User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Seinfeld.

Hello. Haven't talked to you for a long time since about six months ago. Even with the subtle edits. When it comes to my recent edits, nothings changed. I understand you clearly about ownership but it still feels as if you try to put additions or clean up on the seasons section, it's reverted back with explanations from Hearfourwesique like WP:TW and poor grammar/structure. If the culture keeps up, than the definition of Wikipedia has changed. I won't accuse anyone for now. Even if it takes a year, compromise or something close is what I need soon. Or perhaps a third opinion which might be a good choice. I'm now just waiting for an explanation for reverting my edit and not repeat the mistake again. Sorry for the long winding explanation.

I don't want to cause anymore trouble so please take the time and talk in my page soon. Editors like Hearfourwesique doesn't like to compromise so be careful when talking to him. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing and I'm trying to find a simpler understanding, when Hearfourwesique revert my edit, what does reverting "good faith" edit mean? Does it mean when an editor tries to make it better, you revert it so an editor who made the edit never happened? I'm trying to find a definition to "good faith" so help me please. Take your time. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnnyauau2000, please understand that I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I don't know if Wikipedia is the right place for you. Hearfourwesique has reverted you exactly once on that article in the last 6 months. You've made quite a number of changes that weren't reverted by anyone. When you make an edit to WP, there is a chance it's going to be reverted, altered, removed later, or copied and put somewhere else. My edits get reverted all the time. It's the very nature of a wiki. You can't expect that Hearfourmewisque, or anyone else, has to always accept everything you do. When you say, "the definition of Wikipedia is changed", you could not possibly be more wrong: Wikipedia has always been based on the idea that we edit together, collectively, including sometimes undoing the edits of others. You simply can't take it personally. If you do take reversions personally, then, as I said, you probably need to go write somewhere where the site is 100% under your control, like a personal blog. Also, I just looked at the edit, and Hearfourmewisque is actually 100% correct in reverting because your grammar was wrong. The line you added , "Also introducing stories clashing together" is not a complete sentence--it lacks a subject, and the tense on the verb is wrong. The phrase you added in the later sentence is also incorrect, because "for the whole of all of the seasons" is unecessarily wordy; there's no reason to use "whole" and "all".

The "good faith" part means that he believes you were trying to improve the article (i.e., that you were acting in good faith), but that your version was still worse for some reason. It's a way of distinguishing between edits that are trying to hurt the encyclopedia (vandalism, POV pushing, etc.) and edits that are trying to help but don't actually make things better (like your grammar errors). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I guess it can't be helped. Wikipedia is a place where we edit together. Also it's true my grammar is terrible and my English isn't perfect. Maybe you can direct me in how to correct my grammar issues and I'll take on board anything that should help me in editing. I'm trying to keep a cool head here so perhaps I'll leave it until my English in Wikipedia can be improve. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I said, I apologise for taking this personally. What I wrote above is nothing but inexscusable. But at least for the first time (for a long time anyway) that you're able to point out what I did wrong. Normally, when I make mistakes (and I do all the time), they just said "I can't help you there" or "The edit is unacceptable" from Hearfourwesique. Now I feel when he reverts my edit today, and he's completely right on it, I'm starting to get it now. I believe in the future that mistakes can be learnt with a cool head and not having misunderstandings all the time. Wikipedia might not be for me but I still like to help work on more articles. Not just strictly Seinfeld alone. Christmas is coming soon so I'll try to keep the stress from getting to me. We'll chat together soon. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RadioIzzy

Hello, Qwyrxian. Nice to meet you. You blocked user recently to RadioIzzy. But, he again insist on distort sales List of best-selling albums. Furthermore, I have seen their contributions and it seems that this is common in him. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked RadioIzzy again, this time for a week. The articles in question aren't on my watchilst, so if he does it again once the week is up, feel free to let me know again. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

 Okay Thanks to you too. Regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RossRydlR5 is also GLCFan1

RossRydelR5 (talk · contribs) is also a pretty obvious sock of GLCFan1 (talk · contribs). New account today, same interests and similar edit pattern, experienced editor. I don't think the 1 month block on 70.190.10.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) will prevent use of his already created accounts. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've re-opened the SPI with the new account. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Abhinavname

This user create account again and start fighting for the same agenda as usual against widely used website Boxofficeindia related to bollywood films as it is another sockpuppet of User:Besharamsun and User:Sanjeetbond.I am 100% sure from his writting style.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 04:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I was looking into the matter, and ended up on the SPI page, and noted that the clerk there asked you for specific diffs. Please don't try to short-circuit the process by going to an admin directly. You have to see why we can't just trust someone who says, "I know for certain that person is a sockpuppet", since someone who isn't acting in good faith could use that in malicious ways. I don't think you're doing so, but you need to provide some sort of specific evidence. I'm looking at the most recent comment on Talk:Jab Tak Hai Jaan, and trying to find something similar in Sanjeetbond's writing, and I'm not seeing a clear give away. Could you please tell me and/or the SPI clerk what exactly makes you certain? By far and away the best way to do that is to show a diff from Abhinavame and a diff from Sanjeetbond or one of his socks that are very similar. Alternatively, if there's something special in his writing style (like he uses a very special phrasing or typing style), send me the info by email (so that you don't give away on the site what the person's "tell" is). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok please send me your email id and i might withdrew my request from SPI as the syspo's there is not aware of previous encounters.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 05:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

While you are on this page, near the top in the left hand menu, there's a section called "Toolbox". If that section isn't expanded, expand it, then click "Email this user". That will send me an email. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, this user copy-pasted my birthdate and information, which is inappropriate. Please consult him not to do this.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 14:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

He's switched it now. Basically, he just copied your userpage (which is allowed) without changing the personal details—more of a mistake than a problem. Note to both, I am still monitoring for the underlying concern, but I'm not quite ready to make a call yet. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment for RMs.

Hi, Qwyrxian there is a debate going on Talk:Islamic views on Abraham#Requested move for making some article as primary topics. i would like you to participate in it. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric C. Anderson redux

Hi again, Qwyrxian. I hope you weren't too annoyed by my question regarding Eric C. Anderson last week. You seem pretty busy, but I did want to let you know I've taken the question directly to the Talk page, seeking others' input. If consensus is that the information must remain, I'm sure they can live with it, but I'm actually kind of interested myself to see what people think. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I simply didn't notice the request! It probably came when I had a few things come to my tp at once, and then I either saw it and thought I'd get back to it later, or possibly even didn't see it. I'll go take a look now, but my initial feeling is that removing it should be fine. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thank you very much, and sorry for the trouble. Wish they'd flagged it for me on the first go-round, but I appreciate you taking the time to look into this. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 04:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply for Talk page notifications.

I have changed the phrase hope it look fine now. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

On similar note i have figure out that the you are quite agree with making redirect to the articles.I would to happier with "Musa" etc redirects to "Islamic view to Moses". As majority is opposing the move. Is it wiser to add this option to the proposed request move or not. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. As for the RM, you can let it run a little longer (normally they'd run for a week to a month, but this one is snowing opposition, so it may end sooner). You don't need any sort of consensus to create redirects--you can just go ahead and just create them. Of course, in a case like Musa, you can't, because there are many different things with that name, so that page is currently a disambiguation page, but if there are some that are currently non-existant, you can just make them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have tried this earlier but as all the possible redirects are occupied by disambiguation pages its harder to redirect them and one has to use prefix "Islamic view of xyz" that is highly uncommon for users to search if it was "xyz (Islamic view)" or "xyz (Quranic figure)" or "Moses (Prophet Musa)" or something similar it would be acceptable. As the article Job (prophet) is, I mean it would be lame to place it as "Biblical view of job" etc. The Prefixes are annoying. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson

Can you also watch list UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson for the same reason as UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald. Mtking ^(edits) 02:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the flags. I don't know for sure if this would make me WP:INVOLVED, since I'm merely enforcing a site-wide consensus, but hopefully once notified of the rules (on the talk page) everyone will be cooperative. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Images

This user User:Kbabusr again start reverting low resolution images without hearing here,here.---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa's already blocked the user indefinitely. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qwyrxian. You have new messages at UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson's talk page.
Message added 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LlamaAl (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Weymouth F.C.

Hi Qwyrxian, I merged the thread you opened at WP:FOOTY with the thread already open on Weymouth. Just to make it clear the edit war between Tribe2 & MattytheWhite wasn't about whether current squads should be listed in numerical order or in order by position as Weymouth F.C. don't have squad numbers, if they did it would be by number. The edit war was about the ordering of players, who don't have squad no.s by position, then alphabetically or solely by position (which appears as random). Also Tribe2's version was in violation of MOSFLAG & he/she also removed maintenance templates without resolving the issue & administration categories. Thanks for protecting the article as it had been at RPP for a while. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I know you indicated that you would like to unprotect the page early if the situation was resolved, so I thought i'd let you that User:Tribe 2 was blocked as a sockpuppet. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've unprotected. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Amity

Dear Qwyrxian,

I would like your advice and guidance on what to do with editors like redpenofdoom who are going out of the way to find old articles on Amity from the years 2007/2008 and out of large articles just taking a few negative lines to create a negative image of Amity university on the Wikipedia page. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I recommend following WP:AGF. I'm sure that redpenofdoom could say that you're going out of your way to include positive but trivial claims about the university. If there is negative press about the university, it can be included as long as it meets WP:UNDUE, are adequately sourced, etc. If you really think things are unbalanced, you can take it to a noticeboard (let me know and I can suggest some if needed) for outside assistance, but the first key is always to assume that all sides are adding information in good faith to improve a Wikipedia article; sometimes this will mean adding positive points, sometimes negative. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

On the page the perception of a journalist is being quoted. "the school is seen as a safe option for students who "cannot get in anywhere else." There are no facts or anything to back it. Can a personal perception be used as an encyclopaedic fact? Rahulpandey1 (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not the perception of the journalist, it's a statement of fact. The journalist made that claim. That does not mean it's the journalist's opinion; absent evidence to the contrary, we must assume the reporter did research to verify that this is the common public perception of the school. And, I have to say, I'm starting to doubt that you're editing in good faith. You are consistently accepting, without any sort of critical inquiry, positive statements about Amity, in any place you can find them, and you are trying everything possible to remove any negative claims. This sure looks like you're more interested in pushing a particular POV than in creating a neutral, detailed encyclopedia article. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked user Phenomenon8980

Hello, recently, you blocked IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.200.212.248 for edit warring and trying to force preferences into articles. If you look at that user's recent contributions, he has claimed that he created List of current Days of our Lives characters, which was created by a sock of the indefinitely blocked User:Phenomenon8980. The IP geolocates to Florida, where threats of violence against other users were initiated by him. I believe we are dealing with him again and am seeking your advice on how to proceed with blocking again due to his incessant WP:OWN issues. Rm994 (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address for 3 months. We'll have to wait and see what happens next. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Haplogroups etc

If you are not already watching, you might want to take a look at my revert at Vellalar here. It is late and I cannot be bothered to start an article talk page discussion, but I have left a brief note for the contributor - it only touches the surface of the obvious (IMO) issues. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Watching. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gwanggaeto the Great

Hello. I have recently found that Gwanggaeto the Great had been moved to Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo (via Emperor Gwanggaeto by World historia) as a concensus version. However, I don't see concensus for that title. Most recent WP:RM resulted keeping the status quo at Gwanggaeto the Great and no one objected the use of "the Great" or suggested adding "of Goguryeo". I know Gwanggaeto the Great is not fully compliant with WP:NC-KO#Royalty but it is commonly used, recognizable, natural and concise. Would you please move the page back to Gwanggaeto the Great and restore the status quo? --Kusunose 07:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct: I think I got confused given that the request was after a series of move wars, and I somehow arrived at a totally random result. I've moved it back to Gwanggaeto the Great where it always used to reside. Thanks for noticing! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

email

Hello, Qwyrxian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 17:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

High priority email

Hello, Qwyrxian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Fanthrillers (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! - Fanthrillers (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A little violation

There is a section (Now what?....) violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF on the talk page of the List of WWE personnel article. Instead of discussing the content, they are insulting the contributors and flinging accusations at other editors ("and now because of stubborness by a select editor, the whole works are gunked up."). The place to this kind of comment is not there. Thanks for the attention. WWEJobber (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that comment earlier today, and have been trying to decide how to respond. I'll say something at some point. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rajpurohit

Hi. I wonder if i could ask you to take a look at the above page. I've edited it a few times, so it's on my watchlist, but i don't know enough about the subject to determine if there's any value to it; i have seen you active in Indian and caste subjects, so i'm thinking you may know what i don't and can make a determination. As far as i can tell, there may be a nub, or stub, under all the accretions, but it seems fairly well buried. Thanks for any help you can offer ~ even if just to suggest another user who may know better, if you don't. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've scrubbed the article, cutting down only to the info verified by the one source involved. I'm adamant that we should slash down every caste article to only the verified info, primarily because the unsourced info is 1) often non-neutral; 2) often highly questionable (i.e., it's the claims the community wants to be true about itself, even if it may not be true), and 3) often unencyclopedic (like the long lists of villages any given caste may be in). It would be great if we could get verified info to replace what I removed, but that's often somewhere between difficult and impossible, given that many sources on the subject matter don't meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks righ t to me Sitush (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and action. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 07:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Flags

Can you have a look at this edit and the revert by Evenfiel I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this and he is aware of the situation. Your advice would be welcome. Mtking ^(edits) 21:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How does that "consensus" applies to that list? The RfC closure says that "Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country.". That list only has a list of bonus award recipients. The result tables, namely the result of each fight, are found in the events' articles. Evenfiel (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, a list of awards is a list of a results. Second of all, even if it weren't, there's no logical reason to believe that there is something fundamentally different between match results and bonus awards. And even if there were, MOS:FLAG requires it to extend to those, too. MMA is not some special field that gets to make up it's own rules and flout site-wide consensus. And the consensus is that flags in lists of sporting results, because it's an WP:NPOV violation to focus on nationality in cases when there isn't a clear national connection. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's funny that you talk about flouting "site-wide consensus", since the usage of flags in MMA articles is just the same as in most sports here in Wikipedia, which only goes on to show that we were following the consensus. Here are just a few examples of the most famous sports (none of them have a clear national connection):

Tennis - Tennis male players statistics, 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles, 2012 French Open – Men's Singles

Bicycle racing - Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France

Golf - List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins, 2011 U.S. Open (golf)

Formule One - List of Formula One drivers, 2012 Formula One season

Soccer - FC Barcelona, 2012 FIFA Club World Cup squads

Boxing - Susianna Kentikian (a featured article). Miguel Cotto (a good article]]

In some of these sports there might be an international federation which officially determines the nationality of the athletes, but that's akin to a MMA organization doing exactly the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For soccer, the use of flags indicates the national team that that player plays for, thus fitting MOS:FLAG. For the boxers, they were listed as FA and GA in 2008 and 2007, respectively, which may be before MOS:FLAG's current formulation, and certainly back before WP was as serious about neutrality and site-wide consistency as now. I'm going to ask that those two articles be fixed. On the rest, you're welcome to start removing the flags yourselves.

WP:OSE. Just to be sure, I looked very carefully at MOS:FLAG again, and the plain reading is unbelievably clear to me: we cannot use flags for sportspeople except in places where they specifically represent a country. That is not the case in a number of the articles you cited above, and certainly not the case in MMA. Flags over-emphasize the national identity of people, and thus violate WP:NPOV, except in those cases where the nationality is actually important; i.e., when they have won/competed on behalf of said country. I'm going to go ahead and take care of the two boxing articles, but I have limited WP time, so you're welcome to tackle the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

01. When a Wikipedia rule, such as the usage of flags, is downright ignored by the vast majority of editors, doesn't it show that the consensus has changed since the rule was created? The fact that so many new good and featured articles use flags (just check the ones for Formula One, Tennis and Golf) might point to that direction.

02. I can't understand how the usage of flag might violate WP:NPOV in any way. The organizations behind these sports constantly use flags. Books about these sports use flags as well. Fans like to know from which country an athlete is from. There is no over emphasis on national identity in showing that information.

03. If soccer can use flags to indicate the national team that that player could play for, the same could be done for MMA. A few MMA athletes have competed in the Olympic Games, and several have competed for their country in World Championships for other sports (Jiu Jitsu, for example).

Evenfiel (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one you need to persuade. You need to convince people at the talk page for WP:MOSFLAG and WT:MMA. The latter, though, you'll need to wait on, since consensus on this matter was just determined. But if you can show a consensus at MOSFLAG to change the rule, then we can change it. As a side note, no, I do not think that if many users do something, that shows consensus has changed. It merely shows that we have a lot more rules than most people understand, especially those editors who edit only in narrow subject areas. Plus, for example, what you're actually seeing in some cases is that the rules changed after the pages were created; like on those two boxing articles, they acheived FA & GA status before the current incarnation of MOSFLAG. Or, if you want an alternative analogy, the fact that people constantly violate NPOV to push a particular opinion does not mean that we should soften the wording of NPOV (I say this as someone who edits in a number of politically contentious topics, not referring to MMA here). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you have a look at this edit, you should be aware that JonnyBonesJones was blocked for edit warring over flags following this about a week ago and had a further block this time for 48hrs since also for edit warring but not over flags. Mtking ^(edits) 07:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning. Which I expect he will ignore, since he seems to believe, despite multiple editors telling him otherwise, that he is correct on this issue no matter what the RfC says. If it occurs again, let me know and I will block. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Mtking ^(edits) 08:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers - the team they are fighting for - are appropriate to understanding the outcome of the overall competition." There you go, a direct quote of the RfC saying it's only about results tables.

Also Mtking you bringing up the past about an unrelated article, and excepting I will be baited into another edit war with you is assuming bad faith. And Qwyrxian... "I've given him a final warning. Which I expect he will ignore, since he seems to believe, despite multiple editors telling him otherwise, that he is correct on this issue no matter what the RfC says. If it occurs again, let me know and I will block." is also assuming bad faith as well. Also it doesnt seem like you are taking a neutral position, which admins are supposed to do. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Another issue I wanna bring up. Mtking didnt just remove flags, he removed content from the page, aka Shane Carwin's name, I expect you're not gunna mention that either though. Also in his most recent edit he removed content other than flags, he removed Daniel Pineda's name. He also removed non flag tags saying what country the fighter comes from, and numbers which tell how many fighters are from a particular country. I doubt you'll threaten to block Mtking over that though. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 10:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In one respect, you are correct that I am not neutral: I am not neutral with regards to following established consensus. And I will continue to be so, on this matter and on every other one on Wikipedia. If a consensus has decided that something should not be done, it is appropriate and necessary for all editors, including admins, to make sure that it is not done. And I think you're wikilawyering to say that the issue didn't extend to non-results tables...but just for the sake of thoroughness, I'll raise the matter with the closing admin. In the mean time, you could show you deserve good faith by not re-adding the flags until the matter is resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to be neutral, thanks for your confession that you are not. You are threatening to block me over a guideline, not a policy. Deserve good faith? I think you are mistaken. On wikipedia, you are supposed to assume good faith. There is no "Oh you dont deserve good faith!". So thanks for admitting you are not assuming good faith as well. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that Vanissac is NOT an admin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=Vanisaac

Also, you are assuming bad faith by accusing me of "wikilawyering", that also borders on an insult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikilawyering#Negative_connotations

"Because reasoned arguments in a debate necessarily include both elements of fact and references to principles, disputants who lack such an argument sometimes try to undermine arguments they can not otherwise overcome by just tossing out the naked accusation that their fact and principle marshaling opponent is a wiki-lawyer. This is not a good faith tactic and does not foster a collegial consensus-seeking atmosphere." And you're an admin? Good lord... JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers - the team they are fighting for - are appropriate to understanding the outcome of the overall competition."

I think it's pretty clear it says "results tables" in the RfC. If it applied to anything beyond that, why would there be an RfC about flags in results tables in the 1st place? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

On my lack of neutrality, you missed my point: I'm "not neutral" in the sense that I stand on the "POV" of enforcing policies and guidelines. Such a "POV" is not only allowed, but mandatory, for all editors and especially admins. I was playing with the term to point out that simply saying that I am going to enforce guidelines doesn't make me non-neutral in the sense that is a breach of the rules of using administrative tools. Regarding the policy vs. guideline issue, there is no significant distinction between the two, and repeated refusals to abide by either one can result in editors being blocked. However, regarding this specific issue (the RfC) I have asked the editor who closed it if they meant the consensus to narrowly focus on results tables, or if that was merely an example (which is how I read it, particularly in the context of the RfC as a whole). If they intended it to only apply to results tables (that is, if they felt the consensus only applied to results tables), I will start another RfC on the matter, because I would like clarification myself. If the closer did not mean to be so restrictive, then I shall carry out the will of the community and ensure that MMA articles comply to the agreement in that RfC, as well as the broader MOS:FLAG rule. So lets wait and see what the closer says, and go from there. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You should choose your words carefully then Qwyrxian. You are an involved admin, and if you use your powers to try and win a dispute, then you would be abusing your powers and that could result in their removal. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not in any way involved in the sense of WP:INVOLVED. I'm not trying to win any dispute. I'm trying to stop some of the ridiculous fighting that has been going on across the MMA topic area for ages, that resulted in general sanctions being set up on the entire topic zone. These sanctions allow any uninvolved admin (which, again, I am, as I've never edited the content of an MMA article as far as I know in anything other than a trivial sense like reverting vandalism or enforcing community consensus) to stop disruption by means of blocks and/or topic bans. Should I receive eventual clarification that all tables fall under the flag restriction (either from Vanisaac or from a future RfC), then I will act administratively to ensure the consensus is followed. Should the community not endorse that position, and only limit the restriction to results tables, then I will not attempt to enforce the matter, though I may need to ask for clarification from the wider community because this would seem to contradict MOS:FLAG and WP:NPOV. This is very simple--we all must follow consensus. To me, there is an obvious consensus at [{WT:MMA]] to disallow the use of flags in MMA tables; neatly, this also matches the site-wide consensus at MOS:FLAG. If, however, there is a clear consensus that is not contradictory to site-wide policies/guidelines to allow them in tables other than results tables, then I would need to instead threaten administrative action against anyone attempting to remove the flags. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Barao vs. McDonald Not involved? Never edited an MMA related article? Your name appears on that as having deleted an MMA related article. I would say you are involved. Also theres alot of you an Mtking talking about MMA related articles on your talk page. I will point out again that Vanissac is not an admin. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:INVOLVED. Having taken an admin action on a topic does not make one involved. Otherwise, by your logic, as soon as an admin deleted one article in a subject matter, they could never delete another one. Mtking is bringing up the issue here because he's asking me to intervene as an admin, again, not making me an involved editor. And Vanissac not being an admin means nothing, as there is no requirement that admins close RfCs. In some cases admins are specifically requested, if a topic is very contentious, but that was not the case here. You could conceivably challenge the close; you can't argue the underlying point, but if you think Vanissac misread the consensus, you should start a discussion with Vanissac and explain why you think her/his close did not match the consensus on the talk page. If you don't get satisfaction there, your next step would be to open a discussion at WP:ANI. However, you cannot simultaneously base your editing decisions on the exact wording of Vanissac's close and also assert that her/his close was improper, as that simply doesn't make sense. Again, could we please wait until Vanissac provides some clarification? I promise I won't take any administrative actions on this matter until I either hear from her/him, or at least a week goes by, in which case I'll have to open a discussion at another venue. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I left you a message in my talkpage. Evenfiel (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, but to be fair to you (JonnyBonesJones), I should clarify further: just having edited in a topic area doesn't even make an admin involved. For example, if I had created an article on some UFC fighter and edited it a 1000 times (I haven't, but just so that you understand the rules a little better), that would not suddenly make me WP:INVOLVED on all MMA or even UFC articles. It would make me involved on that one specific article. I just don't want you to start complaining to ANI or somewhere else and then get in trouble just because I wasn't clear in my explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You say you wont take admin action against Evenfiel because the RfC is unclear, but what about me and List of current UFC fighters? You have not yet clarified what the RfC means there either. I think the flags should be restored until there is a clearer consensus! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

good fair close

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next 36. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My stubbing of the article was just a quick and dirty transformation based on the two sources you identified. I'm sure there's plenty more that can go in (probably even some non-controversial stuff sourced to non-independent sources), but I wanted to get it to at least a reasonable state and let it expand more appropriately. I've watchlisted the article as well, so I'll try to help make sure it remains neutral as it grows. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Query On RMs

Hi Qwyrxian, i just wanted to know that is the request move is closed by the one who started the request or the other way round?? I think the consensus has achieved on - the request moves and should be closed now. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The person creating the move request should rarely close it, unless it's completely non-contentious. There's still discussion going on there, so I think it should be kept open for longer. The minimum it should run is 7 days; in this case, that should really be 7 days from the time the second proposal was made. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

hmm ok thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin grievances.

MOS:FLAG is a guideline, not a policy, so you threatening to block me over it is being harsh, and would be abuse of the admin tool.

ALSO:

"Conflict of interest or non-neutrality – Administrators should not normally use their tools in matters in which they are personally involved (for example, in a content dispute in which they are a party). See Involved admins. Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable."

From page WP:TOOLMISUSE. It sounds like you are attempting to take sides and threatening me with an unreasonable block...over some FLAGS! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not WP:INVOLVED, and I've explained that to you above. I also explained that there is no rule saying that we can block over policies but not guidelines. We block people over guidelines all the time. And, really, I'm not considering blocking you over a guideline, but, in fact, for your refusal to abide by (what is to me) a clear community consensus. That is, the problem is disruptive editing, not the flags themselves. As to your concern above, I already said that I would not block you while I'm trying to sort out the exact community consensus here. But right now, I have the closers analysis that the broader guideline does apply here. My own reading of both that guideline and the RfC lead me to believe it clearly applies. So what are you going to do now to attempt to show me the guideline doesn't apply here? I almost don't even know where to ask the question, because the answer is so obvious. To me, it would be like going to WT:MMA and asking, "Does WP:NPOV apply to MMA articles?" The question simply can't be asked. So I'm a bit at a loss as to what to do at the moment--to me, insisting upon reinserting the flags is a clear violation of community consensus (both local and broad). I'm going to think about it for a few hours and figure out what to do next. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Please explain how it's a clear violation, when the RfC says "RESULTS TABLES". JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting discussion in the talk page

Intoronto1125 is reverting users contributions in talk pages. I believe that since wikipedia maintain article page and talk page, any one can make their opinions to the talk page. But Intoronto1125 blocking user opinions and blocking people. It is clearly unethical. Can you please look into this ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lankan_Tamil_people#Multiple_issues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.245.163.30 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the user about the issue, and will see what they say. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

In case you aren't aware

JonnyBonesJones has invoked your name in changes to the List and in the Talk:List of Formula One drivers#Removal of flags section. You might want to have a look or make a comment. Regards, EdChem (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw it, and I'm choosing to ignore it. I'm not going to be dragged into a fight somewhere else because he doesn't like my actions on pages he edits. Feel free to take whatever steps are necessary on your page; I don't know enough about Formula One racing to know if/how MOS:FLAG applies. But if you think JBJ is becoming disruptive on that page, feel free to let me know and I'll see if other action needs to be taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhhhh, it was you Qwyrxian who said I was allowed to do it. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again, but you might need to know that JBJ has removed flags from tennis pages too, starting a discussion at Talk:Tennis male players statistics#Flags removed in which he talks about boxing. He has also re-removed the F1 flags leaving a featured list article with a section on drivers by nationality without any nationalities, which is clearly damaging content. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok EdChem, and your point is? The nationalities thing, I dont know if thats allowed under MOS:FLAG, if it is you have my permission to readd to that area only. I am not perfect, I make mistakes. But I made no mistakes in getting rid of the flags were there was nothing about nationality. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones, you are incorrect that your edit is supported by MOS:FLAG. It is not. No one on the talk page supports your view. The consensus at the relevant WikiProject is that the inclusion of flags is MOS-compliant. The international governing body for the sport uses nationalities. Further, I don't need your permission to edit. However, as I respect the WP editing process I will wait for talk page consensus to solidify before reverted all of your F1 flag removals. Or, someone else will revert you. My opinion, for the little it is worth, is that you are heading towards being blocked for disruptive editing and that your removal of the flags will not stand for F1 articles. You can choose to pause, reflect, and re-consider your approach, or you can carry on and find out if my opinion of where you are heading is accurate. I add that I have no power to block you, and I am not threatening you - I am offering some observations / predictions which you are free to take in whatever way you see fit. EdChem (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I disagree with everything you just said, and I am choosing to disregard everything you said in favor of wikipedia's policy and guidelines, which I am trying to follow to the letter. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight.

You give me permission to take flags off a page, then I get accused of being pointy and disruptive? What on earth? JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't give you "permission" to do anything. You are welcome, like any other editor, to attempt to correct errors when you believe you find them. Did you check the page to see if MOS:FLAG applies there? No, you just went there to remove the flags as some sort of revenge. This is exactly what WP:POINT is referring to. The fact that you are still insisting the flags belong on the UFC page(s) means you don't really want them removed from the other page; that, combined with your edit summary, indicates your clear purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with improving Wikipedia and everything to do with making a point about the UFC pages; that is, with everything to do with "winning". I don't know how MOS:FLAG applies to that page, because I haven't researched it, and don't care to. Furthermore, I have no idea of Formula 1 has a Wikiproject, and, if they do, if there is an agreement to remove flags from their boxes. And I don't care to find out, because I have thousands of things to do, on and off WP, and I don't have time to track through every sport and try to "fix" every concern. But you, and I, do have a responsibility for every edit we make. If you make an edit, you need to do it because you think it meets our policies and guidelines and improves the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Quoting you word for word, with bold areas of you giving everyone(including me), permission to remove those flags

::::: "It's funny that you talk about flouting "site-wide consensus", since the usage of flags in MMA articles is just the same as in most sports here in Wikipedia, which only goes on to show that we were following the consensus. Here are just a few examples of the most famous sports (none of them have a clear national connection): Tennis - Tennis male players statistics, 2012 Wimbledon Championships – Gentlemen's Singles, 2012 French Open – Men's Singles Bicycle racing - Tour de France, 2012 Tour de France Golf - List of golfers with most PGA Tour wins, 2011 U.S. Open (golf) Formule One - List of Formula One drivers, 2012 Formula One season Soccer - FC Barcelona, 2012 FIFA Club World Cup squads Boxing - Susianna Kentikian (a featured article). Miguel Cotto (a good article]] In some of these sports there might be an international federation which officially determines the nationality of the athletes, but that's akin to a MMA organization doing exactly the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For soccer, the use of flags indicates the national team that that player plays for, thus fitting MOS:FLAG. For the boxers, they were listed as FA and GA in 2008 and 2007, respectively, which may be before MOS:FLAG's current formulation, and certainly back before WP was as serious about neutrality and site-wide consistency as now. I'm going to ask that those two articles be fixed. On the rest, you're welcome to start removing the flags yourselves. WP:OSE. Just to be sure, I looked very carefully at MOS:FLAG again, and the plain reading is unbelievably clear to me: we cannot use flags for sportspeople except in places where they specifically represent a country. That is not the case in a number of the articles you cited above, and certainly not the case in MMA. Flags over-emphasize the national identity of people, and thus violate WP:NPOV, except in those cases where the nationality is actually important; i.e., when they have won/competed on behalf of said country. I'm going to go ahead and take care of the two boxing articles, but I have limited WP time, so you're welcome to tackle the rest. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)"

Also, how am I trying to win or get revenge? I am just trying to follow wikipedia's rules. What would I win? Why would I seek revenge? I want flags in all sports articles, but we have to follow MOS:FLAG. It's a GUIDELINE! I did do the edit because I thought it met the policies and guidelines, which is why I refered to MOS:FLAG in the summary. If you didnt want me to do it, every though you said it was ok, you should have taken time out of your so called "busy" schedule and done it yourself. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, do you think we're 12? Just...just...argh. In any event, I intend in the next several days to start a more in-depth discussion on the MOS talk page, because it does seem like clarification is needed for sports like MMA, Formula 1, Golf, and perhaps others, and the guideline probably needs to be either clarified or rewritten. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I dont know your age, you could be 12! lol. It seems you are a bit angry Qwyrxian. Relax, take a deep breath. Feel better now? :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Jonny, you're you're poking a bear. Qwy clearly told you that flags do not belong on MMA pages, only on places where they're representing their country - such as boxing. There was no way to misread that and claim that they said "go ahead and put them on MMA pages". Your attitude, your condescension is becoming disruptive, and your increasing number of posts here is now bordering on harassment. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I poking a bear, because me and Qwyrxian have a disagreement? No he said go ahead and remove flags from the other sports pages in question. I never said he said add flags to MMA pages, no need to try and put words in my mouth. How is my attitude disruptive? How am I condescending? And how am I "bordering on harassing" Qwyrxian when I just wished him a Merry Christmas. Do explain Mr. Wilkins. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW Mr. Wilkins. "Using "don't poke the bear" to hint that an editor is over-sensitive on a subject might not be true, and could be construed as a personal attack." JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Also for you... Mr. Wilkins: WP:AOHA and WP:HA#NOT JonnyBonesJones (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel threatened by your comment

Quote you:

Qwyrxian: "I strongly recommend backing down now before this escalates in a way that will not be good for you."

I dont think that was a threat of administrative action either, because "good for you" implys someones health. I feel you are threatening my health and well being with that comment. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY so perhaps being blocked won't be good for your health. There's no way that could be perceived as a direct threat on your personal health: you're a userid on the end of a computer line with no personal identification possible. It was very clearly a suggestion of admin action - don't try to personalize it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Bwilkins, thanks for clearing that up. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

And have a nice day. :) JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And if you are jewish...

Happy Hannakuh! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The WWE Personnel dispute

I've stopped editing on that thing for a while now, due to the silliness that's been going on. However, I noticed one thing, and I wasn't sure if there was a way to look at it. I noticed that some of the dialect used by Nomelck on the talk page either today or yesterday was very similar to WWEJobber. From what I was able to look up, it appeared that this username was made around September 16. WWEJobber was put on a block on September 15. Now, please know that I have absolutely no agenda here, no dog in this fight. But something didn't sit right with me when I read the comments by Nomelck. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but is there any chance you could help me out with a diff--one or more from WWEJobber, and one or more from Nomelck, that you think are similar? Often (thought not always) people familiar with the discussions can spot the similarities faster than outsiders.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thing no problem! Here is a quote from yesterday from Nomelck under the Let's Find Consensus section:

"It is a thing that don't need further explanation or even be discussed. The guys are ready to make a big impact and to be the next best hot thing in the business. But what I understand about WWEJobber arguments (you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that even working on the main roster and being on PPV, they (and referee Rod Zapata too) are still under developmental contract" And from Jobber a couple sentences later: "But all the things you said are exactly everything that I ever said about it. So do you agree with me now? And they are not under two contracts. This I never said. They are under developmental contract. Just this. They are not full main roster yet. It is simple."

The sentence structure seems eerily similar to me, and again, "Nomelck" was created the day after WWEJobber was temporarily banned in September, so it might be worth looking to see if Nomelck is a sock. Thanks for checking into this! Kjscotte34 (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

When will it be un-blocked? :( :( JobbersAreCool (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Once editors demonstrate they have come to a consensus, and have the ability to continue doing so. An activity which, I'll point out, you haven't done anything to help. Please go to the article's talk page and help build a consensus. Note that if and when the page is unprotected, if you or any editor starts edit warring again, I'll be blocking, not protecting. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

All I am looking for is a way to find consensus and get this thing unlocked. I'm not trying to start a fight, or claim ownership to anything. If I came off looking that way, I apologize, that wasn't my intent. There is a lot of murky grey area that has to be cleared up regarding this article, and sources speciffically detailing things like who is developmental and who isn't simply don't exist or at minimum are like looking for a needle in a haystack (I've tried looking for concrete sources, but haven't found any). To keep peace, and not risk a block on my part, I'll just stay off the WWE roster page while it's protected. Whatever the ultimate consensus is, I'll support it and go from there. Vjmlhds 16:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

But, in fact, you've just hit on the key, valuable insight: if there are no sources--we can't list any of them as developmental! How about proposing that on the talk page? Qwyrxian (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'm kind of kicking myself for not doing this to start with. I'm hoping we can get some traction on this and get this page unlocked. Here's to once this thing gets unlocked, it never needs to be locked again. Vjmlhds 03:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I did some research, and found a few sources which should help shed some light on some of the contentious issues. I'd appriciate it if you took a look for yourself, and tell me what you think, as I took your advice to heart, and hopefully it can bear some fruit and get this thing unlocked. Vjmlhds 19:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Qwyrxian, can I check if you did s follow-up check on Nomelck? From what I can see, Nomelck has been appearing on discussions and always agrees with WWEJobber. That seems rather suspicious, does it not? This agreement is even about an hour apart. Nomelck also agreed with WWEJobber on the merge WWE NXT articles discussion and the WWE personnel discussion. Starship.paint (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but while I see this as being possible, it isn't clear enough to me to actually take administrative action. While Nomelck has supported WWEJobber a few times recently, he has edited unrelated topics. One possibility is that they are two separate people who know each other off wiki. If you really think they're the same person, I recommend that you file an sockpuppet investigation; depending on how credible your evidence appears, you may be able to get a checkuser to look at hidden technical details that would help determine if they really are the same person. But whether or not they'll make such a check depends on how persuasive the SPI clerk finds the evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I do believe that a consensus has been reached. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that most of us are in agreement with the issue about "developmental" wrestlers, with the only holdout being WWEJobber. I put forth the notion that unless it speciffically says that so-and-so is still considered developmental, then he shouldn't be labeled as such once he makes the main roster. All except Jobber go along with this. Vjmlhds 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

24.208.13.171

Hello. I see on this user's Block Log that you recently blocked them (is there a way to Page an admin or Mod? How does one even find them?). This individual is back to disruptive editing, at least on the List_of_Kim_Possible_characters page (I'm really not familiar enough with the other articles this one blitzes). While not your jurisdiction per se, this one has been blocked under this and at least two other isps on the Kim Possible Wikia (which I patrol too) several times and durations. And for the SAME issues which is really a Revert War that frankly I'd not like to play into further. However my goal has been to bring the article page in line with the Manual of Style (I'll return to a more proactive status after the holidays), which includes No (or avoid) Contractions and that is primarily what this person does, along with inaccurate information.

Could you look into this? Please and Thank You.

PS, is there a level of Moderation just shy of Admin or perhaps for specific pages? I'm an Admin or Mod on several sites, and while I'm not looking for *more* on my plate, if I can help on the Kim Possible related articles, to have tools or even just an open line of communication with an Admin or Mod, would be useful. ZigZagStudios (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and they are clearly 173.89.153.66, which is one of the alternate Isp's I mentioned above as also being used and blocked on the KP Wikia. ZigZagStudios (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've reblocked 24.208 for 2 weeks; let me know if it re-occurs. The 173.89 hasn't been used in 4 days, so it may no longer be assigned to that person (alternatively, that could be a school IP, and the person hasn't been in school for that long).

As for mdoeration, there isn't really anything like what you're mentioning. Some people become reviewers or rollbackers, but those just let you accept 1) IP edits on articles protected with pending changes and 2) revert a bunch of consecutive edits by the same person quickly (and, given the interface changes last year, is only really useful if you want to use Huggle), respectively. However, you are certainly welcome to warn editors and report them if their edits are causing problems; a good place to learn about that is the Counter-Vandalism Unit, which describes the rules for what is and isn't vandalism, and also how to report problematic users. Note, for example, that 24.208 is not a vandal per WP:VANDAL, since s/he isn't trying to deliberately make WP worse; rather, s/he's just being disruptive by using a non-standard style and refusing to engage in discussion with other users despite requests to stop.

Having said that, though, there is some reason to believe that the adminship system/structure may change next year, but we have to wait and see for some key parties (specifically, founder Jimbo Wales) to make proposals and open community discussion. So, who knows what will happen in 2013? Personally, I've supported the idea of giving some user's "admin-lite" privileges, especially giving counter-vandal users the ability to issue short (1-3 hour) blocks and protect pages for up to 24 hours. But we'll have to see how that goes.

As for finding an admin quickly, there's no particularly easy way. You can look at the WP:Recent changes list and simply hover over people's names, looking for an admin who's editing. If you want to get the attention of the admin corps in general, you can do so at WP:ANI, but you should be warned that discussions there often become big drama-fests. The CVU page talks about how to specifically report vandalism. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for acting so quickly. As I said, I'm quite busy on other boards, and here I'm mainly concentrating in the KP pages. so having too much responsibility here is not my goal, just to "heavy" enough to deal with individuals such as this.

Again, this individual does the same sort of edits on the KP Wikia for the same characters and content. They just came off a 2 week suspension there using the 24.208 while the 173 is still on-going. This is why I know their intentions are closer to vandalism even if they don't fit that definition here.

Also thanks for the resources and links. I'm sort of tunnel-viisioned and really don't know that much about the Greater aspects of WP. After the holidays I'll have to look deeper into this wiki-markup (a far cry different from the Basic and Assenmbler I learned waaaaaay back in school and on my TI-99) as my aim is to do a bit of restructuring of the section headers, re-grouping some of the characters by Kim's Hometown. *le sigh*

At any rate, thanks once again! ZigZagStudios (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)