This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

a particular editor i'm banned from interacting with, has made an erroneous edit, by clumping all video games together in the Ghost in the Shell article, despite the article already being divided by series (in which certain video games belong to specific series already mentioned) (it's like clumping all the manga together considering all of the series have had manga adaptations, except for the original series). How do i handle it when i know perfectly well there's not enough editors to care about that particular series to revert. and since this ban is "indefinite" i don't know how to bring it up in the talkpage. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it erroneous as in "incorrect factual information" or is it erroneous as in "This isn't the way you want it to be organized"? Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Its an inconsistent form of organization. The article is organized by "series" sort of speak. There is the original manga series, the film series, the "stand alone complex" tv series, and the recent "arise" OVA series. Each series has its own offspring of media that of course will have similar variants. So it doesn't make sense to give video games its own particular section because its not its own series, they are all individual games from their respected series that already have their own sections.

Not to mention they are direct copies of the information i added not to long ago, basically its mainly video game off of stand alone complex series and the one Ghost in the shell video game based on the manga. Lucia Black ( talk) 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this sounds like it falls into the latter then. This sounds like the kind of stuff that you/ChrisG/Ryulong have been arguing about forever. As such, my recommendation to you is to drop it. You are interaction banned from him, and the projects he's working through. Unless it's objectively factually inaccurate, I'm not interested in intervening.

You're free to consult another Admin, if you're unhappy with my response, but just remember that the community is very low on patience your arguments with him in regards to how to organize these anime articles. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

it is "objectively" inaccurate. it implies that video games are a separate entity of the other media given in, especially if organized by name of series over media. it doesn't "sound" like Chris/me/Ryulong issues. its a valid issue. why don't you take a look at it before writing it off as an issue. Lucia Black ( talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand. Unless it's "Chris listed Batman as a main character in GitS", I'm not interested. That sort of factual inaccuracy. Your interaction ban was enacted to stop all these arguments, not drag more people into them. Again, if you're unhappy with my answer, consult another Admin. If they intervene, great, that's what you wanted. If they don't, then its probably a sign that my approach is the way to go. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

However, there should be a way of presenting this to the public. can i provide this to the wikiproject without providing more discussion. even though its been beaten to death...for good reason. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• @ Lucia Black: This very discussion is coming dangerously close to violating the spirit of your interaction ban because you're obviously discussing ChrisGualteri's contributions. Stop it, and walk away. Now. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. Lucia, I've advised you what to do, and I've got nothing to add other than what I've already said. You've now got 2 Admin telling you to drop it. Please do so. Sergecross73 msg me 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So what should i do if its the other way around? when a particular editor beigns to undo these very edits i've made in the past. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You should follow our advice and drop it. I don't see how complicated this is. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

i have a feeling you didn't read what i said. so i'll repeat myself. what happens when chrisgualtieri reverts my revisions? Lucia Black ( talk) 17:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Walk away. Enjoy that you're still able to edit at all. Don't forget: you're dangerously close to an indef block, where you wouldn't be able to edit anything anymore. And remember that all of this is merely about organizing how to portray anime/manga. It's not that serious, especially considering, as I said above, none of the info is actually incorrect, its just an organizational issue. Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

This isn't hypothetical. he reverted my revision in Ghost in the Shell (manga) article (a different article), in which re-reverted back, but this is a clear sign he will do it again. And even so, you're not really acting neutral if you're going to allow another editor thats banned from interacting with me, and violates the rules. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Really, because I looked this up, and the first thing I saw was you directly violating your interaction ban. You literally, directly reverted him, and referred to him directly, in that edit. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes really. look at my previous comment. i said i re-reverted. lets not try to cover up the truth here by making it seem like i'm trying to lie. Lucia Black ( talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

1) Can you show the direct difs? 2)Does he have the same restrictions? An Admin formally declared in on your talk page. I don't see it on his. 3) Do 2 wrongs make a right? Shouldn't you have consulted an Admin before you reverted him? Regardless of who acted first, you still violated your interaction ban already. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

there really is no point, i'm already banned from that page along with the other editor, so it feels good knowing my edits wont be reverted again). next time, i WILL inform an admin before it happens. but for now....i'm too tired...i'm just going to concentrate on an article i can fix. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I imagine you know, at this point, what type of article he is likely to work on. Please try to chose something he'd be unlikely to work on, so these sort of things don't even arise. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Unfortunately, more issues arise by the situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ghost_in_the_Shell_(manga)&diff=590698248&oldid=590692849 here Thomas believes that the violation began just with me, but it began with Chris. and since both of us got banned from the article, per status quo, the article should be reverted to before ChrisGualtieri (and I) made any further edits. This can easily be seen as a form of meat puppet considering how close the edits have been and how confusing the edit was done. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted my edit. If it's true that the violations started with Chris, then the article is restored to status quo. --18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

nevermind. its resolved. Lucia Black ( talk) 18:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking part in the genre discussion. I was just wondering you could respond to a new point i made that the way genres are currently handled (even in a good form) goes against the standards of MOS:INFOBOX (to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance") and WP:TECHNICAL,("Strive to make each part of every article as understandable as possible to the widest audience of readers who are likely to be interested in that material."). The infobox currently doesn't do this for genre. That's why I think it needs a change. It's not just for vandalism, as we have a bigger issue at hand. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 17:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what else to say about this. Whether its vandalism or other reasons, I just don't feel your suggestions are plausible. The genre is a defining fact that is one of the first things people look for when looking up music, so it should definitely be right there, readily apparent in the infobox. (Its a format held across virtually any format coving music, really.) While I support using only one or two genre in an infobox, I don't think its realistic to even come to a conclusion on selecting a preset selection of genres to chose from. I don't believe its realistic that there would be a consensus on such a proposal, not to mention, it's sure to certain rub some people the wrong, or not really classify subjects in the best way. (Like how people get worked up when they see a pop rock label on someone like Metallica or Slipknot at a store or at Allmusic type website, which is admittedly, not the best choice for identifying them. Sergecross73 msg me 18:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Piero Scaruffi, a wp:consensus was reached by several users in a long discussion herethat he was not "a professional" critic. He has even created his own publishing edition "omniware" which only publishes his own books, see Tower.com source here and here on book-info.com . Soul Crusher has been editing for months, tons of reviews with only "piero Scarruffi". Some might think he is a relative of Scaruffi. Such dedication is suspicious. Scaruffi is also not included in the list of sources for reviews on the wikiproject albums article. [ see here]. I think we should report this to administrators because Soul crusher's behaviour sounds too much like a commercial for a non professional critic. Woovee ( talk) 18:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're in luck, as I am an admin. I'll probably start up a discussion at WikiProject Albums about this first though. A more recent discussion happened here at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_reviews_.28again.29 - but that's either a really weak consensus or a WP:NOCONSENSUS. We can just start up a new discussion and see where it goes. Sergecross73 msg me 20:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the consensus is rather to not keep his reviews. I read all the talks and made the counts.

• here, 2 are favourable to his reviews, 6 are against. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_26#Scaruffi
• here, 5 support him, 7 are to not keep his work /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_27#scaruffi_as_good_critic
• Here, 3 people are to keep his reviews, 6 are to delete them. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_31#Piero_Scaruffi
• Here, 8 users are favourable to his work, 6 are against /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_reviews_.28again.29

The wp:consensus is clear. The result is 18 for him, 25 against him.

The main problem is that he is not a professional music writer. He's a scientist who writes about music as a hobby in his spare time and who self publishes his books on Iuniverse self publishing and "omniware", source here. In 2006, 3 years after the release of his first book, he admitted he had only sold 1.500 copies worldwide. source here. So, he can't make his living with this. BTW, the writer of the article, Dan morrell, only contributed 4 articles to this magazine between 2005 and 2006 according to the paper archives, see here.

According to wiki rules, the template for the rating for the articles shows this presentation: "Professional ratings, Review scores". Thus, normally only professional ratings should be included. According to our rules, his biography should even be deleted of wiki. Indeed, /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Bio#Basic_criteria says: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.. Scaruffi only had 2 sources for his work about music: they are mentionned on the Scaruffi article. 2 doesn't mean multiple to my point of view. This is a very "strong delete" for me.

Concerning Soul crusher's behaviour that can only be dubbed "spamming", how can wiki accept such a situation. All his last 2000 edits, see here are all to put links leading Scaruffi's website. It is a publicity, and lobbying. 3 new links for Scaruffi per minute, that's what he did. And he makes this, 2 days per month, disappears to stop our guard for a while and then comes back. There's no need to start another discussion to my point of view. And as a administrator, you should also report this and clearly ban Soul Crusher for quite a long time if not indefinitely. Woovee ( talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) No one is likely to disagree that Soul Crusher's contributions are a problem, but Sergecross73, and any other individual admin, doesn't technically have the power alone to impose lengthy or indefinite blocks/bans on users. A consensus would need to be reached and any user, including yourself, has just as much power to make proposals such as this at the proper outlets (such as WP:ANI). Яehevkor ✉ 19:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, while I do have the power to block people, I can't usually jump straight to an indefinite block. You need to have enough warnings and shorter blocks prior to that. He's gotten plenty of warnings it seems, so I think I'll give him a final warning regarding this, and block him if he continues it without a clear cut consensus, he'll start getting successively longer blocks. I'm going to let him attempt to get a better consensus first though. Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion here, FYI: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think listing total number of user reviews is a valid and important piece of information. How could you not think it's essential? With respect, I want to know what gives you the right to change my edits? You have created a biased and unfair page on this title. I am only trying to reflect what the media and more importantly the gamers think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteTheDestroyer ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This article should need to be locked to anonymous users with ips only. Indeed, there are 2 brand new anonymous users (with ips only) that suddenly appeared this week end to modify this article and edit out all the details that I brought last week. These 2 users 82.152.187.125 and 5.69.238.72 appeared to have both a special interest in famous wrestlers. This is not a coincidence, they are both the same user. Woovee ( talk) 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Hate to put a downer on this, but there are some serious NPOV violations in this article.. Яehevkor ✉ 16:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was going to say as well, but I got sidetracked by another issue. Basically, I think it should be talked over on the talk page. I'm not sure the IPs are all wrong here. We don't need to repeatedly state that he hasn't been published. There's already been consensus that he's unusable as a source, so there's no need for such statements on the article about him. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is these two ips are fom the same person. [1] edited about the wrestler Charles Wright_(wrestler) and his double edited [2] about the wrestler Sting (wrestler). This speaks volume. I need to deal with one identified user with a name and not one multiplied by 2 thanks to anonymous ips. Woovee ( talk) 17:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither IP is editing very much. (One only has 5, the other like 20 or so.) If they're using it to edit war/tag team to get their way, that's not okay...but right now, they've done so little I don't believe it warrants any action. Start a discussion on the article's talk page, and post a comment on both IP's talk page to comment. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth talking a closer look at what's going on at Scaruffi. Woovee is playing the martyr, the impartial editor held back by pesky vandals, when in fact he's on a relentless crusade against the subject. Please, analyse the edit history, his tone, the out-of-context use of quotes to drive his agenda, and most of all, his edit history. I suggest protection, and that we leave the article as it currently is following my recent alterations. Hopefully you'll agree that it's totally neutral at present. 5.69.238.72 ( talk) 13:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I really think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Woovee included too much info that belonged in the discussions about whether or not he should be used as a source on Wikipedia. (That has been since resolved.) That belonged in those discussions, but s not appropriate for his article. However, I think some of your trimming has been rather heavy-handed as well. Both of you should be hashing this out on the article's talk page, or at least have better edit summaries, I'm the only one who's said anything on the talk page, and I'm mostly just mediating this... Sergecross73 msg me 13:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think talk page discussion was necessary, since so many doctrines were blatantly violated by Woovee's crusade. I have massive concerns about neutrality, and Rehevkor above also observed "serious NPOV violations". 5.69.238.72 ( talk) 14:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that both of you are going about it so aggressively, and not discussing things out. I don't disagree that some of Woovee's info needs to be changed. But as I said, you're trimming a lot of things rather aggressively that are not "serious NPOV violations", such as the info on sourced sales figures, or the comment about him being a "one man operation" which is not an overtly offensive thing. (It could even be considered a good thing, like a positive comment on his ability.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little forceful but I still maintain that Woovee is on a crusade. Okay, so the sales figure is noted, and I mentioned that Scaruffi, by himself, maintains the website. Given Woovee's track record, it would seem that the "one man operation" detail was an attempt to discredit the subject, i.e., 'It's only Scaruffi involved, so it doesn't matter.' 5.69.238.72 ( talk) 14:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A consensus has been made. Could you write a word to on 5.69.238.72's talk page or if this user doesn't follow the consensus, the article must be locked. Thanks for the help. Woovee ( talk) 17:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no consensus. See the blatant, unrelenting rigging and agenda pushing I'm talking about now, Sergecross73? EDIT: The "one-man operation" quote is on there, that's fine. But Woovee is acting like there's a consensus on the article as a whole, which there isn't. His biased opinion equates to consensus, basically. 5.69.238.72 ( talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You both need to start assuming good faith and keep the comments on the content, not each other. I don't need any help identifying anyone's motives, consensuses, or if an article needs to be protected or not - I've got a firm grasp on all of that. Just focus on the content, and hashing it out on the article's talk page. I'll keep mediating and keeping an eye on the discussion over there. Sergecross73 msg me 18:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I absolutely cannot assume good faith from a man who constructed this POV-riddled nightmare: [3]. "Dan Morrell, who only wrote four articles..." If that's not a glaring, agenda-driven crusade against the subject, I don't know what is. 5.69.238.72 ( talk) 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you plan to work actively on the Plot section of that game? You haven't edited it in weeks, it looks like. Tezero ( talk) 22:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, in fact, I don't even usually work on plot sections at all except for brief overviews. I think Sjones or TimesAreChanging put that template in. I actually almost removed it myself today, but I ran out of time. So yeah, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't me. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. Okay, must have been Sjones. I figured it was him, but I knew you recently revamped the article too. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you putting not in source for book references? No book quoted in the majority of video game related articles links directly to a source. So I don't understand the logic here, because it's from a book regardless. TheKingsTable ( talk) 18:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Its plain and simple. You linked to a Google Books entry, and a book listing at Amazon. At no point in those links do they say 4 million copies sold for Bubsy 1. That's why I added the "not in citation" tag. Nowhere in the links does it give that sales figure. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see, well recently I found a more straight forward source and replaced it. That source my be better. The old one was based on "I think we sold this" so it probably was not the most reliable. The current one is more reliable. TheKingsTable ( talk) 00:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

While I think it still suffers from one of the main points above (the link still doesn't give a figure), as you said, at least it seems like a more reliable, third part account, and seems a little more feasible... Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're an admin. There seems to be a problem with a user randomly reverting my edits and spamming others talk pages without any reason by saying I am a sockpuppet. It's becoming an issue and I was hoping you can provide a solution for this issue.

Take a look at the bottom of this talk page here and the history of the talk page here.

Also notice here that the last 2 edits on top by the same user were reverted "just because" with no real reason than accusations in the edit summaries, he also currently edited a few other pages. Then there is this user, encouraging the issue. So this may become a problem.

What is recommended? TheKingsTable ( talk) 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can see both sides of the issue. On one hand, if they're so sure you're a sockpuppet, they should report it to WP:SPI, not use it as an edit summary. If it comes back negative, as in, you're not a sockpuppet, then that'll quash that right away. On the other hand, they may have a point too. I've come across the same issue with you in the articles I monitor. Many of your edits are very sloppy, with typos, capitalization issues, and flow. (You reintroduced/re-defined the PC port of Bubsy twice in the reception section, when it was already defined, for example, and you've had a few sentences that ramble on too. Perhaps it would be good to slow down a bit, and be a little more careful with your edits, and maybe you'll be met with less resistance? This also goes into what I was telling you before, where you'd probably have an easier time working things out with people if you weren't so aggressive...

I'll ask the other editor about the sock puppet comments though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I am still quite confused whenever you say I am "so" aggressive. It's not like I am sending people hate mail or angrily posting on their talk pages saying their edits are wrong. TheKingsTable ( talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Saw the post you pinged me on. I have been involved in this whole situation since early January, so I would be happy to fill you in. The whole situation revolves around a user named jakandsig, who is currently blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. There have already been two SPIs filed against him, which have resulted in three accounts being blocked as socks (see /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jakandsig/Archive). Each time a sock gets blocked, another has appeared to carry on editing the same articles. The last of these socks, Kombat Police made his last post on February 14, this account appeared two days later and has targeted several of the same articles, advanced several of the same views, is active during similar times of the day, and exhibits some of the same behavioral issues as the previous users. There is a pretty convincing pattern here, and I am not the only video game article editor who thinks so. I may file an SPI at some point, but its never a good idea to rush into any administrative action in my view, so I have been mostly observing. I think you will find that I still take each of this user's edits on its own merits, and a look at the edit history of Asteroids (video game) will show that I interceded in this dispute and reworked this user's edit so that it fit properly within the larger article. Anyway, I hope that clears things up for you a little. Indrian ( talk) 18:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, @ Indrian: I thought you handled that well, and that's been the only way I've had any luck with content matters with the editor too, rather than reverting his sloppy additions wholesale, I've tried to rework them into a useable form. Anyways, I certainly see the similarities, as far as an unwarranted rage in the edit summaries, and sloppy additions. Can you add this name to his on-going list of SPI reports? (I've personally never added a new name to an old report.) If you would help with that, I'll read up on the past SPI cases and whatnot, and once I'm knowledgeable with that, I'll be able to identify his socks better on my own, and block any clear cases of block evasion. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have not dealt much in the SPI process (I commented on all of the Jak investigations, but did not actually start them), but I believe adding this user would require opening a new SPI, which I would be happy to do if you think I should. There are also several more accounts that should be added as part of this (See User talk:Indrian#You don't suppose.... for several short-lived accounts that appear to be part of the barrage) as well as a couple of anons as well. It has been quite the adventure for a couple of months. Jak's block expires sometime tomorrow, after which I will probably file an RFC/U against him. I already have several other editors on board for such an action, but have been waiting until his block expires, because it does not seem right to take action against a user unable to defend himself. Anyway, let me know how you would like to proceed here. Indrian ( talk) 19:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What? I can clearly see that I have not "tackled" several of the same articles just by looking at the users history. Neither have I advanced the same "views" either, the edit summaries of the user make that seem pretty clear to me. I would also like to point out that Indrian actually did not fix the dispute at all with the Asteroids article. In fact, you will see that the disruptive user actually was fine with it, but then removed it after only because he though I was a sock puppet. so you thinking that he "handled that well" is highly suspicious.

Either way something should be done about the issue NOW so it does not become a bigger problem later and I get less of a headache. Also Unwarranted rage in the edit summaries? Really? Adding to this, there was another accuser of this same topic some days back, apparently it did not die then, so might as well have all my accusers ride on the same train so all this can be squashed at once so people can leave me be. @ TheTimesAreAChanging: join the party, you were talking about this a couple days ago after sending that negative comment to my talk page. Shame to, I was right in the middle of getting Alcazar: The Forgotten Fortress to GA status, all I had to do was wait until I could upload images and the put in the rest of the references, sigh. TheKingsTable ( talk) 18:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this is exactly why you come across so many problems, and what I'm talking about when I say you give off a vibe of "unwarranted rage". You come storming on to my talk page, demanding action "now" in all caps and bolded. This is a volunteer project. A hobby. And yet you come in here demanding action, as if people answer to you or something. You don't speak nicely with people, you respond aggressively, and you constantly revert people without acknowledging their concerns or discussing on the talk page. You come across so many issues because you present yourself so uncharismatically. I find it very concerning that so many people think you're this blocked editor - if its true, you're breaking policy by editing at all, and if you're not, then you're just handling yourself so poorly, that people think you are this really bad, difficult other editor. Either way, you're being very disruptive.

@ Indrian:, if you have to time and motivation, I'd recommend filing an WP:SPI. I don't have a ton of time on my hands, so I can't really do it myself, I'll only have the time to check in here and there throughout the day. Same goes for an WP:RFC/U. Sergecross73 msg me 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I came storming into your talk page? Did you read the first few parts were a kindly asked for you assistance? Apparently not. Also I constantly revert? The last few reverts were made by one user for no reason, so yes I reverted those back, and outside those few anime articles, I have barely reverted at all much, but expanded, and clearly other times I do see peoples "concerns" because in many articles I reword or change the sources from what they tell and that's why I have so many articles in my history page with the word (current) next to them since I joined the site. Along with having no one have issues with the NEW pages I made. So I have no clue what you have seen that gives you any ground to claim anything you just said. You seem to be looking through a narrow tunnel and just coming to a conclusion based on that. It might be why you think I am showing "rage' when there is clearly nothing to show that, especially compared to the account I am accuse of being of. Rage is angry, aggressive is also related to angry and intimitating, I have not been calling you names or sending negative messages to your talk page (guess what, happened to me), I have not been reverting peoples edits every 5 seconds, I have not been removing pages, or trying to get others users to ambush someone, so I view your label of "unwarranted rage" as nonsense.

There had been next to no issues until recently because of one random user sparking it up. Why do you think that is? Do I need to list all by expansions and new pages that apparently no one has problems with since you claim I have been "not been speaking nicely" to people, "not addressing concerns" and "constantly revert" people? Funny thing is that this is as close to "rage" as I have gotten since I been here and even this does not qualify. I will admit that I am not being the most cuddly user around, but there's a difference between that and the make believe "ignoring peoples concerns" that you are making up in your head. TheKingsTable ( talk) 20:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what to tell you. You're clearly rubbing everyone the wrong way, and coming off as rather brash and angry, or you wouldn't have such a large variety of users upset with your actions. One or two could be a coincidence, but I count at least 5 people, amongst my talk page and yours, who are unhappy with your interactions or edits. There's no way that' a coincidence. Please take a long, hard look at how you word things, how you talk to people, etc. Right or wrong, people are much likely to work with people who act nicely, are humble, ask, not demand, etc, and are most likely to violently oppose those who are so thoroughly difficult. How can you ask me to defend your actions, when you're rude, rash, making edits with lots of typos, improper sourcing, etc. I can't. Sergecross73 msg me 21:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, on my talk page there is one who sent me a straight insult in my talk page. But apparently by looking at that I AM the one who comes off as brash and angry? Interesting, so if I insult people like that user does I am NOT brash and angry? Good to know. I have worked with multiple articles, reached a good consensus with two editors, with the majority thanking me or not complaining about my article expansions. Had approved NEW articles and more. Such a thing is completely non-existent in that account people are accusing me of being. I don't appreciate you taking few instances and making false statements like "constantly reverting' to make over-exaggerating nonsense implying that I am in conflict in every page I touch and helping this issue more, along with being technically untruthful. Keep in mind we would not be in this conversation right now AT ALL if not for ONE user and RANDOMLY might I add. Period. One user, who has also lied a total of 3 times now. This has become a major annoyance,@ Indrian: and I wish for it to be done so I can focus more on expanding and making new articles. Such as Alcazar: The Forgotten Fortress. TheKingsTable ( talk) 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. That person was not right to be aggressive either. But you certainly didn't help things. And you constantly are reverting people. Look no further than here, here here. And for as much as you keep complaining about how this keeps you from content creation, you sure love aruging on talk pages and pinging people. If this were really the case, it seems like you'd just go work on your article, and let the SPI report happen, which, if you really arent the other user, should turn out to be a non-issue. Sergecross73 msg me 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed a part about me waiting until I can upload images. But you have already shown your lack of care to being open-minded and have resulted to claims of "constant reverting" which is a pile of nonsense. Of your 3 examples, 2 were the "anime articles" I mentioned before, one of which I reached a consensus with and reverted back, seems like you are jumping on the accusation train instead of looking. Your asteroids one shows not constant aggressive reverts at all. Instead, it shows the earlier edits I made, which were not reverted until Mr.change decided to randomly revert for NO REASON, clear as day, as well as making accusations in his edit summaries. Can you find a place were I made "constant" reverts without nitpicking to the lowest desperation point? Remember you said "constant" you should be able to back up your claims with something when you accuse people of such things. You act as though you are trying to help me by giving advice, yet seem to be trying to make low blows at me but missing. Which is my main problem at this point but it seems clear that we aren't getting anywhere at this point. All your lies will come back to you later. TheKingsTable ( talk) 23:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Look, it's very simple. If I'm so terrible and wrong and whatever, go take it to another Admin. I'm sure that if I'm so off-base, they'll fix it for you. But good luck, with the way you treat people. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That's great that you think I said you are terrible when I never said that. Regardless of your issues, you are an admin and i believe you see the random reverts for the sake of reverting Mr.change is doing, which I believe you should not be allowing to happen because you are an admin. TheKingsTable ( talk) 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, you could at least stop the Mr.Change user from randomly reverting pages for no reason. He's just going around causing issues. TheKingsTable ( talk) 23:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Jakandsig/TheKingsTable lied because he wants to avoid the problems he always has. He causes problems every day, and he is unable to avoid them. I reverted some of the pages Jak edited because his edits are poor and disruptive. IX| (C"<) 01:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

>

I agree with Sergecross73 and Indrian that Jakandsig/TheKingsTable is so horrible, he's likely to be sent to WP:ARBCOM. I wrote section titled "Re: Sockpuppet comment you made", which explains my point of view. I can confirm that TheKingsTable is one of Jakandsig's sockpuppets. IX| (C"<) 21:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up, Ninjadud51 and Ninja Dude 51, who both added bogus material to Mario Kart 8, are undeniably the same person. -- ThomasO1989 ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh wow, I hadn't even noticed it was two separate names. I'll block one if both continue to be active and disruptive. (They both just have 1 edit each, and now the page they were editing is protected, so maybe they'll just be done.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)