am lying about. Clearly. This is the height of incivility and ABF in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Truthkeeper, you & Ceoil have ABFed to the nth degree by accusing Gyrobo of Tweeting about you. Please provide evidence if this is the case - your failure to do so, despite multiple requests, is highly suspicious. Maybe an admin should close this thread - it's turning into a circus, and it's pretty much resolved anyways. GiantSnowman 02:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not accused Gyrobo of Tweeting. Somebody tweeted, that's indisbutable. I mentioned the tweeting on my page. Ceoil saw it & I suppose based on the thread tweeted assumed whatever he assumed. And now he's blocked. Because someone tweeted Gyrobo's post from my page. That's the bad faith. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? What exactly is "bad faith" about blocking an editor who has threatened violence, and insulted, another editor? GiantSnowman 02:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently random break

OK, I'm trying to figure out what the logical next steps are here, and not seeing anything actionable. If there's evidence of off-wiki harassment, that's a matter for ArbCom, and not for ANI. Feel free to email us the relevant information, so we can take this off of ANI into email.

Can each of the unblocked participants please give a succinct statement of what they believe should happen next in this case? Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to hear whatever evidence there is to tie me to this Twitter incident. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

None, obviously - we have made multiple requests for such evidence to be presented, which Truthkeeper has tellingly ignored every time. The accusations are clearly baseless. GiantSnowman 02:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

At first, I thought this was just a grossly insulting comment based on a three-week-old discussion, but if there are editors who believe that I've done something unseemly, I'm more interested in disproving that than I am in seeing anyone blocked. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: All this could probably go away if Ceoil apologizes for jumping to the wrong conclusion and attacking Gyrobo. If they still think Gyrobo was involved, then email Arbcom or a rep. Simple, no? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The simplest plans are always the best ones, in my experience. GiantSnowman 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Can everybody please calm down. Ceoil was defending his good friend Truthkeeper88 against what he believed to be a serious threat to her, and sometimes he gets carried away; - at the same time Gyrobo has felt wronged and/or wrongfully accused and now Fisherqueen has suggested that Truthkeeper88 is lying, which also looks like a personal attack. Please everybody calm down and WP:AGF...Modernist (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have posted the situation here four times. Please read. Also have sent email to two arbs, while the rest of you were asking for an explanation, yet again. Please read my previous explanations. This morning, I happened to discover that someone had tweeted [20] this message. On my page I posted something to the effect that I don't want to discuss schedules at the moment because my posts appear are being tweeted, which I decided to revert. That's the extent of it. I cooked, cleaned, added a bit of content, saw Gyrobo's post, saw Ceoil's post, responded, and now it's my fault. So. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please send me the same information, so that I can see why exactly this involved me? --Gyrobo (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It did not involve you. Your name has never come up. But, your posts were tweeted - that's the connection. What I've emailed is exactly what I've posted here four times, with the exception that I've been cooking this Easter (didn't think all of AN/I needed to know that). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let us be clear about this. Ceoil was threatening to punch someone through the computer screen. A serious threat that could have resulted at any moment in physical injury. Fisherqueen acted heroically blocking Ceoil, despite the risk of being punched through the computer screen herself. Preemptive blocking was the only rational action available to an administrator at that point, and it is commendable that Fisherqueen had the wisdom and clarity of mind to recognise this. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All sarcasm aside, Ceoil wasn't blocked for some kind of threat that only exists in old bad sci-fi TV shows. He was blocked for continued personal attacks [21], such as going back into one of his comments to call another editor a "prick." We'd gone far past the "punch you through the computer" part of the discussion by the time he got blocked. Dayewalker (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Naive. This report was started because someone considered an absurd statement about punching another editor through a computer screen to be a physical threat; everything escalated from there. But in a site run by kids what else can you expect. Malleus Fatuorum 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank God Malleus is here. Everything will calm down now. Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you consider that to be a civil response to my observation? You do abide by all the blue links do you not? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It was the "And that's a promise." part that I found threatening. This was the first time I received such a response on my talk page, and from a user I had never met. I wasn't sure which dispute resolution process to go to, so I came here. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that you believed Ceoil could punch you through a computer screen? Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I believed that it downplayed the comedic nature of the first part, and that the gist of the message was that I should either avoid another user's talk page or face some kind of harassment. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What's the point of your observations Malleus? Just stirring up more drama? Can someone please archive this? Arbcom is looking after the issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

After investigation, it appears that some sort of bot attached to a rogue Twitter page was harvesting diffs from Truthkeeper88's talk page, in amongst hundreds of other similarly random links. The reason that it was able to do that is that at present neither user nor user talk pages are automatically flagged NO_INDEX. Truthkeeper88 has been provided with the information to make requests of Twitter to remove those specific posts (and to encourage them to look at that Twitter account's behaviour overall) and some IAR deletions have been made to her user talk page to try to disrupt the URLs that were posted on Twitter, and to encourage Google to remove the Twitter page from its search results.

However, anyone who's ever done a google search on their username will know that we have tons of bots crawling through userspace and creating mirrors in weird places around the internet. Google itself doesn't crawl talk pages (or if it does, it doesn't include them in the search results), but lots of other bots do. I've dealt with several complaints about "draft" BLPs in userspace, as well - and Google *does* crawl user pages and subpages, so a page that hasn't even made it to article space can be the first g-hit for little-known people or topics. This is a net negative for the project, since so many users work in their own space on incomplete/unsourced articles in development or to store random bits of information that might one day become an article. It's past time we talked about asking the developers to make all userspace and user talk space pages NO_INDEX by default. Risker (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds impressive. Probably is correct. But what if someone a hundred years ago got a letter in the mail that said all that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If it had today's postmark, they would know it was from the future, and of course would ignore it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that noindex stops well-behaved bots like google's, but it doesn't stop obnoxious bots that don't respect the noindex tag, which might include whatever was making those twitter posts. Does anyone know if only Truthkeeper88's page was being twittered, or is it lots more userpages (maybe even all of them)? I agree with you about increasing noindexing in any case. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Responding to the above: Given the massive number of tweets on the page (it took forever just to load this week's), it was really impossible to tell; I expect that once Twitter is alerted to the page, they'll probably just take the whole thing down. As to the earlier comment about the letter, I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at; however, a letter is a physical object that is normally only seen by one or possibly a handful of people, and it requires an additional step in technology to make it more widely accessible; it's also generally viewed as copyrighted material, so takedown orders are more easily implemented. Information gathered through a simple Google search is potentially viewed by thousands (if not more) people, and in the case of Wikipedia user pages, is released as CC-BY-SA, so a takedown is extremely difficult. I agree that "evil" bots are harder to deal with, but many of the bots that regularly crawl our pages and post to outside sites do indeed obey noindex flags. Risker (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

If such a bot is merly copying stuff from user talk pages - stuff which is fully accessible to the public - then it behooves us not to put personal stuff on talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just what I was saying to my wife Melinda and my kids Heather and Barnaby on our way to drop off the family dog (Happy) at the animal rehab clinic yesterday, but my girlfriend didn't agree -- and neither did my therapeutic masseuse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudos. In general, it's a good idea to tell the world where you live and when you expect that no one will be home, especially if it will be for a number of days or weeks; and where the money, jewelry, and baseball card collection are hidden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No way, Bugs, no one could find the mint-condition baseball cards hidden under the fifth step of the back stairway, they'd have to be mindreaders to do that! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You only think that's where they are. >:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume that as neither of the two Arbs who were sent details on this have taken any action against Gyrobo that he's completely innocent here? If so, why are these two so insistent on making out that he's the culprit? And are we sure that's not going to happen again? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, Truthkeeper88 did not make any accusations vis-a-vis Gyrobo; that was Ceoil, he was appropriately blocked for it, and he has now apologized on his talk page (he's still blocked but I will leave that to other administrators to address). Secondly, the strange link from the Twitter account led to a rather heated discussion between Gyrobo and Truthkeeper88, and the Twitter account coincidentally shared some non-public characteristics with Gyrobo. Truthkeeper88 was mainly concerned about her talk page being tweeted by *anyone*. Both Truthkeeper88 and Ceoil have come to realise that what happened here was part of a larger issue, and that it was likely not personally directed at all. As to whether or not it's going to happen again...well, I hope not. Risker (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to interject here. This makes it sound as though I was being vindictive which is completely untrue. The conversation I had with Gyrobo concerned FAC business and was not really heated, though it would have been better had he not insisted I do a full review after I posted an oppose. At any rate this is FAC business and should probably be raised there. As for the Twitter acct - it was pure happenstance that I found that link. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I have to add to what Risker has said is that "no action taken" and "completely innocent" do not correspond, although they do overlap. The evidence, as Risker just related it, was circumstantial and not compelling. I don't recall the last time a Wikipedia process found a person "completely innocent", although "no evidence to support a sanction" happens relatively frequently. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked Ceoil, given the apology, and notified FisherQueen, the blocking admin, who I believe is still offline. Grandmasterka 17:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

99.56.123.165 (talk · contribs) seems to have a mix of useful copyedits and such, but throws in a few edits that spam some organization in the edit summary. Of course, they could be several different editors on the same IP address, but I doubt it, since they're mostly on global warming and extinction. My issues are with the following edits: here, here, and here. Some of the editor's other edit summaries seem to be used as a soapbox for and against things. Maybe it's appropriate. I placed a warning, but I could be wrong. Unfortunately, I'm watching lots of the articles he/she are editing, so they suddenly popped onto my watchlist suddenly a few minutes ago.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you advised the IP of this discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I never remember to do that. The IP guy above did it for me. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit summaries are odd and most edits that I have seen are trivial (mostly linking the words climate change). I haven't noticed any that are related to an organisiation, and it certainly doesn't look like spamming in the usual sense of advertising something. Could you be overreacting to the edit summary of this edit? It seems to be the only one that comes even close to your description, and I am not even sure that "read about [...] in [...]" is meant as an imperative. In this general context it might just as well be short for "I read about [...] in [...]", since the user's edit summaries in general convey to me a desire to tell us about his or her state of mind, even when it's not relevant to the edit in question.

Let's keep the categories right. So far it looks like eccentricity rather than spamming. I will leave the user a note that edit summaries should be used for comments on the edit, not for general chat about the article's subject. Hans Adler 08:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a similar editing style to that of 99.119.129.3 (talk · contribs) [22] Often only a wikilink has been added, so the edit summary is unhelpful. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And this IP 99.19.41.7 (talk · contribs). Seems to be the same person. Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to many IPs in 99.0.0.0/8, it's probably the same person as most of the ones in User:Arthur Rubin/watch#Global warming / climate change. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(Copy/paste is out of order on my computer at the moment, or I would have copied those 5 IPs.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Or indeed here 99.54.138.81 (talk · contribs). On this IPs talk page, several IPs are communicating through the medium of wikilinks. Mathsci (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

As Arthur Rubin writes, the editing involves other IP ranges: "99 anon (and 97.87.29.188 and 209.255.78.138, 108.73.115.71, 216.250.156.66 and possibly 24.11.21.141) adding easter eggs, inappropriate #See also and {{seealso}} links, and clearly inappropriate categories to many global-warming-related articles. Although "it" is clearly a single person on a floating IP, it seems not subject to 3RR." Mathsci (talk) 09:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

IP always geolocates to the Michigan area. WHOIS says it belongs to AT&T PPP pool, so you've got someone on a substantial dynamic IP range. 3RR? Restrictions? What's that? Ravensfire (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The 99 anon is annoying. In most cases, just revert and ignore. -Atmoz (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Three IP addresses, 67.49.60.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.205.136.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 166.205.139.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), have been repeatedly removing the subject's birth name from Ayn Rand, along with material that mentions that she was Jewish. (Diffs: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) In one instance they went even farther and deleted an entire infobox, but mostly it has just been the birth name and ethnicity. Per the duck test, I think this is one editor using multiple IPs (they all geolocate to California). They've been reverted by three different editors (myself included) and a talk page discussion was initiated, but the IPs just keep removing the info with no explanation and no discussion. Given that it seems to be one editor and there are other IP editors who contribute valid edits, I'd prefer not to ask for semi-protection if it can be avoided. If the IPs could be blocked for edit-warring (again, assuming they are the same editor), that would be better, but if they are dynamic then that might not be effective, so any help or suggestions would be appreciated. (Note: I am an admin but won't be doing any blocks or protections related to this, because I'm very much WP:INVOLVED on that article.) --RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, one thing we can all do is define this as vandalism and revert it as soon as we see it, every time, as I have just done. Defining it as vandalism removes any concern over 3RR on the part of the reverters. HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it's disruption, not vandalism. Given the very specific and repeitive nature of the edits, they are being done with a purpose in mind, and that purpose is not "make Wikipedia worse". It may be misguided, it may be disruptive, and it may be plain wrong, but something doesn't become vandalism simply by fiat. I still think its fine to revert this sort of disruptive editing on sight, but there's no need to further abuse the term vandalism to do so. The person has never engaged in discussion, so I don't see any need to deal with them beyond reverting their disruption. But it isn't vandalism. --Jayron32 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of the IP's might be objecting to what they might see as an "overemphasis" on her Jewish background. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, or it could be any number of issues. But vandalism is simply "actions which intend to make Wikipedia worse"; not "actions I do not agree with". Insofar as this user has a purpose that (in their own misguided way) they likely believe themselves to be making the Ayn Rand article better, we shouldn't call the edits vandalism. It has no ultimate bearing on how we treat the edits, but we really must stop with the massive overuse of the term vandalism (see some threads above where this has gone massivly awry). --Jayron32 05:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. What some are calling vandalism might be good faith edits for the reason I stated. However, at this point, how much new information is likely to emerge about Ay Rand anytime soon? That is, might a short-term semi-protect be worthwhile? Or is this liable to be a never-ending problem?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rand is a very polarizing figure. I would suspect that 90% of the American population has little or no knowledge of her or her philosophy, but the other 10% care a whole lot one way or the other. The articles at Wikipedia about her are a continuous and never ending source of petty edit wars, and I tend to agree with you that semiprotection may be the best way to go here... --Jayron32 05:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

What about this,[29] in which an editor removed the term magnum opus, possibly seeing it as a "peacock term", and HiLo put it back? Who's more in the right with that edit? (Not that it's such a big deal - just an example.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely my Edit summary said it all - "Reverted unexplained removal of content". The absence of any Edit summary from the IP, and nothing relevant around that time on the Discussion page, makes the removal unexplained. We cannot make assumptions about why an editor does something. We weren't told. We cannot just accept random, unexplained deletions just because they MIGHT be well intentioned. HiLo48 (talk) 06:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I observed your edit summary and the lack of one by the IP. But before you restored, did you ask yourself, "Is this magnum opus comment appropriate in the first place?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Only long enough to decide that it was none of my business, I had no idea anyway, and it would have been original research on my part. I'm an inclusionist. I feel pretty strongly about unexplained removal of content. If there had been any attempt at all to justify the removal, by Edit summary or on the Talk page, I would not have reverted. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the magnum opus bit was added by a red-link back on Christmas Eve,[30] replacing "best-known work". The latter seems like the more appropriate term to use, as it can be measured, whereas those who find her philosophy to be wrong-headed might say that the term "great work" is an oxymoron in her case. "Best-known work" solves that problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Now all we need to do is get other editors happy enough to document their thoughts as much as you do on Talk pages. Oh wait, that could somewhat overload this place! ;-) HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh, yeh. Anyway, I put the more neutral term back in the lead. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would not have reverted that, and really there hasn't been a lot of edit warring on this article in the last couple of years, though there have been editorial disputes. This appears to be one person with an agenda of some kind and no apparent interest in discussing it. --RL0919 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I considered the protection route, due to the ... ummmm ... for lack of a better term, "edit-waring" over the last couple days. (Note: I do agree with Jayron on it not being vandalism; but, rather mis-guided efforts. Or perhaps "unguided" is a better term) However, due to the PC tag placed on that article, I've decided I am not up to speed enough with WP:PC to hazard the task. If anyone has better info, feel free to protect away. — Ched :  ?  06:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Edit-Waring"? He might be confusing it with "Fredit-Waring". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment)Considering the fact, as stated above, that there is a mix of both constuctive and unconstructive edits coming from IPs, this article might benefit from WP:PC more than from WP:SEMI. Ashanda (talk) 07:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
      • There has definitely been some edit-warring over the last couple of days, which is why I started this thread! My suspicion is that the new movie is drawing more edits to Rand-related subjects, for better or for worse. Anyhow, pending changes would make a lot of sense for this article, if we are still doing that. --RL0919 (talk) 13:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is experiencing continuing edits from unregistered and newly registered accounts either removing content without explanation or adding content previously discussed and rejected by a consensus of editors on the talkpage. None of the new accounts seem willing to use the talkpage or for the most part even to argue for their changes in edit summaries, so short of blocking, protection of the article would seem the only way of stalling the edit war, which it has been suggested is related to the publicity surrounding the release of the Atlas Shrugged film (which is likely to continue). Disclosure: I am one of the longstanding editors of the article who have been reverting the new editors. Skomorokh 22:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

1 week semi due to significant recent abuse. I'm hesitant to protect for longer as it appears there have been some good faith non-autoconfirmed edits during that period. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. On an only-somewhat-related note, I've opened an edit-warring report [31] on Pmachnick (talk · contribs) for edits he started making after this discussion was opened. --RL0919 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Since April 2010, Tbhotch has continued to vandalize Lady Gaga articles by not conforming to the general consensus that the songwriters must be attributed to the album booklet details, e.g. Lady Gaga and RedOne, instead of Stefani Germanotta and Nadir Khayat, and as a result he has changed these without a reliable source - BMI/ASCAP is not a verifiable site. Also, he has vandalized other song articles by chnaging the genres without a given explanation and has threatened other users on the site by admitting that he will have their accounts indefinitely blocked. I think it's only right that Tbhotch should be banned from the entire Wikipedia community. 11:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.231.10 (talk)

Just as a general point, BMI/ASCAP is the definition of a reliable source, when it comes to songs and albums, given that both are responsible for making sure that all necessary parties are properly credited and compensated for their contributions to music. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 00:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and Tbhotch has not vandalized anything. Work it out on the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, you're required to notify the editor you're complaining about, and you haven't done that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be a reasonable guess that the OP here is a candidate for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that people keep doing this when the outcome is guaranteed to be a gunshot wound in the foot. Who teaches people that the best way to get a content dispute sorted out is to send a sock onto ANI with it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am definitely boggled. Here,[32] the IP brags about his intention to get Tbhotch blocked because he's "evil". Might that qualify as a personal attack? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I remember Tbhotch once saying about CharlieJS13 and his IP range (8x.xxx.xxx.xx). In my opinion, that can be considered a personal attack. Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell them not to, socks coming to ANI is one of the most efficient ways of catching them! ;). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Welp, this IP just got 31 hours for shenanigans, including userpage vandalism. I imagine the SPI will add to that, if and when. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The boomerang returned. The consensus was call Gaga according to ASCAP/BMI, nothing more. Please someone close this, block the IP (more time, his IPs are statics one week) per block evasion, and continue with our lives. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In a side note, time ago I was considering to get this user banned. Since he was blocked from editing he continues using IPs to do changes on music genres without a single source and using a "it sounds [genre] to me"; and if I catch him, he vandalize my userpage (thanks god I requested Prodego expand the filter to userpages). So what's needed to get him banned? Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Yomiel has been temporarily blocked unless disruption continues. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Yomiel has been blocked until he continues disrupting the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, this really hurts to bring forward as I have tried really hard to resolve this situation with a positive solution. Yomiel (talk · contribs), a good faith editor who has been active since January 2011, has been engaging in disruptive editing and edit warring at the Silent Hill (video game) article if one can go through the article's history page. The discussion on that article concerns about the word count in the plot summary, which should not include original research (including the word "presumably had a hand in faking her death as well" in the plot section), WP:TRIVIA, and extraneous detail per WP:NOT#PLOT. (see the user's discussion page). Based on this long discussion, we decided to remove the wording unless a reliable source can be found, but it still continues on the article and has consistently ignored consensus (see this edit). Golden Sugarplum (talk · contribs), a significant editor to this article, has been trying to improve it, but Yomiel has constantly reverted these edits. In Yomiel's comments on his talk page and the Wikiquette alert report filed by Golden, he unjustly accused Golden of vandalism, when he was clearly not (see also this discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive102#Disruptive_editing.2C_personal_attacks_and_ignorance_of_consensus). This counts as a violation of no personal attacks.

During this dispute, Yomiel has been continually notified of his disruption but he continually denies them and continues his disruption on talk pages by saying that Golden Sugarplum was lying ([33]). I tried contacting an uninvolved administrator about this situation, but Yomiel accused it as nonsense, and I tried to assume good faith with this user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Silent Hill issues, but given the nature of these edits and the heated discussion there and on the article's talk page, I have decided to post this issue here since my WP:AGF bar might have run out in this case. Please help resolve this situation. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear-cut. Editors don't get executive vetoes on articles they work on, and the material in question is a disputed personal interpretation of a primary source. Without a secondary source to back it up it's inappropriate, and continually reintroducing it against consensus is edit warring whether it takes place over 24 hours or a month. I've warned the user that if he does it again I'll block him; feel free to ping me if that happens. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You dealt with this issue incorrectly, as your words make it clear you have not fully investigated the matter at all. I have NEVER been disruptive. Some time ago, I made a very minor edit to the Silent Hill page, literally adding only a couple of words to the plot section. An editor with a superiority-complex went ballistic over it, has harassed me and lied about the issue repeatedly non-stop since, and has given me many undeserved warning and notifications. This user seem to be a friend of hers. Even though she deleted my edits due to lack of source, this editor flat-out admitted that she knew the plot details I added were accurate. In other words, she only caused trouble because she could, not because it was the right thing to do. She wouldn't let the issue go, ranting everwhere she could in order to get people to agree with her. Though she swears they did, this didn't happen. No one really cared at all, and even I agreed it was a stupid thing to fight over. She even went as far as hunting down another editor I'd disagreed with in the past and dragging her into the discussion. The few people who took interest in this asked me to provide them a source for my edits. I did this, and they acknowledged it. We made a compromise on the wording, and everything was seemingly fine. However, Golden couldn't let her failure go and continued to bother me, even reporting me-he report was ignored. Then, this guy, Sjones, suddenly brings the issue up on some page to get an admin's point of view. He incorrectly portrays me as a villain, and he makes this post even as he accuses us of beating a dead horse. Everything was over and done with, but he was continuing it. I commented, and he then went to an admin's specific page and repeated his tirade against me. This roused my suspicions that he did not care about the article, and only about getting me in trouble. And now this. He's commented on ANOTHER admin's page. You don't think there is something wrong with this? The consensus had reached and agreement in MY favor. All of my edits were backed up and NOTHING was my personal interpretation. Not only have you said many unjust things to me and threatened me, but it's clear you did not really look into this situation at all.Yomiel (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You may be unhappy about the outcome, but there is a clear consensus on this issue and I have fully investigated this issue for now. You are now engaging in disruptive activity to prove a point as well as incivility now and have continuing the edit war and the comments on Golden Sugarplum. Just to clarify this statement, Anyone involved in an edit war is wrong. As such, your arguments and inflammatory comments have thoroughly exhausted my patience. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked User:Yomiel for 24 hours for edit-warring on Silent Hill (video game) even while this dispute is in progress and after being warned. I have not reverted their latest change -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Now he's requesting an unblock. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm off to relax for a bit - any other admin is free to amend the block however they think best, without my approval -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Continued refusal to cooperate with others

Based on the recent posts on User talk:Yomiel#Yomiel's talk page, he continues to make unfound claims of harassment and refuses to cooperate, as well as falsely accusing Golden of "vandalism" when he is clearly not per this, to peacefully resolve the situation, even after Boing! said Zebedee told him to calm down. He then said a hostile comment with clear violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and dismisses the dispute while it is in progress. Now, Yomiel called Golden a "bratty girl" and a "mean-spirited editor", which is another personal attack. With this situation escalating, I am not sure that much can be done to assist Yomiel as I feel that I have been helpful to this user as I can be. Unfortunately, he still fails to behave in a collegiate manner, tenditiously edits this article (specifically meeting all 13 of the characteristics listed here), clearly lacks the competence required to edit this page, and still refuses to get the point in this situation, so this editor's nonsense needs to stop. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yomiel has now called Golden a "bratty girl" and a "mean-spirited editor" and continues with his personal vendetta towards Golden. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The user is blocked. If he resumes the disruptive conduct when unblocked, we have a problem. Unless and until that happens, drop it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, then. Discussion closed for now. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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