Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please consider discussing the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Sam Harris (author)[edit]

Note: Previous AN/I thread

Could an admin please visit this article and determine if temporary page protection is necessary while a BLP dispute is resolved? One editor appears intent on repeatedly re-inserting contentious, negative "opinions" about the living person simply because those opinions were found in blogs, op-eds, books, etc. Over the objections of several other editors, the editor keeps reverting any attempt to bring the content into BLP and NPOV policy compliance. When the problematic content was moved to the Talk page for discussion and dispute resolution, he re-inserted it again without addressing concerns. The subject of the article is a vocal critic of religion, most recently of Islam, so it doesn't help that this is a current event hot topic. This one editor has spent the past week inserting various forms of insinuated racism, bigotry, warmongering, Islamophobia, Jewish tribalism, academic dishonesty, right-wing ideologue fascism, etc., with no regard for impartiality or balance.

Disclosure: I'm one of the involved editors at the article. While there have been no technical violations of 3RR, there is still edit warring, and the ratio of productive discourse—to—reverting is not encouraging. And now there appears to be personal sniping. This matter is also related to the above open issue, but since no one reads the top half of this noticeboard anymore, I thought I would renew attention by requesting a single specific action: temporary page protection. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to point out that concerns have been made about that user's behavior just this morning in that previous thread. Despite being warned just a few days ago the personal attacks and defamatory comments have yet to cease and an administrator hasn't responded. You can view those concerns in the update section.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Bulleted list item
I've noted this WP:FORUMSHOPPING thread and have no qualms about indicating that it is yet another iteration in a continual string of disruptive, POV pushing WP:GAMING in relation to the content dispute described by Xenophrenic.
This is increasingly looking like something I'm going to have to bring up with ArbCom.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, it's kind of ridiculous for you to accuse Xenophrenic of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you brought the current debate on the Sam Harris article to this noticeboard first, don't you think? With regard to Harris article, I see one editor pushing a biased POV and one editor being disruptive by working against consensus and making spurious claims of bad behavior by other editors. That editor is you, Ubikwit. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Jweiss11:} Don't you think one thread is enough?
You and I are obviously on the opposite sides of the content dispute, and you and Xenophrenic have been editing that page since long before I arrived (not the case for LM2000). Accordingly, you and Xenophrenic might be partially responsible for the promotional bloat of primary sourced text in the article, but you are certainly responsible for excluding critical material while including all sort of vacuous praise from like-minded atheists, etc. That is an inverse form of POV pushing, because the end result is that you and Xenophrenic and other people trying to exclude reliably sourced criticism in violation of NPOV are skewing the article. Remember, it was you that deleted a Political section including RS material related to characterizations of "right-wing neoconservative policies" and "the national security state" and replaced that section with a "Social and economic politics"[4]. I have already indicated to you in a very civil manner that you have a competence issue with respect to the article, yet you persist in trying to push your ill-informed POV at me while conflating religion and politics, disparaging academic sources and professors of history and theology, etc. I'm through talking to you per WP:DENY. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I've made a lot of edits to the Sam Harris article, but they have be mostly of the maintenance, copy-editing variety. I'm not responsible for any of the bloat in the article, nor am I really reasonable for writing much, if any, of the substantive content.
Xenophrenic made it clear that he has created this thread in an attempt to renew attention to the issue since it may have been buried here. Whatever the case, you are evading the hypocrisy of your WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusation. Your claim about my competence is ridiculous. I am very well-versed with Sam Harris's work and its criticism. I understand that some people like to treat religion and politics as if they are two entirely different animals, but it is a fact the religions in questions here are political and that the politics of religious people are informed by their religious beliefs. More generally, just because different departments on a college campus tend to reside in different buildings, that doesn't mean the things they study are actually disparate. And we're not beholden to honor that academic silo-ing in every section of every article on Wikipedia, particularly when the subject is a person who has made criticisms of religions that focus in large part on the real-world, political impact of religion. I deleted the "Political" section because it was a poorly-defined, redundant concoction that you designed to serve as repository for an unbalanced assault on Harris that includes defamatory commentary. The consensus of involved editors at the article seems to agree with my assessment and action.
If anyone lacks competence, it's you with regard to your poor understanding and application of various Wikipedia principles, e.g when you claimed that my talk page commentary constituted original research—an utter contradiction in terms—or just now with your FORUMSHOPPING accusation, of which you either lack the sensibility to understand or the intellectual honesty to admit your hypocrisy. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I had NAC'd this because a request for arbitration was opened, but since that seems to be headed toward being declined (5 decline votes at this time), I've re-opened it for further community comment. BMK (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've withdrawn the request for arbitration. Is there any way to combine this thread with the related thread that preceded it[5]?
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to cut and paste that very long thread here. Links should be sufficient. BMK (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I just noticed another disturbing comment by Xenophreic that I missed

Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Wikipedia policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree?[6]

That kind of analogy is simply unacceptable. It is uncivil and represents a battlefield mentality. The fact that there was no BLP violation in the quote had already been determined on the relevant BLP/N thread[7], and the assertion that I was advancing a narrative of "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" is a personal attack.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If you found a source which said "Willis Warf says George Gnarh is a pedophile" - would you find it remotely usable as a source for a claim in Gnarph's BLP "Gnarph has been called a pedophile"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Do not presume to speak for me in your edit summary. Your hypothetical scenario is not analogous, so it is curious that you would repeat the personal attack in order to try to defend Xenophrenic's grossly insulting and offensive post, which needs to be revdeleted.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
As I did not "repeat the personal attack" but you were the only one who "repeated the personal attack" I m a tad bemused by your post supra. And I believe if you want something revdeled which you iterate, there is a logical disconnect. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
My question to you, Ubikwit, was absolutely civil and in no way a personal attack. If you find the analogies disturbing, then they have served their purpose in conveying to you how offensive some of your edits and proposed edits are. You have repeatedly argued to insert the caustic opinions of a few critics into a biography of a living person, with disregard for Wikipedia policies:
  • On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like (insert opinion piece calling the subject a racist) [8]
  • The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis. (insert opinion piece in which the writer says he doesn't want to discuss the subject's racism, but his bigotry and irrational anti-Muslim animus). [9]
  • The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above. and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent. (insert quote from The Independent saying that someone accused the subject of racism) [10]
  • Reliably published statements of both Hussain and Lears support the association of ideas espoused by Harris with scientific racism. ... It really doesn't matter if you don't like that. It is not a BLP violation to include those characterizations with proper attribution. Retract your personal attack accusing me of smearing, etc. [11]
  • As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate. [12]
You inserted the contentious opinion that Harris is Muslim-bashing because he is Jewish here, and simultaneously edit-warred to categorize the avowed atheist as "Jewish". That's not a personal attack, that is substantiated fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am upset over the ArbCom forumshopping exercise and other examples of tendentiousness from one editor at this point. 40,000 characters cumulative edits on Sam Harris' BLP alone (much of which is essentially refusing to admit he has no support for his edits, so he keeps adding them in, over and over and over). 24,000 characters on noticeboards in 3 days. Over 60,000 characters on the SH talk page in under one week. When an editor hits over 120,000 characters in under a single week without apparently managing to get any support from other editors, I suspect "tendentious" is applicable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom as forumshopping, that's funny.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what it was. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Does an administrator want to touch this issue? DGG expressed surprise that this has been able to go on as long as it has. Ubikwit has already been warned in the previous AN/I thread but the behavioral problems have not subsided. Just to recap: we have now had two threads on AN/I, two RfCs, one declined ArbCom case, one BLP/N thread and nobody has voiced support for Ubikwit's edits. He edit-warred and attempted to reinsert contentious material into the BLP 16 times. There is a detailed account of Ubikwit's bad behavior personal attacks in the subsection of the thread linked at the top, this was compiled after Robert McClenon warned him. Ubikwit has failed to interpret basic policy correctly; besides the obvious DUE, BRD, CONSENSUS and NPOV issues, he accused Jweiss11 of WP:OR for critiquing his comments on the talk page. He has also claimed that practically everybody on the talk page is lacking WP:COMPETENCE. After previously being warned here that this was a content dispute in the first thread, he took this to ArbCom where it was declined for (among other reasons) being a content dispute; then he projects his WP:FORUMSHOPPING onto others.LM2000 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic involves current events involving religion, violence and a bit of contention. That alone will ward off a lot of volunteers from getting involved, but it isn't as bad as some of the issues above. Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources and other editors[edit]

First of all, I was not warned in the above-linked AN/I thread, so LM2000 is simply repeating the lie to that effect from his statement at the request for arbitration statement[[13]]. @Robert McClenon: suggested that the thread be closed with a warning to me before I responded to the concerns and posted more details about a couple of problematic editing issues. The thread was not closed, and calls for a BOOMERANG ignored. Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit[14] reverting to his preferred version including [[WP:PEACOCK|peacocky}} paraphrasing based on a one-off comment in a non-mainstream source, and a self-serving one-off quote from a primary source. The mainstream view is obfuscated by the text. Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)'s disposition toward advocacy on this article is revealed by the contradictions in his statement at the request for arbitration[15], which I briefly characterized in relation to his repeated removal of criticisms based on the political ramifications of Harris statements[16] because he doesn't like them. Regarding Collect's allegation of forumshopping at ArbCom, note that @NativeForeigner: has indicated that he would be willing to look at this in that forum should the community processes fail to resolve the dispute[17]. So I'm back here at AN/I working through the community channels, but the request was not seen as frivolous, just premature. I should hope that there would be some input from uninvolved admins here soon on this second AN/I thread.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Three uninvolved users told you that you brought a content dispute to AN/I, Robert McClenon described your behavior as a "tantrum" and suggested you receive a strong warning. He also gave you a warning on your talk page regarding your behavior on BLP issues. You acknowledged the warning but denied any wrongdoing and continued to edit war and dump massive amounts of contentious material into the BLP.LM2000 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You are arguing semantics. That first AN/I thread should have been a wake-up call and unfortunately it was not.LM2000 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The statement I made in requesting arbitration is here.
@LM2000: An alert regarding discretionary sanctions is not a warning. Your comment at ArbCom read, "Robert McClenon described the scene as a "tantrum" and ended up giving Ubikwit a warning", which seems to link the comment in the AN/I thread with the "warning" per the recommendation made early in the thread.
Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context. First, Jonotrain inserted the Sayeed quote, as follows.[18]

According to Greenwald, Harris relies on this view of Islam to justify torture, anti-Muslim profiling, and the Israeli occupation. Greenwald sees the double standard in Harris' writings as a symptom of Islamophobia: "...he [Harris] and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism." Theodore Sayeed, another critic of Harris, also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

Second, When I moved the quote to the Political section, it was prefaced by the following text, which presented a balanced view of the debate in accord with NPOV.

Writing for Truthdig, Harris stated

It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism."

On his blog, Harris states

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

He then says "if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state".

Third, I replaced the text with the following quote[19] after the BLP/N thread, even though that thread found no BLP issue with it.

In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics".

Fourth, it was me that removed the racism allegation from the lead[20], even though there are a number of sources supporting the allegation with respect to statements on profiling, etc. that Harris has made. The I started this thread[21] and commented on Steeletrap (talk · contribs)'s UT page[22] after Steeletrap re-added it to the lead[23]./br>--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Attempts to dismiss peer-reviewed history book
Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.[24]
@Second Quantization: does same, making incoherent claim about paraphrasing, misunderstanding NPOV and RS.[25]
Refusing to get the point, SQ continues to push ill-informed POV; apparently, he couldn't take the time to check the links I provided to Palgrave’s website, asserting that the title of the book was “controversial”[26]. [27] [28]
Finally, SQ falsely accuses me (“No offence”) of BLP violations, because he doesn’t like what the RS say (aside from the fact that he mischaracterizes my edits), but refuses to take claims to BLP/N. WP:NPA. [29]
Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi, attempting to dismiss another source by an professor of history, and grossly misrepresenting my edits at the same time, while also stating

That is fine information for the Positivism article, and I don't disagree with Lears' assertion that there were elements of positivism at the core of social Darwinism, scientific racism and emperialism in the nineteenth century. I'll work to paraphrase it if I ever edit that article and see a need to introduce that information. [30]

An RS/N thread had to be opened to prove that the book is a peer-reviewed monograph.[31]
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind so much having to repeatedly correct Ubikwit's misrepresentation of sources, it's part of the job as a volunteer editor. I should not, however, have to keep correcting his misrepresentations about what I've said or done:
Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit
Yes, check the edit and see that it was a simple BRD revert with a note directing you to the Talk page where that text was already being discussed - no flaunting involved. You are welcome to criticize my edits all you want, but you need not outright lie, Ubikwit.
Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context.
No "false allegations" cited by you in your comment, I see. That is typical. The issue you partially described was indeed long-ago resolved when it was discovered that you had taken a Harris quote out of context by cleverly omitting his disclaimer to the reader that the quote you repeated would sound "paradoxical" and that he was actually still "undecided" on that issue. And the BLP/N thread did not support your use of the Mondoweiss text.
Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.
You need not outright lie, Ubikwit. Anyone who reads my response, which you linked, will see that rather than dismiss the source, I asked: What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here? I did point out that the book was a critique of atheism written by a priest, and had never been cited, but rather than "dismiss" the book, I urged you to continue with your proposal to use the source.
Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi...
Again with the lies, Ubikwit? That one is so blatant, you didn't even attempt to substantiate it. Your Lears piece does the insinuation. Here is exactly what I said about it from the article Talk page:
here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, positivism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law.
Lies don't work, Ubikwit. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think your statement about what I said is utterly bizarre (you do know that people can click and see what I wrote right?). This has been your approach in some of the things I have noticed:
1. You get a book that agrees with your point of view.
2. You don't mention it's written by a priest (in the discussion or the article) or that the book is just published. The book is also clearly for a popular audience as anyone can see from skimming it, it is not a normal academic monograph, even if it is peer reviewed (books for a popular audience are peer reviewed too).
3. You choose to include the most inflammatory statement you can find in the book and provide no context at all in the wikipedia article.
Further,
4. ... and accusing someone of denialism (rather than say just being bad at history) in your title is controversial.
Also, separately, what's most bizarre is that you seem to see no issue with adding statements which attempt to link someone with racism by association. Including that quote by Lear is clearly problematic. Second Quantization (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Second Quantization: The book is a peer-reviewed publication by an academic press by a career professor of history (forty years).
That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians", a group to which he specifically refers in the opening paragraph of the Intro and which includes Jackson Lears.
The title of the book and the statements it makes are not inherently "controversial" among mainstream historians. There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception. The book is a monograph on a very specific topic, your baseless assertion that it is "for a popular audience" is only indicative of the fact that you are a member of the so-called "popular audience", and your attempt to dismiss the per-reviewed book because of its author's religious affiliation is tendentious. I have mentioned competence to you for these reasons, as I see your training is in the applied sciences. Note that neither you nor any other supporters of Harris have produced a single peer-reviewed source supporting any of your groundless opinions. I, on the other hand, happen to have an academic background in history.
Linking the ideas espoused by someone with an ideology that "gave rise to" scientific racism and imperialism" is a fully valid criticism made by more than one RS and supported by mainstream historians. Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack. Next time, raise the issue at BLP/N, per policy. Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence. I would never do the same on an article dealing with physics.
And this is a personal attack.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:24, 07:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack." That's a bit rich coming from the guy who is claiming I'm incompetent because I'm not a professional historian. Are you claiming to be a professional historian? Do you think we all need to be professional historians or else we are automatically incompetent? Does merely disagreeing with your use of sources make someone automatically incompetent? Does having studied history mean you are suddenly bias free? "Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence" You might want to look before you blab away about incompetence, because I haven't actually edited the particular source under discussion one way or the other.
" There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception." That's what you are meant to do before trying to stick a source in an article. Your problem is you are trying to stick the sources in before we've seen it's impact, which is what I stated from the very beginning, Second Quantization (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
...and FYI on another point you keep ignoring. You say "That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians"" but you simply aren't using the book for any historical fact in the article at all. You are using the source to insinuate that someone is a denialist without bothering to put in any reason why that conclusion follows at all. You are defending the reliability of the historical content of the book but you aren't using any of the historical content of the book. Second Quantization (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You should quit while your ahead. Don't misrepresent my edits, even if you don't understand them. Painter is a secondary source for Lears (on Harris), first of all. Both of them are "mainstream historians", academics. Note the quote from Harris; Painter is also a secondary source on Harris. You are correct that I don't use anything more specific from Painter, because I would want to read the book first, but he is useful for prefacing and supporting statements by Lears on Harris, and putting those in perspective.

Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists.[1] Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

and then states that
his [Harris’] abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ubikwit. You are battling away with multiple editors and then tell me to drop the stick. You should step back and maybe get some perspective. I made some pretty normal observations (some of which you appear to concede such as the book lacking critical response while not admitting I raised it in the first place) and your response was to become completely unreasonable and start attacking me, Second Quantization (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. You started the attacking, and tendentiously insisted that the book was not a monograph, it was not peer-reviewed, the author is a priest, etc.
The peer-reviewed academic book does not require "critical response" before being used.
You have continually attempted to substantiate one groundless objection after another. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"insisted that the ... the author is a priest". Eh? Are you claiming that the author is not in fact a priest? The fact is, it isn't a academic monograph as is obvious to anyone looking at it except you seemingly. User @Xenophrenic: [32] already rang them and they didn't confirm it was peer reviewed. Why was that do you think, if everything they do is peer reviewed as you claimed? ... and yes, we do wait for critical response to literature often, particularly where controversial so we can judge due weight. You said you were ready to ring Palgrave to see if the book was a monograph or not before Ubikwit, so maybe it's best if you do that for your own sake, Second Quantization (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, now you misrepresent the RS/N thread in which you finally admitted that you
"have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content", insisting that you "simply doubt it's an academic monograph", despite the fact that Abecedare, an uninvolved admin, had concluded that is was a monograph, and that and @Margin1522:, also uninvolved, had weighed in positively as well.
Xenophrenic also ignored Abedcedare's initial statement and continued to insist that the book was not peer-reviewed, to which Abecedare replied

...some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.

And I never said I would call Palgrave, but it seemed that was what you were tendentiously demanding.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. You do realize everything you say can be easily looked up and checked, right? I have never ignored a statement of Abecedare's. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Nazi allegation regarding Jackson Lears article[edit]

He did so in a misplaced comment, here on the RS/N thread[33], so I missed it.

this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism)

Content disputes are content disputes, but misrepresenting a source[34] in that manner, invoking Godwin's law, is extremely tendentious, and so I'm going to post the relevant passages from Lears.

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.”
…Two world wars, the systematic slaughter of innocents on an unprecedented scale, the proliferation of unimaginably destructive weapons, brushfire wars on the periphery of empire—all these events involved, in various degrees, the application of scientific research to advanced technology. All showed that science could not be elevated above the agendas of the nation-state: the best scientists were as corruptible by money, power or ideology as anyone else, and their research could as easily be bent toward mass murder as toward the progress of humankind. Science was not merely science. The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. Eugenics had become another tool in the hands of unrestrained state power.


Incidentally, I've already referred, at Talkhere and here, to this response by Harvard professor Steve Pinker[35], who quotes almost the exact same passage that I did above, in its entirety in his article, with the preface

This passage, from a 2011 review in The Nation of three books by Sam Harris by the historian Jackson Lears, makes the standard case for the prosecution by the left.

There are more secondary sources on Lears than Painter, but Painter, like Lears, is an academic and a mainstream historian.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a couple of gallons of tea, please. Collect (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one that needs the tea.
Xenophrenic's repeated attempts to dismiss these sources (both Lears and Painter) against policy and across multiple forums is the height of tendentiousness.
Pinker's characterization makes it eminently clear that Lears' presentation of the "standard case" is a mainstream view among academic historians, such as Painter.
Invoking Godwin's law against a mainstream scholar to dismiss a source that has cites in multiple high-quality secondary sources blatantly contravenes core policies. Xenophrenic should be blocked for his personal attacks (accusing me of "lying", etc.) and topic banned for this continuing string of offenses, including violations of WP:TALK, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:38, 15:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. Cite just one instance where "Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss sources against policy and across multiple forums", rather than discussing the sources in the context of how you plan to use them, as policy dictates. Your Lears source brought up Nazi's (see Godwin's Law), Ubikwit, not me; I just quoted him. Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. You know I will call you on every instance of fabrication. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick review of Lears book review shows that he has indeed tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science:
Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. [...] The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. [...] The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. [...] one cannot deny that [Hitchens] embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. [...] As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.
Would you like me to now quote the insinuation you proposed to introduce into the Harris BLP from that source for good measure? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said at the Talk page[36], it was you that invoked Godwin's law, as a false pretense to dismiss a source.
Quote away, by all means.
Xenophrenic stated

you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did.[37]

which misrepresents the source as well as my edit.
Xenophrenic stated

Collect, here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, posivitism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law<small(underlining added).[38]

Xenophrenic falsely claims statement used from Beattie was "defamatory"[39] in an attempt to dismiss policy-compliant text based on a source by an academic with many citations in the secondary literature.
Xenophrenic asserts that Painter's book was ["not peer reviewed" and "by a lay priest". Those are two inapplicable assertions, one simply being wrong and the other irrelevant, aimed at dismissing a higher-quality source than anything the advocates have produced. Since the text I'd proposed had already been deleted (with the Political section) and was known to Xenophrenic, the query pertaining to that was a diversion. If not,the specific text should have been addressed, not the false assertion that the text was not peer-reviewed or the fact that the academic historian was also a lay priest.
Your misrepresentation of Eskow has already been diffed (previous ANI thread).--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

deliberately violating an apparent RfC consensus[edit]

Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC appears to me to show a clear consensus. Six editors !voted against using a source which was used for: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

This edit re-added the source [40] and added claims in Wikipedia's voice (changes bolded).

Some commentators have asserted that Harris's criticisms exhibit prejudice[2] and intolerance, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. After the attacks on the World Trade Center[3], Harris broadened his critical focus on Islam, which has resulted in death threats. Some critics equate his focus on Islam and advocacy of policies such as profiling of Muslims and support for torture with Islamophobia. Harris and others have said his critics misuse the term in an attempt to silence criticism.[4]<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/08/religion-atheism] "Sam Harris, torture, quotation", Andrew Brown, The Guardian, August 8, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/sam-harris-profiling-muslims_b_1466349.html]End of Profiling: Letter to Sam Harris, Letter to Sam Harris, Michael Mungai, Huffingtong Post, July 1, 2012</ref><ref>[http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/sam-harris-in-full-court-intellectual-mystic-and-supporter-of-the-iraq-war]Sam Harris in full: court intellectual, mystic, and supporter of the Iraq war, Theodore Sayeed, Mondoweiss, Septemeber 4, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/sam-harris-racial-profiling_b_1472360.html] Sam Harris, Will You Visit A Mosque With Me?, Chris Stedman, Huffington Post, July 2, 2012</ref>

Note the fact references include the disallowed Sayeed source which we had a specific RfC on, an Andrew Brown commentary labeled as such, a HuffPo "blog letter" from Michael Mungai, and a nice screed by Chris Stedman also a HuffPo blog letter. The other refs added are [41] found through a google search for "Sam Harris" and "bias" but which unfortunately does not make the claim the editor wished for, and [42] (Aside: I love the really useful quote in it "Last question, Chris. Something on a hopeful note. You’ve been a reporter who actually has lived in the Middle East and actually talked to Muslims and seen them first hand. You have this rich tradition of learning Christianity, Christian morals, Christian ethics and seen the rise of the American Christian fascist movement. What can be done, on a global scale, perhaps, for Muslims and Christians – well intentioned ones – to wrest away the control of their religiosity and religions by self interested political individuals, like the ones you’ve mentioned. What can be done to reclaim the faith?") a pure blog post by Wajahat Ali. Patheos fails RS as it is specifically " the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Patheos.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Patheos_blogs each finding that the blogs are not RS, but depend on if the persons are notable. In the case at hand, the answer is "no".

So we have deliberate violation of apparent consensus, and use of a source specifically disallowed, and use of sources for contentious claims made in Wikipedia's voice using "commentary" and editorial opinion columns. I suggest that we have a problem here. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References
  1. ^ [1] The New Atheist Denial of History Borden W. Painter Jr, Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 145-6
  2. ^ [2] Politics and Religion in the New Century: Philosophical Reflections, Philip Andrew Quadrio, Sydney University Press, 2009, p.13
  3. ^ [3] "Author Chris Hedges: “The new atheists are secular fundamentalists”, by Wajahat Ali, June 29, 2008
  4. ^ Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash; The Independent; April 12, 2013
  • The RFC is specifically centered around the quote from Sayeed, which Ubikwit did not restore in any form. What's the problem? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sayeed was not notable per most (5 of the six) opinions at the RfC. Collect (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you want to achieve consensus to leave out the citation, you should start a new RFC that asks that question. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
        • If you wish to start a debating society as to whether when 5 out of 6 people say the person is not notable whether that conversation is not actually part of the RfC but should be made a separate RfC to establish that it is the opinion of 5 out of 6 of those people, then that is a wondrously byzantine argument. Cheers Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's readily apparent where the byzantine arguments are coming from. What is the policy for people that know the rules but feign ingnoramance?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert at [43]:

Retains blog post from Patheos for which the apparent quote from a notable person would be "I mean Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. He has a long defense of torture. Christopher Hitchens is an apologist for pre-emptive war and also speaks in the crude, racist terms that Harris uses to describe 1 billion people – one fifth of the world’s population." which is used as a cite for an apparent claim of fact "After the attacks on the World Trade Center"(ref). As a source for that phrase, the blog fails, but it seems primarily centered on a quite inadmissible opinion of Hedges which would not be allowed in any BLP except absolutely cited as the opinion only of Hedges. It offers no actual support to the phrase for which it is used as a cite. It also reinstates the two HuffPo blog posts which do not actually support the claims of fact made. Adding specifically problematic sources to any BLP, after one has been told they are problematic, I find troubling indeed. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you took Sayeed to BLP/N, receiving a "no BLP violation". Now you are asserting that it is not RS?
And the column of Andrew Brown (writer) (also on the editorial board) and the individuals with official blogs on Guardian and Huffington Post are not RS for opinion?
You failed to wikilink Chris Hedges, who is also (block)quoted by Greenwald in the Guardian

"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.[44]

. Hedges' book (academic press)[45] might be a good source, and here's another interview from Salon[46].
And the Patheos interview was not used to source "bias". I eliminated "bias", using "prejudice" instead, because there's a peer-reviewed source by an academic, quoting "Dr. Peter Slezak is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New South Wales".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:TALK, non-stop tendentious reverting and gaming[edit]

Please check this thread in the Talk page, and the related edits/reverts.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

4RR - and the complainant Ubikwit above is the blatant Edit Warrior - will someone take action finally?[edit]

Note: [47] 15:48 25 Feb clear revert [48] 3:49 26 Feb clear revert [49] 8:56 et seq 26 Feb clear reverts [50] 11:49 26 Feb clear revert Making absolutely clear 4RR within 20 hours when he is making complaints here about the edits of others!

Will someone finally stop this edit warrior - this is well beyond risible behaviour. He wants this dealt with at AN/I per a number of posts <g> so he can not assert he does not know his own behaviour here is fully actionable. Collect (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? The first diff is me deleting my own insertion of a source because you objected to it.
The assertion that that is a revert would appear to be another attempt to game the system.
The last two diffs are removing promotional, primary-sourced blocks of text and general cleaning up of bloat and copy editing the article, not reversions. I suggest you read the edit summaries, for starters: "remove excessive amount of primary source-based material", "ce, removed primary-sourced UNDUE material and quote-mined phrase from Independent article".
I, too, would be interested to hear an admin's assessment of these edits regarding the revert policy.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:28, 26 February; 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, you appear to keep altering your posts here. Hare to reply to an ever-moving target. Collect (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's the other way around. Your constinual string of diversionary tactics, that is, require continual responses; thus, copy editing hastily typed replies.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Medeis hatting and deletions on the ref desks[edit]

Dear all, I am requesting that User:Medeis be banned from removing or hatting anything on the reference desks. I have problems with her other contributions, but this is by far the biggest, and the only one that really warrants a solution. (Note: I believe Medeis has previously said she is female, hence the pronoun "she"). Her removals and hattings are objectionable to many people, and take up a lot of time on the ref desk talk page. Every time I read the talk page, there is another long thread about something she has removed. This costs an inordinate amount of time, and always results in a deluge of words, and a lot of tension. The latest example is this:

  • First deletion: [51]
  • Second deletion: [52]

Furthermore, the edit summary for the first deletion said: "I am not a holocaust denialist, nor a believer in conspiracy theory: {{WP:DENY]] this is not he first trolling by noopolo)". This contains the accusation of "trolling", which is bizarre and unsubstantiated in this case. The question by Noopolo strikes me as incredibly legitimate, and very interesting. What's more, it was answered well, with posts that I found highly informative. I have for a long time wanted to know the nitty gritty of these things, because I trust that holocaust deniers are wrong, but I think it is better to be armed with facts, and whilst I can consult the articles, ref desk posts give me a pithy initial summary, for the sake of a quick overview.

Another problem here is that Medeis claims to be following Bold, Revert, Discuss, as witness this diff: [53]. I do not see anything resembling BRD here - Medeis has been bold twice in quick succession, not at all the correct procedure.

The thread on the ref desk talk page is becoming very long. Furthermore, all these problems seem to cause enormous tension among editors, but they always seem to start with Medeis. Some people agree with her deletions, so I say, if so, let them take the lead. Consequently, because of the enormous amount of time constantly consumed by Medeis, I request that this user be indefinitely banned from hatting or removing posts on the ref desks. This is the only sanction I request, and it would not stop her from requesting hatting or deletion on the ref desk talk page, or contributing to such discussions.

Note this previous attempt to deal with Medeis, just one among many: [54]

Thanks all, IBE (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

When did you last participate in a ref desk talk page discussion on these issues? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This has been an ongoing problem on the reference desks for a long time. μηδείς/Medeis deletes or hats questions or discussions that they decide are inappropriate, even in the face of overwhelming consensus that the material in question should be allowed. I do not understand why this has been allowed to go on for so long.
There is zero downside to topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from any modification of another person's comments. The reference desks are full of trustworthy people who can and will deal with those comments that really need to be removed or hatted, such as asking for legal/medical advice. We simply do not need μηδείς/Medeis as the self-appointed sheriff of the reference desks, constantly making contentious closures. The word "loose cannon" comes to mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
There has been ongoing debate for many years about when or if to hat/delete, and in fact there are ongoing discussions about it right now at the ref desk talk page - which is what that talk page is for, don'cha know. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe further research is needed. Forever. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:56, February 22, 2015 (UTC)
I support the proposal to deal with Medeis in this manner. What we have here is an editor who pops up with an assertion that some IP editor is some well-known miscreant - and without evidence or discussion either deletes, hat or harasses that person. Medeis is trying to take the role of an Admin, without going through the necessary hoops to gain that status and without understanding the mechanisms by which sock-puppetry is dealt with. I'm quite sure that this is well-intentioned, but very often (at least half the time), the community consensus is that Medeis is incorrect or has overreacted. That causes yet another huge debate about her actions to break out on the talk page, typically resulting in widespread condemnation of Medeis' actions. This is evidence (IMHO) that this is a case of WP:DISRUPT that should be dealt with accordingly.
However, (as I've frequently stated) the underlying issue is that the reference desks do not have a simple, comprehensible, set of guidelines as to what to do with problematic posts from possibly dubious editors. So it's hard for the community to say "Medeis: You broke rule 27(b), please don't do that again." - or "Admins: This is the 23rd time Medeis broke rule 27(b), please apply a topic ban." Our inability to get the community to get into a goal-directed discussion about a decent set of guidelines, despite the evident relish in fighting each action on a case-by-case basis, is puzzling and extremely frustrating to me.
So while I definitely support dealing with Medeis, she is just the outlier in a spectrum of confusing responses to inappropriate questions at WP:RD. If we had those clear guidelines, then an admin would have taken action a long time ago.
SteveBaker (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, all very pertinent, Steve, but you have said before that the problem is that people disagree on the interpretation anyway. (I hope I'm not misinterpreting you, but somewhere you said to Medeis, when she advanced a similar-sounding idea, that you disagree with almost all her hattings.) The point is that people always claim to be following certain rules (as interpreted by them), so I don't see how to get a single set of effective rules in place. We would need a competent authority to carry them out, and the devil here is in the detail - deciding what counts as this or that problem (per your flowchart on the ref desk talk page) is (I believe) a big part of the problem. If you want to revise those guidelines and include the concept of some kind of chain of command for more drastic actions (a bit like the suggestion of letting only admins hat or delete) I'd be interested. At the same time, let's remember it's complicated in its own right, and should be discussed as a separate proposal. This one is only about one editor, and you have summed up my reasons very neatly, better than I could have put it. IBE (talk) 05:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

All of this needs to be handled on the ref desk talk page. Dragging it here is nothing more than grandstanding. There are a few different areas of conflict:

  1. There is a rule against giving professional advice. Medeis errs on the (sometimes extreme) side of caution. If there is disagreement about it, that's what the talk page is for. Where it gets complicated is the involvement of users who range from not going to the extreme, all the way to disagreeing with the rule itself.
  2. Random trolling is another negotiable matter for the talk page. There's a risk of "feeding the troll", but generally there's consensus on obvious trolling.
  3. Banned users are not allowed to edit. Again, there are persistent arguments which seek to ignore that rule. But again, that's negotiable. The complication comes with editors who are less experienced in dealing with banned users and are unwillingly to show good faith toward those who know the M.O. of these users. And then it gets messy and annoying, as all the back-and-forth does nothing except feed the banned troll.

You can talk about rules and guidelines and decision trees every day and twice on Sunday, but none of that fixes the core problems I've listed above. If you're going ban Medeis for executing the "Bold" part of BRD, then you should also ban the users who insist on the "R" part as well. The solution would seem to be to decide on when to bring a hat or deletion to the talk page. This does not belong on ANI. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Our guidelines say we don't engage in debate or speculation, but the first two diffs provided above start with "I am not a holocaust denialist but..." whereas me saying their are certain editors who show up only to criticize me and a few other editors (and I am not talking about the person with whom I am engaged in an IBAN) isn't even a matter of dispute, it's an observation by me. The problem in general is that we come to conclusions on the talk page that trolling should just be deleted without comment, because a talk page discussion draws more attention. Then, when that opinion is followed, someone complains there was no discussion and the cycle goes around and around.
As for myself "acting like an admin", I am not the only person who follows the guidelines about removing material by known block-evading trolls, etc., and I follow consensus of the desk when an edit I make is reversed. See, for example, this thread on people with Autism and Down's Syndrome where I suggest half way down the thread that the person may be trolling us, only at the end for him to admit it and mock us, before I then closed the thread.
The ref desk needs objective rules that apply equally to everyone. Some of those rules already govern all of main space, no BLP violations, No professional advice, comments by banned users may be removed on sight. Other issues are judgment calls and I do not reverse them when consensus is against me at the talk page. If one of them is to be that only an admin can hat or delete a discussion, that's fine with me. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban - Per Baseball Bugs. I can begin imagine (but will not make) a good-faith (though not necessarily good) case for 1rr on the refdesks, but Medeis usually does removals or hatting that needs to be done. Sometimes overly cautious? Yes. Disruptive? That's certainly an "it takes two to tango" deal here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see your point about "it takes two to tango". A large number of people have expressed their dislike of Medeis' hatting. You give no examples about what constitutes being merely "overly cautious". I said in my OP that it is one editor consuming a huge amount of time from excessive hatting/ removal. The case I gave is a classic example. There is nothing resembling excessive caution there. It is just an absurd reaction to the question, containing as it does an unsubstantiated accusation of trolling by Medeis against Noopolo. Perhaps there is a history there, but nothing was offered as an explanation, other than the characterisation of "trolling". I see no "tangoing" and have never had any desire to engage Medeis in confrontation. Neither have a number of editors who have used the legitimate processes to deal with another editor. My claim about wasted time by many editors amounts to exactly that complaint, that we desperately don't want to tango, but we don't want the nuisance caused by a single outlier either. If you believe in the hattings, I said that it would be fine for others to take the lead. This doesn't look like an attempt to tango, I feel. IBE (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If BRD is followed, Medeis hats or removes, it is reverted, Medeis might choose to discuss, no one is forced to discuss, and the hat/removal fails for lack of consensus. No one's time is "wasted" unless they choose to "waste" it, beyond the time it takes to perform one undo (about 15 seconds including the editsum). Medeis says that she follows and respects this system and I haven't seen anyone bring proof that she does not. Sorry but your argument is full of holes. ―Mandruss  08:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I gave the example in the original post. Two removals, in quick succession, and a direct claim to be following BRD. But I might have messed something up, so please quietly alert me to a blunt error, if I have made one. IBE (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I wondered whether I should say this, but I decided it was so obvious as to be unnecessary. We don't drag people to ANI for one or two (or even three over a period of time) lapses of judgment. Show me a pattern of misbehavior, please, where BRD has been violated in hatting and removal. ―Mandruss  15:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If you think this is only a few instances, spend some time scanning the ref desk talk page archives for the past five years. Or just google /reference desk talk medeis delete/. You can also or restrict to inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk, etc. E.g. here [55] [56] are a few hits, and I especially like this one, [57] where Medeis goes off in ALL CAPS about how a question is an "invitation to debate", when in fact it is a question about specific citable historical facts, asked by a well-established and productive editor. Here's a talk thread about bad hatting and deleting by Medeis from 2013 [58]. This archive has lots of Medeis not acting like a pleasant team player [59] I have better things to do than google trawl for every time Medeis has caused disruption based on aggressive policing, but if you're genuinely curious, WP and google have all the history you need to get the example behavior straight from the source. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I've been under the mistaken impression that BRD has been in place at the refdesks. Taking in all of this discussion, it appears that's not the case. You can't fault Medeis for the fact that there have been no clear rules; that is the fault of the community. I'm proposing the use of BRD and Medeis has made a very clear statement below (02:59, 23 Feb) that she will abide by BRD if it is accepted. If the rules are clear and Medeis breaks her own promise to follow them, THEN you have an ANI case. Not until then. That should be all that is necessary to end this discussion now. And Medeis is spot on when she conditions her promise on application of the BRD rule to everyone. If you bring her back to ANI for BRD violations and she can show spotty or selective enforcement, the case should be thrown out. That is the only way this can work. ―Mandruss  04:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Its use is inconsistent. Also, BRD is not the way to deal with a banned user. As has been said numerous times on the ref desk talk page, by various users, removal of questions by banned users should be as low-key as possible. The newer users need to show good faith in the editor doing the removal, rather than arguing about it as too often happens, thus feeding the banned user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pro-tip When someone says "I am not a <thing>" and then starts to argue about said thing, they are probably not being 100% honest. While Medeis is cautioned not to edit war or ignore consensus I think the whole ref desk area is a bit permissive of trolling. Oppose topic ban and 1RR restriction, our rules against edit warring can be used to keep this in check and frankly the idea of cutting these thing off early should be considered per WP:DENY. Chillum 18:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 1RR mentioned by Ian.thomson. It seems this is something regularly brought up at the refdesk talk page and has made its way to ANI at least a couple times in the past. Each time -- of those I've seen and/or were part of -- there seems to be a great deal of support for the idea that Medeis should exercise more caution in hatting and/or that his/her aggressive hatting is disruptive. Unfortunately, as far as I've seen anyway, Medeis is persistent in defending his/her actions, so I'm not sure what good more cautioning could possibly do. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that Medeis dedicates a lot of time to the refdesk and hats appropriately a lot of the time, so a 1RR seems like a good solution to prevent the more disruptive instances of hat-warring without preventing hatting in the first place. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I do not support 1rr, I only mentioned that as the farthest I could see this going. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose all Support 1RR - As Rhododendrites states, Medeis does a lot of good work and 1RR seems to be a good solution, a second revert in this type of situation would be questionable at best anyway. Further discussion has changed my mind. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It can very easily be questionable both ways, however. If we are going to go with 1rr, I'd at least suggest that it's under the stipulation that it must be more than one user who reverts Medeis, not the same user over and over. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 1RR She treats any topic she find distasteful as a troll and hats or deletes it. Imagine if we did that with Wikipedia articles. StuRat (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This is simply untrue StuRat and here is an example where SemanticMantis hatted you because he didn't "like" your comments on tax policy. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=next&oldid=647749876 uncovered your comment leaving only the argument between SM and yourself hatted, since your original point was relevant. How does that amount to my hatting things because I dislike them? What evidence do you have of that? μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Others have already provided numerous examples on the Ref Desk talk page, for years now. StuRat (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban - I think at most a stern warning from someone scary with an admin hat is warranted here. Maybe also a trout or possibly even a rather smelly mackerel (The Mark of the Mackerel), though not a whale. Anyway, first and last warning. On a side note, for the purposes of keeping things from being chaotic, can we !vote (or is this a vote?) on one thing at a time? I'm not even sure if we're saying 1RR for Medeis or for the whole refdesk (the latter ought not to be discussed here). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 3 Adar 5775 19:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The community already has a version of 1rr, in that I don't rehat discussions when my hatting is questioned and there's no consensus for it on the talk page. No evidence has been provided otherwise, which is what would have justified bring this here now. But what about cases like this, where my long attempt at engaging with a question was twice hatted, and I removed the hats 12. Would that be a violation of 1rr? Would any actually banned user like Light Current and Bowei Huang or the IP from Toronto who eventually went to my talk page asking me if, as a negress, my intelligence was substandard be allowed to restore a personal attack I deleted? Would I have to come running to ANI every time something like this occurred to get it rectified? And why are we talking about this sanction out of the blue if there's no evidence above of a current problem? As for being consistent in "defending my actions", even if that were true, it amounts to saying I'm guilty because I defend myself. μηδείς (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I would Support Medeis' proposal that only admins are allowed to hat or delete RD threads. We have several admins who are active on the reference desks, so there wouldn't be a problem with lack of coverage. However, this rule would need to be strictly enforced, even for the most egregious violations - is the community prepared to apply such a restriction? If so, let's make it official. Tevildo (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose admin-only closure - Yes, we have admin coverage, but it's still kind of like letting admins be the only persons who can remove vandalism from articles. I could begin to consider the idea that admins are the only users who can delete threads that have received responses, and that admins are the only persons who can re-hat de-hatted threads -- but I'm still not suggesting that. Quite frankly, there are a number of refdesk users who are bad at spotting trolls and love giving them attention (hell, I'll even admit that I'm not entirely innocent there). Restricting others from dealing with trolls goes against WP:DENY, WP:BOLD, and WP:IAR. We don't need rules saying you can or cannot remove a thread if that rule is going to enable trolls and punish those who remove trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose admin only closure, support disallowing Medeis to revert when someone reopens her closures. That seems to be the reasonable solution. We should not create situations where admins are allowed to do things that normal users technically can also, but then only allow admins to do. If and when Medeis closes a thread in good faith, if it is reopened Medeis should not close it a second time. That stops all edit wars, and would really remove the locus of the problem. Medeis closes threads in good faith; the issue is the repeated closure of those threads after others disagree. If consensus supports Medeis, others can reclose a reopened thread. If consensus does not support her, she should not be reclosing them. --Jayron32 00:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. I would support Jayron32's proposal if "someone" were changed to "anyone". In default of Medeis' threshold for hatting being voluntarily aligned with that of the community (which, IMO, is unlikely to happen), we need to find a method of minimizing its disruptive effects. Would it be considered too inequitable to have a simple "Medeis is not permitted to hat or delete anything" rule? If, as I suspect, it would, allowing any user to revert her misjudgements in this area seems like an acceptable solution, but only if it's understood by all concerned that such reversions are not open to subsequent discussion, and, of course, that it doesn't apply to hatting or deletion by users other than Medeis. SteveBaker's proposal for an unambiguous set of rules might be theoretically superior, but generating those rules isn't going to be easy. Tevildo (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Mandruss and I just edit conflicted, so other than emphasizing that the same rules should apply to everybody (assuming disruption is disruption no matter who does it, Tevildo), I will let his statement below stand for mine. μηδείς (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Thankyou, Tevildo, for a very fair comment. The reason for singling out Medeis was given in my first post here, announcing the ANI. It is because of constant misapplication of the rules, and overzealous hatting/removal, costing enormous time. No other editor costs us this much time. Hence I claim that there is nothing inequitable going on. It would be the same for anyone who acted this way over a long time. It is also a minimalist suggestion, designed to counter only the specific problem. IBE (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Seconding this rationale. Exceptional behavior merits exceptional treatment. Minimal changes are best at this point. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support BRD at the refdesks - where a hat/removal is the B and the hatter/remover is the one responsible for starting D if they feel it is important enough to pursue. If the D feeds some trolls, so be it; there is no perfect solution. If Medeis already follows this system, causing no more "disruption" than one revert per problem thread, then this ANI complaint would appear to be without merit. I think a clause against thread double jeopardy would be necessary; if a hat/removal attempt failed, that thread would have to be immune from further hat/removal by the same user, regardless of what happened in it later. Again, not perfect, but better than unlimited bites at the apple. ―Mandruss  02:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose all as not having any sufficient necessity. unhatting takes but a moment if one is concerned, and there is no strong argument for any punishment for the behaviour which annoys some editors. And I am tired of some of the same folks seeking the same remedies on a monthly basis - all it is, is drama for the sake of drama at that point. (Drama gratia dramatis) Collect (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I see no "drama for the sake of drama". The "same remedies"? No, I think different ones. Can you substantiate this? If I knew about a previous attempt at this remedy, I would not have filed this post. My suggested remedy is a minimalist one, and I have never heard of it before. You are welcome to be tired of us, but there are many of us, and it is because of outlier behaviour, which does not seem in keeping with the need for consensus. Unhatting only takes a moment, but people will rehat, and that causes a nuisance, as I said above. Some of us find the hatting more than vexing, because we can sense the willpower behind it, a feeling that is borne out by later developments, including rehatting and insistent, illogical debate on the talk page. The thread about holocaust deniers, which I linked, is a classic example, including accusations against people for being IPs, and claiming that the thread consists of nothing but debate. It is these later developments, and the sense of a lot of willpower by a single editor, against community consensus, that is causing us extreme annoyance. IBE (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose admin only closure. There are plenty of legit closures by other editors, like duplicate Q's. Just because one editor doesn't know when to close a Q doesn't mean all should be banned from doing so. StuRat (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't delved into the whole history of thread-hatting and removing in recent months, but the removal of this particular question strikes me as completely appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Its appropriateness was for BRD to decide. I'm defending Medeis in this thread, but I don't defend that particular case because it violated BRD. For now, BRD/consensus is the best available solution to this problem, and it needs to be observed. ―Mandruss  15:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Support preventing Medeis from deleting/hatting posts on the ref desks. Asking nicely, trouting, etc, has proved ineffective, though I do wish that would be all that was necessary. Most every time Medeis does hats/delets, at least one other regular user disagrees, and a bunch of arguing ensues (sometimes it is me who argues about Medeis' shutting down threads). I see this as very disruptive, and often times troll feeding, despite the intent. We have plenty of other users who make deletions/removals that are not contentious. Medeis should let them handle it. Since asking hasn't worked in the past, I suspect sanctions will be necessary to stop this pattern of disruption. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Topic ban for Medeis, Medeis often has good and useful responses. Often times not, but that behavior can just be ignored, while hatting/deleting disrupts the desks for everybody. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You do realize that we are only discussing topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from hatting or deleting other people's comments while allowing her to do everything else she normally does, right? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Oops, sorry about that, I thought "topic ban" meant banning from the ref desks. Now stricken. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Admin-only closure - mostly just because I honestly think deletion causes far more strife than any trolls. Trolls hate AGF, good referenced answers, and being ignored. Deleting is none of those. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I very nearly ignored this, but I'm alarmed at some discussion above that sounds like a back-door plan to introduce some sort of policy, or unneeded admin oversight, at the Refdesk. The only thing wrong on the Refdesks is when people try to play admin. Dumb, incomprehensible, or troll questions can easily be ignored; they're just "roughage" and no real problem to anyone. Either you waste your time answering or you don't. Is it bad for Medeis to play admin? Yes. But not any worse than when anyone else does. Whoever comes in with big plans for reform this, ban that, enforce this, block that ... they do nothing but harm. So make your decision about Medeis personally as you see fit, but please don't mess with the Refdesk. Wnt (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wnt hit the nail on the head. There is zero downside to topic-banning μηδείς/Medeis from deleting or collapsing other people's comments -- there are at least a dozen well-respected users who are doing that without the controversial decisions -- but all sorts of potential downside to changing how the refdesks work just to deal with one disruptive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So, Guy, what you are suggesting is that rather than BRD, I should bring every request for closure to an admin board? What exactly are you pointing to as a problem here? Wnt's opinion that the medical industry (see his comments on testosterone) is a monopolistic scam are well known. Where have I acted according to our medical disclaimer, then refused to accept consensus when my action has been reverted? Where is any evidence for this entire thread so that uninvolved admins can observe it? μηδείς (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I believe what some people are suggesting is that they'd prefer if you didn't care at all about (micro-)managing the desks, and limited your contributions to the reference desks to answers and questions, but not hatting and removing (and, to a lesser degree, not adding mid-thread comments on a question's appropriateness or a querent's sincerity). The reason some editors are suggesting this lies in the number of your interferences that have irritated (and sometimes been reverted by) a number of regular editors. The fact, that you don't mind adding opinionated comment when you so see fit has added to some contributors' irritation (or resignation). I find it hard to understand how you couldh't have noticed this by now. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If you're saying some ref desk regulars would rather not enforce the rules against professional advice, for example, then you're right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Wait, are you telling me that editors working at the Reference Desk are okay with giving out professional advice, even when they have no professional credentials? This really opens up problems for Wikipedia and does no service to readers who come there with questions. There should be no shoot-from-the-hip answers to medical, legal, business or career questions that come up. Liz Read! Talk! 02:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
No, this isn't the issue. Most of us are happy with the current guidelines at WP:RD/G/M. The problem is with Medeis' hatting and deletion of "trolling", as she perceives it: her standards of what constitutes "trolling" do not match those of the majority of Reference Desk regulars. If Medeis would restrict her actions to medical and legal advice as defined in the guidelines, the problem would be greatly reduced (if not entirely eliminated). Tevildo (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not that simple. There are also editors who are perfectly willing to allow banned users to edit. And when an experienced editor recognizes such a user's M.O., you get some editors exhibiting bad faith toward the editor who recognizes it, and start talking about starting an SPI, which is a fool's errand and only feeds the banned editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Well, yes, Tevildo, this is exactly the issue raised above. Liz, we have various editors who argue regularly that a question is "interesting" and that if it had been worded in some other way it wouldn't violate our ban on giving professional advice. We recently had a discussion Snow Rise started at the reference desk talk page about whether licensed veterinary advice was a violation of the Wikipedia:General_disclaimer even though the opinion that veterinary advice is forbidden has been consensus since at least 2007.
We have three issues here. (1) A total lack of evidence that I have recently or materially violated BRD, or am acting in bad faith. (2) A significant number of contributers here who think that questioners who can be "ignored" (although they never are) who never disobey policy, only regulars following policy that is a problem, and (3) a "content" dispute over posts which certain people would rather settle by limiting my editting rather than having a set of rules that apply equally to ("at least a dozen well-respected users") all.
The solutions are twofold: an objective set of criteria, and equal application of those criteria to all, including those who ask at the desks, and those who work there. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
"Re: "So, Guy, what you are suggesting is that rather than BRD, I should bring every request for closure to an admin board?", No, I am suggesting that you get out of the business of deciding what stays and what goes. You are really, really bad at it, and there are at least a dozen people who are good at it who should be allowed to do -- well -- what you are doing -- badly. You would still be allowed to call for something to be deleted or hatted. You would still be allowed to answer or ignore questions. You just wouldn't be allowed to do the one thing that you suck at. How many different editors have to take you to ANI before you get the point? Just stop, now, voluntarily, and save us all another million words of debating. --07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. In mainspace, WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, when followed and enforced, do a pretty good job of protecting articles from editors whose edits do not improve the encyclopedia. Can they be gamed? Absolutely. Anything can be gamed (and whatever Medeis's shortcomings, I don't see deliberately gaming the system as one of them, in any case). We don't selectively exclude editors who agree to observe BRD, no matter how bad their judgment. Medeis has agreed to observe BRD provided it applies to all, a perfectly reasonable expectation and condition.
What is the absolute worst case result of this proposal? What is its maximum downside? Well, zero discussion is required to simply allow a disputed edit to fail for lack of consensus. Medeis can open a discussion, but no one is forced to participate in it. If she then hatted or removed every thread on every refdesk, and if every such action were inappropriate, the time cost would be less than 15 minutes per day, the time it takes to undo approximately 56 edits (8 threads times 7 desks). That's your worst case, and one that we would obviously never approach. We have already spent more time in this discussion than we would likely spend reverting Medeis in a month.
We need to take a collective deep breath, stand back, and give existing processes a chance to work as they were designed to work. As far as I can tell this has not been tried consistently and evenly at the refdesks; correct me if I'm wrong. ―Mandruss  08:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Why do you keep citing the disclaimer, at strongest, the disclaimer should be taken to say "We aren't claiming this is professional advice". A disclaimer would be something like "Enter at your own risk", which would mean, you assume risk by entering; it would not mean, "People inside will prevent you from entering, and are obliged to do so", or whatever. I'm not even saying your general point was/is wrong about the issue you are referencing, but please stop citing a disclaimer as if they were rules - or, if that is how Wikipedia really means them, let's rename the page, because that's not what a disclaimer generally means.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction on μηδείς. Boldly hatting is fine and there is really no evidence of disuption or edit warring. Relegating a simple task such as hatting to "no big deal" admins is ludicrous. Close/ --DHeyward (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support for TBAN or one-revert limit for Medeis, with regard to hatting discussions and removing the edits of another contributor - As one of the RefDesk contributors who has argued most stringently for a cautious and restrictive approach to the professional advice issue, I appreciate Medeis' general concerns and I have no doubt that she takes these actions in good faith and, in each case, in manner that she believes to be consistent with policy. That being said, this ongoing and highly disruptive situation demonstrates that she lacks to the ability to respect the general consensus of her fellow contributors with regard to these circumstances. It's all well and good to say that, in any given scenario, she seems to be acting within the spectrum of good-faith, if toward the extremes, but we long ago passed the point where she should have started to recognize the situations in which she was adopting a WP:SNOW position. Even if she is absolutely certain her interpretation of policy is in the right, and that she's acting in the best interests of the project (and never had cause to doubt that she is acting from this frame of mind), she seems to lack the ability to see (or at least accept) when she is about to take an action in these contexts which is in essence identical the last dozen which the consensus of her fellow editors found to be excessive/in error. The fact that she cannot see that there is nothing to be gained by trying to force her standard approach to these situation, aside from a great deal of wasted energy on the part of numerous contributors, is problematic in the extreme.
Again, I share many of Medeis' priorities here, but if my actions were the subject of a half-dozen separate talk page discussions, wherein they were generally being regarded as excessive by a large number of other editors, I'd be moderating my approach some, especially if said actions were in the vein of altering other contributor's comments, which is a behaviour that editors are by and large meant to be avoiding outside of great necessity. It's true that the standards in question here are open to some degree of interpretation, but that does not in itself stop Medeis from recognizing when her perspectives are out of sync with the significant majority of her fellow editors and adjusting her approach accordingly. The fact that she has gotten considerable feed/push-back on this particular issue, via numerous discussions and is, if anything, pushing the boundaries in the same area with increasing abandon, suggests that she will not stop on this issue unless she receives an unambiguous mandate, unfortunately.
Thoroughly oppose (policy-inconsistent) suggestion of admin-only closures First off, since no one else has pointed this out, I think it needs to be recognized that we, the small collection of editors in this discussion, do not have the authority to implement such a ruling to begin with. The standards which govern when it is acceptable to close down a discussion or to alter the contents of another editor's contributions are the subject of broad community consensus and we are not allowed to create idiosyncratic approaches to these situations which limit or modify those standards in a given space without soliciting broad community discussion to reach a new consensus and alter the relevant policies accordingly (regardless of whether said change in policy applies to all areas of the project broadly or just specific scenarios/spaces). Deciding to apply a unique standard to our area of operation is not allowable and is a notion that ArbCom has already had disabuse several WikiProjects of in recent time; going down that road here is not only a non-starter, but likely to amp the drama up another few notches. Nowhere on the project, that I'm aware of, have these actions been regarded as the sole purview of administrators.
But even putting aside the fact that this procedurally not allowed, I don't see the utility either; the vast, vast, vast majority of our contributors at the Ref Desks who have occasionally hatted a problematic discussion do so only on rare occasion and without creating a ruckus. I dare say a majority of these actions are found to be in the best interests of the project and consistent with our guidelines and are not reversed. Medeis' suggestion of "fine, but if I can't do it, then the standard should be shared by all and no one should be able to do it" does not hold water to me, as this discussion is meant to consider whether her behaviours in this regard are problematic, not whether such actions are ever appropriate from editors without admin privileges; policy and the community consensus clearly say that they sometimes are, but that these actions should be approached with intense caution and reservation. For the rest of our contributors who, by and large, observe that restraint, these actions are not problematic and I don't see the point of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here (again, if we were even empowered to in this discussion, which we are not). Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Support 1RR for ALL editors, not just singling out / scapegoating one. But make an exception when the edit summary is WP:DENY, which telegraphs the removal of comments by a banned user or perennial troll. That type of removal should NOT be reverted. Some discrete discussion (probably off-wiki) could be had with the user who removed it. Arguing about it on the ref desk talk page is counterproductive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Singling out is exactly what this thread is about. There is no scapegoating, it is a simple fact that Medeis has dozens of times deleted/hatted things inappropriately, and many of us find that to be disruptive. It especially disruptive since it is an ongoing pattern of behavior. It is even more disruptive because all polite requests to stop doing that have been ignored. If one of my students acts up in class, I deal with that student, I don't change the rules for everyone else. It's really simple. Most of the ref desk regulars do not have multiple complaints about their behavior, and Medeis does. This outstanding behavior is exactly why Medeis is being singled out. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Even so, if you impose 1RR on Medeis, and not on the other editors, it IS scapegoating. The original complainant here hadn't even commented on the ref desk talk page recently. It's grandstanding, an "end around" play. In short, it's a bad-faith complaint. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
A few minutes ago, another editor pointed out some typical debate-seeking questions from a Toronto-based troll, or "Toron-troll". Dollars to donuts, someone will revert my hatting on some ridiculous grounds. And if they do, those folks should be sanctioned for it. Their lack of vigilance does not serve the ref desk well. Medeis sometimes over-vigilance doesn't really bother anyone except the troll enablers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think you know what scapegoat means. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Bugs, putting aside for a moment why you think all editors should be held to the same standard we are trying to apply for one editor who is particularly disruptive in this area, you need to understand that this is just not an option that we are empowered to mandate here. Wikipedia already has standards which govern when the average editor can and cannot perform actions like hatting and removal of another user's comments. The editors in a given content or discussion space are simply not allowed to create unique rules governing such behaviour that apply only to them in their favourite space. In order to affect that change, you need to seek broad community involvement the alter the relevant policies. We cannot simply decide to change the rules on our own, whether it means make the rules more permissive or more restrictive. That's just not the way Wikipedia works. We obey the same rules as the rest of the project and only in cases where policy says as much do separate rules apply to separate spaces. Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 18:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to call to everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Help desk, where we manage to get by just fine without any self-appointed sheriffs deleting questions that they don't like. these include:

What few content deletions we have are 100% uncontroversial and generate zero drama.[60] In all other cases, the question gets answered, even if the answer is "You are in the wrong place; the right place is X" or "That's not a question Wikipedia can answer".

Perhaps western civilization won't collapse if μηδείς/Medeis is banned from deleting questions/discussions that she doesn't like... I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! SemanticMantis (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
For those uninvolved admins unfamiliar with the so called toronto troll, the user's MO has been start threads about "why do blackk people..." "why do Jewish people..." and then segue into offensive material. I've never (I believe) found it necessary to hat that user, but one can look at the question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Medeis&diff=prev&oldid=583257615 "How does it feel to be a negress? Do you find it hard on yourself because your race genetically has average 85 IQ?" on my talk page from a bit over a year ago. This is the kind of user whose Ref Desk questions we are told should be ignored, rather than deleted or hatted.
I'd also like to point out to uninvolved admins this archived discussion "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Archive_111#my_stuff_keeps_getting_deleted My stuff keeps getting deleted" where a now indeffed user complains his edits about making water come out of his mouth by inserting water up his anus were hatted, Tevildo repeated the recent decision that such trolling should be deleted without comment: "these things only work if we _delete_ the offending content and _don't_ have these endless post-mortems about it". I did only then delete the thread, but User Wnt, who wants me sanctioned above, called us "the ethics trolls" and proceeded even further against consensus to answer the question not on the ref desk, but the talk page.
I'd also like to point out to uninvolved admins there's currently 33,000 bytes of discussion going on at the Ref Desk about hatting, etc., with all sorts of rancor, none of which accuses me of any wrongdoing, and in which I have not participated since I am under inquest here.
I'd also like to point out that the IP from Toronto who asked me about my intelligence as a negress has apparently returned here with a race baiting question about how dangerous Sweden is because it allows mixed race dating, yet SemanticMantis unhatted another post on the same board as part of his dispute with BBB, while I remain silent.
Before getting into TLDR, let me summarize. There's no evidence of my edit warring or acting in bad faith. The rules call for hatting or deleting certain questions. Those rules can be changed or borderline questions discussed if necessary; content disputes don't belong here. There's a 33kb discussion about this elsewhere. We simply need clear rules that apply equally to all. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC) μηδείς (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that you think this is about edit warring just shows that you don't get it and likely never will without being topic banned from deleting/hatting other people's comments.
Snow explained it better than I could in his comment above:
"As one of the RefDesk contributors who has argued most stringently for a cautious and restrictive approach to the professional advice issue, I appreciate Medeis' general concerns and I have no doubt that she takes these actions in good faith and, in each case, in manner that she believes to be consistent with policy. That being said, this ongoing and highly disruptive situation demonstrates that she lacks to the ability to respect the general consensus of her fellow contributors with regard to these circumstances. It's all well and good to say that, in any given scenario, she seems to be acting within the spectrum of good-faith, if toward the extremes, but we long ago passed the point where she should have started to recognize the situations in which she was adopting a WP:SNOW position. Even if she is absolutely certain her interpretation of policy is in the right, and that she's acting in the best interests of the project (and never had cause to doubt that she is acting from this frame of mind), she seems to lack the ability to see (or at least accept) when she is about to take an action in these contexts which is in essence identical the last dozen which the consensus of her fellow editors found to be excessive/in error. The fact that she cannot see that there is nothing to be gained by trying to force her standard approach to these situation, aside from a great deal of wasted energy on the part of numerous contributors, is problematic in the extreme."
"Again, I share many of Medeis' priorities here, but if my actions were the subject of a half-dozen separate talk page discussions, wherein they were generally being regarded as excessive by a large number of other editors, I'd be moderating my approach some, especially if said actions were in the vein of altering other contributor's comments, which is a behaviour that editors are by and large meant to be avoiding outside of great necessity. It's true that the standards in question here are open to some degree of interpretation, but that does not in itself stop Medeis from recognizing when her perspectives are out of sync with the significant majority of her fellow editors and adjusting her approach accordingly. The fact that she has gotten considerable feed/push-back on this particular issue, via numerous discussions and is, if anything, pushing the boundaries in the same area with increasing abandon, suggests that she will not stop on this issue unless she receives an unambiguous mandate, unfortunately." (quote from snow, 08:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC) )
μηδείς/Medeis, do you have any response to the above? Do you deny that it is an accurate description of the situation? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to call me Medeis, the Greek letters are simply to make it easier for me to find my comments. Rather than answer your rhetorical lawyering (since expecting me to argue endlessly is a trap) I would ask you how you respond to Ian.thomson, Inediblehulk, Mandruss, Chillum, Mlpearc, Flinders Petrie, Baseball Bugs, Collect, Liz, DHeyward above, and even SteveBaker (who properly argues for clear rules for all) above? (That's rhetorical, so please don't.) I will point out that the Ref Desks are not talk pages, and they are under the same restrictions as mainspace; BLP, etc. I'll also repeat that I am happy to follow the same rules as everyone else, assuming we adopt 1RR or deletion by Admins only, or keep the BRD status quo. μηδείς (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Evasion noted. I won't bother you with such questions again. I think the reader can easily figure out whether the above is an accurate description of the situation, and further comments by me are unlikely to change any minds here. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Support any and all proposed limitations on Medeis be that a 1RR without exceptions or a complete ban on hatting/closures. Oppose admin only closure/hatting idea as being fundamentally opposed to the way wikipedia works, and the purpose of admins on wikipedia. Also weakly oppose a 1RR for all editors.

I haven't posted yet, primarily because it didn't look like this discussion was going anywhere. Also, I did entertain the notion of bring more evidence to, but decided I couldn't be bothered, and the state of this discussion meant it wouldn't be useful.

I will say I think Medeis is being misleading when they suggest they already follow BRD. This example shows a double closure, there's at least one other very recent case here [61] [62]. It's true that in that case the editor who reverted Medeis was the poster themselves, but that's still beyond the BRD cycle. Now the IP in this latest case is a well known RD troll. (I use the term loosely because I'm not certain if they're a genuine troll, or just a racist editor who likes to call people negress although I suspect they are a troll for a number of reasons.) However it wasn't entirely clear at the time if it was the same editor. More to the point, Medeis's stated reasons for closing didn't mention that, but the suggestion the IP was trying to draw us in to an off wiki debate. That didn't make sense for numerous reasons, including that the blog itself is largely dead. (It also doesn't seem to be part of the trolls MO.) It got even more confusing when I reversed the deletion since Medeis said that they thought the IP was trying to draw traffic the blog which as I explained there, made no sense. Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 112#Closure reverted.

It's true sometimes trolls and other problem editors hang around and revert any attempt to remove their trolling so it's completely normal that editors may sometimes have to revert the original editor. But Medeis's judgement is so poor they really shouldn't be removing/hatting anything, let alone doing it twice no matter who the person who reverted them.

As a loosely related example which I'm only using because I just saw this [63] comment is weird. While I have no problem with the removal of the question from a blocked editor, there's nothing in the OPs question to suggest anything similar to Bowei Huang. (Bowei Huang did occassional ask about stuff relating to the world, but not anything like potty training.)

There is a complicating thing on the Ref Desk namely that there is no status quo. In the case of an article, while it can be complicated, generally BRD means you stay with the status quo, whether someone deletes something, or adds it to the article, that's the bold part which may be reverted leading to discussion. On the Ref Desk, if someone adds a question, or a response, that's not counted as the "bold" part. Removing this response or question is. The upshot of this is that when someone reverts your removal of their response or question, it's much difficult to say that editor isn't following BRD themselves unlike it would be in the article (not that that justifies you not following BRD anyway).

Another difference has already been hinted at by other editors. If someone goes around making bold edits throughout the encyclopaedia, but then never bothers to justify them or when they do, has really poor justification, this isn't generally going to be taken well. Yet Medeis and others above have suggested that it's fine for Medeis to go around making these edits, because they're only bold, and they're in fact probably not going to bother to discuss it. I'm not saying this is wrong, simply that we have to be careful in understanding how BRD works and why it works differently.

Anyway back to the main point, while these are only 2 examples, I'm fairly sure there are more relatively recent cases. And definitely there are way more poor closures from Medeis.

Which is my final point. While experienced editors have no problems finding something from the history (although if you don't know who posted it it can be difficult as the RD is fairly active), nor reverting hats or closures, it's likely confusing, not to mention uninviting to newbies. I'm all for removing genuine trolling etc, to the disagreement of an number of other RD regulars, but I also do appreciate the harm such actions can cause newbies. So we shouldn't think of a bold closure or removal which is very poor as having no impact, just because it's trivial for experienced editors to fix.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Call for Close[edit]

As is our tradition, no admin at ANI is willing to stop μηδείς/Medeis from continuing this behavior, a large number of other editors are unwilling to accept the behavior without asking ANI for help, and a slightly smaller but still significant number of editors are perfectly fine with the behavior. The traditional parallel discussion at the ref desk talk page is, again according to our longstanding tradition, going nowhere. We might as well close this discussion and wait for the next one, then the one after that, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a very fair summary. I thought this would work, because it is a minimalist proposal, but the situation seems roughly 50-50. Quite happy to call it a day on this one, although I am still hopeful an admin will agree with the plan. However, if people are looking at taking this further, the other suggestion I had was to compel Medeis to log every closure or hat, on a separate, single wiki page. That would stop us having to trawl through the archives to prove a case, since we could refer to that page for future actions. I avoided it because it is frightfully slow - it takes one ANI to require the logging, and then further ANI's for specific sanctions. If someone wants to start such a motion in the future, assuming there is no improvement, I believe that is the next port of call with ANI's regarding this user, at least as far as "minimalist" suggestions are concerned. IBE (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure medeis won't specifically document their own bad behavior for us. I wouldn't even support such compulsion, e.g. pleading the fifth. So if you'd like you can start a list of documentation on your userspace, or in private. I've thought of doing similar in the past, but it's a pain. If I start stalking medeis' bad closures, then I'm just doing the same obsessive troll hunting that I wish would stop. I've come to the conclusion that medeis' disruptive behavior will never be stopped by asking nicely, and that formal sanctions will require lots of planning and documentation. But I'm more interested in using the ref desks to learn things and provide references... Anyway, if anyone wants to start such a list on-wiki, drop a note at the ref desk talk page, and I'm sure we can fill it with evidence of bad calls and disruptive behavior over the next year. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of Croatia[edit]

Hi. I am involved with this article and the ongoing dispute in which User:Director has pursued a curious position for years now, whereby the list article includes various offices in various states in its scope, with little regard for verifiability. I told him that back in 2011, to no avail. He has continued to advocate this position, with no improvement with regard to WP:V, and recently engaged in an edit war with User:Timbouctou over it. User:Tuvixer also chimed in with a few reverts of their own. Once they finally got off the edit-war-wagon, there was still no resolution to the issue - the article remains in the state where its basic premises in the lead section are not supported by any references, and the page history is littered with insults. This has gone well beyond a simple content dispute and into an unambiguous violation of numerous policies.

On the Talk page, when I recently tried to say something, I was summarily needled by User:FkpCascais as if I was condoning this whole process by not intervening in an issue where my intervention would be seen as a trivial violation of WP:INVOLVED. This whole exercise in ridiculousness really needs to end. I'm hoping another admin can intervene instead of me and dole out some bans and blocks that are apparently necessary, because I'm not seeing that any further discussion is going to be preventing further blatant violation of Wikipedia policies, behavioral or content.

For example, I'd give:

  • a month-long block to both Director and Timbouctou for the egregious and persistent violations of the edit warring policy, coupled with WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:DE, WP:CIVIL, ... violations
  • a ban to Director on the topic of the Croatian head of state, broadly construed. Not sure about the duration, because it's been 3-4 years since this started - I don't think it's likely that a short ban would accomplish anything substantial, but it does seem fair to at least try something other than indefinite.
  • a final warning to Tuvixer with regard to WP:EW
  • a final warning to FkpCascais with regard to WP:DEPE

And that's just for what I saw they did at this particular article. I noticed there have been some disputes on other articles, but I haven't had the time or stomach to analyze it all. There could well be grounds for even stricter sanctions. TIA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The citation that Socialist Republic of Croatia and Republic of Croatia are the same state and the same country can be easily found in the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia. I was going to find all citations necessary and put them on Talk page of that article, but now I see that we have come to a time where it is implied that fear should be the guide in editing certain articles. I don't know if that is what Wikipedia was intended, but I will still find the citations, and with your permission User:Joy, put them on talk. Not today, but during next week. Now rule by fiat and martial law is in place on those articles, which is sad and dangerous. That is all from me. I hope no user will be banned, of course if they stop edit warring. Maybe to protected the article for a month, so we can all resolve this on the Talk page of the article, what do you say? I think that is the best solution, because banning users will just make it worse and allow one user to edit the whole article without any consensus. So I think the article should be protected for a month. --Tuvixer (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The edit history on the 17th Feb makes intersting reading. WP:25RR anyone? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


Why not indeff blocks all-round, while we're at it? Yeah, you can tell old Joy here is WP:INVOLVED..

Timbouctou and I don't get along, that's an established fact (we had an interaction ban). And the knee-jerk edit-war really is inexcusable, I don't pretend otherwise (in fact I said so myself earlier in a pretty amiable chat with Timbouctou). But the thing is - this report is about the article, not me or Timbouctou: there is no edit-war over there now for days, and we are discussing the issue amicably, with several editors contributing their opinions - and its not looking like it'll turn out the way Joy wants. Claims of WP:V violation are opposed on the talkpage as unfounded, and the proposed changes to the article do not have consensus. Last I looked, three users (myself included) currently oppose any changes - this is not a clear-cut issue, at the very least. And as Tuvixer in part points out - this is a political, left/right dispute at its core.

What this really looks like - especially the topic ban - is a means for Joy to circumvent user consensus, and get his way content-wise. The topic ban is especially suspect: I do NOT consider myself the owner of the article nor do I in any way adopt such a stance - but I hope I am allowed to point out that I did pretty much write the thing up (alongside many other officeholder list articles). Now I'm to be topic-banned essentially on the basis of one bout of edit-warring? And that's justified and fair? Nah. That's Joy removing me from the picture over there (ironically while citing DEPE).

So in summation: yeah, I screwed up - big time. I should not have edit-warred, its a silly, stupid, childish thing I did, and I'm ashamed of it - even more so for being around here on Wiki for so long. I blew my top. I apologize, throw myself at the mercy of the court, and plead temporary insanity :).
What I do not like, however, is this one incident of my reverting Timbouctou's recent changes (against consensus mind you!) being blown out of all realistic proportions, turned into some kind of "pattern" - so that it can be used to permanently get me out of Joy's hair. -- Director (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Sanctions are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. Seems kind of pointless blocking anyone for edit-warring five days after the incident. Not to get into the idiocy of the meritum here, the whole thing started with Direktor flipping out and provoking an edit-war with the exact purpose of drawing attention from admins to use it to his advantage in a content dispute. The "consensus" he talks about regards his wholly original view of the chronology of officeholders on one of the articles he passionately owns (there are dozens of others, but who cares - certainly not admins, that's for sure). The issue has been raised before, several other editors tried to reason with him over the past several years, and this (uninterrupted edit-warring) seems to be the only way of making him participate in a discussion (I think all my previous blocks were because of him on articles he owned and continues to own). He simply doesn't hear anything, instantly throws hissy fits and throws insults right and left against whoever is "against consensus", or as he calls it, the "longstanding version of the article". In short, he is not here to edit, he is here to censor other people's edits. And has been doing that for years. Tuvixer is a relatively new addition to the project, an editor with WP:COMPETENCE issues who does not hide the fact he is here with a political axe to grind, and who learned all he knows about Wikipedia from following Direktor's lead (currently his obsession involves edit-warring over the description of Ivo Josipović's profession and similar bullshit). I guess that's the thing with trolls - to fight one, you have to become one, but if you don't fight them, they just multiply. And I'm just too old for this shit, including the bureaucracy which is required to fight vandals who only need a mouse click or two to cause damage to articles. Where was this promptness and eagerness to help when I was dragged to ANI three times over the past month or so by two puppets on an unrelated article? There are veritable psychopaths up in here but getting them blocked would require like 300 hours of my time compiling evidence, posting diffs, reporting to 17 different noticeboards and enduring 900 pages of rants and essays, explaining the gist of Balkan politics to admins who earned their mops via exemplar and thorough editing of articles on Pokemon. So excuse me if I decide not to follow this thread any more. I have better things to do with my time. Direktor certainly does not. 15:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Timbouctou (talk)
Yes, I flipped out - you remained perfectly cool. In every sense of the word. Of course :). And even though I basically wrote the entire thing, I'm not there to "edit", only harass and censor. Only a WP:OWN-addled, "flipped-out" madman, or some "troll" or other, could possibly oppose that small article being split into three or four non-notable fragments... -- Director (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyone? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Beat me to it. I could start a thread about an admin not being competent that would get looked at pretty quickly, with plenty of mutal back-slapping... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the window closed on any chance of the (exceptionally strong) remedies you are seeking here days ago. If you had brought the matter of the edit warring here or to 3RR as it was happening, I can't imagine either Direktor or Timbouctou would have escaped a block (after-all, the situation speaks for itself). But at present there discussion ocurring on the page which (while still well short of the collaborative spirit we might want to see there) is at least meeting the basic demands of WP:C and seems as if it might work out a reasonable compromise solution. Forestalling that with blocks seems counter-intuitive. Mind you, being familiar with some of the parties here and the history involved between them, I can well imagine that this could slip back into incivility again (and I trust you'll keep us informed if it does) but at the present moment, don't you think it makes sense to try to give this unlikely truce a chance to bear fruit with regard to the content? Snow I take all complaints in the form of epic rap battles 17:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite see it - there's been no change to the Talk page in the last few days, nor has there been a substantial change to the article. I just don't see the potential for a resolution when nobody has actually backed down from their prior unhelpful stances. Rather, it appears they've just backed off into their corners as if we were in a boxing ring. Classic WP:NOTHERE. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If I may add, it seems to me that we've allowed the normal editorial process to effectively be taken hostage by these incidents. The chance needs to be primarily given to policy-abiding editors, not to any and all of them indiscriminately. Have a look at what User:Tomobe03 wrote in that Talk page discussion, and what, if any, was the response to his arguments. It seems fairly clear to me that they have been dissuaded from actually working on improving the article. A person who has made huge contributions to a gazillion good articles, including many involving Croatian politics, suddenly won't edit this one list article. Admin effort should be spent unclogging these kinds of stoppages. We shouldn't be enabling them by pretending we don't see this kind of an elephant in the room. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh stop grandstanding, Joy. Nobody's there atm. But Tomboe not being there obviously means he's been "taken hostage", while others not talking means they're WP:NOTHERE as part of an elaborate scheme to avoid the indeff blocks or whatever else you so solemnly proposed? The difference seems to be whether or not they agree with your apparent views on the issue. Nobody's being "bullied" there, and you really seem to be doing your best to blow out of all proportion what amounts to little more than a half hour of craziness... -- Director (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You're just continuing to prove my point that preventative measures against further shenanigans are warranted. (When's the next half hour of craziness scheduled?) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess logically we can best determine that by looking at when the latest occurred before this one. When was that?
And that's the point, of course: with melodrama you're trying to turn this into a "pattern" of some sort, and paint the most productive editor at that article as "disruptive", based on his opposing a change that you openly support ("he has continued to advocate this position [in this dispute I'm shamelessly misrepresenting]"). -- Director (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Productive? The list article we're talking about mainly consists of an unreferenced list. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That's ridiculous and you know it. Nobody in their right mind could seriously doubt those people held the offices as described there. But for the record, if nothing else - I did not compose that list, I placed it in the table. So yeah, I increased the article's size in bytes about three or four times. -- Director (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I see what you did there... yes, nobody in their right mind could possibly object to your ideas. It's just un-possible. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, you obviously don't "see", because I just pointed out that's not "my idea". -- Director (talk) 12:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to contact Timbouctou yesterday, directly on his talkpage, to see what his current position is; he has not yet responded: I'm "WP:HERE", not in any "corner". And there's been much discussion since the edit war... The last thing that happened is I pinged FkpCascais and Tuvixer on whether any changes at all are necessary, Tuvixer replied "leave it as it is".

As far as I can gather at this point, Tomboe and Timbouctou want to split the article into three(?) other articles, FkpCascais wants to split the wikitable in the article into two sections (which I don't really mind), while Sundostund, Tuvixer, and myself oppose any changes. Feel free to interpret that for me? I personally call that "no consensus after a decent response", and want to remove the opposed tags from the article... but that's me. -- Director (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're continuing to present this is as a rather frivolous content dispute about the editorial notion of scope, and ignoring the glaring verifiability issue. That's just another proof that you're continuing to be disruptive and that preventative measures against this are necessary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
During the past week I have not edited (at all) simply because RL stepped in. The issue at hand is verifiability. I'm not bent on applying one formula or another to the article, rather applying verifiability policy to the material presented. It appears that opposition from Director stems from asserting ownership over the article - they explicitly refer to several articles as "my stuf" (referring to themselves) copied from this particular list (see [64]) - claiming consensus or lack thereof somehow invalidates WP:V (see [65].--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Joy. This is a "frivolous content dispute about scope". Exactly. That's my opinion. Because regardless of whether all those republican heads of state constitute "presidents" in a general sense to your satisfaction - if we want the article's scope to include them, we can. And that was the scope since the article's inception in times past beyond memory. Moreover, all those people had the title "president", formally. I think its really strange for someone to demand "sources" and cry "WP:V" in order to allow the article to continue listing (e.g) the "President of the Presidency of Croatia" alongside a "President of Croatia".
I'm not going to further argue against these vague assertions. It's just meaningless. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure; but lets remember its you who brought up the content issue. -- Director (talk) 05:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tomboe is latching on to a truly pathetic, out-of-context fragment of a sentence, in brackets, where I refer to the general set up of a wikitable which I used in several list articles, and wonder who has copied it to the Slovene list article. But maybe its a window into my psyche? Who can say, really...
As regards the rest - yes, if we want the article to continue to list Yugoslav-era presidents over there (as opposed to creating fifteen political POVFORKS), we're free to do that. -- Director (talk) 17:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The statement I referred to was not out-of-context and it is confirmed yet again in this ANI where you referred to yourself as "the most productive editor at that article" (see here [66]) - paraphrasing "I created/wrote the majority of this article." argument provided at WP:OWN as an example of statements used to imply special privileges regarding a specific article and assert its ownership. I see no purpose of this type of arguing when the matter is clearly addressed by existing policies.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. DIREKTOR (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Redirect and disambiguation muddle[edit]

A network of redirects and disambiguation pages has become very muddled and I fear it will take someone with admin tools and a clear understanding of the system to fix it. It's arisen because of Bolterc's desire that AAP should redirect to Aam Aadmi Party (that's a fairly new Indian political party which has recently won a landslide victory in the Delhi state elections). As a result of several changes in the last couple of hours, we now have:

Can anyone set all this to function normally? NebY (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AAAAP (disambiguation) tagged as R3, that should shift one of them. I'll take a look at the others. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Aaaap also tagged as R3 4 to go. Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a few of the tagged pages, please let me know if any other administrative action needs to be taken with regards to the articles. Nakon 21:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bolterc has been a disruptive nuisance from the outset, has been blocked previously and has had both the caste and general India/Pakistan discretionary sanctions warnings. They don't seem to be learning a thing. - Sitush (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I spotted this through CSD. I've moved the dab page back to AAP, and have protected it for the next week. I'll do some more tidying up of the various redirects. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, my apologies. I can't see the sanctions notices, although I could have sworn I did only 15 minutes ago. They've been a nuisance nontheless. - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I think Bolterc has made one constructive edit. But they're determined that Aam Admi Party should begin by saying that "AAP redirects here" (because their opponents' article says "BJP redirects here") and not say "for the Pakistani political party, see Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)" (because that "maligns" the Aam Aadmi Party), so they keep breaking things. NebY (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the Election Commission of Pakistan website. The party in discussion here is a namesake party which was not even given a symbol to contest elections. http://ecp.gov.pk/Misc/Parties-with-Symbols.pdf Bolterc (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think the Pakistani party is notable then the correct course of action is to take that article to WP:AFD. As long as it exists, the disambiguations that existed before you got involved would appear to be correct. It is no good complaining that "Modi Bhakts" ("Modi admirers", a reference to the main BJP opposition party at the moment) are manipulating the articles. - Sitush (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You have now AfD'd the thing but have done so incorrectly. I've tried to fix the mistakes but I too seem to be hitting problems (see this attempt in the log entry.) I've become far too reliant on WP:Twinkle but hopefully someone can sort it out. - Sitush (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think I have fixed the AfD nom now. I note that after yet more disruptive editing from Bolterc, Aam Aadmi Party has now been full-protected by RegentsPark. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I've protected it for the very short term and would prefer not to see a longer term protection. Bolterc, I suggest changing your approach, your current one is not working and will end up with a block. And that is never helpful. --regentspark (comment) 17:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You are nonsense. You are the one contributing to caste articles and the person who added the hatnote is a veg supporter obviously caste worshiping people. You guys are bjp supporters whether you admit it or not. Bolterc (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a BJP supporter. I am not even Indian and have never voted in the country where I do reside. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ya seems Legit. This is like Dummy Wells claiming i have no idea or nothing to do with illegal use of Copyrighted images on Quora. Bolterc (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by that comment. Can you please explain why, after Mike Peel kiboshed your efforts to create AAP (disambiguation), you have today created Aap (disambiguation)? - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, You want to get me blocked. Try things. Bolterc (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Aap (disambiguation) was deleted on 20 February 2015 by Bkonrad. You recreated it and it was deleted again on 22 February by Nakon. You have now recreated it yet again. Why is that page so important to you that you would jeopardise your ability to press for the deletion of Aam Aadmi Party (Pakistan)? NebY (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PM of India is a Criminal accusing AAP as naxalites, but people voted against the corrupt criminal. In a similar way some of the editors are trying to put AAP as a party of Pakistan Origin. On Wikipedia the hatnote has made the visitors of Aam Aadmi Party page misdirected to the pak fake party page. Check my comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aam_Aadmi_Party_(Pakistan) Bolterc (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a serious case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and lack of competence going on here. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes. There has been a bit of name-calling but perhaps this is the clearest demonstration that we have a POV pusher here. - Sitush (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about your rules and corruption within administration. My question is why did you allow in first place the hatnote on aam aadmi party page to be added? Will you allow the same if a pak guy creates a party with name similar as some american party. Why not add those hatnotes as well. Remove hatnote or prove the pakistan party's originality. How many votes did they get in the pak elections? Prove or remove hatnote. Bolterc (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the AfD, where you also raised a false argument based on a 2013 source, these parties were not formed until 2014. To the best of my knowledge, the last general election in Pakistan was in 2013 and thus they have quite likely not yet contested even one constituency unless they have been involved in a by-election or some regional assembly election. As I also said at the AfD, there are plenty of parties whose name is similar but who operate in different countries; in such circumstances, dabhats are valid. It seems that you are simply not listening or not understanding, although you are very free with your accusations regarding the conduct of others. - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what is valid here. Wikipedia is misdirecting the new visitors who wants to learn about AAP to some wasteland which i strongly believe the hatnote maligns the name of the new hope party of India on the Internet search market. There is proof of those stats. We will see. Bolterc (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

At this rate, I see a block coming. It's obvious Bolterc is an advocate for the Indian AAP and is prepared to edit war over a hat note that may tie the Indian party to the Pakistani version, however remote a possibility that may be. Furthermore, it is obvious there is some misdirected nationalist fervour going on here. Bolterc, if you don't want to see an indefinite block coming down on your disruptive editing, you're going to have to put aside your nationalist thinking and listen to people. The majority of non-Indian editors here will have few concerns about the politics of your homeland. What they do see is your constant disruption to the project. Blackmane (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And here we go again .I've rolled it back. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
They have also recreated Aam Aadmi Party (disambiguation) yet again. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Strike: it was the acronym disambigs that they were recreating previously - nothing wrong with this one. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, with a primary topic, this is a WP:TWODABS situation: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. If I hadn't seen this discussion, I would have put a CSD#G6 template on the page. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty (unresolved)[edit]

PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Akafeatfausty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are obvious, newly created sock puppets, specifically vandalizing articles I edited.

The nature of their edits is exemplified by nonsensical and bogus edit summaries, such as "Visible anchor, mentioned an impt point with source but tangible" [67] and "Grammar check" when just removing spaces and a line break [68] and "incorporating some changes from Kristina451" [69] when he has incorporated nothing but has simply reverted my edit, and "Fix verb tense" when re-adding the same falsehood to the article that I pointed out on his talk page before. [70]

PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty are making identical edits, like replacing the term "high-frequency trading/HFT" with "predatory". [71] [72] Akafeatfausty also uses bogus edit summaries, like claiming to make an edit according to the "Last version as per talk page" when there is nothing even remotely about that on the article's talk page. [73] All within hours. Kristina451 (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The socks have now simultaneously restored their vandalism. PortugueseManofPeace from 03:10 to 03:12 UTC, and Akafeatfausty from 03:15 to 03:18 UTC. Please block indef and roll back their edits. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I met Akafeatfausty (MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) on #wikipedia-en-help connect discussing an incident on WP:COIN#Kristina451_and_High-frequency_trading regarding Kristina451. Kristina451 has been mass-undoing revisions from:
PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
190.10.199.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
166.137.246.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
128.103.224.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
under all kinds of nonsensical reasons claiming a lack of references, while he/she seems very happy to approve any kind of references or lack thereof that smear the reputation of a specific group of traders. We noticed that Kristina451 claims to be a "professional trader", which probably indicates a personal reason for his/her strong POV and marginalizing behavior against this particular group. We agreed to insert a few true statements into these articles to see if Kristina451 repeats this pattern of flagrantly undoing revisions so long as he/she could keep often false content that was accusative towards high-frequency traders.
For example, in Quote stuffing, Akafeatfausty made the correct call that Citadel LLC is a hedge fund and according to Bloomberg [74], Citadel Securities LLC is a brokerage firm and investment bank, not a high-frequency trading firm as Kristina451 puts it. Kristina451 reverted Akafeatfausty's changes without even bothering to truth-check those statements just because in that sentence, Citadel Securities was being accused of market manipulation and this was another chance for Kristina451 to smear the reputation of high-frequency trading.
I would say this experiment was a success. I think Kristina451 should be spending his/her doggedness, reference-checking skills and wit towards the betterment of other Wikipedia articles, and not waste so much of his/her time on such a juvenile way of smearing the reputation of his/her personal competitors.
PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 03:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like to clarify that David Adam Kess and 190.10.199.189 are unrelated to this incident. MelissaHebert is obviously another sock related to the socks PortugueseManofPeace and Akafeatfausty. Kristina451 (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned, Akafeatfausty is MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from what I can tell, maybe she didn't want to be known by her real name? You can check our IP addresses if you like. We divided the labor so I was monitoring Flash Boys, Virtu Financial, High-frequency trading and Front running because those were longer and I was more familiar with editing while Akafeatfeausty volunteered to do the rest. There's no overlap between our edits because they're on completely separate articles, why I would need to sockpuppet on completely separate articles? I could have handled all the articles by myself if I wanted to. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Apparently you know how to use other IPs and therefore mention it can be checked. But it does not have to, the behavioral evidence is crystal clear. Kristina451 (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You know what behavioral evidence is crystal clear? You obsessively policing every single sentence in every single article that mentions high-frequency traders. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
focusing on a particular topic or aspect is not an issue in and of itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The socks were signed up in short succession: MelissaHebert on 21 February 2015 at 09:18 UTC, PortugueseManofPeace on 21 February 2015 at 23:01 UTC, Akafeatfausty on 22 February 2015 at 22:56 UTC. The first edit was made by MelissaHebert. A rather interesting first edit for a 'new user', a COI filing against me without notifying me about it. [75] The ploy obviously was to try to provoke me with the other two socks to somehow 'show' that the COI filing was justified.

I think it is time to end this. While this ANI was open, almost certainly the same person responsible for the three socks above created another sock [76] that tried to impersonate David Adam Kess on my talk page and signed with David Adam Kess, who I still think is not involved in this incident. Thanks. Kristina451 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I've caught you red-handed trying to undo all these factually correct edits, such as the one on Citadel Securities LLC, out of your personal spite and conflict of interest. Now you're trying to divert attention from your own wrongdoing with this conspiracy theory about sockpuppeting. I suspect you're the one who created this Shazam puta character yourself to try and falsify a case against me. I'm not surprised:
Upon closer look into your history,
1. Your first edits were of promotional content to an IEX article, which appears to support your agenda against high-frequency traders. This was flagged by MrBill3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).
2. Your next edits were of promotional content, which was flagged by Sophie.grothendieck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for WP:COI and harassment, which led to WP:functionaries intervening to remove your violating harassment.
3. Then you went on a long hiatus and came back to revenge report Sophie.grothendieck on WP:COIN although it was months since this user last made an edit.
4. Then you went on a mass-undoing spree against David Adam Kess, whose edits seem valid, just because he didn't share your anti-high frequency trading position.
You have a history of dragging everyone into your childish disputes, each time ending with intervention from administrators and functionaries.
PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You now made it apparent that (you) the puppet master is Sophie.grothendieck. This also explains your untrue claims that you have a history of making, for example here [77] on my talk page. You also created dozens of other socks (I maintain a list of them), most of which are stale. I think the 'whole thing' needs to go to SPI. There is however something that can be handled right away. Kristina451 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
You're really grasping for straws here aren't you? Think about how ridiculous some of your claims sound.
- Why would I create another account immediately after you have accused me of sockpuppeting just to post on your talk page?
- Why would I need to create an account just to notify you of edits on an article? You're already aware of these edits, seeing as you have filed a report on this noticeboard and that I've been replying to you.
- Why would I need to impersonate David Adam Kess or Sophie.grotendieck? I've already talked to them on their talk pages and they can speak for themselves.
- Why would I create another account to edit completely separate and unrelated articles? Yoshi and Brian Lee?
- Why would I create another account to complain about you if I had one that existed for a longer time that apparently had a successful complaint about you?
- Why would I create another account 6 months later to out you after you started vandalizing these sites? Sophie.grotendieck seems to have been active during this period and could have done that himself/herself.
Please show us your conspiracy theory list so we can do an IP check and get these ridiculous accusations overthrown. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion to take some (simple) action[edit]

Please block these obvious, recently active sock puppets per WP:DUCK and the comments above:

MelissaHebert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
PortugueseManofPeace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Akafeatfausty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Shazam puta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This would finally allow me to move on with article work. For obvious reasons, I am reluctant to get into content disputes with socks here at ANI. If any established editor wants to know why the sock edits should be undone, please feel free to ask any question. Thank you, and I hope this will get resolved soon. Kristina451 (talk) 11:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrators, I want to bring to your attention that Kristina451 deliberately edited this section to remove evidence that I presented which demonstrated that Kristina451 is Shazam puta. Look in the revision history for this section for proof. I think I just caught Kristina451 red-handed again and he/she obviously wanted to hide this. For your convenience, I have readded the content that he/she removed below:
PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Update: You'd think that you would at least try to make this Shazam puta character more convincing. Here's what you posted on my talk page two days ago.

Information icon Hello, I'm Kristina451. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to High-frequency trading because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Here's what you posted on your own talk page using your Shazam puta account.

Hello Kristina451. I am Shazam puta and really just wanted to take the time to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to High-frequency trading because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Contrast this to what I wrote on David Adam Kess's account recently:

Hi, I am PortugueseManofPeace. Thanks for your editorial work on Wikipedia! There is an incident on the administrators' noticeboard discussing how Kristina451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing your contributions on the High-frequency trading article that I would like to notify you on.

It doesn't require much semantic analysis to realize that Shazam puta has your writing style, not mine. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
You have added this in between my comment and have changed text I wrote. Stop doing that. Add it at the bottom and it is fine. Just so you know, you are comparing the text of a canned template that I posted to your talk page. Kristina451 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451 background[edit]

I did a further search into Kristina451's background. It appears that during the last WP:COIN investigation into Kristina451, she claimed to the administrators that she was genuinely interested in editing the IEX article and that her account name was not created to harass Sophie.grothendieck. This turned out to be a huge lie:

- It appears that the functionaries forced him/her to change his/her account name just in case he/she was genuinely interested in editing rather than harassing Sophie.grothendieck. However, after the name change, he/she clearly lost interest in editing the article because he/she lost purpose of harassing Sophie.grothendieck and immediately stopped editing.
- Kristina451 waited a long time for the functionaries' attention on him/her to die down before coming back. When she returned, her first edit Sophie.grothendieck was to file this probably false report on the administrator's noticeboard to harass Sophie.grothendieck again.

This seems to be a violation of the good faith that the functionaries have shown Kristina451 and displays that his/her intention was to harass people rather than to edit articles. I believe that Kristina451 is just repeating his/her pattern here and trying to harass David Adam Kess and myself instead and he/she is repeating her lie that she wants to go back to editing articles. Please don't fall for this. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • You are making it more and more clear that you are Sophie.grothendieck. Kristina451 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
See above.
You're really grasping for straws here aren't you? Think about how ridiculous some of your claims sound.
- Why would I create another account immediately after you have accused me of sockpuppeting just to post on your talk page?
- Why would I need to create an account just to notify you of edits on an article? You're already aware of these edits, seeing as you have filed a report on this noticeboard and that I've been replying to you.
- Why would I need to impersonate David Adam Kess or Sophie.grotendieck? I've already talked to them on their talk pages and they can speak for themselves.
- Why would I create another account to edit completely separate and unrelated articles? Yoshi and Brian Lee?
- Why would I create another account to complain about you if I had one that existed for a longer time that apparently had a successful complaint about you?
- Why would I create another account 6 months later to out you after you started vandalizing these sites? Sophie.grotendieck seems to have been active during this period and could have done that himself/herself.
Please show us your conspiracy theory list so we can do an IP check and get these ridiculous accusations overthrown. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
You edited Brian Lee with your 'Sophie.grothendieck' account [78]. The obvious reason for your socking is to avoid scrutiny, and to try to disguise that you are involved in the high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge fund called Domeyard [79]. This easily explains all your HFT related POV pushing. Kristina451 (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your conspiracy theory gets fresher by the day! You invented a Shazam puta and now you invented a Dome Yard on your talk page, you aren't very creative with names aren't you? Who are you going to associate me with next? There is no HFT point of view in Akafeatfuasty's or mine if you actually bothered reading my edits and truth-check.
[Kristina451's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading
[Akafeatfuasty's version 648283904] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading and dark liquidity [1]
[Kristina451's version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredible high volumes of tradings,
[My version 648385500] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredibly high volumes of trades,
This actually shows that you're mass undoing the revisions without any discretion, which shows that you are the one with an WP:COI here, which is what Akafeatfuasty alleged in the first place on #wikipedia-en-help connect and that's why I was helping her! PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
References
  • PortugueseManofPeace is back to the same unconstructive editing pointed out above. Uses a summary of "Fixed claim, clarified defect reports, fixed disambiguation" when tinkering with spaces and line breaks. [80] Kristina451 (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make one right. David, Melissa and I agreed to stop WP:MEAT. I want to go back to regular editing and will avoid arguing with Kristina even though that's what she wants. Admins, please close this report if this is a satisfactory result. Shazam puta and 198.0.163.1 seem to be her accounts though, if you continue hearing from her account, please investigate her not us. At least I can be honest and own up to my mistakes. She can use them to stalk me like she stalked David if she wants. I hope she eventually gets bored of vandalizing those articles and stalking. Thank you. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounded by "newcomers"[edit]

Hello,

Since M.Bitton and Historian Student's multiple socks have been blocked (1 week for the first, indef. for the second's socks), some "new contributors" appeared, whose only contributions were to revert my edits using the same edit summaries and putting back the controversial versions previously made by M.Bitton and Historian Student and repeating the disruptive behavior that characterized both Historian Student (talk · contribs) and M.Bitton (talk · contribs).

These "new comers" are Ms10vc (talk · contribs) and Sidihmed (talk · contribs), plus an edit from IP 148.163.92.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Wile Ms10vc is obviously not a sock but just a disruptive editor (he participated for months on the French Wikipedia where he had been previously blocked for personal attacks against me (edited: my bad, he was blocked 2 times for personal attacks but not against me... really sorry!) and disruptive editing (edited, Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)), and seems that he wants to start the same thing here), Sidihmed is clearly a sock (but who is the sockmaster? then, how could an SPI be opened without knowing if it is Historian Student or M.Bitton?).

Btw, I ask admins to block these accounts or, at least, to semi-protect the articles that were targeted by Historian Student and his multiple socks as well as by these two "new comers":

Regards
--Omar-toons (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Sure. But Omar-Toons, one of the best ways to combat disruption is article improvement. Just saying. I'm not familiar with User:FAIZGUEVARRA, who's been active on one of those back in 2011; something to look into perhaps. Please ask DoRD to run CU on Sidihmed and the other, whom I've already blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait. Old timer alert. Who was that joker, a few years ago, doing all this stuff on Y-chromosomes and haplotypes or whatever? This edit has a bunch of that sciency talk. And Omar-Toons, this edit, which I think you endorse on the talk page, seems to remove really reliably sourced content, rather than stuff that's "devoid of meaningful information and pointless". Dougweller, do you have an opinion to offer? Drmies (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry Drmies, I can't recall. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
My bad, I'm confused: Ms10vc was effectively previously blocked on FR.Wiki for personal attacks, but actually not against me. Also, Drmies blocked him for sockpuppettry, but I don't think that he's a sock (as said before), but just a disruptive editor.
For Morisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I found that the section was irrelevant, but we are still discussing it (the IP user removed it before we actually got a consensus, but that's another issue). Actually, I think that some information that it contained could be copied to a section to create that could deal with socio/cultural matters. As I just wrote: that subject should be discussed more and more...
For the FAIZGUEVARRA thing, this vandal didn't show up for more than 3 years, I don't think that he's linked to that... but that's juste my (h) opinion...
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Drmies: actually there is some WP:SYNTH issue related to genetics, I still don't understand how the given refs actually support the statement they are linked to, I tried to discuss it but actually got no answer (or rather a rethoric), and when I added a {{failed verification}} tag it was immediately removed.
Btw, I tried a last time, but I'm giving up after this try if there's nothing new with Asilah1981 (who persists on keeping these refs).
Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Amusing account of events Omar-toons. As you know I began editing this article and approaching you in a highly positive and constructive manner. Three editors who you have been in conflict with over this issue have requested you to take this edit conflict to RFC and we hope you do initiate such a step. It feels like very forceful agenda pushing, and it is a very strange and convoluted agenda at that! I can't see where your desire could come from! In any case, I am still assuming good faith and struggling to answer your increasingly incomprehensible arguments. Asilah1981 (talk) 18:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Likely POV-forking of Lhasa[edit]

Non-admin closure by Aymatth2 – issue resolved

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

(The subject title may not be completely fair to Aymatth2 (talk · contribs), but I can't think of a better way of characterizing it. Also pinging Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) and Zanhe (talk · contribs), who had been involved in the discussion there.)

These users (largely Aymatth2) and I had been engaging what I thought had been good-faith, if heated, discussions about 1) splitting Lhasa into two articles and 2) what the proper names and the scope of those articles should be. (See the discussions at WT:CHINA#Category:Lhasa Prefecture.) Neither side has been able to convince the other, apparently. But I would like neutral administrator(s) involved in the matter now because it appears that POV-forking may be occurring - as just within the last couple days, Aymatth2 disclosed that he had been writing a separate article in his user space (which he is free to, of course) and planning on then moving it into the main namespace as a completed article. (See the postings toward the end of the discussion - specifically the quote of "I take it that when I request a move into mainspace of the draft article on the prefecture-level region you will either vote to merge it into Lhasa, or after seeing what it looks like you will support the move.") This, as I have been arguing, would disrupt the naming convention formed by years of consensus at WP:NC-ZH and should not be done. I don't disagree with splitting the Lhasa article (and I don't think there is any dispute from anyone else). I disagree with the manner that he's going at it - by proposing a disruption of the naming convention and not addressing the counterarguments.

It sounds to me that this, while not vandalistic behavior nor POV-warring in the classic sense, nevertheless is effectively POV-forking. I've quoted the criteria of POV-forking to him and hoping that he would reexamine this. However, as I said, I am hoping that neutral administrators can get involved in case my own judgment is being clouded by the argument (which is likely) and also see if there is some other way to resolve the matter. Aymatth2's contributions are valuable. But I think in this case I want to try to end/moderate the dispute before I have to effectively argue that good contribution should be deleted because of POV and disruption of consensus as reflected in the naming convention.

Again, help is wanted for my own sanity and the sanity of all those involved. --Nlu (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

"POV forking", yes, is quite a ridiculous accusation. I think you have to look at how large the Lhasa reigonal area is and how feasible is it to cover it all in the main article. The city alone, especially historically has enough to be said about it, let alone decent information on the economic practices etc of the wider region. I agree with Aymatth2 that it is practical to have both. I would encourage the same for any city in China with a wider regional area. It really is like saying you can't have an article on New York State itself, only New York City. I'd have Lhasa as the main settlement article and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) for the overall regional area with hatnotes putting each in context.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I have not yet started an article on Lhasa Municipality, but plan to do so in my user space in the next two or three weeks. I will then formally propose a move to mainspace. I have discussed this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China page, and find no valid objection to slightly changing the scope of the article on Lhasa to focus on the well-known small city, with a separate article describing the 13,000 km2 municipality that surrounds it. Any concerns can be brought up in the requested move discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, I have never opposed a split. I have, and I think with good reasons that neither you nor Aymatth2 addressed, opposed the naming and scope as proposed. Therefore, the comparison to the New York city/state situation is not apt. Moreover, one of my main objections is that "Lhasa" (as a "small city") is poorly defined. New York City is well-defined as the five boroughs. That makes the situation completely different, actually. Regardless of the merits, though, it is still POV-forking. POV-forking is not the same as, "Everything that is written is/will be trash." In fact, it is often that that is not the case - that the POV-forker's position has substantial merit - that led to the POV-forker to be ardent enough in his/her position to conduct POV-forking - just as what Aymatth2 is doing here. I trust that what Aymatth2 writes is not going to be trash. But it's the failure to address the substantial merits of the opposing position that makes it POV-forking. And note what you are saying here: "I would encourage the same for any city in China with a wider regional area." That is exactly the reason why it shouldn't be done. If extended in this manner, it would destroy WP:NC-ZH's geographical naming consensus such that it would no longer be usable. It would fracture the naming scheme into a jumbled mess, if this logic is followed. --Nlu (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • @Nlu: Forking is not the issue. The requested move would combine putting the article about the municipality into mainspace with focusing the Lhasa article on the small city. Is your concern that a requested move of this hypothetical article if approved may upset the project naming conventions? This is a strange incident report. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    I would say that it's an unusual incident report. It's both a report of your behavior (as a highly productive editor but in this case I feel questionable) and my own behavior. I wanted to get neutral parties involved before it get any problematic on both of our parts. --Nlu (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nlu: If I have been impolite at any stage in this discussion I apologize. Diffs would be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    No apology necessary. As I've noted, I feel that the questionable behavior is potentially both ways, and that's why I want neutral parties involved. But I would like substantive responses. Effectively, it still comes down to that I am not hearing, as far as I am concerned, any substantive response to my main points of 1) this situation is not unique to Lhasa and that there is no compelling reason to break up the naming convention consensus (which you did not respond to but Dr. Blofeld did, I'll concede - but I find his response to be a horrendous one given the implications that effectively destroy the naming convention) and 2) there is no verifiable, definitive definition of "Lhasa" (as a small city) other than the potential PRC definition of it as coterminal with Chengguan District, which nobody in the discussion (perhaps myself included) liked as a verifiable, definitive definition of "Lhasa." The good theory of a "small city article" for Lhasa is, until such a definition can be rendered, practically fatally flawed in my opinion because if there is no commonly-accepted definition of "small city of Lhasa" (and none was given throughout the discussion by you or by Dr. Blofeld) then the article is necessarily going to be original research and POV-oriented. I've offered up the possibility that such a definition may be obtainable from the Tibetan government in exile - but until that occurs, there is none. (No PRC official site that I can find contains any such definition (although the Lhasa City government site that I gave a link to hints at one - and for that matter, ROC governmental sites, having effectively disavowed control of mainland, including Tibet, doesn't contain any such definition (and as I noted, has not for decades).) These are points that I'd like to see addressed, even if there is no agreement with me. A non-response is not a response, and throughout the discussion, I am feeling that I am making cogent points that I am fully aware that not all will agree with - but then effectively end up talking to a wall as neither you nor Dr. Blofeld respond to them. It is very frustrating. It has led to potentially questionable choice of language on my part (which is why, again, I'd like neutral parties involved), not to mention stress and frustration at the lack of response. I think anyone reading over the entire thread in WT:CHINA will agree that effectively we're talking in circles. I am admitting that I may have some fault in it. I do believe that my points still deserve better than a non-response to my substantive points and a response of, effectively, "I'm going to do it anyway" and "I don't care what you think" and "I'm going to ignore whatever negative consequences you bring up because I think they're not negative consequences." --Nlu (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:POVFORK is not relevant to this situation, because there is no attempt to promote a POV here. Trying to label this disagreement as such is a profoundly unhelpful escalation. Kanguole 01:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    The reason why I think it is a POV-forking are this - based on the descriptions given at WP:POV fork (and again, note that the definitions don't require that the POV fork be junk or be done with bad faith - and I don't think that Aymatth2 writes junk at all):
    1. "Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. (In this case, the POV is "the prefecture-level city of Lhasa" is not really "Lhasa.")
    2. "It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance[.]" (In this case, nobody is disputing that it may be a good idea to split Lhasa; it is, however, in my opinion (which I realize may not be agreed with - which is part of the dispute) approached without balance (in this case, the two main objections that I had above that are unaddressed and dismissed in a dismissive manner (is that redundant?)).
    3. "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title." (In this case, it dodges the WP:NC-ZH consensus that, for proper styling and consistency reasons, the articles with the names of the prefecture-level cities should refer to the prefecture-level city. And, as I was objecting a few weeks back, in effect, an existing redirect is being converted into a content fork. And the last sentence of the portion I quoted effectively anticipates the situation that we are in now: that a naming dispute is being dodged by the creation of a new article.)
    4. "The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article." (That's exactly what we are having here.)
    5. "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article." (This is, based on the tenor of the discussion, not going to be adhered to - while this description largely refers to a situation where something is being praised/attacked rather than what we have here, the description is still apt; the POV being advanced is, "Anything other than the small city of Lhasa is not really 'Lhasa'" (and note that we still do not have a proper definition, even in this discussion here).) Indeed, the tone is (in not as impolite terms, but still comes down to) "I don't care if I can't define 'Lhasa'; it's not the prefecture-level city; and I'm going to create an article that defines the prefecture-level city as 'not Lhasa' whether you like it or not, and no matter what it does to the naming convention.") This is disruptive, even if there is no intent to disrupt. And it is POV that is non-neutral. A neutral POV solution would be not intentionally creating a substantial deviation from the naming convention. It would instead address the issue of the history/culture/urban development within the article itself or within a daughter article that properly acknowledges that there could be several definitions of "Lhasa." It certainly wouldn't simply disregard (whether it ultimately deviates or not from it) the analogous situations with other prefecture-level cities.
    I don't see how why this is not POV-forking. Indeed, it seems to fit POV-forking's definitions quite well. Again, that doesn't mean that material that is being written is junk. But it is a POV fork to dodge the naming convention. --Nlu (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    There is a difference of opinion on whether or not the article should be split into two articles of different scopes. The argument is about naming conventions, while the essence of POV-forking is that the purpose of a fork is to avoid the NPOV policy. That is quite a serious accusation, and trying to recast different views about naming and scope as misconduct of that sort is very inappropriate and needs to stop. You need to find a way to get more editorial (not administrative) views on the original naming issue. Kanguole 09:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Kanguole: With all due respect - and perhaps your voice is the type that needs to get involved lest that I get overly heated on this - I think if you read the thread in question on WP:CHINA, you will see that that has exactly been what Aymatth2 and I have been trying to do, and that the situation is deteriorating because I am feeling that Aymatth2 is not at all responding to my concerns and perhaps the feeling is mutual. Dr. Blofeld's lack of incivility (an example is shown below with his accusing me effectively of being a PRC puppet) hurt the discussion rather than help it. It requires intervention. Call it editorial or administrative, it still requires intervention. --Nlu (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Kanguole Basically Nlu is arguing that we cannot have a separate article on the Lhasa regional unit from the city itself purely because the PRC constitutes Lhasa officially as a "prefecture-level city". What he's not seeing is that from an encyclopedia development view point just one article on a major city and the wider rural area of 13,000 square kilometres is not a feasible way to cover it. Lhasa should cover just the city and Lhasa (prefecture level city) article should overview the entire region. As I say it's much like thinking you're not allowed an article on new York State, all the info about wider rural practices must be covered and mixed in with the urban info on New York City. The naming, if that is genuinely Nlu's primary concern is a minor issue at best and can quite easily be settled by hatnotes, whatever we call them. As I say I think Lhasa should cover the city and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) should cover the region, as that appears to be the official regional type.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nlu: Mount Nyenchen Tanglha is 7,162 metres (23,497 ft) high. The Pangduo Hydro Power Station generates 599 GWh annually. Reting Monastery in Lhünzhub County was founded in 1057. The article on Lhasa is mostly about the small city, as it should be, and does not give this type of information about the broader area. It is bizarre to say a proposal to add an article on the region would be an attempt to create a POV fork and an incident that requires administrator intervention. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Aymatth2: This is still not a definition. It points to what is in it, but not to the extent. (Plus, it's also not defined by a particular verifiable source or sources.) Is "Apple headquarters and its surrounding areas" a proper definition of Cupertino, California? You might say so, based on the analogy above. I don't. --Nlu (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Aymatth2, the Bonin Islands are farther from urban Tokyo than Korea, but they're still included in the Tokyo article, because they're officially under the jurisdiction of Tokyo. -Zanhe (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Nlu, have you actually been monitoring what Aymatth has accomplished to date for Lhasa regional articles? It's the best work I've seen done regionally in China for quite some time. WP:China is lucky he's spending a lot of time on this. Just let him get on with it eh? Your excessive concern about territory here just looks to me as if you're thinking "Oh no, tremble tremble, what are PRC going to think, I might be shot for allowing this, this is terrible". I think it's quite clear in sources what is referring to the city and the wider region, we don't need to define the exact boundaries anyway. The PRC obviously have a rough idea that the urban area constitutes 53 square km though, so there is actually some official boundary in existence. Whatever we call the article, a hatnote and the actual content of the article should make it crystal clear what we're doing anyway and no reader is going to worry about it. This is totally inappropriate for ANI, an admin please close.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your New York analogy is broken, because New York City and the state are not the same; if we want to use the New York analogy, Lhasa is New York, and the New York City analogue is Chengguan District. Dr. Blofeld, what do you mean by "an article on the region"? Tibet Autonomous Region#Administrative divisions makes it look as if there's no regional intermediary between the city and the autonomous region. WP:NC-ZH says The default naming pattern is "X Class", e.g. Taihang Mountains, Hai River, Fei County. Articles for provinces and cities can leave out the class name, e.g. Liaobei, Beijing. Since the page requires the city article to be at Lhasa, and since the city embraces 30,000 km2, not just the little urban core, can you explain how Lhasa should cover the city and Lhasa (prefecture-level city) should cover the region is in line with the naming convention? The convention must be followed, regardless of contrary discussion at the talk page, and administrative tools need to be used if it's repeatedly violated. Nyttend (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is inappropriate, Dr. Blofeld, and you know it. And this is the kind of dismissive behavior that I'm talking about. The lack of any verifiable, non-original research definition of what "Lhasa" (the small city) is is a real problem with the five pillars of Wikipedia, not the "five pillars of PRC." (Specifically, this is not-NPOV - with the OR prohibitions part of being that - and you, throughout this discussion, have been at least borderline uncivil and now have gone into full-blown incivility; I feel that Aymatth2 (and admittedly, possibly myself) have also bordered on it due to the lack of intervention, which is exactly what I'm trying to get.) This is an attack based on ethnicity/national origin and is entirely inappropriate. (As I've said, I'm from Taiwan; but had my view points been expressed by an editor from the PRC, it would still be inappropriate.) Again, this kind of thinking is why exactly this is a POV fork. This kind of thinking underlined the unilateral efforts to break the WP:NC-ZH convention - which was reached by Wikipedia editors, not imposed by the PRC or any other government. Again, POV forking. Not with bad intentions. But POV forking nonetheless. And this kind of thinking taints the otherwise valuable efforts to contribute. --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nlu:. Officially, for census purposes, metropolitan Lhasa consists of the six urban neighborhoods of Chengguan District, Lhasa. It has sprawled into towns in Doilungdêqên County like Donggar and Niu New Area. Many reliable sources such as Interpreting Urbanization in Tibet talk of the city in this way. We just have to follow the sources. There is no original research needed, no biased point of view. There is indeed a relatively compact built-up area surrounded by a huge and thinly populated area of mountains and grasslands. It is quite standard to describe two such areas in two articles. If the project naming conventions do not allow for that, an exception can be made. But this is not the place to discuss the question – the planned Requested Move is the place for the discussion. There is no incident here that needs administrator attention. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Sounds very similar to Honolulu vs. Honolulu County:
      Honolulu County (officially known as the City and County of Honolulu, formerly Oahu County) is a consolidated city–county located in the U.S. state of Hawaii. The City and County includes both the city of Honolulu (the state's capital and largest city) and the rest of the island of Oʻahu, as well as several minor outlying islands, including all of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (islands beyond Niihau) except Midway Atoll.
      For statistical purposes, the U.S. Census Bureau recognizes the approximate area commonly referred to as "City of Honolulu" (not to be confused with the "City and County") as a census county division (CCD).
    • --NE2 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, quite similar, and it would be unfeasible to bloat the Honolulu main article with bloat about economic practices and geography of the entire island wouldn't it? For encyclopedia development purposes we have two areas of focus, one on the urban area itself and one on the overall wider region.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The situation is quite similar, but the key difference is that the US government defines a separate "City of Honolulu" for statistical purposes, whereas the Chinese government does not define a separate "Small City of Lhasa" apart from the large prefectural-level city. Aymatth2's proposal is essentially that in the absence of an official government definition, we should define one on our own, possibly supported by a few cherry-picked sources, which I believe is original research and breaks the WP:NC-ZH convention. -Zanhe (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: Places that range in size from Soho to the Sahara have articles despite having no official government definition. There really is a small city called Lhasa, described by many sources. Project naming conventions cannot prohibit us from having an article about the place. I am intrigued by these frantic efforts to prevent the article on Lhasa from focusing on the small city of Lhasa, the topic any reader would expect to find when they use that search term. Again, the proposed Requested Move discussion is where the question should be explored. There is no incident here that needs administrator attention, just a debate about one article versus two. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Soho and the Sahara are well known places that no government has tried (or has the authority) to give an exact definition. In the case of Lhasa, however, an official definition already exists, but you don't think it's good enough. If I proposed to start an article called Tokyo minus the Bonin Islands, because I, like many people, don't consider the Bonin Islands as real Tokyo, would you support my proposal? -Zanhe (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Zanhe: As you know, Lhasa Chengguan District (Chinese: 拉萨市城关区; pinyin: Lāsà shì Chéngguān qū) may be translated "Lhasa city urban district". Most people would think of the city as only being the six urban neighborhoods in the valley floor, not the four rural townships in the surrounding mountains. The census makes that distinction to divide the population into "urban" and "rural". Some might think the sprawl down the valley into Doilungdêqên County is really part of the city. But Chengguan District is close enough if we have to conform to some official definition of the city, which I would question. I still do not see that suggesting there should be one article for Lhasa, the well-known small city, and another for the less well known 29,274 square kilometres (11,303 sq mi) former Lhasa prefecture, now Lhasa prefecture-level city, is an incident requiring administrator intervention. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • An ANI certainly might have been unnecessary had you been willing to concede, or at least address a few of the points that you are apparently now conceding/discussing. It also might have been unnecessary without the condescending, ethnically-charged attitude that Dr. Blofeld has displayed (including here in this thread) - which, frankly, has I think also infected your view of the situation. It also might have been unnecessary had you not effectively threatened to unilaterally implement what you believe to be the proper way to address the split (which, again, I think nobody has contested the concept of, but I do contest the implementation as proposed) by stating that you are writing a "prefecture-level city article" when one exists already - in other words, a POV fork.
    • But what it comes down to, in addition to POV-forking concerns (and I indicate outright that this is not the typical POV-forking situation), and more fundamentally problematic, are the original research and lack of verifiability aspects of it. Those do need (or at least may need) administrator intervention because of the lack of neutral voices before you (again, in my opinion; I realize you may reasonably see it otherwise) raised the stakes by effectively threatening an unilateral implementation. I am an administrator, obviously, but I can't and shouldn't be both advocate and judge. Somebody else needs to be involved, and we do have a couple additional voices involved now - one believing this is not an administrative matter (@Kanguole:) and one who, while not apparently necessarily agreeing with everything I'm arguing, believing that the breach of WP:NC-ZH is a serious matter (@Nyttend:). Again, getting good, neutral voices involved is a good thing, whatever their opinions are, as well as they're founded solidly (which they are). I hope that that will get everybody involved here to reexamine their positions. Certainly, though, I still believe that OR, V, and breaking of consensus (as reflected in the naming convention) are serious matters. --Nlu (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nlu: I have not "threatened a unilateral implementation". I have noted that I expect to prepare a draft article in userspace describing the prefecture-level city, and to submit a Requested Move for editors to review and discuss. I believe this is the correct process. It will be much easier for editors to comment when they can compare the present Lhasa article to the proposed Lhasa (prefecture-level city) article. The request will note that if the move is rejected, the prefecture-level content can be merged into the Lhasa article. If it is accepted, the Lhasa article should be focused on the small city, which requires very little adjustment since it is almost entirely about the small city anyway, and Chengguan District, Lhasa should be merged into Lhasa. The lead can start:
Lhasa (officially Lhasa Chengguan District, Chinese: 拉萨市城关区; pinyin: Lāsà shì Chéngguān qū) is a small city in Lhasa prefecture-level city, formerly Lhasa Prefecture...
I see no forking, no original research, and nothing unreasonable about this proposal. A Google Books or Google News search shows that a reader looking for "Lhasa" is almost certainly looking for an article about the small city. There are many examples of separate articles for a city and the region surrounding it.
The standard hatnote on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) says: "This guideline ... is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." The specific guideline on place names says (my undercores): "In general, when deciding to disambiguate a place name, those settlements ranked higher administratively (i.e. higher up the following table) are primary topic over those ranked lower, unless sourcing exists to establish significant notability of a lower-ranked division." That is, exceptions to naming conventions are allowed, but the proposal may not even require an exception since Lhasa Chengguan District, or plain Lhasa, is far more widely discussed in English-language sources than Lhasa prefecture-level city.
I have no idea why this ANI was started. The Requested Move discussion is the place to identify concerns. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
With these qualifications/concessions, most of my concerns have been alleviated. But it certainly sounded like a threat to unilaterally implement to me, although it's possible that I read too much into the statement. In any case, if there is an agreement that one article is to deal with the prefectural-level city and one article is to deal with the area as defined by Chengguan District, then I think we actually have a consensus (or at least are close to a consensus). The naming issue, as you noted and as I agree (in fact, I argued it at the beginning), can be and should be dealt with more appropriately in a move request. It sounds like your position has substantially shifted toward a conciliatory position (and I do think it has shifted during this particular ANI discussion), and that is something I hope I can reciprocate properly. As I see it, we may have coalesced into two potential positions which editors can decide together as a group which they favor:
  1. Lhasa (prefecture-level) and Chengguan District, Lhasa (district-level) (you have Lhasa Chengguan District, which I think is awkward and, again, is unnecessarily inconsistent with current naming convention of <district name, prefecture-level city name> (or, in the case where the district name is unique, simply <district name> - although in this case Chengguan District is not unique because Lanzhou also has one (Chengguan District, Lanzhou)), but which can be settled later). (Which, effectively, is the current situation.)
  2. Lhasa (prefecture-level city) and Lhasa (district-level, understood to be defined as Chengguan District).
Whatever is the consensus, I can live with. If that were the case for you as well, then I think that the ANI has served its purpose, because there would no longer be substantial risks of original research or lack of verifiability given the definable borders, which were my main concerns - that we don't end up with a "small city" article with ill-defined and originally-researched borders. (The naming issue, as I've noted from the very beginning, can be deviated from for good reasons so as long as there is consensus to do so.) So as long as we don't effectively end up with a threat of having 273 naming schemes for prefecture-level cities, I can live with a second exception, I think. (The first being Jilin City, which is a necessary one.)
I will also say that the approach that the article you cited (Interpreting Urbanization in Tibet) is intriguing. However, the article admitted its own limitations as far as the available data is concerned, and its own assumptions of what constitutes "urbanization," while innovative, creates other problems. (When applied to, for example, San Jose, California, it would tend to swallow up most of the rest of Santa Clara County and leaving out parts of San Jose itself, which I think nobody would consider a proper definition of what San Jose is.) But if we actually have an agreement that one article is the prefecture-level city and one article is the district, then such concerns no longer exist. --Nlu (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nlu: Thanks for that. Let's close this. I still have to write the damned thing, am soured on the subject and am bogged down trying to clean up the sub-articles. The prefecture-level one should just be a summary. Did you know that Drigung Monastery is high in the Himalayan mountains? Rubbish. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'll consent to that. Anybody else have any other thoughts? (I shouldn't close this; someone else should.) (Incidentally, though, whether Drigung is in the Himalayas depends on how you define "Himalayas" (which - I'm tempted to say - may be analogous to the issue that brought us here in the first place). (The "strip" on the map in the Himalayas article would appear to include it.) --Nlu (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me just add an additional thought for later discussions: one potential definition which I opine (again, not that it would be necessarily agreed with by anyone else) could be potentially proper would be simply the six urban subdistricts (jiedao), excluding the four rural townships, of Chengguan District. That would also be a definitive, verifiable boundary. But that, again, is discussion for later. --Nlu (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Note The controversial proposed article has been created in userspace. This is to invite any interested editors to contribute to the discussion on User talk:Aymatth2/Lhasa (prefecture-level city)#Proposed move. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Kristina451[edit]

(Opened with section title "Kristina451: Lying to functionaries, now lying to administrators"; title changed to "Kristina451 background" by doncram; title changed to "Kristina wikipedia stalker" by PortugueseManofPeace
Original section title duplicated another section on this page, also changed by doncram.
Per wp:TALKNEW, headings should not be used to attack other users, so header of form (Username)-(Negative behavior/Negative adjective) should not be allowed, imho. --doncram 07:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC) )

Kristina451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) filed a false claim of sockpuppeting against me on this noticeboard to harass me. She claims that she is genuinely interested in editing articles after I had exposed her WP:COI.

I did a further search into Kristina451's background. It appears that during the last WP:COIN investigation into Kristina451, she claimed to the administrators that she was genuinely interested in editing the IEX article and that her account name was not created to harass Sophie.grothendieck. This turned out to be a huge lie:

- It appears that the functionaries must have found evidence of harassment and forced Kristina451 to change his/her account name. They did not ban him/her just in case he/she was genuinely interested in editing rather than harassing Sophie.grothendieck. However, after the name change, he/she clearly lost interest in editing the article because he/she lost purpose of harassing Sophie.grothendieck and immediately stopped editing. This seems to be a violation of the good faith that the functionaries have shown Kristina451 and displays that his/her intention was to harass people rather than to edit articles.
- Kristina451 waited a long time for the functionaries' attention on him/her to die down before coming back. When she returned, her first edit Sophie.grothendieck was to file this probably false report on the administrator's noticeboard to harass Sophie.grothendieck again and she went straight back to editing articles of which she had previously been accused of a WP:COI.

I believe that Kristina451 is just repeating his/her pattern here and trying to harass David Adam Kess and myself instead and he/she is repeating her lie that she wants to go back to editing articles. I recommend a block on Kristina451's account.

PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • This is what happens if obvious socks go unchecked for days. Kristina451 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the future please notify the person who you are taking to ANI, thanks! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
*Sorry about that, Knowledgekid87! I've added his/her username! PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, now as you are investigating this, I also wanted to mention that Calboarder24, Shazam puta and Kristina451 are the same person. Kristina451 appears to have created the Shazam puta account to fabricate the claim against me and Kristina451's recent edits on an obscure wall and the converging timelines of their account histories seem to associate her with Calboarder24. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL - David Adam Kess gets blocked; days later an IP starts editing the same articles and gets blocked for sock-block evasion; days later PortugueseManofPeace starts editing the same articles. Collectively, we Wikipedia editors might not be so bright. But we're not that stupid. Quack! Stlwart111 08:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
MelissaHebert is another interesting one. And by interesting, of course, I mean "suspicious". Stlwart111 08:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The puppet master tried to blame the socks on David Adam Kess who I still think is not involved. Looking at the sock's comments and behaviour, the sock master obviously is 'Sophie.grothendieck', the first named account of a person involved in the high-frequency trading (HFT) hedge fund called Domeyard [82]. This easily explains all the HFT related POV pushing. In any case, it is time to block the obvious socks. Kristina451 (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Your conspiracy theory gets fresher by the day! You invented a Shazam puta and now you invented a Dome Yard on your talk page, you aren't very creative with names aren't you? Who are you going to associate me with next? There is no HFT point of view in Akafeatfuasty's or mine if you actually bothered reading my edits and truth-check.
[Kristina451's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading
[Akafeatfuasty's version] Nanex critcizes vocal users of high-frequency trading and dark liquidity [1]
[Kristina451's version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredible high volumes of tradings,
[My version] HFT firms make up the low margins with incredibly high volumes of trades,
This actually shows that you're mass undoing the revisions without any discretion, which shows that you are the one with an WP:COI here, which is what Akafeatfuasty alleged in the first place on #wikipedia-en-help connect and that's why I was helping her! You're just throwing up dust in the air with this conspiracy theory to get all of us banned when you are the real issue. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
References
You just stalk everyone else who edits your beloved articles, which is what others have discovered before me. What is your problem? PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As usual, false claims made up on the spot. What you purport to be in the HFT article (your first link) was never there. And nobody undid that minor prose improvement in the second link. I have no idea why this endless sock trolling and disruption is supposed to continue. Kristina451 (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Good grief, the quacking is so loud my ears hurt. Admins can we please get a hyper-obvious duck-block for PortugueseManofPeace and MelissaHebert please. Really, any admin with 10 seconds free time would do. Stlwart111 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I give up, this is a sad ending. You can let Kristina451 vandalize your articles. But if you can afford me some of your patience, I can walk you through this on the phone. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You can put me on a conference call with the three different owners of those accounts? Or are they all (in fact) one-in-the-same? You do realise that no matter what content dispute you have with Kristina, socking to make a point or continue your campaign against her will be seen as far worse? Stlwart111 07:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I apologize if our actions were disruptive. MelissaHebert and I thought it was fair game to edit separate articles as 2 separate persons.
We know David, he's a genuine guy and a good editor. Kristina451 stalked him to no ends just because he picked the wrong articles to edit. She's out of her mind and was willing to spend more time making life difficult for David than David had time to properly reference and defend his edits.
I honestly have no idea who are 198.0.163.1 and Shazam puta though, goes to show the extreme ends Kristina451 would go to have her way in manipulating control of those articles.
We just wanted to give David and those articles a chance at a fair editorial process.
I accept that it is a fair decision if the admins block us, but please tell us what is an acceptable protocol to stopping Kristina451 from undoing edits without discretion. We followed Nagle's advice on WP:COIN and tried putting back the factual content but Kristina451 immediately reported them on this noticeboard to disrupt our edits, even though there is nothing wrong with the content of our edits. She is dead set on preventing anyone else from editing those articles.
Again, I'm sorry, but please realize that we are the victims here. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No need to bold everything you write. What you have to say isn't any more important than anything else prior. For the last time, you're going about this entirely the wrong way. Dishonestly using multiple accounts to make a point or "win" an argument (whether under the control of on person - WP:SOCK - or multiple people - WP:MEAT) is one of the most problematic things you can do here. It's the sort of thing that results in long blocks and site-bans. It's really pretty moronic (and that's putting it nicely). Turning around and claiming to be the victim a few paragraphs after admitting to breaking on of WP's most seriously-taken rules won't get you anywhere. You just don't seem to get it. Stlwart111 04:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, two wrongs don't make one right. We agreed to stop. I want to go back to regular editing and will avoid arguing with Kristina. Please close my report and hers if this is a satisfactory result for admins and you. Shazam puta and 198.0.163.1 seem to be her accounts though, if you continue hearing from her account, please investigate her not us. At least I can be honest and own up to my mistakes. She can use them to stalk me like she stalked David if she wants. I hope she eventually gets bored of vandalizing those articles and stalking. PortugueseManofPeace (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator etiquette in issuing blocks[edit]

I was recently given a one-month block for trying to avoid an existing block. I appealed that block, which was reviewed by User:JamesBWatson. In responding to me, James made the decision to extend the block by an additional two weeks. Now that my block has been lifted, I would like to have his handling of this situation reviewed as I feel that he did not carry out his responsibilities as an administrator properly to the point where I do not feel confident that he could reasonably carry out those responsibilities in an impartial way in the future. My complaint centres on four key items:

1) First, my blocking history had previously been handled by two or three other administrators. The overwhelming message from them was that the blocks should be considered as a kind of behaviour correction. However, JamesBWatson's message on my talk page made it clear that he felt it likely that I would reoffend, and hence extended my block. I feel that this directly contradicts the message sent by the other administrators, and that by extending the block, he undermined them.

2) Although the blocking policy allows administrators to issue blocks based on an existing block history, it also states that this should be used for reviewing blocks for similar offences. My block history has centred on edit-warring, and I had never been accused of attempting to subvert a ban before. I fail to see how a history of edit-warring suggests a future of trying to subvert blocks, and so I feel that extending a block for subverting a ban based on blocks for edit-warring is both unjustified and a rather cynical approach to take.

3) In reviewing my appeal, JamesBWatson refused to divulge any details of why he chose to extend the block on the grounds that doing so would enable me to subvert blocks in the future. And while I appreciate the rationale, his attitude was quite rude and uncivilised, and so I was left with the distinct impression that I had my block extended because I had been blocked in the past. Similarly, I feel that any concerns that I have in the future - be they legitimate or not - will not be addressed fairly because of my block history, which is at odds with the conduct of other administrators.

4) At the time of having my block extended, no infractions had been committed. The one-month block for trying to subvert an existing block had already come into effect, and no further infractions had been committed. I have found nothing in the blocking policy that gives administrators the power to issue blocks when no infraction has been committed. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

PM has a habit of getting into trouble and then making matters worse. This post is yet one more example of that behavior. PM's block log speaks for itself. I am unfortunately intimately familiar with PM and his misconduct. As you can see, the first three blocks were mine. In addition after the block by James, I revoked talk page access. I can say categorically that my blocks were not for "behavior correction" as such. As with the majority of blocks, they are a combination of a misconduct sanction and to prevent further disruption with an emphasis on the latter. The blocks, which were all for edit warring, escalated as is normal in such circumstances.
PM's points about block evasion reflect his misunderstanding of policy and practice. It is common for blocks for whatever conduct to be extended based on block evasion.
James's comments were not at all rude. They were blunt. He was confronted with what he perceived to be blatant dishonesty on PM's part, and he said so. It should be noted that James wasn't the first admin to block PM for block evasion. That would be HJ Mitchell, who also pulled no punches when discussing the evasion with PM.
This topic is at best disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
"This topic is at best disruptive."
I disagree with you there. It certainly isn't intended to be, and trying to represent it as such speaks to the attitude that I felt I got from JamesBWatson—namely, I feel that you think that my block history means that my intention is to disrupt. How would you respond if this issue was raised by an editor without a blocking history? All I want from this is the confidence that administrators will handle any case that I am involved in based on the merits of the case itself. Because right now, I get the distinct impression that some administrators will simply assume that I am responsible for disruption even if I am not because of my history. Now, I am guessing that your response to this will be something along the lines of "you must think Wikipedia administrators are pretty stupid" or some such, but that's why I came here to ANI—because an administrator extended my block on the assumption that I would reoffend when no infraction had been committed to warrant a block. There is no provision within the blocking policy that says that this is an acceptable practice. So if it's reasonable for an administrator to assume that an editor will reoffend based on a block history for an unrelated offence, then how is it unreasonable for an editor to question whether an administrator will exercise good judgement in future based on an experience where they believe that administrator acted poorly? I appreciate that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but surely you recognise that everyday editors need to have confidence that the administrators will be able to judge situations appropriately. That's why I opened this discussion thread—so that I can have confidence in the administrators. What did you think I wanted? To cause disruption? If so, I picked a pretty poor platform for it. To see JamesBWatson stripped of his administration powers? I'm not nearly vain enough to think that I could do it. Or did I create it so that I can have a constructive conversation about the issue and better apply the lessons that you said you wanted to teach me? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
PM has a habit of getting into trouble and then making matters worse -- it's a six year 20K edit account that was never blocked prior to Oct 2014 -- are there diffs to support that accusation?? NE Ent 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

To reply briefly to each of the numbered points Prisonermonkeys posts:

  1. Prisonermonkeys says that I "directly [contradict] the message sent by the other administrators, and that by extending the block, [I] undermined them." Firstly, I don't see where I contradicted anything that any other administrator had said. Secondly, if I did, why is that an offence? Am I not allowed to disagree with other administrators?
  2. The second point is absurd. Of course if an editor who has a history of being blocked for edit warring proceeds to evade blocks, he or she can have further blocks imposed for block evasion, in addition to the blocks for edit warring. However, that is not even an accurate description of what happened: Prisonermonkeys tries to give the impression that until I extended the block, his/her blocks had been entirely for edit-warring, not for block-evasion (which is evidently what he/she means by "attempting to subvert a ban"). However, the block which I extended was for block evasion. (The block was imposed by HJ Mitchell at 19:11, 11 January 2015, and the block log entry says "Block evasion: has been evading the block while logged out continuously, almost since the block was made".) Also, the wording used by Bbb23 and PhilKnight in declining unblock requests for HJ Mitchell's block make it clear that they both believed that Prisonermonkeys had been evading the block, and declined the unblock requests for that reason.
  3. "I was left with the distinct impression that I had my block extended because I had been blocked in the past" ... Well, in informing him/her of my decision, I stated that it was because I believed he/she was being dishonest about a block for block-evasion. If he/she believes I was lying, and that I didn't really think that, but actually extended the block simply because he/she had been blocked before, what can I say? I have re-read every word I wrote on Prisonermonkeys's taslk page, and I can't see anything I said which seems to me to indicate that I really extended the block for any reason other than that which I stated. Prisonermonkeys also says that what I did was "at odds with the conduct of other administrators", but my block extension was appealed, and supported by another administrator.
  4. "At the time of having my block extended, no infractions had been committed" ... In the context of the following sentences, this evidently means that no further offences had taken place since the block was imposed. However, that is not true: I made it explicit in my comment that the essential reason for extending the block was dishonesty about that block, which of course took place after the block was imposed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately the WMF's insistence on no registration required, along with a strong privacy policy, means that we will always have a) socks, and b) the possibility of false positives. Per WP:NOJUSTICE it's appropriate admins use best judgment or "preponderance of the evidence." I'm not seeing anything in JamesBWatson et. al. behavior that warrants further action or review. NE Ent 15:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at the available evidence, and my conclusion is that it is extremely implausible that someone else would start using a static IP that Prisonermonkeys claims is associated with a public terminal,[84] edit Wikipedia without logging in, and edit almost exclusively in the area of motor racing[85] all during the time Prisonermonkeys was blocked. Extremely implausible. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's just say that I can account for my whereabouts on that day, but choose not to for personal reasons. Furthermore, that block is not what I am disputing. I am disputing the two-week extension that I was given when I had not done anything to warrant it. The four-week block was intended to address it, and address it it did. I believe that JamesBWatson should not have issued that extension the way he did. As has been acknowledged, there was the potential for a false positive—after all, the terminal in question is one that I had had nothing to do with for eighteen months. And while I acknowledge that it is a massive coincidence that those edits were made, and while I cannot explain them satisfactorily, I do know that that terminal is a computer in a public library, and I do know that I was nearly 500km away from it on the day in question. I believe that it was a false positive, and that there was no case for extending the block, except for the assumption that because I had been blocked in the past, I must be guilty of something. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's just say that we've heard it all before. Now might be a good time to familiarise yourself with the first law of holes. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I only gave up trying to prove that I had nothing to do with the edits because I knew that I couldn't prove it to everyone's satisfaction. But I didn't create this discussion to talk about that. I created this discussion to ask why an administrator is allowed to apply blocks outside the scope of the blocking policy. Like I said, I hadn't committed any blockable offence when I got the extension, and I could find nothing in the blocking policy to support JamesBWatson's actions. Am I simply missing something here? If so, please direct me to the policy that says an administrator is free to assume that an editor will make disruptive edits in the future when they do not have an extensive history of making those edits. To draw an analogy, articles do not get protected pre-emptively, so why do editors get blocked pre-emptively? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I shall make just one more attempt to explain a point which I thought I had explained to you before, and then I will leave this pointless waste of time. Firstly, I did not "assume that an editor will make disruptive edits in the future when they do not have an extensive history of making those edits". The block extension was because of things you had already done. Secondly, by policy blocks are required to be preventive, not punitive, which means that every block is required by policy to be made in the anticipation that there may be more of the same problem that has already happened: to block for any reason other than anticipation of possible future disruption would be contrary to policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest you drop this, PM. I know you feel aggrieved, but at the end of the day the best thing would be to move on. I'm not sure I would have extended the block a second time unless there was continued evasion, but James was within the bounds of admin discretion. You'd be best off getting back to working on articles and not getting into any more edit wars. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a thought: How about you stop the recurring behavior that seems to get you blocked every other week. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 6 blocks [86] in 5 years 11 months [87] comes out to ~51.5 weeks per block. NE Ent 17:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Request IBAN with User:Hell in a Bucket[edit]

I asked for a voluntary IBAN between Hell in a Bucket and myself in December[88] on my talk page, and again in February[89] on his talk page (after an ARCA request was closed without action after a lengthy discussion.[90])

After this latest post by him,[91] I am asking here at ANI for an IBAN. Lightbreather (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) Long block log for Hell in a Bucket – perhaps more than an IBAN is warranted here?... --IJBall (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but you're shooting from the hip, which usually is not helpful, here or in the Wild West. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
My last block was what 5 or so years ago? Not counting my self requested break..Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • waiting for statement from HiaB before I comment. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, this is all very exciting, and it all follows from a few discussions on some user pages I was involved with. Without an iBan, voluntary or otherwise, one cannot expect another editor to not discuss one's contributions, and in this case I don't think HiaB was the only one to question a possible collusion between the IP and Lightbreather. I think it's incredibly unlikely that they are the same, or that there was collusion, but some editors thought there was a connection--ah, I see now that the SPI is closed with no action, and the conclusion is much like mine. Good.

    Now, I don't see so much disruption that an iBan should be warranted--I think both tend to take things too personal, and/or both play the man, not the ball. I must take issue with one of Lightbreather's comments in one of the threads she linked: "I observe the civility policy, so any "tone" in what I say is 99 times out of 100 in the mind of the reader" is a kind of pre-emptive "I'm right" qualifier, and I dislike that sort of thing. And the moment one complains on-wiki about the behavior of another editor, well, one can expect the other editor to respond. This tit for tat isn't helpful, of course, and without wanting to investigate who started what when, which is a useless exercise anyway, all we can ask for is that the editors take a deep breath before they click "Save". Drmies (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • User:Ched [[92]] was retracted before this ani was even started. If u look at the thread you will notice her complaints I was not in the correct forum were rebutted I was in fact at a SPI started by Cirt and the stupid shit I refer to is canvassing forum shopping and socking/suspected meat puppetry. Look at the SPI and the resulting thread. Don't let yourself be manipulated. I'm not available for more substantial replies formanfew hours but happy to respond then. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall a few discussions about "IBAN", and it seems that a number of them involve(d) Lightbreather. If I'm correct, then that's not a good sign. Typically when one user has problems with multiple editors, at some point we need to consider that perhaps the issues stem from a central source. Perhaps it's the approach that Lightbreather takes that could use an overhaul here. — Ched :  ?  18:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Ched, I do not think you are mistaken. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The phrase used in the ARCA request noted above was "vexatious litigant". Salvio giuliano was the first to say it, IIRC, and it was aimed at Lightbreather. That she is trying again, and so soon after, would seem to reinforce that point. - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • This sort of typifies what is going on generally. LB can be distinctly uncollaborative: she sets up fences (in this case because she has banned people from her talk page) and IBANs are another way to achieve the same environment, ie: one that brooks no criticism. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Sitush, you seem to clash with GGTF a lot. I think the notion of dealing with "militant feminism" (see below) is actually the common denominator here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My 2 cents: LB appears to feel strongly about pornography, civility and sexism. Her opinions on these topics tends to be unpopular, and when you combine that with LB's apparent refusal to back away from an issue when faced with bullying, we have the current battleground situation. (I'm certainly not saying everyone who disagrees with LB is a bully but rather that it's an issue here). I'm also not saying that I agree with everything LB says or proposes, but regardless of how you feel about LB's stances on issues, there appears to be a number of user's fixating on LB and following her around to argue with her or insult her which seems counterproductive to the encyclopedia. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget "gun politics"[93]. I can speak from experience on that one... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Or could it be that she is fixating on her POV? - Sitush (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Everyone tends to be fixated on their own POV. Honestly Sitush, I think it might help if you fixated less on Lightbreather's POV.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
the underhanded actions are hurting the ncylopedia that's why it is hard to ignore. She is destructive in her method. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all? Eric Corbett 18:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)′
Right. Wikipedia should be controlled only by militant masculists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Eric I suggest you self-revert that comment of yours(and this one too if you like), it is a clear breach of your topic ban. Chillum 18:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in another example of how shoddily the GGTF decision was phrased, one could argue that it isn't. Commenting on someone's political viewpoint is not technically commenting on gender disparity. After all, feminists are of both genders, to begin with. Depends on how "broadly" you're going to define "broadly", doesn't it? Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Can somebody tell me: What is a "militant feminist"? Or, what have I done to be labeled one? If "feminist" means believing that women should have equal rights and opportunities, then yes, I'm a feminist. But "militant"? WTF? Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
We have an article about the subject. One of the defining factors of it is to be militantly anti-pornography. And to be fair I think this conversation [94] paints you in that light. Not only did you question why it was good article but why it should even exist though it quite clearly is notable and is actually a very neutral, well sourced article. After the editor who put a ton of work into bringing it to GA status came along and politely explained their rationale you went on to state the article brings the encyclopedia into bad repute, going so far to say it "soils" it, with no mind to how disparaging that was to the editor in question. Capeo (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
We have an article called Radical feminism - which mentions Feminism and Second-wave feminism and Cultural feminism and Liberal feminism and Socialist feminism and Marxist feminism. And there's even Third-wave feminism and Fourth wave, too. But here's the thing: I couldn't tell you what the distinction is between most of those isms. As for me, as I said above, I believe women should have equal rights and opportunities. That's the extent of my feminism, and is probably the same as millions of other people. Do I like porn? No. But I understand it has its purpose and its place. And being appalled that Wikipedia has a "good article" about Fucking Machines makes me "militantly anti-porn"? There are at least a dozen people - all men as far as I can tell - who need to dial their rhetoric back in this discussion and others like it, lest ye be seen as militant men. Lightbreather (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
And I count myself amongst those millions as well. But rhetoric? Appalled, bad repute, and soiled are rhetoric. I'm just following a chain of events. All your contributions to porn related material here were to create or expand anti-porn articles. Which is fine. It's an area of the encyclopedia that needs expanding. I'm not faulting you for you POV on porn. I understand the arguments against porn and am sympathetic to many of them. I'm faulting you for such an entrenched POV on the subject that you rather callously dismissed another editors efforts to improve an article simply because it was a subject you find distasteful. This is similar behavior that you regularly call other people on. Thus I don't feel my characterization of your stance on porn as militant to be unjust. How else would you describe a stance that is so entrenched it caused you to completely forgo the civility and respect you ask from others? Capeo (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, and as far as I can tell, the only thing that motivates being appalled that Wikipedia has a "good article" about Fucking Machines here is Lightbreather's explicitly stated dislike of porn. I would say that going to such lengths to complain about the existence of an article - one officially recognized by Wikipedia for the amount of work put in on it - qualifies as being "militant" about the subject matter, yes. Google gives me this definition for militant: combative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause, and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods. "Confrontational" certainly seems to apply here, given the repeated how the heck wording - and especially when it's presented as a matter for the GGTF. I just think a group that's supposedly working to help recruit and keep women editors ought to know that there's stuff like this out there - why? Why should female editors care any more about this than male editors do? What has it got to do with believ[ing] women should have equal rights and opportunities? The only reasoning I can fathom here is a projection of the anti-porn view onto female editors in general. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Was that machine, by any chance, invented by a young man from Racine? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll concur with that. If the shoe fits. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. LB might want to look into consensus building. Like a lot of the feminist movement, LB exhibits all the finesse of a bull moose, and I suspect that's costing her the support of a ton of moderates of both genders. ―Mandruss  06:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hell in a Bucket , What method is that? Continuing to complain about bullying and insults long after most editors would give up complaining? I get that you don't agree with LB. Honestly, I don't agree with everything she says either, but the following her around to argue with her or insult her seems counterproductive. Eric Corbett regarding your comment Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all....thanks for highlighting the apparent reason behind all this bullying. Says it all really. This sort of bullying has a direct effect on GGTF, discouraging participation by intimidating potential members. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You're comment ignores the fact that radical feminism is a quite distinct form of feminism. It also ignores the fact that Eric works quite often and amiably with women both avowed feminists and not. It also implies that to participate in the GGTF one must clearly be a self professed feminist. As I pointed out on the GGTF page a couple days ago, according to a 2013 Pew poll, only a tiny minority of women respondents consider themselves feminist and over a third of women respondents considered the term negative. Now, if find that silly personally. I believe it shows that the basis of feminism has never been clearly elucidated to most people and the term has been used as a bludgeon in politics. I think that's clearly displayed by the fact that the vast majority of all respondents, of both genders, agreed that women should have full equality in all facets of life. That's the basis of feminism. Unfortunately the bulk of the baggage of the term came from the push back against radical feminism. Not completely unlike the pushback in many circles against militant atheism. One blames all the woes of the world on the patriarchy and the other on religion and, in my view (as an atheist myself) both lack the nuance needed to deal with reality. Long story short: implying self professed feminism is the bar to participate in the GGTF would mathematically discourage participation far more than any factor and Eric has stated, by word and action, that he fully endorses the equality of the sexes. You're not seeing what's actually discouraging participation there. Basically if you don't approach every topic there from an avowed feminist theory perspective you're often dismissed as not getting it. Capeo (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Capeo, I'm not commenting on the history of feminism, and I'm not actually aware that any GGTF members have self identified as feminist (radical, militant or otherwise). It's certainly not a requirement to participate there. My point was Eric's above comment suggests this ongoing battleground mentality against LB, GGTF etc seems to be part of a mindset among a particular group of editors to stomp out "militant feminism", which I find both disruptive and inaccurate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on a public thread or an SPI is hardly problematic. In have abstained from her user page other then a missing SPI notification and then commented on a thread which she started when crying wolf again. I was the subject of that thread..read it interesting stuff when the real pic shows. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Commenting on A public thread, huh? One little ol' comment. ARCA made a motion to decline my request for an IBAN on February 9. I think I'll gather diffs of all the pages you've followed me to, or mentioned me (that I'm aware of), or alluded to me, or just pointed someone to something about me on since then. User talk pages:[95][96][97][98][99][100][101] Plus ANI: [102][103][104] Plus MfD: [105] Plus SPI: [106] Plus at GGTF: [107] Lightbreather (talk) 00:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Please explain which one's you've complained about and why you find those problematic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
HiaB, yesterday, you came over to WT:GGTF apparently just to criticize LB. It really didn't seem to contribute anything except your dislike of LB. [108]. No one at GGTF even supported LB on this one particular issue she had opened for discussion, so it's hardly like the above suggestion regarding a hive mind of militant feminists. We seem to have a situation where people who engage in battleground with LB tend to drag it over to GGTF. LB seems to have a genuine interest in the goals of GGTF so her participation there makes sense, but it seems many of those who drag battles over there have no interest in the task force goals and it's disruptive, and it's quite clear there is a group of editors fixated on LB. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, after visiting the talk page, I early on found that the WT:GGTF is often a hostile place for women. Many editors seem to go there just to stir up debate instead of discussing articles. I can see where editors focused on improving the coverage and participation of women get extremely frustrated. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed it is a hostile place for many women. That is why many of them disdain it but they say the hostility comes from the women who are regularly involved there, not men. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
How can I take that statement seriously considering the amount of provocation you bring to discussions on the GGTF talk page? It is supposed to be a place to collaborate, not challenge people's understanding of gender and male-female relations. It's WP:NOTFORUM which is what it often appears to be. I also note that it seems lately like more men participate there than women which raises its own questions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The way to take it seriously is to consider what Capeo has said in this thread, ie: if you don't approach every topic there from an avowed feminist theory perspective you're often dismissed as not getting it. That is why it seems that more women are disinterested in it and it is why even constructive criticism (from any gender) is rejected. It seems to me that LB is one of those in the vanguard but perhaps I've just misread her completely. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I could give at least a dozen of diffs of Sitush making that same old "many women" argument, without diffs evidence. As you and a few others like to demand over and over (even though we've answered numerous times): Show us your evidence. (And I don't mean your women Wiki friends.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Try the thread [Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2015-02-04 here], or recent comments at Kaffeeklatsch MfDs or GGTF itself. Beyond that, as you know I have said before, see this, to which you replied. WT:GGTF has perhaps a little over a dozen regulars despite its high profile; the rest, presumably, are just getting on with things. - Sitush (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The link you gave doesn't work. Rather than fix yours and get a lecture over it, here it is: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-02-04/News and notes (scroll down to Discuss this story). The story isn't about GGTF - it's about a proposal for a women-only space. One editor identified as a woman and said she didn't feel the need for such a space. How does that support your claim that "many women ... disdain [GGTF] but they say the hostility comes from the women who are regularly involved there, not men"? Here's some advice (which you so love to give), if you're going to continue spreading around this unsubstantiated claim, preface it with "In my opinion" (in fact, most of your comments would be improved by an "IMO"), or at least change "many" to "some." Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, Lightbreather *has* edited logged out in the past and, when asked about it, played dumb, so it's hardly unreasonable, under the circumstances, to wonder whether she's doing it again – though, as it turns out, in this case she was innocent. Anyway, regardless of any issues Lightbreather may have had with socking, her behaviour is, IMHO, generally disruptive: I consider her a vexatious litigant and a person who never drops the stick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My review: FoF Lightbreather, you initiated the thread, bringing up HiaB by way of a diff, in this post. comment you can hardly expect to start a discussion about another editor, and not expect them to defend themselves.
re: IBAN I decline to impose or support such; dependent upon your own evidence.
Remedy If you want a separation between yourself and your adversaries: 1.) Simply ignore what they are doing, and focus on what you enjoy here. 2.) If you want editors to stop responding to your posts, simply stop posting provocative comments about them.
In closing, for anyone doing a modicum of research here, I doubt you'll find much support for starting a thread about another editor, and then you asking for an IBAN when they respond. Perhaps some may feel that an IBAN being granted toward another editor is somehow a blackmark on that editor, but an IBAN goes both ways. It also speaks to your inability to collaborate with that editor. When you request multiple IBANs on multiple editors, it's saying that you are unable to co-exist with multiple editors. We're not supposed to have closed off little walled gardens here, and the concept is that regardless of disagreements, we are expected to work with one another. If you don't want to interact with another editor, then simply avoid them, and don't start threads about them. — Ched :  ?  20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's easy to do if an editor is not hounding you. It's almost impossible to avoid if they are. Liz Read! Talk! 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ched, please see the diffs I just gave (starts with "Commenting on a public thread, huh?") in reply to Hell in a Bucket's claim that the only thing he's said or done about me since ARCA is comment on a (single) public thread. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I strongly support imposing a two-way interaction ban between Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket, as I've said before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
User:GorillaWarfare were you canvassed by email? Its a central question at to votestacking which Lightbreather has been doing and I'm interested if she did it again with you? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I found this request as I was reading a discussion where I was pinged on User:Eric Corbett's talk page. Lightbreather emailed me soon after; I told her I'd seen it, and that in the future she needs to notify me onwiki or not at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And I would love to know how many of these guys email, text, beep, ping, call, smoke-signal, or whatever each other when something involves me, because it's always the same cast of characters: Hell in a Bucket, Eric Corbett, Sitush, Drmies, Salvio... who'd I miss? Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Oh - Carrite. He should be showing up, too. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, now we can add personal attacks to your list of transgressions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Really? This is the "personal attack" you comment on, not Corbett's reference to "militant feminists" above? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Placed in might I add, a thread started by LB when the two have had a long history of disagreement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, really. I commented on this personal attack because it's the one I saw. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IB Just separate the two already if they aren't getting along, what is the harm of having this in place? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope. It is another brick in the walled garden. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The two way IB would effect both parties involved so if any violation or baiting did occur then it would be dealt with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that Lightbreather doesn't want her behaviour criticised and, so, what this thread boils down to is an attempt at getting a critic silenced. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are always going to be critics so she wouldn't be able to silence all of them (its life), if her behavior though is disruptive then it is something an admin can handle. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the one comment I made that could be considered even a little inflammatory. Why because people have been asking me to tone down the rhetoric. My comments at the SPI suggested a different person entirely for a candidate for meat puppetry and reasons why if it was Lightbreather it was being used. User:BoboMeowCat says I followed Lightbreather to the GGTF yesterday but this was related to the ANI thread and hence why I posted there. I believe Lightbreather is tying a noose for herself (if she continues behaving problematic yes I hope she ties it good and tight but if she changes the behaviors all of a sudden there isn't anything to complain about) and out of the few that listen to her there won't be many left if she continues. This whole interaction ban didn't come up until she taunted me about not using an IP in an arb case which we know all know was a lie. I called her on it and even presented evidence provided by her and this was suddenly outing and harrassment and I was the problem. It's not harrassment to reply to a post about me when the edits weren't even close to problematic, it's not harrassment to comment on forum shopping and canvassing and personal attacks. Those are problems that she is creating through problematic behaviors, she's like a person that is trying to put a fire out with gasoline and torches, this here again [[109]] shows I have and continue to try to show her that it's her behavior not her that's the problem. Why isn't any of that mentioned? Because it doesn't fit the victim narrative she wants to portray. User:Liz you mention that people are hounding her, when she is posting things across wiki on multiple pages in attempt to drum up support, or operate off wiki attack sites a person doesn't have to look that far. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IB per Knowledgekid87 & GorillaWarfare. I think an interaction ban between these two would reduce some of the ongoing battleground which has been disruptive to the encyclopedia.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. These two people need to be separated immediately and definitively. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Newyorkbrad were canvassed via email as well? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I was not, and your suggesting it without evidence is obnoxious. I'm familiar with the issues between the two of you going back to my work as an arbitrator, and was horrified when I saw this thread on my watchlist and realized that the infantile feud between the two of you continues to disrupt the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Ok well we have already determined that it is happening by admission of other users sorry you are disturbed by that but the canvassing has been something that she has been warned on a few times so it makes sense she started doing it secretively. Thanks for clarifying though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Cautionary note - IBANs only work if both parties embrace the ban. And if this is about that maelstrom called Gamergate, perhaps a topic ban would be a better solution - for both parties, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • OMG Bugs twice in a week good ideas ;) A topic ban on subjects relating to gender and civility would be ideal honestly and if that happened it solves all of my concerns with Lightbreather. I can support that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A topic ban would seem to be a more workable solution, otherwise I foresee a large swathe of IBANs happening in the near future as various other people who are struggling with LB's behaviour are brought here for elimination from debate. - Sitush (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Two acorns in less than 24 hours. That may be a new record. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that but a topic ban might be the only way here that both sides will agree to stay away from each other so im on board. I think its a bit much though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That is workable yes, I don't see LB agreeing with this either though as the GGTF is a huge area of hers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If she's drawn so much flak from so many users, then at least a temporary moratorium might be good for all concerned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Baseball Bugs: I have never edited the "Gamergate" article, or "Gamergate controversy," nor did I participate in the Gamergate ArbCom, except to encourage GorillaWarfare, on her user talk page, to not be pressured into recusing herself from it. Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Both topic ban and IBAN. Bugs is right, but so are those advocating an interaction ban. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I can't believe what I'm reading. If the problem is conflicts between LB and HIAB, why is a topic ban being proposed from her primary area of editing? That is no more than a punishment and gives the message that HIAB has more to contribute to topics of gender that LB has to be blocked so as not to interact with HIAB which is a ludicrous idea. This is clearly a punitive proposal and for no other reason than that LB has a conflict with HIAB. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, an immediate reaction by one party embracing a mutual topic ban from gender topics does seem a lot like one of the litigants in the Judgment of Solomon story quickly agreeing that the baby should be put to the sword. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────What topic is being proposed that we be banned from? And why a topic ban? Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment A topic ban from the areas of gender and civilly only seems to further that stated gaol of dealing with "militant feminism". This seems inappropriate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The inappropriate behaviors have been happening there in those subject areas unless you think me talking to lightbreather has created all those issues. What do you suggest that stops the problematic behaviors? Specifically removing me from the picture wouldn't have stopped her from socking, removing me from the picture doesn't stop her from forum shopping, it doesn't stop the camvassing and it doesn't stop the use of those to bludgeon her opponents into silence. How much more would a GGTF work with people that actually want to work with others to solve the problem, if you notice only 3 names really come to mind for problematic editors, CMDC, Neotarf and Lightbreather. There is a lot more moderate women there that could further the cause. Think about this last point...she was topic banned from gun control, her re-entry seems to be a lot more genial in that area, imagine if the same result could be obtained for xivility and feminism. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If the group of editors fixated on LB would stop following her to GGTF to insult her or argue with her that would help. Especially considering LB seems genuinely interested in gender issues and the task force goals, while the detractors seems mostly interested in arguing with LB and/or stomping out "militant" feminism. I don't agree with everything LB says or does but she's not the problem on GGTF.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the perpetual debate here about Gamergate, really little more than an extension of the global Gamergate debate itself? If so, how does it serve the interests of Wikipedia and its readers? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No I have not any involvement with gamergate, not one edit other then I vouched for a few editors that I previously had disagreements with that I didn't htink should be banned. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Bugs, as far as I can tell this has nothing to do with Gamergate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Appy polly loggies. I misinterpreted something as being a reference to Gamergate. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I guess I read a different SPI report than you because the one I saw cleared LB so your accusations that she is socking could be seen as a PA. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Liz Well you could twist what I stated I suppose but here's the spi where it was determined that she was socking [[110]]. The complaints and req for the IBAN happened only after she tried to get me blocked for outing her by making the SPI and in this SPI I actually suspected and said as much that I thought it was Neotarf but could understand why people thought it was Lightbreather and I answered a query that MIKE V stated he didn't think was plausable. Context is pretty important (look at time of comments between mine and MIke's) and it seems you may not have understood it the way I meant(hopefully that's all it is) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Liz see [[111]] question to me, and then [[112]] my reply. Pretty reasonable as a result of a direct question. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support mutual iban per GorillaWarfare and Newyorkbrad, with no prejudice against topic bans. This puerile conflict is a waste of everyone's time. Ibans work quite adequately provided that they are enforced with escalating blocks up to and including site bans.- MrX 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Per GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, and MrX. If it won't solve the problem we can try something else, but this seems like a good idea right now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It will solve a problem. The difficulty is that it will not solve the problem, which is (simplified) LB vs everyone else. She has run amok with policy, guidelines and common sense for a while now and an IBAN here is just the thin end of what will likely be a thick wedge. I am actually astonished that her canvassing etc has been tolerated for as long as it has. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As a note: not canvassed. Saw my ol' friend Coffee (talk · contribs) was back and wanted to send him an email and a range of red notifications led me here. HIAB and LB need to be IBAN'd. This is not a case of silencing a critic, this is a case of removing a instigator. Sorry, HIAB, but that's what you have done and are doing here and there is no other way to put it. @Salvio giuliano: Have you considered that the fact that the first personal attack you noted was by someone you are prejudiced against and that you completely missed the more obvious personal attack is a sign that you are not looking at this impartially? If I were you, after the other personal attack was noted by @GorillaWarfare:, I would address both personal attacks. It strikes me, then, as quite serious that instead of addressing both personal attacks, you instead chose to lash out at your fellow arbitrator. Really quite telling. @LB and @HIAB: Please, neither of you email me in response to my comments here. I won't respond, and I also won't respond here anymore.--v/r - TP 00:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This is getting really ridiculous. If time and time again they cannot be trusted to not be at each other's throats and behave themselves like normal adults, then they are at odds with the collaborative environment here, and it is not unreasonable to say that they have no place editing here. It is high time we show them both the door, because this bureaucratic proposal will only lead to more bureaucracy and veiled sniping at one another and generate more heat than light. KonveyorBelt 01:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well im glad there is a consensus to at least do something regarding the two, I feel the community has just about had enough given some of the comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose interaction ban (they rarely work anyway) and support topic ban for both (they do work and are consistent with the "prevent disruption" purpose of sanctions). Stlwart111 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support interaction ban, oppose topic ban. Exactly the opposite of the above. Also not canvassed; just an interested observer seeing a clear pattern of hounding going on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In which direction? Wouldn't that warrant a one-way ban of some sort instead? (for the record, I disagree - I think the disruption has been from both and relates directly to the specific topic, rather than some general animosity) Stlwart111 06:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
LB asked for a ban between them; that's inherently two-way. A topic ban is superficially symmetric, but banning both the person interested in addressing gender-gap issues and the person clearly not is just more systemic bias perpetuation. That's not an endorsement of LB's approach to the topic, which I agree has contributed to the disruption. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. Stlwart111 09:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any idea of a one-way interaction ban - One-ways are unfair, now and forever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose IBAN which will do nothing to resolve any actual difference. I also think that topic bans should be decided on according to behaviour and not according to contribution. A badly behaved editor cannot be endorsed on the merits of contribution as I think that this would endorse bullying and potentially WP:OWN. On top of any topic ban I would support a short term Wikipedia ban to give both editors time to reflect. GregKaye 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Interaction bans are not good for the wiki. Editors interested in the same area need to collaborate and it follows that they need to interact. If that is not possible, then figure out which editor is the bigger problem and topic ban them. If both are a problem, topic ban both. An interaction ban sounds like an easy solution but, and I've seen this time and again, it doesn't work and only adds to the misery of editing on Wikipedia ('he edited a page that I edited first', 'she commented on a topic that I had mentioned to another editor back in the 60s' - do you all really want to spend your time here dealing with crap like that?) --regentspark (comment) 14:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As far as I can see, HiaB has little to no interest in the topic areas proposed for the topic ban (gender issues and civility). Those are LB's interest areas, which a group of editors (including HiaB) apparently follow LB to. Topic ban appears to be the way to vote if you want to punish LB while leaving HiaB completely off the hook. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware that HIAB has a preferred topic area. He spends most of his time patrolling (recent changes maybe?), nominating articles for deletion, starting or participating in SPIs... Does he plan to be an admin someday? Of course he'll be happy with a topic ban, but my question still remains: What topic are we talking about? None of his comments about me have had anything to do with a topic that I'm aware of. He's just wants the world to know that HE THINKS I'm a lying, forum-shopping, canvassing - did I miss anything? - maybe he thinks I'm a man-hater? Is he one of the ones that calls me a "militant feminist"? Of course he doesn't like that I won't always ignore foul language. This isn't about a topic. It's about him being on a mission to "expose" me as some evil editor whom no-one else can see.
Also, FWIW, I've only ever asked for three IBANs. And I've maybe asked a half-dozen people to stay off my talk page. This whole walled-garden talk is nonsense. I only want what the policies and guidelines say we're supposed to have. Space to work without harassment. If someone has a problem with me and content, bring it up on an article talk page. If they have a problem with my behavior, take it to the appropriate board - with evidence - or leave me alone. Quit gossiping about me like a bunch of teenagers. Lightbreather (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Fairly accurate at least according to my interests. I write about what intrigues me and I do a lot of new page patrol and I am involved in SPI. I do not go to subjects I have zero knowledge of, IE gun control and I don't really care about porn articles. I do not like censorship, I think it's mis-used and is rarely done in a fair way. The problem is that you (LB) call things harrassment that isn't harrassment. Opening a SPI and providing evidence is not harrassment, staying away from you is not harrassment, commenting at a SPI started by others is not harrassment when the comments are about that issue and not about the contributor (as much as possible given that the SPI was about you hard to avoid that), answering a question with a speculation of motives or reason you were involved with meatpupptery/socking is not harrassment. I don't even think your dragging everybody and their brother to boards to accomplish your ends is not harrassment. I think ultimately it stains your reputation and if you want to continue trampling it that's up to you. Am I or will I ever attempt to be an admin? No, I don't have the will to bend over politically that you have to to get the mop and bit and it would be a train wreck idf I did. The sad fact you complain about evidence but in SPI and especially in the behavioural phase it isn't always going to be explicit and I think that's what you want. I was right the first time you were sovking and I'm probably right there is coordination going on this time too. It's not that hard to see, IP 172 starts not one but 2 investigations on Lightbreather and Darknipples. Then all of a sudden it's using lightbreather to further this cause on nudity and porn. Lightbreather then states that the IP deserves an award. Now if you look above Lightbreather has a detailed list of everyone she considers hounding her, it includes admin, arbs and some regular editors. Does anyone think that she all of a sudden forgot that this IP started these SPI's? Does that fit the behavior we've seen here? Not so much. So then you have to ask yourself if it isn't Lightbreather who else agreed with her on those issues. CMDC and Neotarf so I responded and stated I can understand why she someone thinks she is socking but a more likely person is Neotarf. I didn't have a lot to go on just a gut feeling and a single diff which was similar and I noted it was flimsy. After this the circus of victimhood is started again and we get the passionate scream of help, I need protection from HIAB. There is a clear difference in behaviors, I try to change mine (less rhetoric) and Lightbreather sees no problem at all with anything she has done ever. I've yet to see one statement of accountability about her methods other then excuse her own misbehaviors. I've diff'd most of this beyond count before so unless anyone has specific questions about incidents I will not be providing them here again as I view it as a tactic to wear down people rather then address the behaviors and I won't repeat myself ad nasuem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Lightbreather can simply ignore HIAB and stay away. That should solve the problem. If not, then any subsequent problems can be evaluated more clearly. SPECIFICO talk 15:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I just blocked Lightbreather for 24 hours for canvassing. I had previously delivered a final warning to her to stop that behavior. I didn't see the canvassing until now, or I would have issued the block earlier. Karanacs (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - IBAN for both editors. It's obvious these two can't get along and will probably never get along, so banning them from interacting with one another is a reasonable solution. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - IBAN for both editors, and oppose topic bans for the same reasons previously stated by others. Obviously, some action is needed here, but I don't believe punishment for making a request to resolve an issue is justifiable. Before anyone decides to cast aspersions on me for stating my position here, I will say that I have not been "canvassed". LB and I are just Wiki-friends and I have been following her dispute history with HiaB for a while now, unbeknownst to her. Darknipples (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - IBAN but not topic ban. IBAN should ease issues. A topic ban would be applicable if hostilities continue, otherwise one is being punished for (or not being able to restrain from responding to) the actions of another. Anything that discourages WP:NOTHERE and encourages WP:DROPTHESTICK is preferable. AnonNep (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN per NewYorkBrad and GorillaWarfare. -- Calidum 19:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any type of interaction ban. I've seen Hell in a Bucket do nothing but attempt to detest drama and attempt to enforce the policies and guidelines, and the amount of drama that has been result of Lightbreather's obsession with certain editing topics and more recently canvassing and in all is truly getting ridiculous. I would support a standard topic ban against Lightbreather. Tutelary (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose a mutual topic ban as I think the topic has nothing to do with the conflict. While I do not think an interaction ban is necessary, I have no objections to a mutual interaction ban (I would strongly oppose a one-sided ban). However, if this is granted and Lightbreather asks for interaction bans with any other editors in the next 12 months, I think she needs to be sanctioned. Interaction bans should be used as a last resort, not to eliminate opposing voices or to mask an inability to get along with others. Lightbreather does edit primarily in contentious topic areas, but many others do likewise without needing multiple interaction bans. Karanacs (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN. HAIB has pursued Lightbreather for months, obviously watching everything she does, and commenting on and to her frequently and sometimes at great length. It isn't good for either party. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose IBAN. In the past, I've been a vocal supporter of both Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket. Recent events have led to me to reevaluate my position, not in favor of any party but in terms of my own experience with both editors. I think when we look at the signal to noise (drama) ratio, we find that Lightbreather has a tendency to escalate matters unnecessarily. My main issue with Hell in a Bucket is his lack of brevity. If he could work on that, it might help improve his effectiveness as a communicator. Viriditas (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose IBAN. Completely agree with Viriditas. Hell in a Bucket has been useful in the past by exposing real problems. I probably would have been banned by a false SPI report, reopened unjustly, if not for his persistence in pointing out what was going on. So I'm thankful for that. But as Viriditas says, if he could be concise and not overdo it. Every comment doesn't need his response. EChastain (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN. Two way, of course. Clearly Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket can not get along. This does not mean anyone's hands are or are not clean - just that they can not get along. This does not mean GGTF will become more of a walled garden or that Lightbreather will not find anyone to argue with - I personally argue with her plenty of times, and on the pages of the GGTF. And yet, I don't see her asking for an interaction ban with me. We get along fine, and civilly, even if we do not always agree. --GRuban (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I intimated as much in an earlier comment above. GRuban, this is indeed another brick in the wall of the garden, at least around the garden that is LB if not around GGTF itself, and "civility" is a vague concept. A mutual topic ban (civility, gender), as mentioned above, would achieve far more than a two-way IBAN, which merely enables LB and removes a proven "investigator" from the scene (bear in mind, LB hotly denied socking but HiaB was deemed to be correct). That people cannot see LB is a quite extreme pov-pusher dismays me. (Feel free to block me now, @Coffee: - like all the other serious, experienced content contributors, I count for little in your worldview when compared to political activists, And, of course, you have already admitted that you do not even bother to check the history.) - Sitush (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN. HIAB's preoccupation with Lightbreather teeters on the edge of WP:NPA and WP:HOUND. gobonobo + c 03:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at this diff [113] speaks volumes to me as a relatively new user. Sadly, from what I have gathered from my limited experience, and in seeing some of the day to day, WP:Civility does seem to be much of a grey area all too often around here. Even though HiaB reverted it, it shows that they did not have the self-control to stop and consider the ramifications before they hit "save", at best. Considering HiaB is an experienced editor, it's possible, if not probable, they knew LB would see it. This seems like the definition of WP:BAIT, and considering their history, I wonder if HiaB knew they could either get away with it, and thusly, use it to their advantage. I do not mean to disparage HiaB, but as a newbie, I still tend to judge users on their textual contributions with WP:AGF in mind. How much more of that type of discourse should LB have tolerated, and for how long, before she brought this to our attention? I think LB has demonstrated that she is willing to WP:STICK, but I cannot, and will not, attempt to speak for HiaB. An IBAN seems like a reasonable effort, even if LB is faced with sanctions for continual reliance on such means for dispute resolution for the next 12 months, or even more. I believe she has the discipline and the understanding. Given the aforementioned diff by HiaB, I'm not sure I can say the same for them, no offense to them. Darknipples (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support IBAN but not topic ban - some folks should just leave each other alone. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 2-way IBAN after much thought. I do see some evidence of hounding by HiaB in his comments about LB but I also see that LB is unable to ignore HIAB - which suggests to me that she's keeping an eye on his contributions as much as he's keeping an eye on hers. Since the two of them appear to be unable to stay away from each other on their own, an IBAN is probably the best solution for now. I don't see a topic ban as helping since HiaB edits all over the place and LB edits primarily in gun control topics. I do see that HiaB is not the only editor with whom LB has issues and I hope that if she requests sanctions against any other editors, her contributions toward escalating those conflicts are examined more closely than they have been here. Ca2james (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support 2-way IBAN Havent really looked at the backstory behind this, but this comment by HIAB is just pointless antagonism in a thread he wasn't even involved in.[114] I find it hard to believe, that anyone could not understand why being accused of masturbating in pleasure at the blocking of your enemies could be found offensive, even if they do not take offense in it themselves. Bosstopher (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Lightbreather has problem with reality; she still thinks I'm some sort of gun control editor. She has twice accused me of being a sock in December Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive, opened for her while she was blocked and found baseless, then reopened by her. Here we are in late February and she accuses me again, still thinking her December 18 evidence should cover it! Thankfully, Hell in a Bucket was there to reply to her baseless charges.[115] I've never found Hell in a Bucket to be inaccurate; if he makes a mistake he admits it right away. Not so with Lightbreather, who seems to take the approach that it's her way or the highway. EChastain (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The interactions between these two users are aggressive, personalized, and toxic. Absent a iban, I see a very strong probability that this will continue. I agree that ibans are messy, and far from ideal. But, as voluntary disengagement seems not to be happening, this is where we're at. The Interior (Talk) 16:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Final statement on this issue by HiaB[edit]

Looks like an interaction ban will pass, oh well. I will outline a few things to clear up a few misconceptions that may not have been sufficiently diff'd. I've made mention of underhanded actions let me illustrate just a few since Dec that are being glossed over or ignored.

  • Complaint [[116]] Saying I attempted out her using publicly provided info by herself however when the tables are turned and she decides it's ok for her to out the next percieved next perceived opponent prompting this warning [[117]]
  • Warning about Personal attacks [[118]] and her response here [[119]]. So again it's not ok if someone else does it but if Lightbreather does it there is not harm. I'd also like to point out this is not in accordance with her manifesto User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch/Pledge about civility or maintain off wiki attack sites like [[120]]. Ask yourself is this person's hands really that clean?
  • Complaints about subheadings like [[121]] which was actually aimed at the arb that put his foot in his mouth and lo and behold what was this thread titled with?
  • History of vote stacking as evidenced almost 30 times in January when trying to get approval for her pledge and then again when it was at MFD.

There is much more I can show but I doubt the effort will pay off but if you also look at [[122]] my message hasn't changed a few things have been added but I first came across Lightbreather in mid to late july 2014 during forumshopping and stated that. The behaviors are the problem, if she fixes the behaviors that's up to her. If the community really thinks I'm the issue and a topic ban or board restriction isn't worthwhile at all go for it, we all bend over for consensus. Mark my words though you will be back here, the names will change but there will be one constant, If lightbreather doesn't like it you have harrassed her. Ask yourself Do you think Chillum, Ched, Salvio and Drmies and Kerancs are all wrong and just targeting Lightbreather? That's nothing to take away from GW or others that agree with Lightbreather (I actually respected GW spoke up with the stopping of the canvassing by stealth btw) and I only asked those two people because I knew that those two people have been people she has run to in the past and if she asked one there is at least a few more we don't know about. It's up to each person to actually look at the disruption, if you think I was the cause of her gun control topic ban ok, if you think I made her have multiple conflicts with multiple people ok, if you think that letting her have more leeway then the average editor because of the message then people should just state that we will put up with bullshit because of x. Don't sweep it under the carpet, that's where the damage is being done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Final statement on this issue by LB[edit]

After almost 1,500 words and 3 diffs not by me, HiaB finally gives a statement with a few diffs by me. That is something an editor can reply to.

  • Re 1 (Complaint). Yes, he outed info about me, even though he knew he might be outing.[123] (I've attempted to only use publicly acknowledged details if any of this is WP:OUTING please remove but I hope I covered all my bases. If he had a doubt, he should have made his request via email!) When I possibly outed[124] info about another editor? I personally asked Oversight to redact it four minutes later.[125]
  • Re 2 (Warning). An editor whom I'd asked multiple times to leave me alone came to my talk page to give me uninvited "advice" about something he wasn't involved in. I asked him again to leave me alone, after which another editor defended my request. I thanked this editor and called the meddlesome editor a gossip. An admin asked me to strike this "personal attack," which I declined to do - with plenty of evidence. This had nothing to do with the Kaffeeklatsch pledge, which says, "I pledge that on this forum [the Kaffeeklatsch] I will abide by the WP:CIVILITY policy at the strictest level." However, abiding by the civility policy at the strictest level elsewhere on Wikipedia is an invitation to have the crap kicked out of you on a regular basis.
  • Re 3 (Complaints). WP:TALKNEW says not to put other editors' usernames in talk page headings, which is what HIAB has done multiple times. My putting his name in the header for this ANI? TALKNEW also says, "Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal."
  • Re 4 (History). It's a lie - and again with no diffs. I asked a number of women to join the Kaffeeklatsch in January. That's not vote stacking. I also notified GGTF, GGTF women, and some "women" wikiprojects about discussions re a proposal I have at the WMF IdeaLab and related discussions. Those are, per WP:CANVASS, appropriate notifications.

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Question Lightbreather, why don't you voluntarily disengage from HIAB? It seems to me that would put an end to the problem. If you disagree, could you please explain why you think the problem would persist, and if so why any ongoing problem could not immediately be remedied? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please provide diffs showing Hell in a Bucket "outed" you Lightbreather. I remember that he successfully supplied evidence that you were socking at arbcom. Hell in a Bucket called you on that which really must be irritating. I've often wondered how you can show up on certain pages within minutes of a comment you don't like. Do you have some kind of special equipment, a comment sniffer, or what? EChastain (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I just gave it, EChastain, in the sentence "Yes, he outed info about me, even though he knew he might be outing." And he outed me even though Callanecc, a clerk for the GGTF ArbCom, had asked HIAB to EMAIL his evidence.[126] Lightbreather (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Lightbreather, that link you gave doesn't show that.[127] What do you mean by "outing". Or are you referring to getting caught as a sock at arbcom after you "retired"? EChastain (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
        • If you can't see it, I'm not going to spell it out for you, but here's a recent clue that he dropped: [128]. (It doesn't matter much anymore since he outed it, but I still don't feel like spelling it out.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a saying which means like a snow ball chance in hell, Bb and I have had a few rows. Just do me a favor LB ask an uninvolved admin to close this. The IBAN passes the topic doesnt let's end this. I can't do it from my tablet and I'm working let's let everyone get on with their business. The phoenix stuff is coincidental and I'm sorry if it seemed like it wasn't. As I recall you technically aren't from phoenix but it doesn't matter anyways let's just end it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC) I wouldn't consider it forum shopping and I'm sure others wouldn't either, unless you plan on continuing here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to close[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin close this, please? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so if someone could please let me know the outcome. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Cindy's Cafe aka 109.246.133.205[edit]

CLOSED:

Both users blocked for edit warring for 1 week by JamesBWatson. --IJBall (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

So there is pretty much an edit warhappening on a few pages now between myself and User:Cindy's Cafe aka 109.246.133.205. But now I'm posting here I wont eb doing any reverts fir a while.

The situation is; The editor in question first removed a pre-fix 'The Right Honourable' from the article Karren Brady stating "She is NOT a member of the Privy Council. ONLY members of the PRIVY COUNCIL bear the title 'Rt Hon'. CHECK PARLIAMENT.UK" In turn reverted stating "All Life Peers and Hereditary Peers (Baron, Earl & Viscount) use The Rt. Hon.". I then left a message on Cindy's Cafe talk page with the information about the correct use of the title with references. Cindy's Cafe then 'Blanked the page' with no response. Since then the editor sometimes logged on and sometimes not, has been removing the title several pages, and has been reverted by other editors as well only talking (rarely) through edit comments.

Pages in question so far:

Some more in question:

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall on this one, any help would be appreciated. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) I have to say that it's a little ironic for you to have warned CC about edit warring when you fully admit that you are the other party in the edit war. And as far as CC blanking his/her talk page, well, there's no guideline against doing that. Also, how did you come to the conclusion that CC and the above IP are the same user? Did s/he admit it and I missed it? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey I'll be the (I was) the first to say it was an edit war. But CC failed to discuss it, I'm not the only editor to revert the edits. Both CC and IP have a similar edit history in removing specific content and editing articles about the TV show 'Eastenders'. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 05:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
If you think you have substantial evidence that they could be the same user, head to WP:SPI. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether Erpert actually looked at the relevant editing history at all before asking "how did you come to the conclusion that CC and the above IP are the same user?" Even a very brief look at the history makes it perfectly clear, way beyond any doubt, that Cindy's Cafe has used the IP address, and also at least one other IP address in the 109.246.133.x range. (Unfortunately, the toolserver tool for checking contributions from an IP range is in one of its very frequent periods of not working, which is why I have to say "at least one", and can't tell whether any other IP addresses have been used too.) Going to WP:SPI would be completely pointless. Simply sometimes logging in to an account and sometimes not is not in itself sockpuppetry. I don't see any overlap in time between the editor's editing the same articles logged-in and unlogged-in, nor anything else which makes the IP-editing/account-editing combination an abuse.
  • We have an edit war between two editors. Both editors were aware quite a while ago of the edit warring issue: Cindy's Cafe was warned about edit warring, while Nford24 was certainly aware of the issue, as she or he was the one who posted a talk page warning about it. It looks as though this is one of the very frequent occasions when an editor somehow fails to grasp the point that edit warring is edit warring whether or not the editor in question is convinced that the edits are justified. I shall block both editors for edit warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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


About Marathi Script[edit]

I am here to inform that Mr.NeilN has repeatedly erased the indic script name of 'Maharashtra' and he has took the false support of self-interpretation of WP:INDICSCRIPT, Today is Marathi Day in Maharashtra 27th Feb in India and NeilN is erasing marathi name from the initial sentence, What problem is with indic script for Maharashtra? If The WP:INDICSCRIPT is enforced for Maharashtra, then it will and shall be enforced for every Indian state Sarita Narvekar (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits caught my attention as you are displaying the same behavior as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sumedh Tayade/Archive. --NeilN talk to me 13:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Block evasion? Or meatpuppetry? It is odd to see two people going at this same language script, and citing the same false argument that we are targeting the Marathi language. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Seems like taking revenge on other articles too like Karnataka. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they're probably trying to prove a point but at least that's productive. --NeilN talk to me 13:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sitush and Neil, it's nice to see the two of you in action. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
They're also hypocritical. --NeilN talk to me 05:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of Mrmike1695[edit]

(retitled from "Disruption from Mrmike1695" per wp:TALKNEW) --doncram 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC))

Despite numerous warnings [129] littered on his talk page for misleading edit summaries and adding unsourced content, Mrmike1695 is continuing with the same behavior. This series introduced an incorrect rating and this is not a typo. Two diffs but the problem has been ongoing and the only attempt at acknowledging the issues was this. --NeilN talk to me 14:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur. The inappropriate "fixed typo" edit summaries can be explained by ignorance and tech gone bad, but the history of persistent disruptive edits remains.
Mrmike1695 can be marginally recognized as trying to build an encyclopedia through multiple contested edits, but a consistent failure to respond positively [130] to the community means, in my opinion, that Mrmike1695 should be retired as a name for further contribution. Willondon (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I never bothered to start an incident report, just figured someone who spends more time on the backalleys of WP would get to it, but yes, my issue with this user is not his edit summaries (after the first repeated use of it on the Big L page I assumed that it was the auto-fill setting on his phone's browser, not a malicious lie about his editing). That said, he's an atrocious user, when not trying to aggrandize the subject of an article, he's over-complicating section headings (one he made something like 15-20 words) and ridiculously persnickety about established "years active" and "date recorded" etc type entries. To say nothing of the hilarious message he left me on my talk page because I kept removing an album he listed on Big L's discography that was clearly already listed. I support a block, but he'd just make a new account. JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User evading block and re-creation of page deleted many, many times.[edit]

CLOSED:

Deleted page re-deleted, and user(s) blocked as socks of Padmalakshmisx by NativeForeigner. --IJBall (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Festivalindia (talk · contribs) has just (re)created this article within 15 minutes of registering their account. It's previously been titled this and has been deleted four times since December due to WP:SOCK issues (see the deletion log). Please can someone do the necessary with this page/user too? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nuked page, blocked Festivalindia (talk · contribs), Cannesindia (talk · contribs), Rawlyani (talk · contribs). Their edits should be reviewed. NativeForeigner Talk 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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


User:Hmarskiy II[edit]

  • Hmarskiy II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 1. Malicious editing with a long past history of outright vandalism to the article of Bad Boys Blue - a musical group - the ongoing activity spanning several years now; 2. Most recently, the user copies and pastes my own editing/restoring remarks at the end of his persistent reverts, and continues to insert controversial and unsubstantiated information into the article, despite being advised not to on numerous occasions; 3. The user may be a paid member with a conflict of interests, as the his past edits attest to persistent inclusion of promotional material into the band's wiki page; 4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is a former anon user who created a userid with the sheer purpose to circumvent the protected status of the page in order to continue his disruptive editing. Please intervene. Lionscitygl (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Lionscitygl: Please notify the user in question on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=User:Hmarskiy II}}. Thank you! -- Orduin Discuss 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That was attempted long ago. Intervention is requested. Lionscitygl (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Before I placed the notice on their talk page, the only other content of the talk page was a welcome. No deleted notices either. Nothing on the talk page of the article in question. As well, the accusation that the account was created for the purpose of circumventing the protection, just look at the earliest contributions of Hmarskiy II. They are from 2010, hardly a recent issue. And, after the protection was lowered, their edits to the article did not start until a few months later. I do not see any current attempt to contact the editor at all, except in edit summaries, which is not acceptable.
I just found this AIV report on Hmarskiy II. Please have patience, though, from my knowledge of AIV, it will be turned down quickly.
All and all, this just seems to be a content dispute mixed with ownership issues. -- Orduin Discuss 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Orduin, thank you for looking into the this. Prior to alerting you of the matter, I've had an ample of opportunity to familiarize myself with the contributions from the said user. So, let's be clear on that. Also, please re-read what the word "recent" refers to in the context. With all the due respect, if you have multiple individuals/accounts trying to push absolutely the same controversial line of thrust both in style and presentation (which alludes to their "possible" association), are you honestly going to be expected to address every single one of them... anew? After all, one does not have to begin editing right away after a certain implementation took place on the page... especially if its "predecessor" was working in the exact same venue. And if I didn't follow certain wiki guidelines - no such oversight was intended on my part. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
1. Look at your fix other people's edits (not just mine) without argument - an impression that you are a real vandal. 2. My information is confirmed by the source to which you deliberately do not pay attention. 3. All sources that you're not interested perceived as advertising. 4. Where argument that I am a former customer? Empty words and no more. Hmarskiy II (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm really expected to address the above... creativity, but I will do so this time as a matter of courtesy - something that I do not expect reciprocity on. 1. I think this isn't the first time I've been accused of being "a real vandal" for dealing with a member of that pack. Defense by means of aggression is not the newest invention these days... 2. That is exactly the point of it: "the source", as in conflict of interest. 3. No, not all, but it is heavy on advertising nevertheless. 4. It's a great day today. Sure. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User 95.147.94.14 vandalism & refactoring talk page[edit]

Blocked 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User talk:95.147.94.14 - after some vandalism (see links in diff) the ip editor is refactoring talk page comments e.g. in this diff Sjgknight (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked a week. Removing is fine, making people say things they didn't say, not so much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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


User:189.82.3.18 vandalism[edit]

CLOSED:

IP account blocked for vandalism for 1 week Bongwarrior. --IJBall (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

189.82.3.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User:189.82.3.18 is on a vandalism binge today. Please see the following:

Peaceray (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

please pardonnez-moi, i'm innocent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.82.3.18 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional[edit]

Peaceray (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for one week; see also 189.82.19.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) from yesterday. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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


User:DD2K and User:Rjensen engaging in personal attacks in lieu of discussion[edit]

A content dispute has been taking place on the article Democratic Party (United States). I have only reverted to the last stable version, which DID NOT include the content in question. @Rjensen: @DD2K: have been edit-warring to try to include the new content. [138] [139] [140] While maintaining the last stable version (within my 3RR limits),[141] [142] [143] I have encouraged the other editors to use the talk page to hash out new content, rather than edit-warring over it, and directly spoke to Rjensen with a friendly warning and an attempt to show that I'm reasonable and willing to discuss this issue.[144] When Rjensen finally DID go to the talk page, he/she titled the thread "POV edits by TBSchemer," rather than creating a thread focused on the content they were trying to add. This is entirely inappropriate harassment. Additionally, this is not the first time Dave Dial has engaged in this sort of behavior. Dave Dial has engaged in a wikihounding campaign of overly-personal reversions and unprovoked personal attacks against me and other editors, with a long history of failing to discuss his edits. [145] [146] [147] [148] He has been warned for this behavior directly by Jimbo Wales himself. [149] I have tried to maintain civility with this editor, but he seems determined to blow it up. When I finally reported Dave Dial for joining the edit war (which I have stopped participating in out of respect for WP:3RR), he and Rjensen ganged up on me to try to argue that I should be banned.[150] Dave Dial has repeatedly shown that he is incapable of dealing constructively with other editors. To my knowledge, Rjensen does not have the same sort of record of disruptive behavior, but he/she is largely responsible for the current problem. I need an administrator to help remind these users of WP:Civility and convince them to either engage with me without personally attacking me, or just leave me alone. TBSchemer (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

This is already being discussed at the edit warring noticeboard here. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This one is a report on the personal attacks (a conduct dispute) that requires administrator intervention to get these two users to behave with civility. The other is a report on edit-warring (a content dispute) that requires administrator intervention to restore the last stable version of the article and perhaps to protect it until these disputes can be resolved. TBSchemer (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The edit warring noticeboard closed the discussion there and referred me here. So this is now the open thread on these problems. TBSchemer (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
While article discussion headings should not mention editors, you would be best advised to change the heading and politely refer the other editor toi the "New topics and headings on talk pages" guideline. That does not require administrative action. Also, you appear to be in a content dispute with three other editors. There is nothing administrators can do about that. If you disagree with the others, then you need to post to a content discussion page and hope other editors will weigh in. I suggest this section be closed. TFD (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
But dealing with User:DD2K's hounding and personal attacks does require an administrator. He has met all the requirements for a block, and doing so would prevent him from causing further disruption. TBSchemer (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And Rjensen continues to attack my character on that same thread, even after I have disengaged. On this thread, he has openly and knowingly lied about the content dispute (claiming that I was the one who made new edits to this article, when in fact I only reverted new edits to the last stable version). These editors have made it their goal to exclude me from being part of any consensus. How is this not block-worthy? In my days as a Wikipedia novice, I was blocked for far less. TBSchemer (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you telling me I can create threads with whatever sort of title I want without getting sanctioned for it? So if I were to take that same thread, and replace my username in the inappropriate title with Rjensen, I would not be punished in any way? TBSchemer (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@TBSchemer: My own personal experience editing alongside Rjensen has been similar to your own, so I have great sympathy for your position. Your best strategy is to focus on the content dispute and use the dispute resolution process, such as RfC, etc. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • DD2K has a nasty habit of hounding editors who he reverts (often without discussion) and they then reinstate their edit. I have just posted an article at Jimbo's page addressing some of these concerns and the toxic editing atmosphere here. 208.54.38.224 (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please, block Dave Dial, and warn the other users in the thread to stop using personal attacks and stop restoring the attacks that were removed. TBSchemer (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Best of British 2015[edit]

CLOSED:

User's Talk page access revoked by Miniapolis. --IJBall (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Best of British 2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (now blocked) is evidently an abusive sock of the indef-blocked and globally-locked user Denver_Stevenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). After getting blocked for creating or recreating spampages, this user is spamming and using abusive edit summaries on the user's talk page. Please revoke this user's talk page access. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Miniapolis 22:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Threat of edit-warring over unnotable external link[edit]

An unnotable external link, a 'save our show' Facebook page with 9 likes, has been added to the lede of Odyssey 5. I removed it once, and then a second time mentioning why in the edit summary. It has returned a third time, once again courtesy of User:Pantherslair, with a note on my user page: "The more this information is removed, the more it will be returned." I queried the help chat on how to proceed, and was directed here. DarkProdigy (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the threat to edit war on an obviously promotional user page, I would be opting for a block if a warning was given before. I've given such warning, if they do this again I very much support blocking them for this disruptive conduct. Also OP, you neglected to notify them, as mandated by ANI. I've done such too. Tutelary (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I mistakenly placed the notice on User: instead of User talk:. DarkProdigy (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(ec)Given the full text of what you quoted, it's obvious the user is trying to generate artificial notability.[151] Just a few edits a year ago plus the recent ones. One more reversion and he should get a lengthy "not like". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me Tutelary, but after viewing the long history of User:DarkProdigy, they have a reputation for sticking their nose into a number of pages very late in the piece and adding information to pages without any scrutiny. Respectfully speaking, User:DarkProdigy is not some self appointed master controller of pages, and their attempt to cause trouble to another user by complaining to the admins, shows the extent that this user will go to, to self legitimize themselves as the "be all and end all" when it comes to adding or deleting information. Others users have just as much right to add information if they feel it is warranted without being denigrated by DarkProdigy with threats of being blocked or banned. Pantherslair (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You can't add any bloody thing you feel like to a page. It has to qualify. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
To the thousands upon thousands of die hard fans all over the world who have been insisting for over 12 LONG years that Odyssey 5 either be continued or completed, so we can finally have some closure, instead of feeling like we have been shafted, IT BLOODY QUALIFIES TO US!! And considering there are not many portals by which to educate and inform people of this, are you going to show some HEART and COMPASSIONATE for ONE LOUSY LINE or are you just going to put your BOOT down on our THROATS??!! Pantherslair (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pantherslair: "For the thousands of advocates of [some cause] we need a link to [some advocacy site] to publicize [some cause] as we're not getting the attention [the cause] deserves." See WP:NOTPROMO. --NeilN talk to me 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Pantherslair: Let me put it another way. This site is intended to host encyclopedic material. Your passionate plea is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy, period. Find another venue to push your agenda. Huntster (t @ c) 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive AfD nomination[edit]

Done, with our thanks to SarekOfVulcan. If there is further disruption, further consideration can be given to the secondary query, though Sarek has addressed this in passing. Stlwart111 08:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Calum Henderson has attempted (unsuccessfully) to nominated the article Violence against women for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/violenceagainstwomen. As the deletion rational makes clear, this is only to make a point and not a legitimate nomination. I would like to ask an administrator to delete the nomination page and warn the user about WP:POINT. Also I was wondering if the Men's rights movement article probation could be extended to cover Violence against women as the article has been frequently targeted by men's rights activists. Kaldari (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've sort-of-speedy-kept the AfD. Looking into further action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't like stretching the Men's Rights probation this far, though. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, but I don't think it's right... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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


User:Sevvyan and personal attacks[edit]

indef blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User Sevvyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an account which done persistent poorly referenced and unexplained posts because of NOR claims, breached several time the three-revert rule, and when discussion began at Talk:Boris Kalamanos (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs), the article Boris Kalamanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) became blocked on 24 February, and since that date can be followed persistent personal attacks on editors at the article talk page, as well after several warnings at his User talk:Sevvyan, he shows no signs of stopping and I think admin intervention is necessary at this point for the discussion to continue in normal environment and reach its eventual conclusion.--Crovata (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"...account which done persistent poorly..." - And when you tell him and his nationalist buddies to use proper English so we can understand what they mean, they declare it a personal attack?! At any rate, here's my response: (1) can he prove I broke any rules? (2) "persistent personal attacks on editors at the article talk page" probably refers to this discussion in the appropriate Talk. But so what?! Finally, perhaps the reporting editor would like to answer my 3 (now 4) times repeated Q that prompted him to file the report: - How come his profile states an officially non-existing "Serbo-Croat" language as his mother tongue? He is thus obviously a self-declared Serbo-Croat nationalist. By definition, Bosnia doesn't even enter the equation in those nationalists' minds, meaning it shouldn't exist as a nation in equal right as Croatia/Serbia. So how can we then assume that contributions from such minds to this article (on Bosnia's deepest history) are being made in good faith? No way this person is in the right state of mind, let alone should be allowed anywhere near a PC! Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sevvyan, we several times warned you, don't act as a fool, and how to respond when simply doesn't make any sense?--Crovata (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said... Sevvyan (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I join Crovata's report: Sevvyan is not here to build an encyclopedia. His personal attacks reveal his biased approach ([152], [153], [154]). He assumes bad faith [155]. He is even willing to show his own text as a verbatim citation from a reliable source, as it is demonstrated here: [156], [157], [158], [159]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsoka (talkcontribs) 08:11, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

It became apparent during the discussion in the Talk, that Zoupan is a Serb, Borsoka is from either Serb or Croat ethnic minority living in Hungary (per his repeated writing of Klaić's name erroneously as "Nadja" instead of Nada, which only a Serb/Croat would do), and Crovata is a self-declared Serb-Croat nationalist (his user page states the officially non-existent "Serbo-Croat" language as his mother tongue). Since 3-of-3 can't be a miss, therefore there's no need to take seriously anything that such an attacking triplet says on the matter that concerns deepest history of Bosnia - a centuries-long target of the nationalistic ideology the three obviously share (again, 3-of-3, along with awful contribution and terrible behavior in the Talk, seem to prove bad faith by all three). And I see it's only them again here too - a nationalistic orchestra playing the same old, boring tune. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The above message is a new example of his biased and narrow minded approach ("who does not accept my original research is an enemy"). Just for clarification, I am an ethnic Hungarian from Hungary, but in Sevvyan's world everybody is Serbian who reminds him to basic WP principles. Borsoka (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You type from 46.107.xx.xx network, and your hometown is "famous for its Serbian Orthodox church. Just as in nearby Szentendre, a Serbian community existed in the town since the time of the Ottoman presence in Eastern Europe." It's rather obvious. Sevvyan (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I cannot help you. In your world, everybody who do not accept your OR is an enemy and your enemies are Serbians, even if they are not. I repeat: I am an ethnic Hungarian from Hungary with no Serbian (or Croatian) ancestry. Borsoka (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Are we sure that he can contribute to the development of this encyclopedia? Please read his new message here. Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Not only that, but now you (Serbs/Croats/Bosniaks/Serbo-Croats) can't contribute to the main country article either. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:POINT, WP:NOTHERE. Sevvyan has been disrupting FAC. He nominated a closed archived page to FAC which was removed,[160]] so he then created a new nomination page [161] for a clearly deficient (and protected) article at FAC (Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bosnia_and_Herzegovina/archive2, which you have to be an admin to see since it was speedy housekeeping deleted on consensus from four former and current FAC and TFA delegates and coordinators), and even after all of that, again re-nommed the old archived page to FAC. [162] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't and am not willing to follow and continue the discussion on talk page anymore, with his repeating comments on the article talk page he again made a mess with accusing us for something that simply doesn't make sense, neither with this discussion. Yes, I am from Croatia and personally speak Croatian, but so well understand Bosnian, Serbian, Montenegrin standard forms of Serbo-Croatian because they are so similar that everbody understand's it, and it's no use for me to mention them separatelly in my user page. What's even worse, he is without reasoning, after my review of the sources and information on the medieval personalities I wrote (1) how the thesis of Ban Borić being Boris Kalamanos is plausible, which actually confirms his POV, yet again he continues. I can't work like this anymore. Actually, could part of his comments be removed or be re-arranged in the article talk page because it became a mess and simply can't continue to discuss the subject replying to Borsoka and other editors.--Crovata (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sevvyan is now reverting against consensus - see this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no consensus in any of the related Talks. But it doesn't matter anyway, see this ban. Thanks. Sevvyan (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And now he's removing my comments from the talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: Sevvyan is a WP:DUCK sock of User:Bosnipedian, who has been perpetuating hoaxes on wiki related to these issues for years. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian. Best to report, WP:BLOCK and WP:DENY. TDL (talk) 1:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Comment This is beyond ridiculous. This highly disruptive user (Sevvyan) has actually violated WP:3RR on ANI now. Not only that, it's done by four times removing other people's comment about the user in this discussion, just like the user removes other users' comment on article talk pages. And the same user has made this bizarre WP:OWN violation [163]. This extremly disruptive user needs to be blocked right away. The 3RR in itself is a red flag, and all the behavior show the user is WP:NOTHERE to contribute.Jeppiz (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


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


Comment (edit conflict) (Non-administrator observation) Given that Sevvyan seems to be blanking other peoples' comments as Jeppiz pointed out, and as is obvious from the History page, might it best to temporarily suspend his ability to edit talk pages outside of AN/I? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 9 Adar 5775 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

GarryWong (talk · contribs)[edit]

USER BLOCKED:

User(s) indef blocked by Euryalus. --IJBall (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

This user's edits is only canvassing other users. This user also canvass users in other wikis. Should this user's edits be reverted?--GZWDer (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked and the edits rolled back, though of course the ping system interferes. Also socking via SpeciallyForYou (talk · contribs) and Spirit of the Lion (talk · contribs). Unclear whether the canvassing is for or against the particular steward candidate, but either way they are clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Topic ban for DonaldKronos[edit]

DonaldKronos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

DonaldKronos continually refuses to assume good faith from anyone who doesn't give him his way, and is dedicated to pushing original research against consensus. This can hopefully be remedied by topic banning him from the subject that he has ideological issues with.

DonaldKronos has ideological issues relating to evolution that make him tendentious and disruptive, and does not appear capable of evolving out of such behavior. He is incapable of assuming good faith with others on that topic, and does not appear to be capable of evolving that capacity. He should not be allowed near any page relating to any kind of evolution (except maybe Pokemon, I'll leave that for the community to decide). He has made edits elsewhere (granted edits I have not looked into), so I will only ask for a topic ban from topics relating to any type of evolution (Pokemon excluded, unless the community feels that too is also necessary). I am open to other options so long as they keep him away from Evolution (disambiguation) and the articles it links to. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support time-limited topic ban from evolution and evolution-rated pages (not just articles), broadly construed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Support While DonaldKronos can be trusted to make constructive or at least good intentioned edits, his incessant siege mentality towards people whom he has failed to persuade makes all attempts at discussion with him monumentally difficult, if not entirely impossible. So, yes, a topic-ban of all evolution-related pages should be placed on him until he can grow up.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Two simple questions. 1. Is the evolution of Wikipedia important, unimportant, or non-occuring? 2. Is Wikipedia biological?
No need to ban me. I saw this coming long time ago. Anyone who voices concerns in certain areas will be systematically intimidated, ridiculed, and eventually banned. I've been watching for longer than I have been trying to help here. Obviously, things are not going to get better here any time soon, and I'm not in the mood for more of the same treatment. What I have had to say with regard to the evolution page was not my main issue. The issue is that people who could be beneficial to the evolution of Wikipedia are being strongly discouraged from doing so, and I think it's a shame that so many are afraid to speak up. So I have spoken up, because I felt that someone had to. Not all evolution is biological evolution, and I hope those who can not accept that fact will some day learn to allow Wikipedia to evolve in spite of their inability to see it.
take care.
DonaldKronos (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Given what you've said in the past, I do not believe you're really going to leave. Hell, even now, you're not even taking into account what others say except where it suits you.
As always, you provide no source that explicitly ties biological evolution and the different kinds of non-biological evolution into some overall Evolutionary force, even when that's not what the discussion is about. Even now you make lying accusations of intimidation and ridicule toward good-faith editors who have been stern but civil. Those people who started to agree with you? Notice that I didn't list them, and notice that no one is asking for them to be topic banned either. You just keep assuming malevolence, and give us no reason to believe that you have the capacity to assume good faith or collaborate. -- That is the problem here. That behavior is why you are being topic banned, so you can find some subject that you're not religiously biased about and learn to actually collaborate.
Ian.thomson (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say I'm going to leave. I simply feel that I'm metaphorically banging my head against a wall trying to make the evolution page and its disambiguation page start with a non-deceptive definition... and I don't like the feeling.
By the way, I have read through part of the list of accusations against me. While there is a hint of truth in some of them, I can't say the same for most.
I do not plan to read the rest of them, because I find it painful, but I would encourage anyone considering them to look carefully at the evidence, and consider carefully why I have tried so hard to save Wikipedia from stagnating and perpetuating false statements. I have dealt with too much dishonesty here. Perhaps its best for my sake if I learn to ignore it as so many other people have managed to do.
This project (Wikipedia) will likely long outlive every one of us here today. I care about what it may bring into our distant future. It is an ambassador of a sort, and I hope it will represent us in a good light, rather than merely highlighting our flaws.
Do as you see fit.
DonaldKronos (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, thanks to anyone who has heard me out.
DonaldKronos (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If you are not going to leave, then there is a need for a topic ban (you will be allowed to edit other articles, just not those relating to evolution).
While most editors here do believe that this encyclopedia serves the greater good and is an achievement for humanity, that high talk is ultimately a red herring with no bearing on your behavior. We assume good faith from you, just not competence. As many have explained to you over and over, your regular implications that editors who disagree with you are "perpetuating false statements," and trying to make the site highlight humanity's flaws are a sign that you do not believe that people who disagree with you are trying to help (i.e. that you do not assume good faith from others). Your attempts to try and justify your actions sound just like every other religiously biased editor who thinks that their faith in some lofty truth trumps the requirement for sources or consensus. Personal beliefs are fine, but quit trying to force those beliefs into the articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. There may indeed be a valid subject in the wider sense of the concept of evolution, but Wikipedia is not the place to pioneer it. A Wikipedia article would first require the wider concept to be already established and written about in multiple reliable sources (and for the word "evolution" to be primarily associated with that wider concept), and I'm not seeing that in the contested edits here. What I am seeing is the editor using disparate sources to synthesize the wider concept, and that really is not something that an encyclopedia should be doing. It's an easy mistake to make and in itself would not warrant a topic ban, but when it comes to tendentiously pushing one's viewpoint against Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR rules and against consensus (and attacking and denigrating those who disagree), then it crosses a line. The consensus is that Wikipedia's Evolution article should be about biological evolution (as discovered by Darwin and Wallace and developed by biologists since), and the only way to change the article into something else would be to achieve a new consensus through discussion. Squinge (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. This user has become, well actually has pretty much been since he arrived at the evolution page, a massive time sink. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban from evolution and evolution-rated pages , broadly construed. Here is some advice for DonaldKronos based upon my own experience; There are a few topics on Wikipedia that I care deeply about. I avoid those topics, because I have made a conscious choice that I am here to build an encyclopedia, not promote my personal point of view no matter how right I think I am. Wikipedia will be doing you a favor by topic-banning you from evolution topics. If you spend more time in areas where you don't care so deeply, you will find yourself again and again dealing with editors who strongly believe that the page should contain Truth instead of reporting what is in reliable sources. As you get into the habit of following the sources no matter where they lead, you will prepare yourself for the day when you can request that the topic ban be lifted and start making constructive changes to evolution pages that nobody disputes -- because they are properly sourced. I know it must feel like we are all ganging up on you, but we have a good reason. By following the sources, editors with opposing points of view can work together collaboratively and build an encyclopedia -- a skill which you currently lack. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A lot of these diffs are kind of old. I remember a few that come from his talk page, as I tried to intercede after I noticed that he was becoming very frustrated. Yeah, he's undeniably been tendentious in the past. However, I think that some of his replies in this conversation show that he's capable of being reasonable. I think part of the problem is that people aren't willing to let his previous behavior go. I know it will take a great deal of patience from the involved editors, but maybe they could try to give him another chance. Donald is obviously trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if he's going about it in a way that's flawed. Maybe a mentor would help. Do we still do that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment:DonaldKronos' final missive here suggests that the primary person who is unwilling to let his previous behavior go is himself. I, myself, don't doubt that he wants to improve Wikipedia, the problem is that he is unwilling to cooperate with editors that have different points of view, and his siege mentality has ground away everyone else's patience.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that. Honestly, I don't think it's all that bad. It's off-topic and perhaps should be removed from the talk page, but it's not nearly as bad as his earlier posts, which were abusive rants. It seems like Donald is more interested in debate than he is in collaboration, but it's still an improvement. With a little patience, maybe we can nudge him to collaborate instead of debate. Guy Macon posted a pretty compelling "support" vote above me, but I think there's still hope. This complaint uses months-old diffs as evidence of disruption, and I just don't see how they're applicable today. How many of those diffs above are from the past week? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
About a third of the stuff is since the last ANI thread, about a quarter (overall) from the past week, in which he shows continued problems with WP:AGF, with continued suggestions that the only way to be honest is to agree with him. The temporary improvement was mostly because he was under the impression that he could engage in argumentum ad nauseum, and in that time he actually got worse about sourcing (before he provided WP:SYNTH, now he just makes assertions and barely tries to bring in sources). He started a thread on WP:Disruptive editing asking that people who disagree with him butt out and to let only people who agree with him discuss the matter. He may have asked for that politely, but he was still ultimately asking for permission to engage in argumentum ad nauseum to create an echo chamber pseudo-consensus while hypocritically asking for censorship). Politeness alone means nothing if it is a mask for someone who still does not assume good faith, thinks collaboration means doing what he wants, and thinks debate should an ideological circle-jerk. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Conduct of Jack Sebastian[edit]

(retitled from Persistent Hounding by Jack Sebastian per wp:TALKNEW) --doncram 17:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User being reported: Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User Jack Sebastian has been hounding me for several days now and I feel the need to report it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [164]
  2. [165]
  3. [166]
  4. [167]
  5. [168]
  6. [169]
  7. [170]
  8. [171]
  9. [172]

Five of the articles (Arrow, Glen Winter, American Horror Story: Freak Show Talk page, Ben Sokolowski, Atom (Ray Palmer)) the user had never edited before. He was simply monitoring my history. I am far from a perfect editor (apologies for the awful formatting of this post), but that does not mean that I'm incapable of making valuable contributions to this encyclopedia. This user is one of the crudest and most improper I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with. He makes it nearly impossible for me to edit without fear of reversion and a verbal lashing. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. LLArrow (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen an actual verbal lashing, I've seen reversions but I'm missing the exact problem.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@LLArrow: The first diff above is about the Ben Sokolowski article, and conveyed good point that you should not lose a citation. I see that in this diff at same article Jack Sebastian asked you to discuss at Talk, but there's no discussion there. I see you went on with edits having edit summaries, but no one opened discussion at Talk. In the second diff above, about Merlyn (DC Comics), Jack Sebastian also asks you to discuss at Talk. I see that Jack opened discussion himself at Talk, and you responded, and someone else participated; hopefully it is being worked out. Based on just these first two diffs, it seems like a fair suggestion to you to use the Talk page to discuss matters where there appears to be disagreement. Follow wp:BRD process. If you want to make a change and find your edit is reverted, then YOU should open discussion at Talk page and explain your intentions. Edit summaries are inadequate. At these 2 articles Jack seems reasonable....nothing to complain about at wp:ANI. I think you have to make more effort to communicate at the articles, and for an ANI report, you also have not made adequate effort to communicate, IMHO. Hope this helps. --doncram 17:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
With respect, you both are missing the point. Hounding, hounding is the overwhelming issue here. While I probably should take more issues to the Talk pages, the edits/changes I make are far less controversial than some, yet Jack Sebastian only reverts my work, in most cases. The user pops up everywhere I go. It's gotten to the point where I am miserable when contributing to articles, for fear that he will quickly undermine my work. He singles me out on Talk page discussions in order to villainize me [173]. I tried notifying him [174], but he just chalked it up to thorough police work. If you look at his recent contributions a great deal involve me. Honestly I fail to see how anybody can't see this is a blatant case of Wikipedia:HOUND. LLArrow (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
From WP:WIKIHOUNDING:
  • Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done carefully, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." [...]
  • "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."
Could you show specific diffs showing that your contributions are being followed to cause distress or out of revenge, as opposed to correcting related problems on multiple articles?
Possibly related:
--Guy Macon (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The user specifically targets me. Other editors make far more controversial or impactful edits than I, but he only reverts mine. I feel as if he is stalking me. I really do not know what else to say. LLArrow (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm really not seeing an issue here. Above Guy Macon points out the hounding policy, asks for more diffs. Controversial? Define that? That's a very broad word. What I can see by looking at Jack's contributions is that he has reverted other editors. Of course you say that he hasn't. Instead of trying to win a fight at ANI, do as Jack suggested. Take it to the talk page. Get a consensus. When you get a consensus make the change. There are multiple means of dispute resolution. WP:DR <Check them out. There's a way to get a third opinion, there are RFC's, and there are noticeboards.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This is frustrating, what use is taking a case of hounding to this board if nothing will come of it?. Take a detailed look at the users history. He is rash, rude, and incredibly improper with other editors. He should be reprimanded for that alone.
Perhaps "controversial" wasn't the appropriate word. Other editors can make substantial changes to a page, Jack Sebastian has no qualm; I edit the page, he quickly reverts claiming that before I make any changes, I must gain consensus on the Talk page. This[175] is a good example. LLArrow (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello pot, have you met kettle? If you take such offense at my actions, why would you perform these same actions yourself? Bizarre bevahvior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The user just posted this[176] to my Talk page, when I am not in violation of 3RR. His behavior is positively abominable. LLArrow (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Er, I think you meant this, wherein I noticed that you were edit-warring again, and thought you should self-revert. However, I am indeed incorrect - the four edits are just outside the 24-hour range.
I guess I would wonder whether edit-warring across a number of related articles could be construed as edit-warring? I am seeing a lot of the same behavior over and over again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor has clearly noticed he's under the microscope and is in the midst of cleaning up his proverbial act. I may over revert, at times, and it is a fault, but I strive to achieve goals in tandem with other users of Wikipedia. Please do not dismiss this plea as irrelevant or petulant, as it is not either. This user is a menace, and needs to be subjected to penalty. LLArrow (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
LLArrow, Subjected to penalty? Sure, fine, ok, But for what? Provide evidence of something actionable. You say Jack has changed his behavior since coming under a microscope and yet there's no real change on their contribution history.
Jack Sebastian,WP:3RR, A series of edits, one completed edit followed by another completed edit by one editor counts as one edit. To give you an example, Atom (Ray Palmer, LLArrow made 3 total edits on 2/28/15 on this article, 2 of those consecutive or in a series. Those 2 reverts count only as one revert. With that said 3RR is just a bright redline, a rule in relationship to edit warring, and it is not an entitlement to revert 3 times. Whether or not there's edit warring going on, There's been no real evidence provided. Reviewing this provided by LLArrow and following, You provide a coment there that leads me here. It seems though correct me if I'm wrong, we are talking about the same thing at both locations. If the change at Merlyn was made after this RFC was opened that is some questionable behavior. At this though I really don't think theres much to do for either of you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi, Serialjoepsycho - sorry, after posting about reporting contributor's retaliatory behavior, I didn't follow this thread until this afternoon. I certainly don't feel like I'm "under a microscope";likewise, I have no "act" to clean up. If I see a problem with an edit, I address that problem. If I see continued problems on a specific page or from a specific user, I tend to notice them on patrol. And yep, I was incorroect: there wasn't a blue line violation of 3RR; I was noting that several of the same sorts of reverts were happening on multiple pages. And certainly not just with me. To be clear, I wasn't suggeating a block was in order with my post; I was providing depth to the complaint LLArrow made about me.
Since LLArrow seems to think that we keep throwing new rules at him, I recommended he seek mentorship, so he can learn how to edit collaboratively - there have been no less than 6 incidents where LLArrow has had (significant) difficulties with several editors (of which I have been one). This tells me that either LLArrow is unaware of the problems he is creating with others, or is unable to prevent himself from creating them. That's why I suggested mentorship.
He's since stated an unwillingness to improve or doing anything differently. If anything, I would like to suggest that should LLArrow find himself reported here or another noticeboard in the near future, it should be taken into consideration that he was offered advice on how to address these interaction deficits. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I am withdrawing my request. It appears there is nothing to be done. Sorry to have wasted each of your time. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

James British[edit]

Blocked for 24 hours by FreeRangeFrog (SN: it makes no sense for a non-IP to sign his/her post as "anonymous"). (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User:James British left this edit on my talk page after I reverted his edit removing internal links and changing numbers here. He has done this kind of unexplained disruptive editing before and has been warned before. The posting on my talk page was totally out of line and I am seeking the help of an admin to deal with him for violation of the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever else is happening, that kind of thing is unacceptable. Blocked for 24 hours. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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


User:Coffee[edit]

More than enough has been said here. If you are not happy with the result, or non-result, please take it to arbitration. Once a thread gets to sufficient length, un-involved editors are deterred from giving it a thorough review, and the conversation inevitably deteriorates, creating needless bad will among editors. Jehochman Talk 19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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

In the last 24 hours I've seen a lot of worrying blocks coming in from Coffee. The block on User:Giano concerns me greatly in particular as I know Giano, and he's one of our most respected users and he's really not the type to be involved in petty sock puppetry. Coffee has blocked Giano here claiming harassment of another user. Reasons and diffs not given. Several hours later, the ip 86.130.84.147, registered to Tamworth, St Helens, near Birmingham, made a series of reverts to Giano's talk page, which led Coffee to lock Giano's talk page with this summary, where he seems to imply that Giano is using his ip address to edit his talk page and engaging in sock puppetry. The offending person's ip is registered to Tamworth, St Helens, near Birmingham, which if you look through his contributions you'll see that he used some offensive terms on Knowledgekid's talk page like "the nigger is learning" , so in effect it looks to me as if Coffee believes Giano guilty of such comments and is the same person. Now I'm pretty sure Giano lives a good 100 miles from where the ip is registered and that it couldn't possibly be him. It does look to me as if User:Coffee believes this IP to be Giano and should have done a checkuser and confirmed the identity of somebody before resorting to extreme measures. I ask for a decent admin here to compare the ip which Coffee obviously assumes is Giano to the ip behind Giano's account and to prove Giano's innocence in the matter. In doing so I expect Coffee to be sanctioned for (wrongly) taking offensive action without proof and to apologise to Giano for wrongly accusing him for these actions, subsequent to his blocking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction: Actually, the racist comment was on the IP's talk page and occurred after it was blocked. I just noticed this because I was the person who reverted that edit. So while the edit may very well have been referring to Knowledgekid87, I cannot be certain. That is all I really have to say. Dustin (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have notified User:Coffee about this thread. Is there any reason you didn't? Reyk YO! 11:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I linked his name to summon him...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see the box at the top of this page, where it says in big red text: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." If a link is acceptable we need to update that. I hope it's not, since notifications are known to be less than 100% reliable, even when you remember to sign in the same edit. ―Mandruss  13:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If admins can't even notify users of discussions, what hope do the rest of us have in following the process? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does amuse me that. I could name 101 and a half things admins and others must do here but don't..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If User:Coffee is accusing this IP of being Giano, I agree that it's a ludicrous accusation. Even Giano's harshest critics wouldn't believe that he'd make comments like "the nigger is learning" or "hey knowledgetwat you got what you deserved. As regards Coffee's initial block, as I read it it was for this comment, in which case it seems a very odd ground for blocking. – iridescent 11:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In providing that diff did you bother actually reading that diff? Giano wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry. Giano's page was protected allowing only autoconfimed users. This is not an indication that or accusation that Giano has been involved with sockpuppetry. Giano as the block log shows, was blocked for 1 day for personal attacks, and then for a further day for their behavior on the talk page. Why don't you get caught up with what's going on before you bring it here?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Giano was blocked for "harassment of another user", but if you look at the summary here later on, it looks as if Coffee believes Giano to be the ip causing the disruption. There's no evidence of sockpuppetry. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Geolocation of IPs within the UK is effectively useless; within the largest ISPs like BT (this one) and TalkTalk, a user can "move" hundreds of miles when their address is automatically changed. Apparently I'm in Sheffield today; yesterday I was apparently in Cambridge. So it's false to think that the user of 46.208.59.195 is anywhere near Tamworth, and it's false to infer that any given BT address is, or isn't, someone based on geographic proximity. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 11:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I always drive a few hundred miles down to Kent to make my sockpuppet insults. But then I'm one of our least respected users. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think Dr Blofeld must have got the reason for the block wrong: there was no accusation that Giano was using an IP. Just for information: Coffee removed Giano's talkpage access and I have restored it, with a fairly elaborate rationale and some comments about Coffee's recent admin actions.[177] No need to repeat it all here. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

In fairness the ip was actually blocked about 3 hours later after Giano, but it's this summary here in which he calls the ip a "sockpuppet" which I assumed Coffee believed was Giano. If "sockpuppetry" was not the chief reason for the block, I still see no real evidence that he was continually harassing anybody last night, and I think that preventing him from editing even his talk page was a bit much. Whatever the case, I do think Coffee is rather trigger happy with the block button and needs to take more care with issuing them. Blocking four or five editors in quick succession seems a bit overboard to me, and I believe that Coffee should have left some of them to another admin to decide.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I am familiar with Giano's long history. (1) He has never engaged in sock puppetry. (2) He has never made racist remarks. Given that the block is based on faulty conclusions, and I have looked but not found any diffs that show blockable harassment, I am of a mind to reverse this block as an obvious error. Given that Coffee is offline for the last four hours and the block duration does not leave that much time for discussion, I think it should be undone in about 15 minutes if there are no objections from uninvolved editors. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • SupportChed :  ?  13:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yesterday I told Coffee I was considering opening a review of his unblock because there's been a lot of drama concerning that user and the next thing I knew Coffee blocked Giano for responding to a post I made. If that's the reason Giano got blocked, it's about the most ludicrous block I've yet to see. Victoria (tk) 13:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. This edit summary seems wholly without foundation, and the block seems like a draconian overreaction to a possible misunderstanding. I think Jehochman's assessment has it just about right. Squinge (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    As per below, I must add that I understood the page was protected for the given reason and that the block was not for socking, but I see no evidence of "Persistent sock puppetry" on the talk page. It just seemed like further overreaction making a bad situation even worse. Squinge (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock for the reasons I set out below. --RexxS (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - Giano is not a long term disruptive editor at all. Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Indifferent on unblock, but if unblocked, Giano should be warned in the strongest of terms for their recent incivility and personal attacks. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per my comment below. –Davey2010Talk 21:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

  • Coffee's rationale for extending Giano's block "Questioning users sanity is once again in violation of our policies" (from the block log at 00:13), was based on this comment from Giano: "can we just have the example (diff) of this dreadful transgression. Purely for the amusement of our more sane editors". Frankly that comment - particularly from someone who's just been blocked - was a long way short of the alleged "questioning users [sic] sanity". I'm afraid that the degree of competence needed from an admin just isn't being displayed by Coffee's recent performance since he returned from his break. I therefore propose that the community takes this opportunity to set some limits on this admin's behaviour:
I propose that the community bans Coffee from using the block tool indefinitely. --RexxS (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose I admit Coffee can sometimes seem like they have their finger on the trigger more than the average admin, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If it wasn't for Coffee's diligently scouring ANI fusterclucks and closing appropriately -- even if it means a potentially controversial block -- User:Juzumaru might still be trolling me in machine-translated Japanese every few months despite never contributing to Wikipedia. One bad block -- if it even is that; I haven't looked into it -- doesn't change that. If consensus is against that one block, then unblock them. If this happened repeatedly, then repercussions might be called for, but this looks more like someone saw one potentially problematic block, noticed the admin blocked several other accounts in a short time frame, and put 2 and 2 together to get 5. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"finger on the trigger more than the average admin" -is never a good thing either is it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Dr. Blofeld: I dunno. You try wading through this TLDR fustercluck and tell me if any one of the following applies:
  1. even if Coffee had not had blocking privileges, another admin would have come along and taken the proper action before the thread was archived and I was forced back to square one;
  2. Coffee made the wrong call, Juzumaru was not the obviously NOTHERE troll he appeared to all involved to be, and so the latter should be unblocked immediately and receive an apology from both Coffee and myself;
  3. Juzumaru was a NOTHERE troll, but my ANI thread had been poorly formatted (or it was my own damn fault Juzumaru filled it up with article content spam and made it unreadable for passing admins) and so the thread should have been archived with no result and I should have been forced to endure his trolling until some kindly admin came along and blocked him out of the goodness of their hearts;
  4. same as 3 but I would not have to wait for an admin with a heart of gold, because reposting ANI threads on the same topic immediately after they were archived without result is a great idea and will totally warm the admin corps to cause and get the result I'm asking for.
Note that I'm not saying trigger-happy admins are a good thing in general, but your above post implies they can never be a good thing. I can't see how that could be right given the Juzumaru fustercluck I linked above. If indeed 2 was the case and Juzumaru was a good-faith Wikipedian who was victimized by a spiteful admin, he could have appealed the block and it would have almost certainly passed. Note that I myself once fell victim to an admin who carelessly made the good-faith mistake of blindly trusting a block-request placed on that admin's talk page by a particularly spiteful troll (the admin soon apologized, so it's water under the bridge) so don't think I'm in favour of admins not being expected to at least apologize when they make the wrong call. But other admins have got away with worse in the past, and as far as I'm concerned those admins have contributed less to Wikipedia in terms of the number of NOTHERE trolls they have caught.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 16:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Trigger happy admins can never be a good thing, Hijiri 88. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Anthonyhcole: Are you going to appeal Juzumaru's block, then? The "trigger-happy" admin Coffee took the initiative of blocking that troll per WP:NOTHERE and you are now seriously arguing that that is a bad thing? Hijiri 88 (やや) 17:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Generally, though, I like my clocks to have a bit more rigor. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:Anthonyhcole: Bad blocks can always be undone, and my understanding is that any admin has the power to unilaterally overturn a block that was unilaterally imposed by another admin. Now, blocking newbies who made good-faith mistakes is a violation of WP:BITE, and i's a problem since those users are less likely to come back after their blocks expire, or to appeal their blocks if they are indefinite, and we might lose good potential editors that way. But folks like Giano need to have thicker skin than that. There seems, though, to be something of a trend among those arguing for repercussions against Coffee that "he unilaterally blocked experienced Wikipedia editors and good content contributors, therefore he must be punished".
But, unlike making a bad block here and there, allowing bad users to go free because ANI threads were poorly formatted (the subject wasn't "sexy" enough to immediately attract the attention of a large number of editors, leaving the accused user to derail the whole thread by turning it into an article content fustercluck...), is very worrisome. Juzumaru was not the first, nor the last to cause me this kind of trouble, and I can't imagine I'm alone in this matter. I not long ago had to promise that if the most recent example of this is not dealt with by the current ANI thread, I would wait a few days before taking it back here: but why on earth should I -- or any other good faith Wikipedia editor -- be forced to endure any more of this abuse after already filing a perfectly good ANI report and spending a good deal of time diligently writing up a fair summary of the events and providing all the diffs, just because some admins (and non-admin observers) were too lazy to read and see whether my story checked out? Why can't there be more admins like Coffee, who actually read through difficult ANI discussions and work out solutions rather than just hoping problems go away by themselves once the threads get archived???
Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about indefinitely, but I do think that Coffee's blocking rights should be stripped from him for a given duration, like a month or so until he can learn to really take more care with issuing them and to avoid further blocking editors who dispute his initial blocks. As he said to Eric, blocking him for a longer duration might change his behaviour. If Coffee really believes that then perhaps a removal of Coffee's blocking rights for a given period instead of permanently might work. Then if he does this again in the future I think even a stripping of adminship would be appropriate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong Support: He needs to be desysopped for gross dishonesty. If he wants to set himself up as a second-rate Machiavelli; he needs to sharpen up. Quite what he thought he was doing last night is baffling. Trying to silence all opposition and free speech regarding the so called militant women editors and their hangers-on is not the way to win his or their battle. Giano (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Indefinite doesn't mean infinite, as we're often reminded. I would like to see Coffee kept away from making blocks until he has demonstrated the maturity and judgement suited to the responsibility of that function. I have no quarrel with his other admin actions, and because of the hassle and slowness of taking an admin to ArbCom for desysopping, I believe the community could show its will in this case and circumscribe his actions for now. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well Rexx, Hijiri88 does imply that Coffee has a history of trigger happy blocks, so I'd have to agree with you until he can really change his problematic behaviour. It's a lot safer for the community that way. If he's willing to change then it can be readdressed at a later date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This ANI appears to have been filed because Coffee applied reasonable administrative action to Eric Corbett and Giano. Administrators are wp:not perfect, but I see no evidence here that supports misconduct on Coffee's part. People say Lightbreather incites too much drama, and at times I tend to agree, but honestly, that seems minimal in comparison to the drama incited by the WP:ENTITLED when an administrator has the courage to adhere to WP:Equality. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, gotta disagree. There's a situation going on and not everyone is aware, but it has nothing at all to do with WP:ENTITLED or WP:Equality. Coffee's judgement yesterday was flawed and that's concerning to see in an admin. But to make this particular situation an issue about Eric and Giano is incorrect. I've not ever agreed with Rexxs about a single thing: in this instance I do. Victoria (tk) 14:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If you do not think WP:ENTITLED applies here, ask yourself, if an editor who had been here 6 months was blocked in a similar manner for similar conduct, would we have all this fuss? I've had no interaction with Giano that I can recall, but just from the minimal exposure I've had to him recently in relation to the recent Eric Corbett issue, a block for incivility doesn't exactly seem surprising. Recently, I noticed Giano appeared to call Slim Virgin a sexually confused transvestite. [178], and referenced GorillaWarfare's "plaintive, pathetic bleating" [179]. I think this sort of public discussion of fellow editors is less than civil and doesn't do the project much good. It seems like high school bullying and taunts honestly. I am grateful that Coffee appears to have the courage to apply administrative action to long term users, in a manner similar to new users. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • multiple (edit conflict) I'd rather see how Coffee deals with the situation once he returns. I think there were some impulsive and poor administrative actions taken in a short period of time yesterday, and I fully understand Giano's point of view here. Still, if someone is willing to listen to advice, I wouldn't be in favor of "indefinite" (and I do understand that indefinite =/= infinite). — Ched :  ?  14:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Per the history indicated in a separate section below, I suggest Coffee voluntarily resign the tools. This is not just an issue of the last few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Clarification: I am assuming that voluntary resignation in this case would be "under a cloud" and that they would not be reinstated without a new RFA. Barring that, I support either desysopping or banning from blocking, but I don't think six months is long enough. I am concerned that this admin doesn't react well to pressure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support community ban from using the block tools (blocking and of course also unblocking) for at least six months. Besides Coffee's recent flurry of ill-considered admin actions which people have been describing (including me), this overreaction to criticism of his unblock of Rationalobserver also concerns me: "As I'm getting lit up to some degree for accepting your unblock request... I wanted to formally warn you that if any (and I mean any) type of disruptive behavior comes from you again, you will be blocked by me personally for 6 months". Any type? By me personally? With the current awareness of Coffee's heavy-handed interpretation of "disruption", I really don't think RO should be left with this Damokles sword hanging over her head every time she edits. I mean, a six-month block, come on! Coffee needs to be relieved of access to the banhammer, if only to stop him from following through on that promise. (Which was presumably made to placate the people who dislike his unblock of RO, but it doesn't have that effect on me. One draconian block doesn't negate another.) SandyGeorgia, I'm dubious about your suggestion that it's better Coffee voluntarily resign the tools. That would mean he can pick them up again at any time, unless the 'crats find he resigned them under a cloud (which would indeed be the case, but) both crats and arbcom are historically very reluctant to admit it. On this issue, they tend more to "why can't we all just get along". Bishonen | talk 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
Damocles, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The Latin spelling over the transliterated Greek? Just as you like. Bishonen | talk 16:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
  • I support banning Coffee from blocking, unblocking, threatening to block and declining unblock requests indefinitely, with permission to request the lifting of the ban after 12 months. (Added duration 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC).) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that is a strong enough solution: he is incompetent and fails to understand policy and correct use of the tools. Consequently, he should be deprived of them completely. As far as I'm concerned, desysopping is the only possible acceptable result.Giano (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't contradict Bishonen, Giano. No good ever comes from that. That said, it's not either/or. If you can demonstrate incompetence in some other area of admin behaviour - deleting things, closing discussions, editing templates ... whatever it is they do - then I'll definitely support a desysop request to ArbCom. I've been waiting for years to see this community snip off an admin's block tool without going cap in hand to ArbCom. We need to start directly imposing discipline on them. And, as it presently stands, this is an appropriate case for that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ban from using block tools and, if possible, investigating the possibility of possible administrative recall and/or ArbCom review of whether Coffee has the community's trust to be an admin, although my first choice would be that Coffee submit himself for a voluntary confirmation RfA or resign the use of the tools voluntarily for a second RfA. I am in no way a fan or supporter of RO, but the unambiguous threat in that comment, along with the recent displays of what seem to my eyes to be extremely poor judgment in general, to my eyes indicate that perhaps this individual's judgment deserves much more serious consideration than it may to date have received. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Hijiri88, BoboMeowCat and Squinge. Coffee seems to be one of the more independent-minded admins around here, and does a good job of keeping drama and tendentiousness from impeding the creation of the encyclopedia. There also seems to be confusion as to whether a UT page was protected or access denied, which in turn tends demonstrate that there was a high level of drama to squelch. if there is a formal admin review process, that would obviously be the way to proceed.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    We can decide this here and now. We don't need a special "formal admin review process". This ANI process is good enough to restrict an editor's behaviour, so it's good enough to restrict an admin's. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no confusion. It is indisputable that Coffee protected of Giano's talk page; it is indisputable that Coffee removed Giano's talk page access. It's normal to ask a user before protecting their talk page, but that's not a problematic admin action. However, removing Giano's talk page access in the circumstances was completely ill-judged; particularly when compounded with a doubling of the block as a response to Giano's request to supply a diff showing why he was blocked in the first place. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Desysop (or block ban) – He has a history of poor blocks and incivility. This is just the caster sugar on top of a Victoria sandwich. Plenty of these transgressions are described below. He is not fit for administrative duty. Strip him of his rank. If he demonstrates that he is able act in the manner that an administrator should, his tools can be returned after an RfA. RGloucester 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Ubikwit, Hijiri88 and my above comment. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd never even heard of Coffee until recently. Having looked at their contribution history and long periods of inactivity, I understand why. I'm not prepared to take a position without doing considerably more investigation, but I have noticed that many of Coffee's comments have been at a minimum heavy-handed, particularly in the context of blocked users. I'm a pretty blunt speaker, but even I was taken aback by Coffee's language and what appears to me to be disproportionate reactions to particular situations.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I commented on the block review raised by RGloucester a couple of sections down about what I saw as a poor block by Coffee, so my opinion might be coloured by that but he does seem heavy handed with the admin tools. I also have concerns about his closure of these 3 AFDs that were overturned by deletion review in the last few days - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 February 19. However I would like to see his response to the criticisms raised here before any action is taken. Davewild (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support desysop (first choice), or ban from using block tools (per Bishonen). Coffee has repeatedly demonstrated that (s)he has neither the temperament nor the competence to be entrusted with admin powers. In a way it's fortunate that (s)he blundered into this relatively high-profile territory, otherwise the behavior might not have come under such close scrutiny. Writegeist (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Bishonen, Anthonyhcole, and John Carter. This is a series of ill-considered, heavy-handed admin actions, and this should be a perfectly fine place to deal with it. Begoontalk 18:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support community ban of Coffee from using the block tool for at least six months. As an editor with 9 years of no blocks, I depend on a couple of things. First, when an admin tells me "don't do X again" I stop doing X. Even if I am sure that X is allowed and the admin is dead wrong, I stop doing X until our disagreement about policy is resolved. The other side of the coin is that I depend on the admins giving me a clear warning and allowing me to voluntarily stop doing X. A trigger-happy admin destroys that trust. I am also deeply concerned by this comment: "Just so everyone's aware: I will not abide by any topical restrictions laid on my account here. As, I do not feel that the community at ANI has been shown the facts properly. So, if you want to go further down this road, your only avenue is ArbCom."[180] I feel that abiding by community decisions is one of Wikipedia's core values. If a community decision against me was bad enough, I might leave, but I would never, ever refuse to abide by it. And neither should Coffee. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is very clear from this thread that people are jumping on the bandwagon after reading some comments by others without doing their own homework. I recommend arbcom if you don't mind a venue that requires evidence. This is the standard revenge for daring to hold Giano to the standards of the community. While I can tolerate his regular stream of spiteful comments I cannot abide by the community throwing another person under the bus to defend Giano. Chillum 18:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I genuinely resent that. That's not what I'm doing at all. This is a cowboy admin, and we'll tell him/her to put away the block button if we like. If Coffee doesn't like it, he/she can appeal to arbcom. If he/she chooses to ignore the community's behavioural restrictions, we'll block him/her. --Anthonyhcole (talk ·

contribs · email) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Me too, not to mention insulting to us as individuals, same goes for Rational observer's comments below. If I'd not been genuinely concerned with the behaviour of Coffee in the way that he blocked multiple editors last night and the backlash I'd not have come here just to defend Giano/Eric for the sake of it. It certainly looked initially as if Coffee was making some unfounded accusations, and I've since seen a fair bit of evidence of genuine misconduct, even in recent days with other users. As somebody said I think it's a good thing that this has happened with a higher profile editor as it's identified an admin who operates in a problematic way, but unfortunately it was at Eric and Giano's expense...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support desysop. I was instructed to wait for Coffee's side of the story. I did so, and it was nothing but an attempt to divert discussion to the actions of others, minimization of his/her errors, and general defiance of any accountability. They committed at least one blatant violation of a clear, simple, and important block policy, not the kind of thing that one does by mistake. I feel these are not traits we need handling admin tools and responsibilities, backlogs or no backlogs. I have no involvement with, or knowledge of, any of the parties here involved, so it would be very difficult to accuse me of ulterior motives. ―Mandruss  18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay for those of you voting for desysop, the community has repeatedly rejected the idea of community desysops. It is the domain of arbcom, not ANI. Chillum 19:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. We can't desysop Coffee. But we can restrict Coffee's tool use. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that is not part of the process of ANI. If people want to take this to ArbCom, then do it. But this is a complete waste of time. And frankly, it's absurd to try and desysop here for virtually nothing. I'm not voting -Oppose- because there is no vote. Close this and move on. Dave Dial (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Even if the blocks and unblock were mistakes, which I don't think they were, many admins have made similar or worse mistakes without losing the bit within a couple of days. This is an overreaction to a stressful couple of days that is, predictably, fueled by a certain group of editors who rarely if ever break rank. I hope that whoever closes this "proposal" has the foresight to notice that the same people who want Coffee desysopped are those who always defend Giano and his circle of friends. I think Wikipedia should stand for more than popularity contests between rival factions of editors. We all have the same goal, and it's long past overdue that we start to put our egos and differences aside for the sake of Wikipedia. This is what happens to admins or anybody else who crosses this particular group of editors, and I think it's paramount to the future vitality of this project that the community reject these types of efforts to silence and intimidate anyone who does not fall in line, because each time this tactic works we move further away from a truly community-run website and closer to an anarchy run by random spheres of influence that do not have the best interests of the community as a whole in mind. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    May I ask, in the context of what you promised as part of a successful unblock request, you wrote: "If you unblock me I promise to not repeat the negative and disruptive behaviors that got me blocked." here, why you are making this comment, making allegations about a group of people that is likely to inflame things here? Previously, you also admitted a mistake, apologized here, and later reneged on that promise, and here you are, apparently beginning to do it again! Can you explain this?  DDStretch  (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support ecx3 a ban on use of block button, or unblocking, or threatening blocks for 12 months, per Anthonyhcole. A long absence followed by a frenzy of activity including highly controversial, poorly documented, and very possibly bad blocks and unblocks cries out for application of the brakes. Not sure if this rises to the level of a case to desysop at ArbCom, but it is highly troubling. Carrite (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay THIS does rise to the level of sanctionable administrative abuse, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Ubikwit, Hijiri88, and BoboMeowCat. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a temporary injunction on use of block tools but honestly if they are making bad block decisions why not just RFA and be done about it? Or a recall, why go to arbitration, if coffee is confident they still have community support let them go that route. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes, resignation and a new RFA, if desired, would be honourable, and I'd support that course of action too. Hell, I might even support the RFA, depending how it panned out. Just continuing as though nothing happened here, though? No, not an option. Begoontalk 19:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Begoon shit now I can only be right one more time today ;). I thought it was reasonable and think that sweeping it under the rug is bad. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose; this is ludicrous. Ironholds (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno. An oppose without any rationale is weak, granted - but I think you're probably being a little too hard on yourself there. Begoontalk 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I've got a headache. Jaguar 21:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the wrong forum. It is effectively a de-sysop and that should be done by Arbcom. Edison (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I would go far as to say he should be Desysopped but unfortunately we can't!, The block was IMHO utterly pointless but there we go. –Davey2010Talk 21:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This should go to Arbcom for a proper review. It seems to me that Coffee is being targeted for blocking Eric Corbett (justifiedly, pursuant to an AE discussion) and Giano (an action of potentially dubious merit). Users saying that we should just avoid drama by getting rid of admins who attempt to enforce sanctions against certain editors with large followings, instead of expecting such editors to tone down their own drama, are (I suspect wilfully) trying to undermine the system which sanctions their chums. BethNaught (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a) this isn't the venue to decide this and b) like Chillum, I have a sense that Coffee is being thrown under the bus as revenge for blocking Giano. Ca2james (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose But just because I'm strongly opposed to the idea of restricting an admin's tool use. If an admin betrays the trust they have been given by the community to the extent that they need aspects of their power cut away and restricted, then they may as well not be an admin at all. Either keep Coffee as a regular admin with full tool usage or desysop them. Bosstopher (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose there are certainly undesirable aspects in Coffee's handling of this situation, but there wouldn't be nearly as much of a backlash if it wasn't Giano who was the recipient of the block. While I firmly side with Giano and Eric Corbett in opposition to Lightbreather, RationalObserver, KnowledgeKid and the like, it is undeniable that Giano and Eric Corbett both get away with far more than the average Wikipedian. Even if Giano was subjected to a bad block, his behavior here has been very vindictive and spiteful. If Coffee is sanctioned because of this situation, it will just make the other admins more hesitant to deal with future problems caused by Giano. On a final note, while I don't support such action in this case, I do think that the community should be allowed to restrict an admin's tool usage without going to ArbCom. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I saw the diff and this was a good block. If anything, we need more admins like Coffee to step up to the plate like this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Desysop Following a different admin decision by this user which seemed irrational, I looked at their user pages. These state
  1. "My other lines of work include the United States Air Force where I worked ... before being placed on medical status."
  2. "This user has Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder."
Our article on PTSD states that it has "commonly associated behavioral symptoms such as anxiety, ruminations, irritability, aggression, suicidality, and impulsivity."
After I read this, I did not wish to engage with them further as I was uncertain how to approach them and so walked away from the matter. Taking their own words at face value, it seems that they are not fit for duty and so they should be suspended as an admin here. Andrew D. (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you trying to compete with RGloucester for the most ridiculous comment of the day? Chillum 23:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the disorder, and don't think for a moment it disqualifies a person from adminship. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support After the account sharing scandal (when he was still known as User:Chet B Long) he was eventually given the tools back but it is becoming clear that he is still prone to immature, impulsive, reckless and cowboy behaviour. Keri (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I feel that Coffee is doing what is best to prevent disruption on Wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not enough actual evidence. Too many personal attacks and old grudges. I think we need admins willing to make tough or controversial actions, and Coffee does so. I don't always agree with him, but this pile-on is completely unwarranted. If there's evidence, take it to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Coffee's unblock has caused an enormous amount of disruption. The hurt experienced by some editors only rubs salt in the wounds and further divides this community. Coffee has made no attempt to understand, but defends is actions as normal. No attempt at consensus, even with a blocking admin. EChastain (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am opposed to any sanctions being imposed on Coffee. I am sorry to be on the other side of the fence to some editors whom I know personally and regard as some of my closest Wikipedia friends, but in my opinion this entire issue, which has taken nearly three hours of reading including following all the links, etc, and three large mugs of coffee, is fast becoming drama for the sake of drama which unfortunately is the kind of entertainment we don’t really need, unless it is the completely implausible comment at the end by SPECIFICO. As to Coffee’s alleged misuse of tools and/or admin judgement/powers, I have no reason to believe he was acting in other than good faith. That rules out 'cowboy' behaviour, even if this, which doesn't demonstrate a pattern was a bit OTT, and that’s the hinge here: was he deliberately abusing the trust invested in him by the community at his RfA? The answer has to be ‘No’. Should he be desysoped, T-banned, tool-banned, blocked? Again, IMO, the answer is ‘No’. Should this ANI serve as sufficient warning in and of itself? Yes. Should Coffee consider voluntarily refraining from use of his block button for a while? Yes.
While comments by Chillum are consistent throughout the discussion, especially his words here. this comment by Ironholds holds more than a mere modicum of truth.
As regards desysoping, can this ANI reach such a verdict? No, because there are no codes of conduct and participation here such as there are at Arbcom, per Chillum [181]; we still have no official policy for community desysoping, and Arbcom is the only venue where kangaroo and mob kustice is not possible. If the community cannot see its way clear here to give this a rest now, then Arbcom is the next step. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Kudpung and Chillum are absolutely right. Anyone who looks squarely at how things actually unfold on Wikipedia knows that the terms under which admins operate is wholly controlled by the admins themselves. No admin has ever been desopped for something as trivial as abusing content builders. They are desopped only if they tread on the powers of other admins. C'mon, move on. There is a backlog of content builders yet to be administered. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as a temporary solution until a formal desysop procedure (Arbcom?) is handled by someone who has the time and effort. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose- just to cancel Andrew Davidson's support, which I consider to be nothing more than a spiteful and irrelevant personal attack. Reyk YO! 10:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongest Possible Oppose Coffee is one of the few admins not in the thrall of the Cult of Corbett, and has the courage to stand up to editors like Eric, Giano, and a parade of others who believe the rules don't apply to them, and who make this environment so hostile to women editors (not wimmin, not militant feminists, just women, most of whom don't dare stand their ground for fear of being branded with these and other comparable labels and/or harassed by men to frightened of them to afford them a minimum of respect.) --Drmargi (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Please put this canard to rest[edit]

In the possibly vain hope of getting people to read all the words, after vainly trying to argue by e-mail, I'm giving this its own section. Squinge, Blofeld, Giano himself and some others have all misunderstood this diff. It gives Coffee's reason for protecting Giano's page. Protecting it. Not for removing G's talkpage access, that's a completely separate action. "Persistent sock-puppetry" is one of the standard reasons offered in a drop-down menu when an admin protects a page, and Coffee chose it because it was appropriate. There had been persistent sock-puppetry on the page (well, if two instances is persistent, but still), by a disruptive IP who had also done a lot of far more vicious stuff, such as this. There was no question of Coffee assuming it was Giano's IP. None. I think Coffee has been acting like a cowboy admin, and I've told him so, but accusing Giano of socking and/or racism is something he has not done. All right? Is it possible to put this canard to rest, before it flies even further? Please, everybody, and please, Giano, stop perpetuating it. And I'm glad to see Giano has been unblocked. Bishonen | talk 14:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC).

  • I am also very glad to see Giano has been unblocked. Shouldn't Coffee's reversal of another Admin's two week block without any discussion with the blocking Admin not also be questioned? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)  
Support Sagaciousphil. Coffee's reversal of Ddstretch's two week block of Rationalobserver without any discussion and without looking at the history of the user's behaviour should be questioned.[182] EChastain (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced Bishonen, but even if he wasn't accusing Giano of sockpuppetry and indirectly of racism, then there's a clear problem with the way he handled it. The concerning thing to me is that even the editor who strong opposes removing Coffee's blocking rights states that he has a history of trigger happy blocking. If he doesn't learn his lesson from this, then he's going to keep doing it and potentially we'll lose a lot of editors. I don't think a removal of blocking rights for a month would be unreasonable here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I understood that it was protected for the given reason, but I see no evidence of "Persistent sock puppetry". It just seemed like further overreaction making a bad situation even worse. But I should have made myself clearer, and have now done so above. Squinge (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Bishzilla attacks.JPGEverybody listen to Bishonen OR ELSE!!! File:Dealer the Labrador Retriever and a redhead duck.jpg ... or be put to rest like this canard]]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MONGO (talkcontribs)

  • For once, I do not agree with Bishonen, at the very least Coffee was deliberatly muddying the water regarding the sockpuppetry allegation. I certainly believe I have been accused of that and extreme racism, and so do many others viewing the diff. Unfortunatly, mud sticks and I'm not having some incompetent admin throwing filthy mud at me. Giano (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee deliberately refused to explain the reason for blocking me [183] because it was unjustifiable. He then takes away talk page access Wwith no explanation) presumably for one of these two edits [184] [185]. This is not acceptable; he needs to be desysopped before he harms the project further. Giano (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Finally some pictures at ANI. Was missing that. Life is so dull without pictures on pages. Hafspajen (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
The Bishzilla picture was salvaged from the remains of a camera...we found no trace of the camera person.--MONGO 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've refactored the images per longstanding ANI practice. NE Ent 21:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Query past Coffee admin action[edit]

I am not an admin, and may need to be "informed", but I was unaware that it was ever appropriate for a blocking admin to also deny an unblock request. Is it? I observed an incident a year ago, involving a contentious and difficult AFD where one party who had responded to talk page warnings and ceased disruption was blocked by Coffee days later, who then denied the unblock request her/himself, while another party who appeared to be equally disruptive was allowed to continue. I queried Coffee here, where s/he stood by the decision. Can a blocking admin also deny an unblock request, or should that not be an uninvolved admin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree that unblock requests should generally be handled by an admin other than the blocker. Reyk YO! 15:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The very purpose of an unblock request is that uninvolved admins review the process and then decide upon the merit of the request. Therefore I don't see how the performing admin would ever be able to directly deny one unblock request for a block made by themselves. A blocking admin may raise concerns over an unblock to the reviewer but from what can be read here they're not entitled to deny any unblock requests concerning their own blocks because unblocking requests require the action of "an uninvolved administrator acting independently". So I'm afraid but this should not have been decided by Coffee. De728631 (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee also stated this in an unblock request he declined. Your history severely conflicts with the bullshit you're laying out here. I don't care what the user did, or what they were purported to do, this is not acceptable. Tutelary (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. OK, so some sort of addressing of Coffee's sysop status appears to be in order. The fastest way through these messes is usually for the offender to voluntarily resign the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think Bishonen's right on the "cowboy admin" actions here, even if Coffee was actually innocent of the sockpuppet accusation aspect of it. An editor above who strongly opposes the banning of Coffee from blocking editors even states that Coffee has a long history of trigger happy behaviour. If he regularly does this it needs to stop; I'd support a month ban on him blocking over this myself. Especially as it seems he's guilty of further misconduct as Tutelary identified above, It really isn't acceptable for admins to talk to people like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow is right. No canard here. ―Mandruss  15:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow. Coffee is not the main culprit here. We need to seriously look into the chronic unholy alliance between Bishonen and Gianno that has been going on for so many years and wonder why would Bishonen, as opposed to another uninvolved admin unblock Gianno in the first place. I also don't find Bishonen's multiple other accounts like Bishzilla appropriate for an admin. Time to start talking objectively about this. Time to take away admin tools from both of them. 202.69.240.218 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Another admin would have done it if she hadn't of. And I think she's acted perfectly professionally, neutrally and appropriately in her response to this. In fact she was the one editor who pointed out that it was not Coffee's intention to block over sock puppetry and label Giano a racist, give her some respect ip! Bishonen could have easily gone with the tide on that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
FWIW IP, Bishonen did not unblock Giano. Bishonen restored Giano's talkpage privillages. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Bishzilla has restored this criticism, which had been removed as trolling. I think the point about my restoration of Giano's tpa should stand, for people to consider, even though it would have been nice if the person had been courageous enough to use their account to post here. And both of who is it time to take away admin tools from ? Giano and Bishzilla? They aren't admins. Me and Coffee? We are admins. As for my sockfarm, feel free to take it to arbitration, I think that would be the right venue. Bishonen | talk 16:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
  • I won't lie, Bishonen, I was thinking the same thing as the IP in one respect. Near as I can tell from this particular mess, restoring talk page access was the right decision. However, given your history with Giano, you honestly should never be using the admin tools where he is involved. The stuff about admins not being allowed to use alt accounts is bunk though, and I do agree with you that the IP should have made that comment from their logged-in account. Resolute 17:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee's prior disdain for both procedure and proportion[edit]

As far as I'm concerned, Coffee is unfit for administrative duty. He has made a series of questionable administrative actions, starting with an inappropriate application of discretionary sanctions that had to be overturned by ArbCom, and an absurd indefinite block. He simply isn't being careful with his tools, despite being told to do so by ArbCom only a week or so ago. This particular exchange really rubbed me the wrong way, and it demonstrates that Coffee has no concern for accountability whatsoever. Any questioning of his actions results in incivility on his part. Is this acceptable behaviour for an administrator? I'd say not. RGloucester 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So, RGloucester, that's 2 bad blocks, a bad unblock (Rational Observer) and he declined an unblock request regarding a block he'd imposed. Did he ever adduce any evidence to justify the indefinite block in that case you cited? Now, above, #Davewild has pointed to Coffee's closure of 3 AFDs that were overturned by deletion review in the last few days. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)
No, he never provided any evidence of disruption that warranted a summary indefinite block. He seems to have a habit of blocking sans any presentation of tangible evidence or reasoning, even if that evidence does exist. His misapplication of DS was particularly grievous to me, given that importance of DS in resolving conflicts in disputed areas. Compromising the DS system would be a disaster for encylopaedia. As I said then, the reason I placed an emphasis on this slippage of justice on Coffee's part was because I knew it could easily slide into something bigger. That's clearly what's happened here, and it is even more clear that Coffee did not take ArbCom's words onboard. He made some conciliatory remarks, but his behaviour has not changed. I have nothing against Coffee, and had no prior interaction with him prior to the Russian editor1996 block. However, I do not think he is fit to be an administrator. Administrators need to be impeccable, or at least open to accountability. Coffee isn't. He needs some time as a regular editor, working on content and the like, before he can ever return to administrative actions in contentious areas. It is clear that he is not capable of handling such situations. RGloucester 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Any chance we can wait for Coffee to respond to this thread prior to the hanging? We really have not waited to hear his side of the story. Chillum 16:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've got a hard time seeing the block as "absurd". I might not have made it, but there are grounds for it, and, despite RGloucester's protestations, repeated intentional violations of WP:V are grounds for blocking.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, when it comes to violating unblocking policy and using the word bullshit in response to an unblock request, there's really only one side to the story. If the burden of adminship is too stressful for an individual, we should do them and the project a favor and unburden them. ―Mandruss  17:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have yet to encounter a situation involving more than one person with only one side to the story. If you honestly think there is only one side to the story then perhaps you have already made up your mind. How about you humor those of us who wish to be in possession of the facts before acting and let us wait for Coffee's response. Chillum 17:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Chillum here. The use of the word is objectionable, but there is always the possibility of unknown extenuating circumstances, and it would be a good idea to know if any exist before passing judgment. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. I eagerly await the rationale for policy violation and verbal abuse. ―Mandruss  17:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I suspect this will end up at RFARB with Coffee's adminship on the line, but honestly, complaining about his use of the word "bullshit" in that instance is akin to being offended about an accused bank robber being hit with a fine for jaywalking. The question in that instance is whether Coffee should have reviewed an unblock request of his own block, not a word choice. Resolute 17:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Coffee[edit]

This to me is incredulous. I protected Giano's page from a socking IP who was using a dynamic address to get around blocks and be disruptive, it did not in any way mean that Giano was socking. Giano was warned by me to not make personal attacks directed at other editors, and he decided to do so by calling certain admins gullible to essentially the whims of sexist editors (on Eric's talk page). This was after he had stated on my talk page "Rationalobserver you and the militant and trouble making wimmin of this project" and on Rationalobserver's talk page under the section name "Shit stirrer!": "Need I say more? If the women of Wikipedia need you to fight their corner - then they have a serous problem." He literally requested a block at my talk page, and then proceeded to test the boundaries to see if I would really do it. Eric's block has nothing to do with any of this, as that block was done in accordance with the discussion at AE. If you are willing to call all of my other actions into question now as well just because I blocked an editor with a clear following around them, I'm deeply saddened to have invested the several years I have of administrating this site. There are backlogs everywhere on the admin side, and I'm constantly trying to keep them at bay. Yet no one brings up that work... because apparently that work isn't as important as content creation. I can at least say one thing for sure: things like this definitely show why we have such a low amount of active administrators right now... and it's definitely why we have barely anyone at RFA anymore. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's usually best not to semi-protect someone's page unless they ask you to. But if Giano really said that stuff about "wimmin", he should be re-blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I am sad to say you have stepped into a hornets nest. This response you are finding incredulous is exactly what happens any time someone tries to hold Giano to the same standards we hold the rest of Wikipedia. It will not end well and I doubt reason will prevail. For some reason Giano's block log stops in Feb 2014, but it is actually much longer and a clear pattern of unenforceability is shown by it(where did the rest of his block log go?). Chillum 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There's more of it under the block log of his previous ID, "GiacomoReturned".[186]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
And more under this id[187], this is the block log I remember. Chillum 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh Baseball Bugs and Chillum you've forgotten to mention that I am unique on Wikipedia for having a whole section of my block officially wiped clean - a sort of superior oversighting. Perhaps it never filtered down to those editors like the pair of you. You ought to investigate that. It concerns another Admin who nastily took my name in vain. You see if wronged and fighting for a cause, I never give up. Now go and sniff that scandal about me out, but be prepared to be eat humble pie. Giano (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Important correction: Y'all mean incredible (or "not credible"), not incredulous. Mr. Language Person (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Language Person: Touché! Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee deliberately refused to explain the reason for blocking me [188] because it was unjustifiable. He then takes away talk page access Wwith no explanation) presumably for one of these two edits [189] [190]. This is not acceptable; he needs to be desysopped before he harms the project further. If he's not going to receive a community ban from losing his tools here, then he needs to go to Admin recall or whatever the procedure is. There's no point gong to Arbcom with it because they are just encouraging of the small, militant band of professing (I expect a few of them are men) females and hangers-on who put him up to this. Giano (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Your page was semi'd after you were blocked, when 86.130.84.147 (talk · contribs), who's likely somebody's sock (not yours) was trying to cause trouble for you and others. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Just so everyone's aware: I will not abide by any topical restrictions laid on my account here. As, I do not feel that the community at ANI has been shown the facts properly. So, if you want to go further down this road, your only avenue is ArbCom. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee, are you willing to explain your reversal of Ddstretch's two week block of Rationalobserver for "(Disruptive editing: and attacking messages on a variety of talk pages)" less than ten hours later without discussion with Dsstretch? Thanks, EChastain (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • EChastain: Yes. It was because I took her promise to not violate our policies again seriously. Me not discussing it with DDStretch beforehand was definitely an oversight on my part, and I've already discussed this with him. But once again, as I've said many times before: reblocks are cheap. And I will happily reblock her for 6 months if the same type of editing is seen again. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee what I was trying to say yesterday, quite obviously unsuccessfully, is that the reason people went ape-shit is because of your actions. An entire week, more now, of time has been wasted when it looked like things might calm down. A reblock might not be as cheap as you think, and certainly the unblock has caused a whole lot of unnecessary drama. Can you see any of this? Victoria (tk) 18:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Victoria: I do see what you're laying down. And I definitely see where you're coming from, and I definitely didn't want to cause you or other editors around her more stress. But, now that she's been unblocked (and keep in mind I was a completely uninvolved admin in this situation before yesterday) I can't just re-block her when she's currently abiding by policy. So far she's been on the right track, but if she falls off of it she won't be welcome here for a while. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Your rationale for extending Giano's block "Questioning users sanity is once again in violation of our policies" (from the block log at 00:13), was based on this comment from Giano: "can we just have the example (diff) of this dreadful transgression. Purely for the amusement of our more sane editors". Right or wrong? You haven't defended that action, so don't try to deflect. Explain how the removal talk page access and doubling of the block in response to Giano's request is anything other than plain wrong. To top that off with the incredible arrogance to think you are above the will of the community is astonishing. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't extend his block for him requesting that diff (which he linked to himself, by the way, before his block was extended), I extended his block for him questioning another users sanity. Which was once again deliberately on the line of NPA. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Which other user's sanity did he question? Don't you understand what "personal" means in "personal attack"? for the amusement of our more sane editors isn't a personal attack; and you're just trying to justify your impetuous response to being questioned. We need better judgement from those we trust to block others. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • That was clearly directed at me. But before I answer any further questions, let me pose one to you. What exactly is your affiliation with Giano? Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, you extended someone's block for being uncivil towards the blocking admin - and you were the blocking admin? I have no affiliation with Giano. You should resign the tools. Hipocrite (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
          • You can stop trying to deflect by making it about somebody else. It's not my actions under review here, so if you've got any complaints about me, let's hear them in a thread dedicated to that. Now, if you believed that Giano's comment was aimed at you, surely that makes you the worst possible judge of extending sanctions against him? We have the INVOLVED policy precisely because admins enjoy an unfair advantage over ordinary editors in disputes. The moment you took his "more sane editors" comment as a slight at you, you should have backed away and sought uninvolved advice. That you failed to do so, and don't even seem to realise where you went wrong, is compelling support for my proposal to keep you away from the block button until you've improved your judgement. --RexxS (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Your failure to answer my question is plenty telling of where your personal bias lies here. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
              • As you insist, I have no "affiliation" with Giano whatsoever, other than that we both live in the UK. I've met most of the active UK Wikimedians at one time or another, but I've never met Giano. Last week, I tidied the references on an article that he edits, but otherwise I can't remember the last time we edited the same article. Now that your smear on me is exposed for what it was, how about you answer the questions I've asked you? --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee, it is impossible to take your justifications at face value. You block two members on one side of a dispute, and unblock another. That starts off making you look bad. You blocked both of those people based on rationales that were at best weak, and at worst, completely bogus. Your warning to Giano is not a solid grounds for anything; it was on your talkpage, not theirs, and it was not worded in such a manner as to make it an unmistakeable warning. Your removal of Giano's talkpage access was undeniably bogus; not only was Giano not questioning anyone's sanity, but it was one comment, and blocked users are generally given some room to vent. Giano certainly had not overstepped that mark. Your inability to justify the block to Giano directly shows how weak your grounds were. And to top it off, you've threatened to disregard any community sanctions placed upon you. I had rejected any notion of you being desysopped before as being a bit of an overreaction... but I'm not seeing how you having the bit is anything other than a massive negative right now. If I had made such a big series of errors, I'd be giving up the bit voluntarily in your position. The one thing you did right was semi-protecting Giano's page against the troll, but you probably should've cited "IP-based trolling" rather than sockpuppetry. That being said, it's not really your fault that this one action was misinterpreted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Lukeno94: In my defense, I had no idea RO was affiliated with Giano when I made that unblock. It wasn't a deliberate move on my part. I was merely unblocking her based solely on the merits of her words to not be disruptive again. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Furthermore, my block of Eric was more than well founded, as it was met with overwhelming support by the admins at AE. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
You and most other admins apparently still think it was an admirable well-thought out decision, yet you're unwilling to note that a massive amount of trouble has resulted from the course of your action which has distracted decent editors here from concentrating on articles here. What possible benefit did your action bring about to the encyclopedia? Any decision on wikipedia which results in mass time wasting and disruption discussing things which are not constructive to building wikipedia is a problem. Wikipedia would really be better off without administrators who take rash actions in response to minor comments or actions. It could simply be ignored and modified. But it's not good enough. The sanctimonious lecture and block always has to come first every time. You can't see how damaging this repeat cycle really is. Have some sense. Administrators know the reaction they're going to get from blocking Eric/Giano before they do so, and it's disruptive, more disruptive than anything either of them could say to somebody initially. There are ways to try to improve interaction with editors on here and to avoid this heavy handed sort of thing which does nothing but divide people and escalate the issue multiple times. Blocks of this kind do nothing but create ill feeling and trouble. They can be completely avoided through some rational thought to provide a solution.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? The reason for this incredibly long thread is your inability to read a log entry, and yet you have the gall to claim Coffee's block is the problem? You kicked this brouhaha off, not him. And your proposed alternative is...well, nobody's allowed to block Giano or Eric, because if they do you'll complain and cause a fuss and that means they've caused the fuss and why won't everyone just leave Eric and Giano alone? That's an utterly ridiculous position to take, and if you genuinely believe that the solution to "Eric and Giano behave incredibly inappropriately because it's impossible to block them without causing drama" is "stop blocking them, it causes drama" you need to look up how action/reaction cycles work. Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't, it would have taken place anyway, just look at the talk pages. There is a very real problem here, and it was well under swing before I noticed what was going on Ironholds. I could ignore it, but this blocking and unblocking cycle keeps going on and on and each time a massive amount of time is wasted, regardless of whether I comment or not. You obviously think you're an intelligent chap Ironholds, so tell me, do you really think blocking Eric or Giano for a few hours really solves the real issue on here? Do you think blocking Eric for a few days is of benefit to the website or actually more damaging to wikipedia in the short term? Obviously some reform of the admin system and change in approach to this sort of thing is needed on here. Blocks of this kind really don't work and create the largest part of the problem because of the backlash and division of opinion, whether you think Eric and Giano are rude and inappropriate or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't! I think both of them need to be blocked indefinitely. Would you like to propose it, if you're so keen to get this resolved? Or do you simply not see their behaviour as a problem? Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I do think that Eric could avoid territory at times where there's more chance of him being blocked, yes. To avoid the backlash and timewasting which follows if for no other reason. But I see whatever they say usually as a much lesser problem than the reaction to it yes, the blocking and the aftermath. I think a lot could simply be ignored or modified by an administrator and things done more quietly. This repeat cycle of blocking and unblocking really doesn't work in the long term and is an embarrassment to the wiki system. We should all know by now that issuing short blocks to Eric and Giano is going to cause more trouble than its worth, so that's why I question why somebody like Coffee does it. I'm essentially a no bullshit kind of guy and have a pretty low level of tolerance, and I think we really need to either full accept things and ignore/modify them or completely don't accept them. If we completely don't accept them then anybody who can't edit without getting into regular conflicts will have to go, not only Eric and Giano, but myself, Cassianto, SchroCat, Gerda, most of the regulars here will have to go. Would that be practical in terms of wiki contributing? Nope. Would most of us content contributors like being indefinitely banned? Nope? So in that case there needs to be a limit on what one can do or say in a given period which is not disputable, and something which is enforced equally. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Rather than questioning why Coffee would block Giano, perhaps you should question why a block of Giano causes so much backlash. (Hint: in this case, you played a big role in starting this drama.) Should we just give Eric and Giano free reign to do and say whatever they please without consequence, because any attempt to sanction them causes drama? Rather than taking exception to the reaction to Giano's conduct, maybe you should be more concerned with Giano's amateurish and arrogrant attitude and demeanor toward anyone who dares to disagree with him. It's nice that he's a phenomenal content creator with a lot of friends, but that shouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Blofeld's list of names are members of what I call the "clique of malcontents", who hate admins and would love to put the admin in question into their trophy case. And when any one of them goes too far and gets blocked, the others storm the ANI Bastille and demand the release of the prisoner. And the answer is, Yes, they should be allowed to do whatever they want without fear of rebuke. That's an unwritten policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that I can think of at least a dozen administrators on here who I either consider friends or I'm on good terms with, I think that's a rather generalized statement to make Baseball bugs. I rarely hate on people. I'm sure the others would thoroughly resent being called "the clique of malcontents". But I do see massive problems in the way admins function around regular content contributors and in cases like this I think they're a bigger problem than their worth. I think we should be continually doing a trial and error in the way that things are run to see which system is most effective and evolving. Yet there's none of this, which is why the same silliness and decadence still exists in the running of the site as years back as Lara identified. It's embarrassing that this is allowed to continue, and I'm sure many of the administrators I'm on good terms would at least acknowledge some sort of reform is needed to put a stop to it, even if they might not admit it. There is no point in issuing blocks of this kind, they do nothing but worsen the problem and time wasting. Stripping Coffee of his rights would only solve a very small part of the problem and this will continue whatever becomes of it. He's not the root cause. The answer is really a major reform in the way things are dealt with to make them evenly enforced and non disputable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't really see a problem with that. Lets be clear, here; what we are now discussing is not Coffee's block. What we are discussing if a fundamental moral divide between the two loudest groups of Wikipedians, the divide centring on whether you're the sort of person who thing a sufficient number of contributions justifies any behaviour, or whether you're the sort of person who thinks that's a load of hooey. I proudly count myself a member of the second group, and without an actual decision by the community or ArbCom as to which direction things are going in, I think this will continue to fester - as you point out, even if Giano or Eric go (and to reiterate: they should go. Far away, until they demonstrate they can actually admit any kind of fallibility) the underlying question isn't answered. Unfortunately, so far the community has demonstrated itself to be fairly schizoid on the problem and ArbCom - which exists for precisely these situations - has demonstrated itself to be incredibly cowardly, so lord knows what the outcome is going to be in the end. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about a bunch of short blocks for Eric, the arbcom sanctions describe a very clear escalation in block duration to be followed. Chillum 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable explanation, although I would still voice my opinion that you should've looked at the underlying issues with regards to the initial dispute - and probably consulted the blocking admin for their opinion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I, looking back, now completely agree with that. Hindsight is always 20/20... This is why I've stated multiple times that I'll re-block RO for 6 months if she is disruptive in any way at all in the future. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee, I understand your predicament now that you've unblocked her. My urgent suggestion is that you bring yourself up to date on all the controversy and bad blood she has caused up to now and the megabytes (or whatever they are) of discussion related to her, even before your quick unblock. Example: her posting on pages such as Casliber, Eric Corbett and many others over the "serial comma" issue, her seeking ds sanctions against Eric Corbett just days after Lightbreather succeed in hers, her harassment of Victoriaearle, forbidding her even to post on an article talk page Rationaloberver was working on, her personal attacks against Eric Corbett on her own talk page, her distructive comments on Talk:Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) (by Victoriaearle and Ceoil), resulting in Ceoil being brought to ANI. (Samples only) Please, please pay attention to this user, and if this does recur in the weeks and months ahead, ensure you will quickly block. EChastain (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - is nobody going to comment/take action on the points raised by myself, Victoriaearle and EChastain concerning the unblock of Rationalobserver without discussion and the points raised about the editor's subsequent comment in this AN/I thread? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading this thread is making me sick and I have a migraine already!!! It's not f*ing about Giano and Eric. All you guys can have your little bar-room brawl but you've overlooked what caused this particular problem. Has nothing to do with content or not-content editors or women or men. Anyway, I give up on this place. Haven't a clue where to put this, but putting it under the other unanswered post. You all create your own cycles of drama without looking beyond, which is a shame. Victoria (tk) 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Giano's misconduct[edit]

  • Those diffs show only that you cannot cope with having your pompous pride pricked. Giano (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Calling another editor pompous is exactly the sort of incivility that you have received countless warnings for. If you were anyone else it would not be tolerated. Chillum 18:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Chillum they primarily show Giano's continuing in his long-demonstrated habit habit of showing absolutely no capacity for self-control. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You all need to learn to read diffs carefully and Coffee did not have a clear understanding of the situation. Giano's remark (admittedly not the best wording) was made after someone else got accused of socking on Coffee's page. There's a long and complicated sequence of events that needs to be clearly understood. I'm not known for going to an unknown user's page and asking for clarification about a block/unblock, nor do I post to drama boards. That I think it's necessary to do so shows that this is a situation that was terribly mishandled. I knew there would be drama. And now we have it. Better would have been to leave Ddstretch's block in place. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Coffee, the proposal above is for you to put aside the block button for a while, not that you should put aside all the other stuff. Some have mentioned desysopping, but I don't see enough evidence here to justify that, and neither do I see much support for it. I do see significant support for you having a holiday from blocking. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering the CSD backlog contains a lot of editors who need to be blocked for advertising on our site/vandalism, that seems like a request that will do nothing but put more work on my fellow admins. It's not that I have some strange power hungry lust for the ability to block people, it's that I find it a very necessary tool in my toolkit. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Victoria, which is why I mentioned the unblock above - I also generally avoid all these drama boards as much as possible. I am still not seeing any explanation from Coffee as to why no discussion with the blocking admin took place? SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It was due to a slight failure on my part... but, as I've said repeatedly: re-blocks are cheap. If she continues to edit the way she was before, I'll happily block her for 6 months (that is if the community doesn't decide to prevent me from blocking *sigh*). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
See, it's exactly that I have a problem with Coffee. You profess that "I'll happily block her". You really shouldn't be feeling happy about blocking people. You appear to enjoy this sort of culture where people get blocked for the slightest thing and it has to stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Not happy as in "yay I get to block someone", but happily as in "I will have no problem with doing so". So perhaps the wrong wording, but my point is that I will take care of it without any reservations as she has promised to abide by our policies, and if she doesn't she deserves a very long block. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld, perhaps better example (it occurred after Giano challenged if Coffee would block him on the same basis he blocked Eric): "User:Giano: I have no idea who you are, but if you make a comment like that again I will gladly fulfill your request. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)" [191]. (The "gladly" is unnecessary and unprofessional and baiting of course, revealing an attitude problem unbecoming of admin - the need to prove one-upmanship by flexing the blocking-bat muscle [but that happens a lot on WP, is an inherent corruption you get with an independently acting admins system {making SPECIFICO's suggestion of a no-admin environment both interesting and logical enough to be worth considering since would immediately eradicate said ills if implemented; the holes that might be caused could be analyzed how to mitigate or plug - at least a better idea than the scoffing bottom-of-pyrimid insults SPECIFICO received that come from close mindedness and tenacity to hold on to a failed system.}]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If Giano and others talked about Black people, or God forbid Jewish people, in the same manner as they do 'wommin', they would be indeffed. It is absolutely unacceptable behaviour to continue to direct comments towards females in the manner that Giano and others have been. Not that I support the group in question, as I think there have been many mistakes made there. But the derogatory manner that females and feminists are being addressed is completely unacceptable. Dave Dial (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Dave Dial, I user the term "wimmin" to distinguish this very small trouble making group from the thousands of amazing women editors we have here. what would you prefer - 'Les Kaffeeklatsches'? That sounds a lot less patronizing doesn't it? Giano (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It matters not how big or small the group you're referring to is; you're not allowed to talk about groups of people on this site in a deliberately derogatory and inflammatory manner. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That principle, which you have just coined from thin air, will come as very bad news to some people if it is enforced uniformly. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I did no such thing. See WP:WIAPA. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly which part of that link do you feel applies to your innovative expansion of longstanding consensus, "These examples are not exhaustive."??? Carrite (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors." Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot of insight here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Here was the one that shocked me the most:
Ah coffee, you may be able to help: I remember once when I was a boy at school, clandestinely watching a totally shocking film where nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burn at the stake. I doubt Eric is very handsome, but tonight I am minded of that film...[192]
Can you imagine the outrage that would rain down upon my head if I said of the behavior of any man on this project, "I am minded of a film I saw where priests masturbated while a pretty nun burned at the stake"? Or "I am minded of a film where I saw white people masturbate while a black person was lynched"? Nobody saw anything offensive in Giano comparing someone whom he considers a "militant" woman to nuns masturbating while a priest burns? Lightbreather (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I might add, I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian, and I also found the comment offensive on that level. Lightbreather (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure if someone that agrees with corbett said the sky was blue you'd say that was offensive Lightbreather. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Uh, LB, it's a reference to The Devils so if you find it offensive you may want to blame Ken Russell. Capeo (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about you two, and it's not about Giano and Eric, either. It's about 2 bad blocks, a bad unblock and a declined unblock request regarding a block Coffee him-/herself had imposed. And now, above, #Davewild has pointed to Coffee's closure of 3 AFDs that were overturned by deletion review in the last few days. Characterising this as a gender gap vs. Eric's mates dispute sidelines all the editors above, including me, who are not involved in that issue or aligned with either side. There is a problem with Coffee's judgement. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole: I vacated those AFD closes after I realized I had remembered the BLPDEL policy wrong, and had misinterpreted the current version... a few years back it was commonplace to see no consensus default to delete closes on AFDs, and I was following what I thought to still be an established procedure. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that. In that case I see no justification for a full desysop, but still support a holiday from the block button (but am waiting for your responses to Jehochman's propositions below.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree with AHC very often about much of anything, but he is exactly right here. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
No, this isn't about Giano and Eric. And it's not about the gender gap. And if you want to debate Coffee's judgement, fine. What I want to know is, are the men and women who are participating in this discussion OK with Giano comparing Rationalobserver, or any other editor - man or woman - for that matter, to someone who would masturbate while they watched someone else burn? No-one sees that as sanctionable behavior? Lightbreather (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Block Giano[edit]

Should Giano be blocked per WP:WIAPA:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed AGAINST ANOTHER CONTRIBUTOR, OR AGAINST A GROUP OF CONTRIBUTORS. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

Three personal attacks:

  1. Pot stirring? well Rationalobserver you and the militant and trouble making wimmin of this project are the ones to recognize that. I applaud you. Why not block me too Coffee?[193]
  2. Ah coffee, you may be able to help: I remember once when I was a boy at school, clandestinely watching a totally shocking film where nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burn at the stake. I doubt Eric is very handsome, but tonight I am minded of that film.[194]
  3. ...it's nothing to do with women editors as a whole - the whole world knows that - they are as rational as the rest of mankind; it's to do with a small group of women who have formed a group, sucked in a few gullables ... and are now playing the sexist card for their own peculiar ends.[195]
  • Support - As proposer. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Giano was already blocked. Do you mean a ban?--MONGO 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't the block lifted? I'll support whatever is appropriate for that kind of sustained attack, but it surely should be more than a few hours. Lightbreather (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral on a Giano block frankly, I think Giano does deserve a timeout. However, Lightbreather is not the right person to make this proposal and it just reeks of spiteful vindictiveness. I'm not impressed and Support a block on Lightbreather for creating further disruption. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't count my vote then. Someone needed to step up, and no-one else has stepped up. I don't think that's a good reason to block me, but I'll take it if it's the price to pay. Lightbreather (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree that some people need to step up and demand that Giano be held accountable for his actions, regardless of how many GAs and FAs he has contributed. However, you are heavily involved in this fiasco and it looks very unseemly for you to be the one proposing sanctions against Giano. It appears that you have an axe to grind, or else that you are trying to get an opponent silenced. Either way, it doesn't help the encyclopedia. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
        • OK. You make the proposal, and I'll strike my proposal and my vote. Lightbreather (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I don't think you should vote regardless of who makes the proposal, just as I wouldn't recommend that Giano participate if someone opened a thread proposing that you be blocked. Your opinion is already clear anyway and you aren't likely to sway the discussion. You have very little to gain here. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC) I guess I should have read your comment more thoroughly. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the interests of not escalating I think we should not block Giano for what has happened between the unblock and now, regardless of how much it is justified. It would be enough that the community does not try to behead the next person who does decide Giano has earned a block. Chillum 03:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lightbreather, I need no reminders that you dislike Giano. Blocking Giano has been tried many times in the past and always does more harm than good. If you notice, Giano has already slowed his participation in this thread, and we should try to let the thread conclude, rather than extending it, and spreading more bad will. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I need no reminders that you dislike Giano. This is untrue. Prior to this discussion, I was barely aware of him. (Kind of like before the whole "cunt" debate last year, except then I was completely unaware of EC.) That's much more important than whether or not I like or dislike him, or whether anyone likes or dislikes him. I get it now. He is one of the golden boys. One of the untouchables. (Where is that essay?) One of the valued content contributors who is above the WP civility rules, and therefore, anyone who challenges their civility is the one who faces sanction. I get it that there's this double standard on Wikipedia. If you said I disliked that, I would not disagree with you.
But I do want to say this one more time, for those who are covering their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears: This valued content contributor compared a a group of women editors to nuns who masturbate while a priest burns. (Not just a priest, but a handsome priest - which gives you some idea of how these guys imagine themselves.) Lightbreather (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lightbreather: Why on God's green earth do you feel the need to constantly bring "gender" into every single conversation? Give it a rest. The constant "gender thumping" is doing more harm than good. Ain't nobody here that can magically see through their monitor to verify who is who. Yes, women should be treated every bit as equally as men. You are doing more harm than good to your "cause" by deliberately trying to segregate people by gender. If you truly want to prove some sort of "women can" agenda - then go write positive articles. There are a lot of women on wiki who are embarrassed by your crusade. The whole "eggshells with hammers" crap that you're trying to sell is bullshit. Your whole "hear me roar" thing is so 1970s. If your agenda is to disrupt wikipedia, then you're doing a good job. If your agenda is to show us that women can do anything a man can do, then you need to change your approach. — Ched :  ?  13:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If you actually study the history of who brings up gender in these discussions, you'll find it's men at least as often - if not more often - than I. The drama of recent days is a good example.
In the IBAN discussion I started a few days ago, Eric Corbett jumped in and made the comment, "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?" (18:46, 26 February 2015) Gender had not been brought into the discussion before that. (And the discussion wasn't about him. Please scroll down.) Just prior to his comment, Rationalobserver had started a discussion on EC's talk page that turned rather nasty. Here is the revision of that page from two minutes before EC made his "militant feminist" comment here at ANI: [196]. At that point, RO hadn't been involved in the discussion for over 18 hours, and - without defending her behavior in that discussion - she hadn't brought gender into that one either. The first person to bring gender into it was EC when he said, "That kind of behaviour clearly wasn't a one-off, but I suppose she gets away with because she claims to be a female."[197]
However, EC and G. either think everything I and some other women do is about gender, or they want others to think that. I bring up gender when it's appropriate, and I'd appreciate it if you and others stop buying into this notion that we're "militant." Do you honestly defend comparing us to nuns who masturbate while a priest burns? How would you like it if I compared Eric and his entourage to priests who masturbate while nuns burn? Or to white people who masturbate while a black person burns? If I said those things and men or white editors complained, would they be the ones to label as "militant"? Should they be expected not to complain about it? Lightbreather (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow, on second reading, there is a lot of offensive stuff in your comment. Would you mind striking some? (Also, in addition to the "militant feminist" nonsense, please don't swallow the "a lot of women are embarrassed" propaganda, either. There are some who are - notably, especially, some of EC's women defenders. There are a lot of women editors (though not nearly as many as men editors); there are some women editors who agree with me, and there are some who disagree.) Lightbreather (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
find it's men at least as often - if not more often - than I. What an absurd statement: if one assumes at least half of active editors are men (most estimates are significantly higher of course), that's saying that 71644 male editors combined bring up gender more often than 1 editor, and that's supposed to mean something? NE Ent 15:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You didn't understand what I meant? OK. In Wikipedia talk page discussions where gender is made an issue, especially one where someone brings up feminism... Lightbreather (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Besides, I wrote, "If you actually study the history of who brings up gender in these discussions, you'll find it's men at least as often - if not more often - than I." I didn't write "All men bring up gender in discussions." Is this the part where the baiting starts? I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. Buh-bye. Lightbreather (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not striking a damned thing. Quite frankly, I'm looking at a long term block for disruptive editing. — Ched :  ?  16:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - I have never heard such a load of old bollocks in all my life. Do you people have nothing other to do than smear the name of one of our best editors? Lightbreather should have been banned a long time ago; Rationalobserver, also. Coffee, I have no idea who you are, but your block was ill-thought out and you should be brought to task for being too block-happy. It smacks of someone trying to impress Jimbo and his heard of sheep who roam Eric's contributions waiting for him to fart out of place. CassiantoTalk 16:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Before considering arbitration[edit]

I recently brought an arbitration case about an admin who was involved in controversial actions. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. I'm considering whether to bring a case about this matter, and I'm pretty sure I could get the case accepted already, but I think it might not be necessary. Here are my concerns, that Coffee hopefully will address:

  1. An admin should never decline an unblock request related to their own block, except in some sort of very exceptional circumstance such as a user who obviously can't be unblocked, such as somebody who's been banned by ArbCom or the Community. Example: [198]
  2. Admins should not create the appearance of partisanship, such as by unblocking one disputant, and blocking two disputants on the other side. (If such action is necessary, deal with one users, and then get help from other admins.)
  3. Blocked users are allowed to vent on their talk pages. If they make generic insults against the blocking admin, these should generally be ignored, but if further action is required it should generally be taken by some other admin, not the one who was targeted and could appear to be acting out of anger and a desire for retaliation.
  4. User talk page access is not removed, except for severe violations. There was no such exceptional circumstance in this case.
  5. Blocking admins are required to explain the reason for a block, and best practice is to supply diffs in the block message if the blocking reason is not obvious. In this case, Coffee failed to provide diffs, and failed to explain to Giano the specific reason for the block, even when Giano challenged the block as unjustifiable.
  6. Don't use profanity when performing administrative actions or explaining them.[199][200]

Coffee, I'd like to see whether you acknowledge these issues and if you can endeavor to do a better job going forward. I request that all others give Coffee a chance to reply, and please dial down the heat. Everybody makes an occasional mistake. I want to give Coffee a chance to try to set things right. Jehochman Talk 19:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Jehochman: Before I fully reply to that rather reasonable request... what block are we referring to in part 1? (I clearly haven't been able to read this entire discussion yet.) Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I see above suggestions that you declined unblock requests for blocks that you have made. Please scan the thread and answer those. Your answer might be "I didn't do that" or you might have a reason for having done that, or you might say "oops, I won't do that again." I will reread the thread too and see if I can give more specific diffs. Jehochman Talk 19:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman, you brought that Wifione case to ArbCom too early. Please don't make the same mistake this time. A great many of your fellow editors are discussing a community-imposed sanction above. LET THAT PLAY OUT. That said, I think Coffee could change a lot of minds with his/her responses to your above propositions. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's not go off topic. Case was accepted and resolved. I'm not going to bring this one unless community discussion fails to resolve it. Agree, Coffee can help resolve things. Jehochman Talk 19:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I am going to call bullshit with the people whining about Coffee using bullshit. I've stated as much as long as it isn't a you are a mother fucker, fucker or specific thing like that. I do not support censoring language and that includes admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to hear from Coffee. You are not an admin, so you are welcome to swear, at least until you get blocked. Admins should not swear at ordinary users, when acting in admin capacity. Jehochman Talk 19:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Enlighten us on the admin code, maybe show us the secret handshake. Bullshit. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As a former admin, I have to agree with Jehochman here. Particularly when admins are specifically engaged in specifically admin functions, or, basically, acting for the community and/or foundation, they are expected to conduct themselves in a way which would be considered acceptable under those conditions. Most businesses don't let the receptionist swear at some of the callers or visitors (although, having done that work for a while years ago, I know the urge can sometimes be very, very strong), but there is a basic standard of professional decorum to maintain, particularly when individuals are acting in official capacities. Now, having said that, I remember seeing some extreme cases like when individuals were facing extreme duress when answering the phone, for instance, like, oh, flooding, the building burning down, that sort of thing, where once in a while the receptionist lost his or her cool, and most businesses wouldn't necessarily make a big deal of those instances. I don't think we should be any different. And, yes, once in a while, even those businesses will let an occasional violation slip in. I'm not myself going to say exactly where I would place this one, because I'm not sure what I would have done in this matter myself. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@John Carter: May I ask what was the worst profanity you ever used in your admin capacity? ―Mandruss  20:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I rarely did anything as an admin but edit protected templates, which at the time was a specifically admin function, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. That's one of the reasons I withheld an opinion above. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There are many admins who never use profanity, regardless of the situation. I asked you because you said you weren't sure what you would have done, implying that you might have used profanity in that situation. From my limited experience with you, I found that hard to believe. ―Mandruss  20:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee's response[edit]

Jehochman:

  1. Well in this case it would be that I was definitely unaware that I did that... unless someone can provide me with a good diff. It's something I always try to avoid doing, unless the person is an absolute obvious vandal that is just attempting to disrupt the site through their request. (Further note, now that a diff has been provided: That was a case where I felt the user was definitely WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. In a case like that I only do it if I feel that any administrative review would have the same result. However, that was a partial misstep on my part, and it's not something that I do often or will do much of [if at all] in the future.)
  2. I definitely did not intend to create an appearance of partisanship when I made these blocks/unblocks. As I said above, when I unblocked RO, I did not realize she was affiliated with Giano. Eric's block was done at he behest of the admins at AE. Giano's block was done because he was violating NPA through his attacks on RO, it wasn't known by me that they had a long standing disagreement even then; I thought Giano was being disruptive purely because of Eric's block. But I would definitely not do something just to favor one side over the other in a debate, ever, whether in the past or future. I'll make sure the appearance doesn't happen again for sure.
  3. In hindsight I should have let another admin revoke the talk page access, but I was already at a rather thin patience level at that point. Not an excuse, but I'm letting you at least understand where that move came from (besides the fact that I found the comments, personally at least, to violate NPA). In the future I'll allow another admin to review issues like that.
  4. See the previous point. (with the exception of obvious vandals, where I may do the revoke myself)
  5. This was because I thought stating below the block notice where the violation had happened would be enough, I didn't see Giano's (albeit snarky) challenge of the block until 2 hours later (as he didn't ping me). He himself had of course already provided the diff by that point. In the future though I'll gladly provide the diffs in a case where someone is disputing the block (if I haven't already, and with the exception of obvious VOAs).
  6. This is something I generally avoid, but in rare cases I do let it slip out. I've been in the profession of helping get people killed for the last 6 years, and we tend to swear a lot, so I'd say it's fairly impressive that I don't swear more on this site... but I will try to do better at it since you've requested kindly.

I hope that explains things better. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I request that everybody just give this a few days to cool down, and then decide if you feel like further steps are needed. I for one am satisfied that this was an unfortunate sequence of misunderstandings. Do try to be more reserved with the block button going forward. Don't rush, in general, and take time to look through the history of things. Jehochman Talk 20:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice, and for being understanding. I'd also like to note that I'd be willing to open an WP:Administrator review for myself (not recall), to get suggestions from the community at large on how to better myself here (as long as people aren't just going there to skewer me over a fire). I'm always trying to improve upon my former self, and am always open to suggestions. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting very tired of you making excuses for plausible but obviously problematical admins, Jehochman. In this caase, Coffee hasn't satisfied me that this was an unfortunate sequence of misunderstandings at all. I see serious competence and character problems staring me in the face. I've just got back from dropping a friend at the airport; it's 5:30 am and I'm hosting brunch, so I'm getting some sleep now, but will be back to address this in more detail. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I find arbitration to be a pain, and only use it when absolutely necessary. If you want to take Coffee to arbitration, by all means, you are welcome to file a request. I won't oppose the acceptance of a case, but your should keep in mind that other parties will get dragged in and the ArbCom often dishes out sanctions liberally. Bishonen often points out that I assume too much good faith. She's probably right. Jehochman Talk 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Coffee, I am not satisfied by your answer to No. 1, which is an issue I raised. Firstly, though, I want to point out to everyone here hollering about the Giano situation that I have not touched that issue. I brought an entirely valid example of a past poor admin decision (declining an unblock request on your own block where I saw no evidence to even validate the first block to begin with, because that editor had stopped disrupting days before and as soon as I pointed him/her towards policy), and I indicated above that I had brought it to your attention, so you most certainly were or should have been aware of it. I am concerned about how you can do something of that nature and then not even remember it. That you continue to justify it indicates to me that you haven't gone back and looked at all of the evidence, including my warnings and conversations with that user, where s/he had stopped disrupting, while you let the other user off for committing even worse disruption. Something was very off in your action there, and I shut up at the time because ... well, that's another story.

If there is not some resolution on that matter, either here on ANI or by you doing something voluntarily, then I support this matter escalating to the arbs. Sorry, but admins just can't behave this way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: Without going into length about my current medical health (and it was something I was hoping to avoid bringing up all together), I actually have severe memory issues at the moment. I still though stand by my statement that he was not here to do anything more than promote incel, which was already determined to be unfit for inclusion on this site. However, I do think in hindsight that it would have been better to allow another admin to review that unblock request, even if I think it would have ended up the same way. Purely because it would ease the concerns of esteemed editors like yourself. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you are really having memory problems, you should stand down until recovered. If your memory is confused and having issues, then you should not be acting as a judge and jury here. Furthermore putting yourself through needless this stress cannot be beneficial to your situation. Giano (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Purely because it would ease the concerns of esteemed editors like yourself. So, not because it was wrong, not because of blocking policy, but only so editors like me wouldn't be concerned? I had worked through explaining policy to that editor, and s/he stopped disrupting. You blocked an editor without cause: we don't know if s/he was here only to promote incel, but they backed off as soon as I explained things, and yet you let a more disruptive editor do worse. I'm sorry; it's not right, and I was shaking my head when I saw it.

I sincerely regret your current medical health, and that you feel you had to mention it, but now that you have, your comment gives additional rise to concern that perhaps you should not, at this time, have access to the tools. I hope you will be well, but I'd like to see you give up the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you are not feeling well, just stop using admin access until you are back to normal. Easy solution, and I hope you get better as soon as can be hoped for. Jehochman Talk 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, it should be noted that this occurred a year ago; I'm not sure how Coffee's current health factors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I remain disturbed that Coffee still hasn't addressed the issue brought up above repeatedly by me, Victoriaearle, Sagaciousphil. You reversed a two week block for disruptive editing on multiple pages without consulting the blocking admin. If you hadn't done that, all of these issues discussed here at ANI today, including all the stuff about Giano (who I don't know) wouldn't have occurred. And I think it's a critical issue. How, in less than ten hours, could you determine that Rationalobserver's "word" was more reliable than the judgment of a fellow admin without discussion or apparently any attempt to look at her history. EChastain (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've addressed this repeatedly here EChastain, both above and below this comment. I even addressed it at my talk page with DDStress, the original blocking admin. Please feel free to read those discussions, but I'm not going to repeat myself. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • ok, I'll look around for it. I wish you'd pinged me; what I saw before wasn't satisfactory. Rationalobserver is back on the drama boards (above). How long will you give her to find something else to do? EChastain (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Coffee, there's nothing on your talk re DDStress, that I can find. Using Find, I come up with nothing. Where is it? (There are some rather rude comments to me from Rationalobserver on your talk.) EChastain (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Try searching for Ddstretch. Bishonen | talk 00:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC).
            • Bishonen Well, there's nothing on this page. On his talk there's just the very superficial response made previously by Coffee: "DDStretch: I truly hope there's no hard feelings here, I just moved forward in the same motion that I'm used to when I made this judgment. As she promised to not continue her disruptive behavior" - which I don't consider adequate. Shows no understanding of the situation and no indication the same thing won't happen again. EChastain (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @EChastain: If you had made any effort to find it instead of huffing and puffing demands you would have found this: User_talk:Coffee#Unblock_clarification_requested.

That is where Coffee discussed this matter with DDStretch. Unless DDStretch wants to call foul there is not much more to the matter. Chillum 01:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Chillum, that's the same old stuff from yesterday, just a large version of what I quoted above. "The unblock had nothing to do with her being a woman, or political correctness. I was simply going through WP:RFUB as usual, and happened across her unblock request which I treated as I do all unblock requests. This was in no way a judgment against Ddstretch's administrative judgment, merely an accepted unblock request based purely on its own merits. Like I said, if the behavior that got her blocked happens again I'll be the first to re-block. Re-blocks are cheap, as they say." He's just saying he unblocks all requests without looking into it further, and there's no point in discussing it with the blocking admin, as his own judgment overrides theirs. Everyone knows that DDStretch isn't going to call foul, because only through arbcom can an admin get desopped. So the community is helpless, without the huge effort of putting together an arbcom, since admins won't monitor each other. (The reblocks are cheap comment is particularly disgusting, cheap for him maybe, but not for the community who wants to build an encyclopaedia.) EChastain (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you reading the same thing as me? I see two adults discussing something and walking away satisfied. You seem to be out for a pound of flesh. There is exactly one person with standing to be upset about this unblock and that is DDStretch. Chillum 03:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep Chillum, that's what I am seeing too. I'm also seeing an editor very obsessed with the unblock of another editor, so much so that it is very unbecoming. Dave Dial (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Chillum, I'm reading the same thing but I see one admin defending his actions as normal and only worrying that there's no hard feelings, and the other admin unwilling to rock the boat. I've watched the disruption caused by Rationalobserver with horror for weeks if not longer, unbelieving that someone didn't put a stop to it. Have you looked at her history? I mean, really look? I've been persuaded now to Support dessop. EChastain (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want someone to put a stop to it, why don't you propose a block/ban? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Now you are assigning motives to DDStretch and that is really not your place. Also please pay attention, a vote on ANI cannot desysop someone. That has been said repeatedly already. Chillum 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I had no desire to contribute to this, but I think it may be appropriate to make what I hope is my only comment, now. I carefully considered many things before blocking Rationalobserver. It seemed to me that a block was certainly justified, given her previous history, and poor behaviour, culminating in a set of insults on Eric Corbett's talk page that seemed designed to provoke. Eric Corbett replied politely, but I suspect the desired result of the provocation was realised when Eric Corbett made the later comments, elsewhere, for which an arbitration sanction was applied.
I was surprised that I wasn't consulted prior to Rationalobserver's unblock. However, we can all make mistakes, so I could not be entirely sure that it was not me partially at fault in applying such a long block of two weeks. I still think that it was correct, and that an even longer block could have been justified, given the previous pattern of bad behaviour and the reneging on previous assurances that she had learned her lesson and wouldn't do it again. If I had been consulted, my response would have been "Too soon". Her complete and incredible about-face within one day from protesting strongly that she had done nothing wrong (when she plainly had), and then the apologetic message that it was all a mistake, that she had done wrong and that it wouldn't happen again (in fact, very similar to a previous incident in her history a week or two before these events) was not credible. It was not helped by contributions from knowledgekid87 which were reinforcing of her bad behaviour that she had, in fact and in his opinion, done nothing wrong and that she was a victim of a bunch of people. I consider that knowledgekid87 will be changing his behaviour from now on, because his reassurances about his future behaviour were convincing to me, and I reversed the block I gave him later on for personal attacks he later made of other editors while still trying to tell Rationalobserver that she was a victim of others.
I would rather the block had not been successfully appealed as soon as it was, I would sooner have liked to have been consulted about the unblock rather than not. I am apprehensive that Rationalobserver will repeat her behaviour and return to the problematic behaviour, despite the promises and assurances she (quickly) made, because she has a previous history of doing this. I consider my later discussion with Coffee resolved the matter between ourselves. I am not standing up as some kind of admin-cabal against editors when I say the above, because I believe there is much wrong with the current admin system, so much so that I am often tempted to resign my admin position (as I did, once before). I strongly refute EChastain's allegation about my motives, and ask her to withdraw them.
With respect to Rationalobserver, I have even speculated to myself that if she quickly returned to the "drama boards" and showed signs of a return to problematic behaviour, after giving an assurance that she would not, whether a new block (obviously not applied by myself) could ever be justified on account of getting her recent block overturned on "false pretenses". May be that thought is unacceptable, though.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok. An afterthought and another message: Both of the blocks I made (Rationalobserver, Knowledgekid87) I thought could lead to me being dragged to this board because this is a contentious area where there are many people with entrenched positions on both sides. We (as admins) can all make mistakes, just like anyone else, and I am acutely aware of that when I use the tools. However, we should all be allowed to reform, and we should be allowed to demonstrate that we have reformed. That is why I believed Knowledgekid87 and unblocked him last night (my time). That is why I am apprehensive of Rationalobserver, because of previous reneging on assurances, and why I would have liked more time than 9 or so hours before a successful unblock was granted. But she should be allowed to show she has changed her ways, and reneging once is perhaps allowed. There is, however, the question of her other troublesome behaviour. Now that all this drama is unfolding, which I find distasteful in itself, because we should all be spending our time writing content, I think she will get much closer scrutiny than might otherwise happen. I think EChastain is now ascribing motives to me on little evidence, and I refute them anyway. This is sad, because it begins to devalue her previous comments, in my opinion, because I cannot now be sure how much of those may also have been similarly biased. Just be careful, and sometimes it pays to never speak what one thinks for the sake of a moment of glory or success at the risk of a massive amount of disruption and drama.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Coffee's response, for now, is sufficient. He's received strong, good feedback from Jehochman et. al.; at this point what matter is what he does in the future, not what words are said here and now. To clarify; per WP:EHP continuing to attempt to browbeat some specific mea culpa from him is neither necessary nor productive. NE Ent 12:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The way things stand right now, I'll be taking this to ArCom to have Coffee's use of the block button restricted. I'm open to persuasion, though, and in no hurry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

block of Eric Corbett[edit]

  • I will not be letting this drop. Now that it is universally acknowledged that Coffee's blocks are unsound, we need to address the matter of the blocking of Eric Corbett who remains blocked by Coffee. The block was encouraged and manipulated by the same small group of females (what are we allowed to call them now?) as engineered the block of me. Corbett now needs to be unblocked too. Giano (talk)
  • He was blocked per this AE request, with an overwhelming consensus by the uninvolved admins there (none of which were "manipulated by [a] group of females"). So that won't be happening. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
For reasons you failed to grasp. Stop bleating and trying to cover your inadequacies. Who is running this show - a small, group or vengeful editors with their own private space or the general editorship? Giano (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
That comment makes no sense whatsoever, and it still fails to present a valid rationale for unblocking someone who was found to violate their topic ban by six administrators at AE. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned by the Coffee's assertions ([201] is another) that consensus by the admins justified the block, as if the views contributed by non-admins in that discussion (there were a lot of them, that might or might not have supported the block) counted for nothing. It's also not clear to me that the block was supported by overwhelming consensus of the admins. Chillum, Kudpung, Coffee, and Harej called for a block. Thryduulf suggested a warning might be enough, Jbmurray called Eric's post "an ill-advised comment", JethroBT said there was a ban violation but didn't call for a specific remedy, and Black Kite (maybe involved) said there might have been a technical violation but put responsibility for the conflict on Lightbreather. Kudpung and Coffee specifically supported the block for the purpose of deterring future such problems from Eric, a strategy that's been ineffective enough times in the past that IMHO it calls their judgment in question about weighing in on these blocks. Coffee later disclaimed that justification (showing more sense) in the diff I gave above ("Even if I don't personally think that this block will have much of an effect on the way Eric behaves in the future...") and I found this distastefully patronizing. Eric's interaction style is obviously unsatisfactory at times, but I wouldn't pretend to understand what is going on in his mind enough to advise him as if I knew something better than he did. I have no view about Coffee's overall adminship but I think it would have been best if Coffee had stood back and let someone else do this particular block, if one was to be done. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No. That is an AE block, and any admin reversing that should lose the bit immediately. Dave Dial (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • (e-c) While he has blocked as per AE, I regret to say that as someone who commented there that, as I said there, at least one of the admins who declared himself "uninvolved" might well be seen by others as being perhaps involved, at least in so far as his or her social/political predilections relate to the case, and that I think as per my own comments that there seemed to me to be a misinterpretation of a comment which seems to have used a known and generally recognized, even by academia, term used to describe certain specific interest groups. In short, I think the judgment of some of the admins involved in the discussion was itself flawed. However, considering it is only a three day block, and that Eric will be taking one of the three anyway, I think a better and more likely to be productive "demand" might be to go to ARCA and request clarification whether language which is generally used even in broadly neutral academic literature as descriptions of certain groups is among the language which Eric and others in such circumstances are prohibited from using. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • John Carter, if you're referring to this block:[202], I believe the discussion was ongoing, a majority of admins didn't support the block, and Sandstein made a "super vote" and blocked. EChastain (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well the blocking Admin is now firmly branded as a cowboy, so I think we can review it. Giano (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Two things: 1. That's not remotely true, and once again that is not a valid rationale for unblocking someone who was found to have violated their topic ban. 2. Cows get branded. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It is completely true. You are an unsafe pair of hands and a cowboy. Your position is untenable. Giano (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I just happen to live in Texas right now. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I thought you probably lived somewhere like that. Giano (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Clever response. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So Coffee, have you served in the military? Jehochman Talk 21:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman: I'm currently in it, as a Non-Commissioned Officer. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for your service. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll note on the above ^ hatted thread started by RGloucester, that I'm trained in much more than just how to use a small firearm... In fact I've worked in much larger things if you will, for example: nuclear warfare. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I beg of you, Coffee, spare me! Do not even think of sending any atomic bombs in my direction. I'll take issue with that. I live in an unreinforced masonry building. RGloucester 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not worried about Coffee coming after any of us with weapons (nuclear or otherwise), so I hope RGloucester's earlier remark was not meant literally. I thought it was supposed to point at the difference between a volunteer project like Wikipedia, and one with hierarchical discipline like the military. This place needs an approach geared more towards herding cats than rounding up cattle. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My! Do I spy an IP with a bit of sense? Much obliged, Mr IP. RGloucester 00:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This entire situation is a good example for any returning editors (but especially admins) as to going slow if you've been away for a few months or more. It's easy to read WP:UPDATE for a quick check of policy changes; but Wikipedia does indeed evolve beyond that. There are things that fall out of favor (see: WP:PLAXICO) even if they aren't inscribed in the hallowed almighty "policy pages". Certain words and phrases become taboo, various practices become modified, and the lay of the land does change. (there's a reason they came up with that "1 year absent = desysop" thing. Personally I'd like to consider Coffee a friend, and I have what I consider "friends" on both sides of this debate. I applaud Jehochman for his efforts to broker an acceptable solution, and I hope it works. And at the risk of citing WP:PERJIMBO, he once volunteered to eschew the use of admin. tools. Perhaps if Coffee would be willing to do so for a certain amount of time, as a good faith gesture, it would help to avoid a long and distasteful RFAR. (just throwing that out there). — Ched :  ?  21:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The only reason I don't want to temporarily stop using my tools is due to the constant backlogs I'm seeing and helping out with. If we had more active administrators I'd take a brief break in a heartbeat. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • One of the best reasons I've ever seen. One very real considerations here is whether we are overburdening the admin corps and whether trying to perform admin duties in and of itself, given the number of them, is reasonably draining on the few editors who do them. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You could (if you wanted) keep pitching in with the backlogs, while stepping back from the bigger dramas involving longtime editors. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Making a "good faith gesture" in response to people who target anyone trying to block An Unblockable only magnifies the problems we face in enforcing legitimate sanctions. After enough stirred-up storms, eventually the last green bottle falls. If action is to be taken, let Arbcom take it for a thorough and considered review, not the ANI kangaroo court. BethNaught (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think taking a voluntary break is a good idea for practical reasons. Let the backlogs grow. If people get annoyed enough they will promote more admins. RFA has gotten to be ridiculously stringent. We really can't know who will be a good admin until we give them a try. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Jehochman and AQFK above. Taking a break and letting the backlog grow might lead to either admins (not a bad thing) or people realizing that admins make mistakes and are human and maybe cutting them some occasional slack (also not a bad thing). John Carter (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Should admins exist?[edit]

It's not at all clear that WP would function any differently without Admins. (except in a small number of functions such as checkuser and revdel in rare circumstances.) SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Make that the second most ridiculous comment in the thread today. Wikipedia would literally fall apart if vandals/spammers weren't blocked. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow. As a long time Wikipedia editor and former administrator of several different websites, I can't believe you could actually believe that. Not only do admins have to prevent vandals, spammers and continued disruption, they have to listen to the whining and endless complaining of everyone too. And try to be fair and neutral. It's a pain in the ass, and there is no pay. It's just incredible that you would believe such an obvious falsity. Dave Dial (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't agree, and I've made the same argument as SPECIFICO for many years. There are any number of ways to get rid of adminship and still maintain the site, from creating new filters, to using new bots, to devolving the tools and distributing them to those who will make good use of them. Adminship as it stands today is merely a control mechanism for maintaining hierarchy and power relationships, the very thing a wiki model is supposed to prevent. As others have recently said on related talk pages, Wikipedia has failed to grow as a project and remains a decade behind other sites and technologies. The users here seem more concerned with maintaining the status quo than in encouraging vision and foresight. SPECIFICO, don't throw your pearls before swine... Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to your belief Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy. It has never been the goal of Wikipedia to prevent hierarchy and power relationships, little known fact we are actually here to write an encyclopedia. As far as the goal of making an encyclopedia goes, which site are we falling behind? Chillum 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What a silly straw man. I have expressed no belief. Read our article on wiki: "While a wiki is a type of content management system, it differs from a blog or most other such systems in that the content is created without any defined owner or leader, and wikis have little implicit structure, allowing structure to emerge according to the needs of the users." Adminship has intentionally thwarted the original model and inserted a hierarchical power structure where none previously existed in a manner contrary to its very nature. System maintenance in a wiki should be as emergent as content building, easily accomplished through a nexus of user-generated ratings and moderation interfacing with filters and bots. "Sysops" and admins are an ancient throwback to the centralized computing era. Emergent, self-organized systems aren't "anarchic", they are highly ordered. Viriditas (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Viriditas: that is a grossly inaccurate statement and you've been here long enough and edited enough to be more than fully aware that Wikipedia 'remains a decade behind other sites and technologies' due solely to the Foundation that refuses to invest donors' funds in the right directions. We the volunteers are constantly lobbying them in the strongest possible terms to address such issues. There is very little, apart from the excellent off-Wiki outreach work by unpaid volunteers, that can change your status quo. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Lara says it best: "Same players, same complaints, same defenses. It's like going back to high school and oddly finding your old classmates are still there, sticking with the same clicks, fighting the same rivals, and all members of the same clubs. Where's the evolution? I expected there to have been grand improvements to the site, its policies, and the community after so many years. So sad to see that it hasn't changed."[203] Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Is this some kind of Bizarro World, where the opposite means the same? That quote doesn't support your point, it contradicts it. Removing admins and the so-called hierarchy would make it more like high school. If one wants a free-for-all where anything goes, that's what Usenet was/is. This is supposed to be a project that is building an encylopedia. Dave Dial (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It directly supports what I said up above: "As others have recently said on related talk pages, Wikipedia has failed to grow as a project and remains a decade behind other sites and technologies". It does not, as Kudpung claims above, have anything to do with the Foundation. It has to to do with the users, many of whom put up roadblocks to change of any kind, such as eliminating adminship. Do at least try to follow along. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If only Admins were able to interpret facts and enforce policy, WP would not be constituted, as it is, to enable blocks and bans to be enacted by Community consensus on ANI and elsewhere. Admins or non-Admins may close Noticeboard and talk page threads based on consensus, not on their personal Admins' opinions or special Admins' powers. We all revert vandalism and spam, and editors' knowledge of the articles and subjects in which they edit generally equips them to identify issues which need to be brought to Noticeboards for wider scrutiny. Many Admins do a great service to the Community but I see no reason why that depends on their official role. These are just clear-thinking folks who would in most cases be just as effective as civilian editors. SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll leave it to others to decide whether we're far enough off-topic to warrant a hat. In the meantime, are you suggesting that all 130,000 active editors should have the power to block and protect? Block and protect are obviously needed tools, so we either restrict the power to admins or give it to everyone. Even if you required a consensus for the action, we all know that that requirement for content is not enough to prevent edit wars, so you're talking about widespread block wars and the need for a new equivalent of AN/EW. What am I missing here? ―Mandruss  09:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I got pinged into this... Adminship's existence isn't the problem. It's the culture on Wikipedia. Humans are fallible and emotional creatures who make mistakes. Too often good faith and benefit of the doubt are withheld by many of those involved in discussions about those mistakes, and some withhold as a standard. The value of an editor's or admin's overall contributions are also too often disregarded, a spotlight instead focused on errors. Further, admins are often argued as being the bourgeoisie to the non-admin proletariat, just in different terms. It's ridiculous. This thread is a good example. The notion contributes to a mob mentality that's counterproductive to the goals of the project.
Wikipedia doesn't have enough admins not only because of the above, but also because RFA has continued to grow more unreasonable as candidates are crucified for their mistakes as well. Few reasonable people want to sign up to deal with either of those faults in the system. And from a more personal place, it certainly doesn't help when admins who haven't abused their tools are stripped of them.
So, in my opinion, the culture has evolved to allow for far too much drama-mongering on a project that should promote greater expectations for content work and collaboration while discouraging anyone from participating primarily on these pages. The problematic hierarchy involves the self-promoted hall monitors, with or without adminship, who look for opportunities to police the site for bad behavior and then pull out their pitchfork when they find it.
So there's a few cents from a long-retired Wikipedian who parted largely over this culture that has unfortunately persisted for many years and seems only to have gotten worse. Lara 11:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
As a contributor who's been around longer barely, by a few months -- but who has focused in dispute resolution since Dec 2008 ... I don't see that. I think it's been pretty much the same. Same drama, different names in some cases, same names in other cases. NE Ent 13:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
You're quite wrong, Lara. Funny that this came up in another discussion about Coffee. The system here is quite 18th century, and administrators certainly are not the bourgeoisie. Administrators are the aristocracy. They manage and govern the estate (project). The bourgeoisie are the artisans. They craft the goods (i.e. content) that we provide. I'd argue that the bourgeoisie is accompanied by a petty bourgeoisie of less-dominant content creators. The peasantry are the farmers. They till the soil, doing maintenance and groundwork to facilitate the work of the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. It is a common mistake to posit the bourgeoisie as being the "upper class". The bourgeoisie is the middle class, the burghers (townspeople, people from a burgh). I believe this error comes from the country known as America. Their lack of an aristocracy created the bourgeoisie as an upper class. They had a more advanced capitalist system, so-to-speak. RGloucester 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the admin system should be overhauled and replaced with "modifiers" personally. Rather than issuing blocks they simply remove the offending messages from view. Then if the person reverts them 3 times they get blocked, no questions asked. At times admin tools are really needed, but when blocks are issued to regulars like this it really does nothing but cause trouble and needs to stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a form of tenure. If I can survive long enough, I'll be free to offend as I wish, with no threat of consequences. I like the sound of that, except that it will apply to everyone else too. ―Mandruss  11:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
No. I think everybody should be given just three chances in a given period. If they clearly break it then they're blocked for the remainder of the year. Some will resent that but I think it's the only way to really cut the bullshit that comes from these regular short blocks. And I know that if I was going to be blocked for a year I'd try particularly hard not to say something which will get be banned for that prolonged period. Use people's love of editing against them I think would work better.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. In your second sentence I think you meant "for one year", not "for the remainder of the year", which would guarantee Armageddon every year around Christmas. ―Mandruss  12:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 :-) Well, yes, haha!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there are many problems with the admin system at the moment. There is a problem of entrenchment and an "us versus them" attitude which can't be helpful. As an intermediate step, I would like to see the RFA system overhauled and made less arduous and more simple. Then, all admins should be required to re-apply for the tools (probably on a rolling basis) with new people encouraged to apply. Such admin positions should be fixed term only (say 3 years), after which they should be required to stand down for a break (say one year) before applying again. I like Dr. Blofeld's ideas, and suggest these ideas here could be combined with his ideas. I am not sure it could happen, because I suspect many will be unwilling to give up any tools, albeit possibly temporarily, as part of the new process. (By the way, if this happened, I would decline to act on any opportunity to apply again for quite a while).  DDStretch  (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, it's the "us versus them" culture which is to blame. And I really think that stems from the way admins function themselves and their rights, especially over established editors, I don't quite agree with Lara on that one that it's not the root cause. Admins always feel compelled to issue blocks just for the sake of saying "You can't do this" rather than putting in any real intelligent thought process into how to solve the real issue in the long term. If the admin system was reformed and you take away that culture in which some are seen to be above others and sanctimonious in a lot of situations you'd at least improve the climate I think. Jimbo professes that admins are not above others and should not be regarded differently, but in practice most of us perceive them that way. Something less bureaucratic is needed where that resentment of admin culture and cowboy behaviour doesn't exist, but problems still get resolved.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In an ideal world the current admin system would never have come into being. It was a sad wrong turn, a risible and indefensible aberration which seriously blighted what otherwise might have been a deeply noble enterprise. It seems beyond remedy now, the affliction is firmly in place and serious content builders at best are left with a role as martyrs. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(e/c x 2) I am, sadly, in agreement with you that the whole system should not have come into being as it exists now, and that there is little chance of change happening now. The other problem you raise of the imbalance between content builders and the rest is also something I think needs urgent attention. I think it could be redressed a little and unnecessary drama also be reduced a little if we had a rule that in order to type so many words on one of the drama boards, you would have to have written so many other words building content in a serious way. Of course, if you are involved in some issue that needs to be placed on any of these boards, the restriction could be relaxed somewhat. I am not sure if this would merely be shuffling the deckchairs around on the titanic, though.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem really is that we're charity, all volunteers who in good will contribute here freely. Yet with adminship and a bureaucratic way of dealing with a lot of things we're trying to be a formal institution where employees are on a salary and functioning professionally when we're really not. It's pretense. And it is a bit ridiculous given that we're all volunteers and don't have to be here anyway. I do think some admin tools are needed to block vandals and deal with certain things but I think there's a way to distribute tools without giving editors bureaucratic titles and encouraging an "us vs them culture". This sort of thing should never really exist in what is essentially a charity. I've long stated that we need reform, but nothing is ever done to change the system. Coffee's actions yesterday are just a reflection of the system which encourages pointless blocks for the sake of it. The point of admins should really be to maintain order but I think quite clearly we can see that Coffee's actions yesterday did quite the opposite and caused mass disorder, even if everybody who reacted is a part of it, including myself. We're even stuck with a main page from the Internet Jurassic era.. We need to evolve and try different things, but there's none of that on wikipedia, a major part of the overall problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
To the contrary, the purpose of adminship should be to help editors. A key part of the reason Wikipedia (mostly) surpassed printed encyclopedias is because it is (or should be) inherently dynamic, -- as the world changes, we change with it. There's far too much focus on "order" or "minimizing disruption" by a contingent of the editorship. The only question should be does this improve the encyclopedia, or help the editors who improve it? NE Ent 12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, that too. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

break[edit]

FACT Ain't a damn single person here with totally clean hands. Coffee you fucked up big time. Giano, you baited him into it and you damned well know it. The Eric thing was/is total bullshit. But it was Eric's choice to go there. You can fault Coffee for the overeager close and block - when the whole thing was a foregone conclusion the second it was posted. Admin abuse? You damn straight skippy = but it goes both ways. Y'all do what you want here .. but take a look in the mirror when you're done. — Ched :  ?  04:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(from the peanut gallery) Yes, and an Admin close of this sure would be welcome right about now, as this isn't getting anyone anywhere, and isn't the right forum for the prescribed action(s) anyway. --IJBall (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Uninvolved comment I think a one week block for both Coffee and Giano would work nicely to calm things down and stop this madness, then we consider whether Coffee should retain his tools. But alas, I'll get nothing but hate for this comment. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Blocking true editors is NOT a solution; it's a major part of the problem. — Ched :  ?  12:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Coffee - taking it to ArbCom[edit]

This is now a discussion about Coffee's competence with the block button - involving a controversial unblock, a controversial declining of an unblock request and two controversial blocks (three, if you include Eric's), most very recent. Above, I see "oppose votes" characterising this as a dispute over one block. And I see people who should know better (Ironholds - looking at you here, but not just you) characterising this as just another battle between disruptive factions associated with the GG taskforce, rather insulting to those of us who hold the view "a pox on both their houses."

I see incontrovertible evidence of incompetence with the block button and, admins being users just like the rest of us, see the obvious solution involving us giving Coffee a break from using that button until s/he's had time to reflect on how s/he uses it, and we develop more confidence in his/her judgement in its use. That would enable him/her, in the meantime, to continue contributing here (very constructively, apparently) in those areas that don't involve blocking others.

Still, that's, apparently, not going to happen here. The argument seems to be this board is fine for discussing and deciding bans and blocks of editors, but it's far too summary for very modestly sanctioning admins, who deserve a long, involved arbitration case before we can deal with them.

Before approaching arbcom, I'd like your advice about what to put before them. Above, concerns are expressed about

  • The blocking of Russian editor1996. [204]
  • Declining an unblock request about a block s/he had imposed. (Could someone please insert the link here if I don't get to it first?)
  • Unblocking Rationalobserver without discussing with the blocking admin. (Relevant links, please?)
  • Overreaction to criticism of the unblock of Rationalobserver. (Links please?)
  • Blocking Giano with no clear reasons or diffs given, even after a request for an explanation.[205] (I need links for the request from Giano for an explanation, and Coffee's alleged failure to provide one.)
  • Extending Giano's block and removing talk page access after some understandable venting by him.[206]
  • Three AFD closures overturned at deletion review recently. Coffee's misunderstanding of policy seems to have been cleared up per his/her response to Jehochman above.
  • Civility when dealing with people subjected to a block. (Diffs?)
  • The blocking of Eric Corbett.

Anything else? Please add diffs to the relevant bullet points above, if you have them. (I've followed diffs supporting most of this - I'm going offline for a few hours now. I'll re-read this thread and related links over the next day or so and find them if no one else does.) If you think other points need to be raised, please discuss them here before adding new bullet points above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are taking it to arbcom then why are you posting here? If it is an arbcom issue then ANI should not be your staging ground. Chillum 07:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
We're inside the relevant thread. Others may have good arguments against taking this to ArbCom, and I'd like to hear them. Those here who have opined above should have the opportunity to discuss the merits or otherwise, with ready reference to the above. And it would be good for this discussion to be very visible to those above - rather than hidden away in a sunpage. What's the downside with this being discussed here, precisely? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, you are welcome to talk about this here. I will watch with popcorn. Chillum 07:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is severe enough for an arb case yet. I'd suggest Coffee just stay away from administrative actions in high-drama situations for a while. That basically means anything involving the conflict-prone personalities we're all familiar with. There's tons of helpful, lower-profile ways to use the tools that aren't going to provoke any controversy and I don't see any complaints about Coffee in those areas (I haven't examined any logs or anything myself though). That is generally what new admins are advised to do after first passing RFA, until they get more comfortable and familiar with things. That seems to be something like Coffee's current situation, due to recent inactivity. To get philosophical for a minute, Wikipedia (like real life) is inherently messy; it's never going to be a well-oiled machine, you can't eliminate the bullshit, and it's not always a good idea to try to minimize the bullshit if eliminating a particular piece will also lose some flowers. All you can do is shovel it from one place to another and influence its creation to a limited extent. That takes spending some time building up judgment and navigation skills, since there's never going to be a policy page saying how to do it. And in some kinds of conflict (like the Eric-Lightbreather thing) there's no way to avoid getting bullshit stuck to you if you get too close to it, so it's safest to just keep some distance. The advice in Jehochman's numbered list is generally good, so I'd start by following it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My thinking at the moment is, if I do take this to ArbCom , as I presently intend to, I'll ask them for a finding on the appropriateness of Coffee's behaviour around blocking - particularly compliance with WP:BLOCK, WP:ADMINACCT and WP:CIVIL - and a warning to avoid using the block button, threatening its use, and declining unblock requests in cases other than obvious spamming, vandalism and user name violations (possibly some other categories) for a period. If Coffee agrees to that here, it'll save us all a lot of time. (I'm offline for a while now.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think Coffee understands the nature of the errors and will try to do much better going forward. I don't see a defiant attitude from him. Could you, Anthony, possibly give this a few days and see if Coffee follows the advice he's been given? Coffee has been an admin for a long time and has done a lot for the project. We shouldn't be too quick to toss people overboard when they run into a medical issue, as Coffee has mentioned above. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
To the contrary, per WP:NOTTHERAPY an admin whose real life situation interferes with their ability to use administrator tools beneficially needs to have the judgement to take a break; failing to do so and then using such a situation as an excuse is a strong indication they should not have the tools. NE Ent 13:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you agree with me. Coffee was advised to take a break, to avoid contentious actions when returning, etc all listed above. We should give it a few days and see if the advice is followed before anybody escalates this. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
With the deletion of RFC/U (admin) by the community with no designated replacement, it seems entirely appropriate to discuss overall admin activity here as anywhere else (I'd suggest a preference for AN over ANI, but that's a minor point). NE Ent 13:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see enough here that I'd support arbcom per my comment above [207]. Let's Coffee time to absorb the feedback they've been given; if there's a repeat suspect use of tools in the near future then it would be time to start talking AC. NE Ent 13:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole, I don't think ArbCom just yet is the best way to go. I would like to see Coffee take a few days to think this over, and then perhaps agree to a year-long restriction on the use of the block button, which would allow all of us to avoid an ArbCase while retaining an admin who could still use the tools in other areas. I do not, however, think this should be resolved with just wait-and-see; I'd like to see a restriction imposed by the community for a defined period of time wrt the block button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sandy, I'm OK with 6 months, and allowing Coffee to use the block button in areas like obvious vandalism and user name blocks (and other areas proposed by Coffee), so that they can continue working here pretty much as they have up to now while avoiding inter-editor disputes. If Coffee proposes something like that or says something else that gives me confidence the recent problems won't be repeated, I'll be very happy forget about the time sink that is ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, except for the "obvious vandalism" part ... there was a lapse in judgment in that regard on the block/unblock I point out regarding the Incel article, and the incident below (about User Juzumaru) needs to be looked at. I would like to see Coffee agree to no blocking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Uh. OK. I'll take a careful look at that Incel block/unblock tomorrow - it's bedtime. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee had also indefinitely blocked Juzumaru, and disabled both email, talk page. Editor had no history of socking, vandalizing, or any other serious offense. VandVictory (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
On its face that appears to be a good block. I'll read the history tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@User:VandVictory: I find the very idea that anyone would suggest Juzumaru could be unblocked solely because of suspicion of the blocking admin nine months later abhorrent. The user was a troll who never made a single positive edit to Wikipedia, here only to get in fights with Korean nationalists (and users like me who he wrongly assumed were Korean nationalists), casting aspersions against anyone who disagreed with him (again, I'm not a Korean nationalist), forum-shopping (demanding that I discuss English Wikipedia issues with him on Japanese Wikipedia in his native language), making incoherent talk page comments (he literally used Google Translate), deleting material he didn't like with no explanation, and adding OR (the only sources he ever cited with ancient Chinese chronicles) that was written in terrible English. The personal attacks he made against me on Japanese Wikipedia even after Coffee blocked him here don't need repeating, but if you want details you can email me. While the blocklog may have been poorly worded (Coffee is a busy man, and I respect him for taking the time to read through massive ANI fusterclucks), his ANI close clearly specified the actual reasoning for the block as being a clear-cut case of WP:NOTHERE -- reasoning no one could in good faith disagree with. Coffee clearly wasn't planning on other users going back over the blocklogs months later, and so only cited the actual reason for the block on the relevant ANI thread. Hijiri 88 (やや) 17:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
He was an anti-Korean troll. But one month block would've been enough unless Coffee had community consensus. Even if indefinite block could be justified, still why Coffee had disabled talk and email access? VandVictory (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
E-mail and talk were blocked too, because the impetus for me requesting a block was his posting trolling comments for me on his own talk page. I must reiterate that he wasn't actually editing articles in the immediate past, he was only engaging me in frustrating dialogue in Japanese, and he was using his talk page to do that. E-mail ban was not requested if I recall, but it seems like a valid measure. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It is normal to deny talk page access to trolls, because they are trolls. Chillum 17:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Reneging on an assurance, made to get a successful unblock, by Rationalobserver[edit]

@Rationalobserver: gave an assurance to Coffee that she would not engage in disruptive behaviour again when she appealed against the block I imposed on her for two weeks, and he reversed it around 10 hours after it had been imposed. She wrote: "If you unblock me I promise to not repeat the negative and disruptive behaviors that got me blocked." here, However, I see that she is engaging in this thread here, where she is getting involved in drama again by referring to a group of people who she alleges is somehow in collusion against her, and this is inflaming the situation and adding to the drama. She had previously done the same kind of thing (going back on an assurance), because she had been enaged in problematic behaviour before, admitted the mistake, and apologized, but later reneged on that promise, resulting in the problematic block/unblock here, She is doing it again here. I ask an uninvolved admin to ake the correct action, because I feel I am unable to do so. The previous block involved a promise from Rationalobserver that she is breaking. Surely this means that the block needs to be re-imposed, or that a new block is issued on the basic of the false promise given before?  DDStretch  (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree that a re-block should be applied; Coffee warned RO that they would be blocked for six months for any repeat of the same behaviourhere, which was accepted, and here yet as shown by DDStretch in the link above, RO promptly rescinded that agreement. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The irony of a six month block on a thread of a admin being accused of being heavy handed is pretty nuts. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What Coffee is being accused of depends heavily on the evidence available to those seeking negative accusations. If he blocks someone he is being too heavy handed, however when he unblocks someone they are saying he is biased. He said he would be happy to reblock if there was a reason and was accused of being "happy to block". The apparent irony is the result of people trying to shoe-horn whatever facts they can into evidence of wrongdoing regardless of the merit. I would disregard it as the mud flinging that it is. Chillum 16:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we should ignore the details of the length of block, as, at this stage, this will divert us from the issue of what to do when an editor breaks a promise they made in order to get a block removed, and when they had a previous history of reneging on a promise made (as the diffs I supplied show).  DDStretch  (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Her most recent edits have been to work on a featured article candidate. I'm of a mind to tell her that for the next two weeks, she should restrict her participation to article work only, no noticeboards, and to refrain completely from commenting on other contributors. If that doesn't work, then I would re-apply the two week block. Is that ok? It feels like a reblock for one poor edit is not going to calm the situation; more likely to inflame things. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Jehochman, Rationalobserver's most recent edits are to Jimbo Wales. [208] Rationalobserver to Jimbo Wales, [209] to Jimbo Wales, [210] to Jimbo Wales. And to Victoriaearle[211]. And most recently to ANI under heading "User:Cheatspace - copyright infringement with a side of personal attacks)" [212] This isn't article writing. EChastain (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wouldn't find that acceptable; it would simply be a repeat of what has been happening for weeks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I could be able to agree to that. However, she does need careful managing for a while, I think, because of her tendency to back-slide, and there are some who think she is too combative in her content work as well. However, we are in the job of writing content in an encyclopedia, and if she is doing that, then all could be well, so long as she moderates the way in which she interacts with people. We need to be very aware that she is very likely to back-slide, though, which might make this solution unacceptable to many. I must say, I tend to share their worries.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Patience is often an excellent tactic. How about waiting to see if Rationalobserver makes another bad-faith assuming type of post, and then apply a block promptly? I've pinged her, and if she's smart, she'll read this thread and get the message. Jehochman Talk 13:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I give up, I really do. SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I do think something needs to be done about her tactic, now used twice (in one case to have a block removed) of promising to avoid drama, and then promptly engaging in it again. I think something needs to be done specifically about that tactic.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It certainly does. Especially here where it is so clear. But not just here, also in general. Forgiveness is fine, admirable and wonderful, but wikipedia needs to learn the difference between "giving more chances" and enabling long-term disruption. That balance is very wrong, right now, and the result is not going to be anything good. Decisions like this set the environment and select the group willing to remain involved, in the long term. Choosing the option "oh, yeah, disrupt, say sorry, disrupt again" is one way. Doesn't feel like the right way, to me. [/rant] Begoontalk 14:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that she has a two week block imposed on her immediately. This is there to demonstrate that she cannot escape the consequences of obtaining an unblock under false pretences. The extra time is just to show, as a strong message to her and others, that using false pretences to escape a block has consequences. Thus it would be preventative. After that time, what you suggest could then be tried, but I am not sure that it would work, because I think her problematic behaviour may well be entrenched. However, she does deserve a chance to show she has changed her ways.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Revolving door blocks don't really help. If she's that much of a problem, make a case for some sort of ban. Jehochman Talk 14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JEH. Indefinite blocks exist for a reason. They are not forever, they are until the user convinces the community there is no longer any risk the disruption will continue. Here, the user has shown, more than once, that a simple "promise" the behaviour will not be an ongoing problem cannot be trusted. We now need more than that, so an indefinite block until such assurance is convincingly provided seems the obvious solution. Begoontalk 14:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a blessing to this community to give it a break from this person for 6 weeks. Let's see how things go after that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Because 6 weeks will cause something to change that 2 weeks wouldn't?. No, a block is appropriate until we think an unblock is appropriate. Magical, "how long do we think is long enough?" calculations and guesses seem bizarre to me. Begoontalk 14:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Six weeks gives the community a 6 week holiday from this person. It's not about corrections or therapy for Rationalobserver. It's giving us a break. Then we watch to see if the break has wrought any change on her. If not, we ban her.
If we apply an indefinite block, how are we to judge whether or not to let her back. Do we rely on her commitments? Experience seems to devalue that idea. I'm happy to change my mind; I'm just not seeing how your proposal would work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
If we apply an indefinite block, how are we to judge whether or not to let her back.? As we always would. When we are convinced the disruption would not recur. If history makes that a difficult call, so be it. That's why the admins are so highly paid. Begoontalk 15:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My question is, how will we be thus convinced? On what evidence would you base a conviction that Rationalobserver should return? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be difficult. I'd have to see the arguments. I'd be happy not to allow an account to edit like this, though. Begoontalk 16:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jehochman, patience is great; are you willing to do the work examining her edits? (She's been blocked before but it was overturn, the result of a secret email to Mike V if I remember correctly.) This ANI is a result of her disruption on articles. Her misunderstanding of the en:wiki processes appears fundamental. It's questionable if she understood her promise when she agreed to the conditions of her unblock. (She had lengthy discussions with Moonriddengirl on the subject of WP:Close paraphrasing back in October, but her recent GA was passed with numerous close paraphrasing concerns. See Talk:Rose-Baley Party). You say: "I've pinged her, and if she's smart, she'll read this thread and get the message." I guess we'll see. EChastain (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Question: why are your edit summaries "Rationalobserver's most recent edits are to Jimbo Wales"/"her most recent post are to Jimbo Wales"[213] when you don't mention any substance regarding this in your edit? AnonNep (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: indefinite block for Rationalobserver[edit]

I'd hoped to have disengaged from this thread... but the mess is, well, getting messier. I think one thing is clear though; Rationalobserver has shown that she cannot be trusted. If you are blocked for disruptive editing and promise to not do so again in order to be unblocked, you cannot immediately go back on that promise. I think Rationalobserver has long since proven that she causes far more harm than good, and considering that admins are refusing to block her for violating a crystal-clear restriction that she agreed to, I think we have little choice but to discuss an indefinite block. And this time, if the block is to be lifted, it needs discussing by the community, not just one admin who falls for her falsehoods. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Rationale in section above. Begoontalk 14:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting, but just to be clear, this is a community ban proposal. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Standard questions at RFA about the difference between indef block and community ban applies :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I see no evidence in the way of diffs that Rationalobserver has violated the conditions of her unblock request. Shouldn't a proposal to remove someone permanently from WP have evidence? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
First post in the section immediately above. HTH. Begoontalk 15:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In that section, RO's "oppose" vote (which doesn't appear to violate the conditions of her unblock request) is linked [214] RO commenting on her own talk page in a manner which does not appear to violate the condition of her unblock request is also linked [215] along with the conditions of her unblock request.[216] I don't agree with everything RO says or does, but I think she might be on to something when she mentions "popularity contest". This all seems to be degrading into a popularity contest, rather than being based on wiki policies and evidence. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rational is great when it comes to improving articles to GA status, losing her would be a net negative to Wikipedia. There has been mud slinging just as bad going on here and agree with Jehochman that a community ban proposal would be a better way of putting it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Knowledgekid87 is incorrect. Rose-Baley Party was controversial, full of close paraphrasing, and Knowledgekid87, you encouraged and supported Rationalobserver in her actions to prevented Victoriaearle from being allowed to post on the article talk page. That controversy is in large part why we are at this ANI today. Rationalobserver's not collaborative in article writing. A case of WP:OWN on Rose-Baley Party[217] and Irataba.[218] EChastain (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
So were you arguing against the "got out of blocks twice by promising not to do the same thing again, but then just went and did the same thing again each time" rationale, or was there something more substantial? Begoontalk 15:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Im saying too that there are alternate things to blocking. Blocks should be done as a last resort, given Rational's contributions I feel that a topic ban or IB could be floated around first. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. I admire your tolerance for corrosive contributors. I don't share it. Begoontalk 15:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Knowledgekid87, you do realise that you, have just broken your promise made to me to stay out of drama and concentrate entirely on writing content, and it was on that condition I agreed to unblock you early from a 72 hour block. Here is the relevant diff: here. Can we have some explanation why you just can't seem to avoid commenting on drama, even after making a promise to avoid it all? I feel rather sad that you have let yourself and myself down in this way, less than 24 hours after making such promises. By the way, Squinge. I am not angry here, I am being quite calm and rational about the issue of people making promises and then reneging on them, and the need for something to be done about this behaviour.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The comment above addresses an indef ban of another editor who I feel has done a-lot to help Wikipedia just as you say you feel for the common editor I felt I had to say something here. Im not causing any more drama or naming any more editors I am simply saying from the things I have seen that Rational has done a good job with GA related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I read the diff and your promise was not "I will not cause drama" but "I will stay away from drama". Multiple times. Any post in a thread about a proposed block is hardly staying away from drama, and that goes double when you are involved with the subject. Just sayin. ―Mandruss  17:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Drama is everywhere on Wikipedia but I have struck my comment above, I will take ANI off my watch-list as it looks like even opposing an indef block is drama related. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've read all of this section with increasing dismay, because what I mostly see is over-reaction upon over-reaction, and almost everyone stoking the flames of confrontation when the aim should be to calm things and focus on what we all surely have in common. People need to walk away, calm down, and stop behaving like schoolchildren fighting in the playground. There might be a problem with Rationalobserver's behaviour, I offer no judgment on that, but the inflamed tempers of here and now make this not the right way to deal with it, and a hot-headed indefinite block is almost certainly not the best solution. It needs to be dealt with by calm heads, and there are few of those on display in this sorry saga. Squinge (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Should have happened long ago. I endorse the comments per above. CassiantoTalk 15:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - She promised to not be disruptive .... But all's I'm seeing is disruption, LB ought to indeffed too!. –Davey2010Talk 15:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - to fully understand the situation I suggest looking at her contribs since about 18 or 19 Feb. I've been in dispute with her and so welcome scrutiny of my contribs as well. I won't !vote because of the dispute, nor will I cherrypick diffs. This is a community decision and should be made impartially and neutrally. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 16:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Squinge, Knowledgekid87, and my previous comment. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is not anyone's first account, the first real editing was done to a WP project page. RO has done about half of their editing work to mainspace but has also filed an AE report against Eric Corbett and definitely has trolled Eric Corbett on his talk page. The minimum outcome here should be a warning that the next episode of trolling Prominent Enemies of the Civility Police will be their last activity on WP. Corbett is being bear-baited and bear-baiting needs to be banned. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No question about that; it's hard to remember a time when Eric wasn't being baited... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm digging through edit history. This is absolutely, positively somebody's alternative account, based on the early heavy editing of Manual Of Style-related pages. THIS is diff worthy of bringing up here if we are weighing Net Positive v. Net Negative, I think. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
......Filed a pretty much specious AN/ complaint against Giano for making a "legal threat" at Jimbotalk... LINK. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
.......Then amusingly goes 180 degrees making a virtually identical observation about American law shortly thereafter! LINK. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Fisticuffs with Giano over a SockPuppet Investigation. LINK. Bad feeling both directions. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My sense is that this was a Net Negative account until December, when the mainspace editing started in earnest (outside of early Led Zeppelin work)... Carrite (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • Oppose a site ban at this time. Favor a strong Knock It The Fuck Off with particular reference to baiting Eric Corbett and Giano. Don't talk about them, stay off of their pages, don't file cases against them, just leave them the hell alone and they will leave you alone. RO also needs to make clear on their talk page that this is a "new" account of a previous user with an identity declared to ArbCom. Failing to do this was the source of the SPI drama and much of the bad feeling. If RO is here to improve the encyclopedia, that should become clear. If they're here to wage gender/civility war, that will also become clear. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • When did we go from 6 months to indef? I think 6 months is a bit stiff. A long block would do, 4-8 weeks. Any unblock request should take into account the previous unblock requests and behavior after(as in no unblock this time). Chillum 16:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose community banning at this time, as someone who was on the receiving end of the disruption that led to rationalobserver's last block. I do think it would be appropriate if the two-week block was reinstated. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment When I said, "I won't even mention them in passing", I was referring to non-AN/I talkpages and two specific editors. It did not occur to me that people would expect me to stay away from An/I threads related to Giano, who wasn't one of the specific editors I was referring to in the first place. I agree to take An/I off my watchlist for the foreseeable future, but a punitive block now for one good-faith An/I comment seems hypocritical when many of the same people supporting it are those who Wikilawyered "militant feminist" so that it wasn't an insult to a group of editors. I assume I retain the right to defend myself here, but it can be very difficult to understand all the rules when some are apparently entirely exempt from them, and others are held to a much stricter standard. To repeat, I won't edit An/I for a while, and I won't disrupt any talk pages, which is what I was blocked for in the first place. There is no need for a preventative block, so any block would be punitive and reactionary. Also, Victoria is right to suggest a look at my diffs prior to February 19 or so, because before she bombarded me with false sock-puppet accusations I was busy improving the encyclopedia, and I was staying out of drama. The SPI riled me up, but I'm over it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Carrite, this is not an alternate account, but I did have a previous one that has been declared to ArbCom. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. You might mention that fact on your user page. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Last edit. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, sure. Is there a standard template or UB, or do I just state that? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
A statement of some sort is pretty important. Best practice is to link to the name of the previous account unless there is some strong privacy or safety worry in doing that. Carrite (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
My previous account was in my real name, which is why I retired it and made this one, so I don't want to link to it, obviously. I'll put a statement up there now though. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. Carrite (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose : Proposer claims 'Rational Observer' (RO) 'cannot be trusted' based on this [219] unblock statement. RO promised they wouldn't "comment at Drmies or Eric Corbett's talk page ever again, nor will I even mention them in passing" and hasn't. They also promised they would "not repeat the negative and disruptive behaviors that got me blocked" They were mentioned by others in a completely different forum and responded to that [220]. What's the alternative, RO could not respond, ever, at all, to allegations made in another forum? Nowhere near indef block territory. (NB. edit conflict repost) AnonNep (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment For anybody saying that I am not here to build an encyclopedia, I want you to know that I've spent more than $50 procuring sources for just one article. I've also made more than 1,700 edits to article space in 6 months, which is almost 10 edits per day. In comparison, this is my 91st edit to An/I during that same time, or about .5 edits per day. I.e., for each edit I've made to An/I, I've made 20 contributions to article space. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: firstly this is a pretty slapdash proposal, offering no detailed evidence, so we should not be wasting our time over it. A responder suggests this diff from another post from a previous section as a ground. Looking at that, RO was clearly intending to be constructive there, although she did go on to say more than was sensible about other editors, so she needs to be careful to avoid that. Another contributor appears to be suggesting that being the major contributor to an article is a ground for a community ban. This is clearly nonsense: I have contributed 97.4% of the text of the longest article I have created, with no suggestion from myself or anybody else that I "own" it. That presumably indicates that anyone who has looked at the articles was reasonably happy with what they saw. As far as Irataba is concerned, RO has reverted none of my edits so far and has responded enthusiastically to my suggestions at the FAC review, so I have seen no indication of ownership problems there. --Mirokado (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Today Rationalobserver continues to post to drama boards: 1. [221] Rationalobserver to Jimbo Wales, 2. [222] to Jimbo Wales, 3. [223] to Jimbo Wales. 4. to Victoriaearle[224]. And 5. most recently to ANI under heading "User:Cheatspace - copyright infringement with a side of personal attacks)" [225] Was this allowed under her unblock deal? EChastain (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    • RO's 'unblock deal', as you term it, is here [226]. Where does it state RO will never comment to, as you term it, 'drama boards', ever again? There are promis4es made. They do not appear to be broken. Maybe you should WP:DROPTHESTICK? AnonNep (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose In general terms, I don't believe, unless there is clear vandalism or incivility, that an editor should get a block lifted and the next day face an indefinite block vote. RO made promises about her future behavior and I think she, and the community, need an adequate amount of time to judge whether she can abide by the terms of her unblocking.
Secondly, I don't think posting a suggestion about WP on Jimbo's page is a visit to the "drama boards".
Finally, there are many eyes on RO due to promises she made and rather than this knee-jerk response of rushing to an indefinite block because some editors dislike her and want to punish her, she should only face a 6 month or 12 month block if she has done something that warrants such a block and the block is preventing damage to WP. Right now, I don't think these circumstances exist and feelings about RO are clearly personally-driven and not about policy. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Motion to close this thread, and news about Coffee[edit]

I think Coffee may have left. He's blanked his user and talk pages.

Look I know people are upset about Coffee, Giano and Rationalobserver. But I really feel the conduct in this thread may have been destructive to the morale of the community as a whole, and the fallout may be considerable. And I'm not talking about Giano and Rationalobserver, but about a number of other involved editors. I would implore an uninvolved experienced editor to close this at the earliest possible opportunity. There really doesn't seem to be any consensus for further action against Giano or Rationalobserver. Coffee seems to be out of the game, and I feel that any thought of going to ArbCom at present should be delayed until more is known. Because of this I feel we should try to assume good faith, and move on for the time being.


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


NAC revert[edit]

Issue has had a reasonable airing and with respect to all parties there is not a lot to see:

  • The Banner breached WP:XFD by reopening a closed debate in which they had participated. It's not the end of the world, but please don't do this - - the better course would have been to contest the close at WP:DRV.
  • Alakzi closed a "close call" debate which might have been better left for an uninvolved admin per WP:NACD. The definition of "close call" is arguable either way so, y'know, keep a general eye on this in order to avoid future drama.
  • Alakzi was within rights to request that the close simply be reinstated. However they have since withdrawn that request as additional contributors to the debate may have shifted consensus. Any new close is a matter for those watching the TfD, rather than one for ANI.
  • None of the above is serious enough to justify blocks, topic bans or any other routine ANI tool.
  • As a consequence of this discussion the TfD has been re-enlivened. Everyone with an interest in ultralight aircraft and/or template issues is urged to contribute. Alakzi (or anyone else), please feel free to re-close the TfD when/if the consensus is (re)established. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My closure of the Template:Ameri-Cana Ultralights aircraft TfD was reverted by the nominator. Per WP:NACD, "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice ...". Therefore, I request that my closure is reinstated. User:The Banner should follow process if he'd like to have it overturned. I've asked the editor to revert himself on his talk page, but he refused. Alakzi (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As an addendum: TfD is backlogged, so I've been trying to help; the only admin who regularly closes TfDs is User:Martijn Hoekstra. I think these are all of my closes: [227]; [228]; [229]; [230]; [231]; [232]; [233]; [234]; [235]; [236]; [237]; [238]. If the community believes them to be inadequate, then I will not close any more TfDs. Alakzi (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Mr. Alakzi: WP:NACD explicitly states Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. You are no admin and this case is controversial. So it is you have have breached the guidelines for non-admin closure. The Banner talk 11:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a recommendation (quoting: "better left"). However, the guideline is quite unambiguous on the point that participants should not revert a NAC. Alakzi (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • NACD is clear enough in its message: "If in doubt, don't do it. Leave it to an admin". And sorry to say, but you did not get the essence of the discussion that is a conflict between a general rule (policy? guideline?) and a locally reached consensus. The Banner talk 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
        • There's no "rule" and no consensus either (which you'd know, if you were to read my close rationale). Any admin could've "botched" the close, but you thought it right to breach the guideline and revert me 'cause I'm not one. The proper way to get a close invalidated is WP:DRV. Alakzi (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
          • You should have not closed it in the first place. The Banner talk 11:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
            • You seem to have trouble distinguishing between a recommendation and an express guideline. Also, two "wrongs" don't make a right. If you thought me to have had overstepped, you should've talked to me first or sought the assistance of an uninvolved admin. Alakzi (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: 3 voted for keep and 3 voted for delete, excluding the nominator. If there is some strong argument for deletion, you can request any other admin to assess the consensus. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I have voted too now. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That's inappropriate, if not tendentious. You shouldn't !vote while we're arguing an improper reopening. Alakzi (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to comment on this close myself; I'm involved in this one, and my opinion about this close doesn't have much value. But I do want to say that generally, I think the closes of Alakzi are of very good quality, as a ballpark figure, I would have closed about 90% the same way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Note. Three people have !voted after (because) the revert's been brought up here. For that reason, I no longer support my original close being restored. However, I'd still like to know if The Banner, or anybody else, is permitted to revert NACs on a whim and go unchallenged. The following is what I've said on his talk page.
I maintain that my not having heeded a recommendation or supposed lack of experience are not substantive objections; therefore, they're not grounds to overturn a NAC. What's more, it was overturned unilaterally; if left unchallenged, that will ipso facto invalidate all of my past and future closures. Alakzi (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

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


Catflap08 ignoring what I say and abusing RFD, and seems to have serious CIR issues[edit]

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has been displaying serious WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai articles. After trying to cite the fringe theory that Kenji was a nationalist in the lead of that article and being soundly undone by his own RFC last summer, he recently started trying to add the words "he was the member of the Kokuchukai" to the lead with the expressed purpose of readers clicking the link and reading his unbalanced and poorly written article that describes the lay Buddhist group solely in terms of the politics of its nationalist founder.

I recently noticed that in fact his article on Kokuchukai was factually inaccurate regarding the founding date. I removed the earlier refs because I assumed Catflap had consulted these sources and got his factually inaccurate information there. He readded the sources without changing the dates and then explicitly stated on the talk page that the sources actually had no connection to the material they were attached to. He has also violated WP:RFC's requirement for an accurate, neutral summary on three separate occasions in this dispute.[239][240][241]

But now he has gone a step further by explicitly adding sources to the Kenji article unrelated to the material, solely to troll me.[242] I'd like to request a TBAN on Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, although given that this user has admitted to attaching sources to statements they don't support on purpose, and doesn't seem to understand why that's wrong, a CIR block might be appropriate.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I filed an RfC on both cases I will wait for the outcome of that. Please also note in the case of deleting references WP:CENSOR. Some of the comments you left are close to personal attacks btw. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Which comments? ―Mandruss  13:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Being called “stubborn”, Clumsy, having a “plan”, “sneaking” information into articles, unable to listen, “poorly-written article”, this tone in my mind is aggresive and close to personal attack - not there yet but close. Please note that nobody denies (including mentioning the Kokuchukai issue in Miyazawa’s translations) the guy’s membership in the organisation. I originally reverted the deletion of the user in question that made reference to Miyazawa’s membership in Kokuchokai – as the lede is also about summarising the context of the article. He then went on in the article on Kokuchukai. The issue about Miyazawa being called a nationalist was settled in June 2014. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Note the lack of diffs. Catflap wants to hide the context of those quotes because it portrays him in an even worse light than my diffs above. Note also how I've had to indent Catflap's response to User:Mandruss for him; this is another recurring pattern and adds to the impression that he is ignoring people. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well in my books your comments are out there in the respective talk pages including your “plan”-theory. I made my point clear more than once. A) your deletion of mentioning the guy’s membership in the lede. B) You questioning the article on the organisation he was member of c) The nature of the organisation today is irrelevant to what the organisation was like when he joined c) continuously deleting references. Secondly due to experience I tend to seek a RfC these days first.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in this thread or complaint other than perhaps vindictiveness on the part of the original filer and perhaps a bit of harassment of the person agaibst whom the complaint has been filed. It appears that RfC, which is one of the suggested ways to deal with such complaints is being used. On that basis, I suggest that this thread be closed as requiring no action except, perhaps, a trout slapping to the original filer for apparently abusing ANI for no good purpose. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@User:John Carter: The user in question filed an RFC on whether the subject should be referred to as a "nationalist" because he was a member of the group Kokuchukai last June, was opposed by seven other users, and dropped out for a few months. In December, he came back and tried to replace "he was a devout Buddhist" (wording used by virtually every reliable source on the topic) with "he was a member of the Kokuchukai" (wording that is hardly ever used outside of English Wikipedia as edited by Catflap). He explicitly stated on the talk page that he wanted readers to click the link to his own poorly-written, mostly OR article on the group (it appears he pulled a significant portion of the specifics "facts" out of thin air and attached sources that say something else). He stated himself that he thinks "a member of the Kokuchukai" is coterminous with "a nationalist". Therefore, his most recent RFC on the topic "should the lede call him a member of the Kokuchukai" is the same as his previous RFC on the topic "should the lede call him a nationalist". He has outright ignored any attempt I have made to discuss any of this material with him on the talk page over the last eight months. He has also been grossly misrepresenting sources. I provided all the necessary diffs in the post above. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Was I just called a "jackass" [243]?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "jackass" was the wrong word, but you've been trying my patience about this issue (SERIOUSLY, WHY THE HELL CAN'T YOU READ OTHER PEOPLE'S TALKPAGE COMMENTS AND RESPOND RATIONALLY WITHOUT IMMEDIATELY RUNNING TO AN OR RFC!?) every time it's come up over the past year. You need to stop NOW. Hijiri 88 (やや) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 An RfC means a request for comment. It is up to my discretion when I fell that another opinion is needed. I do not plan to debate this for weeks on end. I reported your insult within this very discussion here [244]. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not free to constantly reopen closed RFCs on the same topic and slightly alter the wording each time so they look like new RFCs. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Catflap's AN thread is boomeranging but ANI is where blocks are user behaviour complaints are supposed to be made. Over there User:JzG said that he was behaving like a jackass and deserved to be called one, Special:Contributions/207.38.156.219 said that worse epithets were called for, and User:John Carter said that my use of foul language was not actionable but an IBAN might be called for. I don't think a mutual IBAN would be appropriate, since in this case I have not done anything wrong, merely tried to force Catflap to edit within the consensus that he himself brought about with his last RFD. A TBAN on the area in which Catflap has been editing disruptively (Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, both broadly construed) would solve the immediate problem of his disruptive editing and violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUMSHOP, but his failure to understand how English Wikipedia sourcing works in general is of broader concern. Now that I know Catflap edits contentiously in a broad range of articles I don't usually edit, an IBAN would prevent me from catching them. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) This is ridiculous. The discussion on these articles have apparently been at RfC in the past, Catflap listed both discussions at WP:3 (and incorrectly, because each discussion involved more than two editors), I removed the entries for that very reason...and finally, after I suggested on both talk pages to not forum-shop ([245] [246]), Hijiri took this to ANI anyway? Maybe both of y'all need to stay away from the articles (or even the subject) for a while. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
...AAAAAAND it's also being done here. (Forum-shopping in the same forum? Really?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert:: This is not a forum shop. I'm not asking for content input (the issue was firmly resolved last June/July). I'm asking for Catflap to be TBANned or blocked for tendentious editing (outright refusing to engage in discussion with users who disagree with him, posting a second RFC a few months after the first one on the same topic didn't go his way, violating WP:CANVAS by presenting inaccurate summaries in all three RFCs, misrepresenting sources...). I apologize if it looks like forum-shopping. I'm not the best at formatting ANI complaints. But any detailed analysis of the dispute will show Catflap violating consensus and engaging in what would uncontestibly be blockworthy behaviour if it was targeted at a Wikipedian more articulate than myself or an article on a well-known Hollywood actor or contemporary American politician rather than the niche area it is in. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said being insulted in not usual conduct here maybe times have changed. I personally do not see it forum shopping to seek an RfC. In the end I hope to get external input by experts on the matter. Additionally I find this [247] due to the short history odd and this [248] here even more strange it reminds me of WP:Votestacking a bit – but maybe I am wrong. At any rate I will see what the RfC does.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 Actually I find the advice by Erpert to stay away from the articles for a while quite reasonable in order to let things cool down and give others a chance to have an input. Why do you continue to edit within the article then? --Catflap08 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said an RfC in itself was forum-shopping, but going to RfC in the past; then 3O; then another RfC; then here (twice) is forum-shopping.