Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion

Hi,

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been nominating endless aircraft templates for deletion; here, here and here at least. They have been asked to stop while the matter is discussed, primarily here on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page, and specifically warned here about their behaviour. Now the nominations have restarted - see diff. This is creating a mass of work for those involved, while the Project discussion remains ongoing. This editor is clearly not prepared to wait for consensus. Can someone take a look and review their behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've complained once before about this sort of behavior with redirect nominations, though apparently my complaint wasn't correct in some way. While I've had positive interactions with The Banner in the time since, my belief is that this sort of mass-nomination behavior is disruptive. I sort of look at is as an extension of the rulemaking versus adjudication distinction in American administrative law: think of XfD as an adjudicative process (good for small numbers of items, and not generally binding on future decisions), while a RfC is a type of rulemaking (good for making general rules that can be applied over and over without much argument).

I believe there are more than enough templates at issue here that it's inappropriate to handle them through piecemeal adjudication (i.e., TfD). Keep in mind that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if a significant mismatch between the codified policy and the actual practice appears, the answer is to first reevaluate the policy to see if it still reflects community consensus. In this case, I would argue that there are more than enough "violating" templates from more than enough sources to make this an inappropriate matter for resolution via XfD.

Yes, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... but that same argument cuts against creating dozens of individual XfDs claiming some basis in practice... when each of those XfD subjects is a counter-example to the practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to highlight The Banner's approach to collaborative editing, here is a statement of their personal vendetta against another editor. When they post their own defence, the Banner then has the nerve to accuse them of lacking good faith, see this post to their talk page. This issue is not really about how to nominate, but how to behave during this, or any other, discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the banging at the door heres User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July where I told Ahunt multiple times that it is not the case of convincing me or his peers, but that he has to convince the administrators active at TfD. That was an argument no one wanted to accept. The sheer fact that I accepted a barnstar for the nominations, was followed by a backlash. Referring to the revenge aspect: almost from the beginning Ahunt was accusing me of doing bad faith nominations. I have asked him multiple times to stop with those false accusations, as it is not true (I still believe the WP:NENAN-nominations are valid). He went on and on so at one time I make the (not so clever) remark that I would nominate the templates of an extra letter as long as he did not stop with the false accusation. He did not stop, so I nominated. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Two fingers up to ArbCom, we know it's not so clever, but let's just spite another editor anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice that the aggressive defence is ending up on AN/I. A beautiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. In general, the aircraft boys refuse to believe my argument dat WP:NENAN is a valid argument, although it is an essay. See a few links:

1. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8
2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 2
3. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 4
4. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 13
5. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 3
6. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26

And then, off course, you have the editing guideline WP:REDNOT with is argument: Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, (...).

The very reason to nominate just a few templates a day is to give Ahunt, and the rest of his Wikiproject, a fighting change to write the articles needed to comply with the threshold of five valid blue links. Flooding TfD with long lists of articles failng WP:NENAN is also possible but that is in my eyes unpolite, as it reduces the time/chance to write the needed articles. The Banner talk 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are 478 pages on TfD where WP:NENAN is mentioned/used as argument. The Banner talk 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So after more than 450 times of usage, it is suddenly not a valid argument? The Banner talk 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass nominations of this type have been strongly discouraged by ArbCom as fait accompli. They've asked you to take this to discussion, not deletion, you should be discussing those there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Project did. The consensus has so far been solidly against The Banner - see here. Hence the repeated returns to TfD in a bid to gain a more persuadable audience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment, the vast majority of the templates closed with the primary reason of "Failing NENAN" were uncontested deletions. A significant subset were "moved" rather than "deleted". --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is right, quite a few are merged, moved or extented. That is what I mentioned as "rescued". There are just very few templates with less than five relevant links kept. That was usually based on good arguments (IIRC arguments like the likelihood of more links coming in the near future). The Banner talk 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is being disingenuous in his invocation of WP:REDNOT although "red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes", "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.", which is the case with these navboxes. He is also being disingenuous when he says that his acceptance of a barnstar for these nominations was followed by a backlash: the backlash is clearly caused by the way he accepts, which very much looks like this is a personal issue for him. Generally, this editor is much too free with accusations that other people are making personal attacks when all that is being done is questioning his reasons for these mass deletion nominations and expressing disagreement.TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping this problem could be resolved simply by the upcoming admin closures of the existing template nominations for deletion, since all have clear consensuses to "keep", which should have sent a clear message that further noms would be a waste of time. But it seems that User:The Banner wished to force the issue here to ANI, as had been discussed by some editors previously here, by his continuing to nominate WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer navigation box templates for deletion against a solid consensus that was established, with his participation, here. User:The Banner has stated here and here that he will not accept any consensus about these nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus regardless. This is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and he has been warned about that previously here. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for continuing to nominate templates against consensus is one of revenge. He has been warned before not to do this to make a WP:POINT but has continued, adding uncivil edit summaries, such as here and uncivil responses such as here for two examples. At this point it is clear that User:The Banner has become disruptive just to make a point and that means that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would suggest that the the best resolution at this point would be a topic ban of all aviation articles, and specifically a ban on nominating aviation templates for deletion for User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget your long list of accusations of bad faith nominations, for instance on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 16 (3x), Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 17 (4x). And don't forget to tell that your false bad faith accusations were just a part of you protecting your own templates. And in the mean time you just go on with your harassing. Just wait a bit more and see what happens when the administrator starts judging the templates. In the mean time: there is nothing illegal to write extra article or add more relevant links to a template to have those 5 relevant links. The Banner talk 20:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who frequently !votes at TfD, (and one who individually examined and !voted keep or delete on most of the templates in question here,) I don't think either Ahunt or The Banner acted in bad faith. The Banner was only nominating as he believes correct. The way he went about it annoyed me in this situation, but was not bad faith. If he had been approached in a different way, he probably would have worked with the project, at least allowing more time between nominations. Many of us have been notified of XfD nominations or other deletions. Ahunt and others in the project received an intimidating stream of these. I didn't follow user talk pages well enough to know if anyone overreacted, but I haven't seen anything I would call bad faith, (though calling each other bad faith came pretty close.) I hope an RfC would be a good way to settle the dispute. Although NENAN significantly overlaps many other editors' basic requirements for a navbox, there is enough variance that consensus can be hard to reach. —PC-XT+ 04:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner seems to have a flawed understanding of WP:POLICY. The Aviation project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes the use of the template series as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than simply navigation templates. There's no violation of WP:CONLIMITED here since the WikiProject Aviation's Consensus (which is a policy) is not contradicted by a community consensus policy or guideline on a wider scale, since WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just a rude guy who treats every template, regardless of local hobbies, exactly the same. Just like articles are judged on their own merits, I judge templates on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your rudeness doesn't bother me (although it might bother others). Your stubbornness on the other hand... I believe that you were originally acting in good faith, however, you seem to be digging your heels in (and digging yourself a deeper hole), despite a preponderance of seasoned editors telling you that you're mistaken. Mojoworker (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The Banner clearly has no intention of listening to consensus. Is there any good reason why he should not be banned from nominating any further templates for deletion under pain of an indefinite block? Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to consensus. That means, a wiki-wide consensus not a local one invented to protect the interests of a very limited group of people. Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. The Banner talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Banner, you repeatedly illustrate that you cannot accept consensus. You're one of the most stubborn individuals I've ever encountered on the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A limited group we may be, but we are trusted by the community. This is because we work together, discuss things and have the grace to accept when consensus is against our particular point of view. We also have the ability to prevent you from editing. Let me be quite clear, the only reason I've not topic banned you or blocked you from editing indefinitely is that I'm involved insofar as I commented at the Wikiproject discussion. I dare say that if I were to block you, there wouldn't be a rush to reverse the block. It's getting late here in the UK, so I'm minded to leave this open overnight, unless sufficient consensus is gained for action to be taken or not, as the case may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as not necessary. Start a RfC to resolve the underlying policy question, list it at T:CENT. If Banner starts more TfDs while that RfC is pending, then you can talk ban. But I suspect Banner will be reasonable enough to allow that RfC to run. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as a minimum [updated 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)]. This emphasis on RfC is a little invidious. The WP:RFC section on Before starting the Request for comment process states, "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." All aircraft articles have by their nature a degree of technicality and complexity, while uniform presentation across articles is also important. At risk of repetition (link given twice already), we had that Project discussion and the result was total community consensus against The Banner. Their plea for an RfC and debasing remarks about the project look suspiciously like an attempt to wiggle round that. Also, judging by remarks made above, ArbCom et. al. have cut little ice with this user in the past, why should we expect sudden compliance with an RfC now? A ban would at least get across the reality of the message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A list of airplanes in a navigation templates is not difficult to create. The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

    Don't be silly. These templates serve to orchestrate the presentation of the technical and sometimes complex articles they appear in. From the viewpoint of RFC, they are effectively part of the article structure and need to be discussed in that context. Recall that favourite essay of yours, where it says that in such circumstances, a few simpler members of a much wider set are acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing wrong with nomination templates for deletion, yes nomination a lot of them at the same time could be considered a disruptive act, but nothing presented here shows that to be true in this case. Kosh Vorlon    10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the main disruptive act is that we have a consensus here not to do that, which he participated in, but didn't like the outcome of and is ignoring. Predominantly the issue here is one of editing against consensus to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment SOunds like a localconsensus issue. Localconsensus would have bearing , as far as I know , on the page being worked on, as long as it didn't conflict with Wikipedia policies at large. There's no policy on submitting anything for deletion, unless, of course, it's disruptive, which again , hasn't been shown to be the case. Kosh Vorlon    16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are happy for anyone to persistently mass-nominate templates for deletion during discussion, are you? Even a bunch of templates you might happen to be discussing at the time on the relevant Project talk page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • And in fact you keep ignoring the fact that I am stating that you try to create a consensus on the wrong venue The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since he has shown he will not accept consensus and is being intentionally disruptive, I support a ban from nominating any further templates for The Banner. I don't see the point of an RfC at this point since it will just duplicate the consensus arrived at here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I think the templates should be deleted. It would be in line with other TFD results and WP:NENAN has long been considered a valid argument. Also I see this whole ANI thread as an attempt to shut an editor up. Sometimes that might be in need of doing, but in too many cases its just an abuse around here....William 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is not about trying to shut an editor up: it's about getting him to listen to counter-arguments and accept consensus. The principal counter-arguement is well put below by DieSwartzPunkt, a non-involved editor.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

comment This sideswipe at the ANI nominator is from the very same editor who took a sideswipe at the project in his barnstar award to The Banner for starting their campaign. It is now clear that this campaign has been about circumventing the Project consensus from the word go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support but read on: {uninvolved editor} If one starts with AGF, one should assume that, to begin with, the nominations were made in good faith following WP:NENAN. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that that is not a policy but an essay (i.e. nothing moe than a point of view). However, despite that being pointed out, the nominations continued. As it is just an essay, one should consider the points that the essay is attempting to address with respect to the use to which the template is put. The text makes it clear that the issue with articles is, ".. before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". Looking at the affected articles, that does not seem to be the case as the infoboxes are relatively small. Therefore, I would suggest that WP:NENAN is a non arguement in this case. However, as far as I am concerned: WP:AGF left the stage when The Banner made it clear in various talk pages, that most (if not all) of the later nominations were in direct retaliation to the opposition put up to the deletions by (if I have this right) one or more other editors. This cannot be acceptable behaviour. Reviewing The Banner's edit history (always a good idea) shows a past substantially free from many of the editing problems seen at these pages, suggesting that a block may be excessive. My recommendation would be that The Banner should accept that the consensus is largely against him and withdraw all the nominations. If he is not prepared to do that, then a topic ban 'broadly interpreted' would be the best solution for the project. If the topic ban is ignored: then go ahead and block. (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, take a look at the edits of Ahunt too who accused me multiple times of bad faith nomination and is still continuing his campaign of discrediting me.
  • Secondly, the NENAN-agument was a valid argument for a couple of hundred times. Just the fact that one Wikiproject has a problem with it, does not my my nominations invalid. They are out there and soon an administrator will judge them. And soon, there will be an RfC to see if WP:NENAN is in the future a valid reason for nomination. I will honour the outcome from that RfC. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I will refrain of using the NENAN-argument till the new (RfC)-consenus is reached.

I did review all the contributions involved - it would be impossible to provide an uninvolved viewpoint otherwise. In the first place: it was clear from all those contributions that consensus was against you (though granted, not entirely unanimous). In the second place: you made it clear that your nominations were retaliatory. Both of those factors made subsequent nominations bad faith. I said so above. I am not interested about the history of the WP:NENAN arguments, I am considering this only in the current context which is what the established consensus is addressing. Essays have to be interpreted in the context of the current discussion - it actually says so within the text. I do not accept that others are discrediting you, when you continue to act outside of consensus. This is not your encyclopedia any more than it is mine. This is a comminity project and can only work with co-operation. The only question in my mind is: 'why are you persuing this?' - given that you do not have a history of tendentious editing. (See below)

I fail to see why an RfC is required when consensus is already against you. This is merely trying to game the system by trying to get a larger consensus because you do not like the outcome of the current one. What would you propose if such an RfC went against you - a world wide referendum?

A more important question is: 'why does this bother you so much?'. Why can't you just accept the position as it is and move on to editing something more acceptable and worthwhile? (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the discussion was not on a neutral venue and that specific local consensus was en is clearly intended to protect the own project and its templates. It is not a consensus set up to match the best interest of Wikipedia, something a RfC will most likely do. The Banner talk 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So if you really believed the project was so rotten and the wider community would overturn its consensus at RfC, why didn't you just take it to RfC yourself? Why start a vendetta? That was the behaviour that got you dragged here. And why should we believe your pleadings for an RfC are not motivated by that same vendetta? Wikipedia is a big playground, why not just move on and recover your composure. That's why I like this proposal, it buys you that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) [Update] Except, contrary to the suggestion of good conduct made by DieSwartzPunkt you have a history of losing your cool and getting banned - see my later comment below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:The Banner, it is local consensus, but it is indeed consensus. What part of WP:CONLIMITED do you think applies here. Quoting from there: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." What policy or guideline do you think trumps the consensus of the WikiProject in this situation? Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support – As I said above, The Banner appears to have a flawed understanding of WP:CONLIMITED. He needs to read and understand WP:POLICY before taking anything else to TfD. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My friend, that is why I suggested to start a RfC. Just as WP:CONLIMITED says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Seeing the few hundred times that WP:NENAN was used on TfD, there was at least some consensus that it was a valid argument. TfD is the wider scale, so a RfC is the way to go to get the wider scale consensus. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Might the solution be to replace the typical begging-for-money banners with one directed to a referendum page? Then, anyone connecting to Wikipedia could post an opinion. Hard to get a much wider "community" than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support That The Banner is even still allowed to edit wikipedia is because of the incompetence of the admins in dealing with his repeated problematic behaviour. He was allowed to return by HJ Mitchell on condition that he meets certain terms, and as far as I can see he's violated every one of them. Any editor who can't respect consensus should not be permitted to edit wikipedia, and Banner repeatedly illustrates he cannot accept consensus. In fact I'd say that the ban proposal should be extended to nominating articles for deletion as he repeatedly illustrates incompetence in nominations too and nominating notable articles which just need cleanup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It has been said above somewhere that The Banner's edit record has generally been good. Let me refer you to their block log and to this archive of their user talk page, in which the most recent indef blocks are discussed. Nobody can hold that The Banner is innocent in all this aggressive PoV-pushing, deafness to argument and personal antagonism. It has quite evidently been their personal style for a long time. The current proposal may well not go far enough in dealing with such a chronically aggressive editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC) [Updated 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)]

Thanks for pointing that out. It is indeed troubling. I see that his allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland were conspiring against him three months ago seems very similar to his interaction with WikiProject Aviation now. A disturbing pattern. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahunt, I am willing to accept that Banner has stepped on a bunch of toes, and that he can be abrasive. I could accept a lot more, maybe. But what I will not accept is someone saying that NOTHERE applies to Banner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his record and his block log speaks for itself. He is consistently disruptive and ignores consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And when I responded on your many bad faith accusations, block fishing and personal attacks, your block log would also grow quickly. Please use arguments in this dispute, do not get personal. The Banner talk 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was me. It was very remiss of me not to check the block log or to see if there was a talk page archive. In the light of these revelations, I have struck parts of my posts above. Also, it is now apparent that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE. I have also changed my !vote to an unqualifie 'support'. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Banner cites NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. It looks like (from the RfC linked below) that NENAN is thrown out as a rationale for deletion nominations. Ergo, Banner will no longer cite NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. If he does, he's courting a block.

  No need for anything more drastic: this is not a discussion on his general behavior, but on the narrow one of his deletion nominations for templates--the most drastic measure I'll agree with is a limit on the number of deletion nominations, in general or specifically for these templates. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have always said that I will honour the outcome of the RfD. No matter what the outcome is. The Banner talk 10:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to let that RfC run to conclusion, which it will soon do, but I agree right now the consensus there is that WP:NENAN is of no value at deletion discussions. The only editor who seems to be still defending it there and opposing the WikiProject consensus on the matter is User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? That consensus reached on WikiProject Aircraft that according to the closing administrator of quite a lot of the nominated templates is NOT a convincing argument? The Banner talk 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You have already been challenged to explain how you come to that non-logical conclusion but have failed to explain it, as usual. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you fail to understand/accept what the closing administrator did. But I am willing to repeat that over and over again for you: Easy: an administrator is not counting votes but is balancing arguments. The fact that so many nominated templates are kept as "no consensus" means that the administrator was not convinced by the arguments to delete nor convinced by the arguments (in this case the local consensus) to keep it outright. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is wrong about this discussion. The narrow issue over the templates is being discussed at TfD. I specifically brought The Banner's behaviour here to ANI. It has now emerged as part of a wider and longer-term pattern of destructive behaviour and it needs dealing with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute, so you try to get me blocked. The Banner talk 10:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The matter at RfC has been firmly decided by yet another consensus against you. What we are discussing here is your record of intentional disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. As I have said before your record speaks for itself, you have been blocked multiple times in the past for the same thing. There is no need for you to keep pretending this is a content dispute when it isn't. Your response above shows clearly that you don't "get it" and aren't willing to change your behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, mr. Hunt, stop this harassing and personal attacks. Just accept the facts. Indeed, except for miracles WP:NENAN will be shot down as argument for a deletion nomination. But you fail to accept that the closing administrator also shot down your local consensus as argument for an outright keep. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You can stop trying to deflect the discussion here. It is your behavior that is being discussed here, not mine and your response is to accuse other people of "harassing and personal attacks" without any evidence. I have provided diffs above that support all complaints about your behaviour, as have other editors. Your attempts at deflections here provide only vague accusations and continue to show that you "just don't get it", aren't willing to admit that your editing is a problem and aren't willing to change. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Deleting templates while they are under discussion and refusal to accept the consensus of the community mean that this user shouldn't be allowed to continue this behavior. I don't know why we keep putting up with these editors who continue to try our patience. This editor has had the repercussions of their behavior explained to them and now it is time to take away their ability to continue disrupting the project. We all have better things to do than swat flies.--Adam in MO Talk 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, provisionally. I think there are some problems, but we see the same type of problem on AN/I many times. An editor or editors interested in some broad policy/technical area (templates, MOS things, cats, etc.) stirs up a hornets nest when their attempts to stretch content over the procrustean bed of standardization offends some parochial interest (usually a medium sized wikiproject). Bringing the outside editor here and asking us to impose a topic ban should be a last resort. I may revisit this later after looking at the links more, but I'd bet there's a less severe remedy available. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support What is the point of anyone trying to make this a usable encyclopedia in the face of this. Op47 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2: RfC

As nobody started anything: Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Request for Comment: WP:NENAN.

And yes, I know not everybody is happy with this and I will get some flak and maybe a ban, but it has to be done.

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the current discussion, which is about you. Posting about it here looks like just another of your attempts to deflect attention from your violation of your previous promises, as discussed above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is related, and a notice here is appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I just wanted people to be aware that "related" and "relevant" are not the same thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The original behavior in question was the mass nominations, which I agree was done poorly due to limitations of automated tools. This behavior, alone, is not enough for a ban. The resulting discussion has been sufficiently heated, that the occasionally snarky responses from TheBanner could easily be argued to be provoked. He has even conceded that he will respect the templates for discussion outcome. The request for comment on WP:NENAN at templates for discussion would seem to be a good faith attempt to reach a wiki-wide consensus, but it too is ensnared in the current controversy. I have been bitten by the TheBanner's snark, and may have bitten back to. I recommend WP:CONCEDE and move on. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me why I brought this here. The wikiproject is big enough to take a bit of template foolery, no way is that an issue I would bring here. The original behaviour in question was the manner in which consensus was ignored, civility was flouted and all the rest. This has turned out to be part of a long-term pattern of abuse. The mass nominations just happened to be the pawn in play at the time. Last time it was a different wikiproject got this treatment. So - please deal with the issue at hand and not with the Banner's skilful smokescreen. FYI I was not involved in the template game save at the end when one of my colleagues in particluar was suffering badly from The Banner's personalising of their constant attacks in the face of consensus. I know it was a long way back up the thread, but please do follow the links I have been providing before you make such uninformed judgements about my motives. Look, if you want to bring the template discussion itself to ANI, will you please start a separate topic and not divert mine? Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you brought the case here; TheBanner is a jerk has been acting as like jerk. That being said, I don't know what is left to be done. The deletion nominations were doomed to fail. Turning it into a brewhaha was unnecessary. A link to the manual of style for the Wikiproject and a request that all the templates be considered together were all that were necessary. Engaging each and every snarking response TheBanner made just provoked more; this is what I am posting about. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you. It was not obvious to the wikiproject that the nominations would be bound to fail. Stranger things have been sanctioned and this project does have an awful lot of templates. But of course, we are drifting away from the root issue here - the disruptive community behaviour surrounding those nominations. Think of my topic title as "Persistently [doing contentious things] during discussion: [and not for the first time]", as I restate below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restatement

This discussion is about The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their behaviour. Check out their block log and talk page archives for more about why this is important. I am the OP, I know why I posted here. Please do not fall for their skilful distractions on the matter of a few templates. I would not waste your time over a few templates. Please stay on course here, thank you. I will come back and clarify recent events/discoveries as I can but at the moment am too busy off-wiki to go round collecting the links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted here because this user was "Persistently [doing contentious things] during discussion."

The Banner's block log (see link in the above para) reveals a history of sanctions for destructive behaviour. The account has been blocked 8 times since July 1911. Reasons repeatedly given include edit warring, personal attacks and general disruption. In the present dispute, we see all these in spades. Rather that show any repentance, the Banner has detemonedly argued to justify their actions. In the last of those older incidents, The Banner undertook four promises. Here again is the snapshot of the discussion that I already posted. The most relevant discussion is near the bottom, where The Banner unconditionally accepted four conditions:

1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;

2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;

3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;

4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

Conditions 2. and 3. have been very blatantly broken, not only with a self-confessed crusade against another wikiproject but also an equally open personal vendetta against one particular project member, even taking it to their talk page. I too have received passive-aggressive harrassment on my own talk page, here and here.

So, I would now ask that Admin attention be directed at this user's apparent flouting of unconditionally accepted terms of behaviour previously laid on them by an Admin, and their apparent total unrepentance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute (neither do I, to be true) so you try to get me blocked. Cool. But be aware of boomerangs. The Banner talk 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen this: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Template:1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship. The Banner talk 22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd call that unrepentant. Talk about digging yourself a deeper hole. LOL, indeed.TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Egregious section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction

  I would like admin assistance regarding a section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction (the one that starts with "NOTICE:") that I feel violates the Talkpage guidelines in that it addresses me directly and in a non-neutral manner (as well as misstating a comment of mine), and is part of a pattern that constitutes WP:harassment.

  The offending section was added 14 May by User:Elvey, with an additional comment from 64.134.48.248 (a persistent editor using various IP addresses from Wichita). After a month with no discussion I archived it, which was immediately restored from 64.134.150.40 with the edit summary "Useful information that doesn't need to be archived so quickly." After another month of no discussion I removed it again on 17 July, which User:Joe Bodacious reverted with the comment "We don't need to archive every two months, and in this case, it looks self-serving"; another deletion/reversion followed on 18 and 19 July.

  All this stems from various content disputes which these editors took to ANI in a failed attempt to have me topic banned, and constitutes a pattern of repeated behavior intentionally targeting me, having no purpose other than to annoy and harass me, either directly, or by trolling for others to do so.

  The relief I seek is to have an admin remove this section from Talk:Earthquake prediction and its archive, and editors Elvey, Joe Bodacious, and the one from Wichita (various IP addresses) admonished for harassment and uncivil behavior. I do not ask that the page history be suppressed (in order to preserve the record of these editors' pattern of edits), but perhaps the edit summaries could be revised to simply "NOTICE: ...". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Elvey has been notified, and notices placed at User_talk:64.134.48.248 and User_talk:64.134.150.40. User:Joe Bodacious has been notified, but might not be able to respond immediately as he has been blocked as a sock puppet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a good section heading but the criteria for using rev/del don't cover this (nor can we actually change edit summaries, although of course we can hide them). Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

  Isn't WP:TALKNEW pretty clear? Under "Keep headings neutral" (emphasis in the original) it plainly says: "Don't address other users in a heading". Also, "Never use headings to attack other users", which is deemed not simply "not good", but "especially egregious". (I have detailed all this at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Discussion of contested removal of section with non-neutral heading beginning "NOTICE".)

  Deletion from the active talk pages would ordinarily follow archival. Joe's view seems to be that this attack should be permanently memorialized. Shouldn't this sockpuppet's reversions also be "struck out"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

TLDR: SRSLY? This is about an edit I made months ago! My comment echoes the views of other editors regarding edits by the user that have lead to similar criticisms of JJ by many other editors on many occasions before and since. JJ WP:NOTHERE? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I welcome constructive feedback, particularly in the form of an edit to the edit I made that this ANI section dredges up and characterizes as harassment and trolling; the guideline WP:TALKNEW says "Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." The heading is currently, "NOTICE: ANI discussion re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson's commitment to not revert" to make it demands much admin action that seems all about a tempest in an old teapot. While JJ claimed that "no admin was interested in a topic ban", and that may or may not be true (neither of us has ESP...), what is true is that User:BrownHairedGirl is an admin, and did say at that archived ANI discussion, "... I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone." --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• J. Johnson (JJ) was lucky to escape a topic ban in respect of earthquakes. The discussion in April included a proposal to topic-ban JJ which was supported by 4 editors and opposed by only one. If there had been a little more participation, the topic ban would probably have been imposed.
  As Elvey noted in the posting to the talk page, one factor in the lack of a topic ban was J. Johnson's assertion that it was Not necessary. I disavow any ownership, am resigned to whatever happens to the article, and particularly have no desire to do any reversions."
  It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that this commitment should be noted on the talk page of the article in question. Note that in March 2013, there had been a discussion at WP:AN about J. Johnson's conduct, at which no action was taken, so this was clearly a long-running dispute.
  JJ's bringing of a complaint to ANI about JJ's attempts to remove the record of that commitment cast doubt on the good faith of the commitment made in April. A revision history search shows that J. Johnson continues to edit the article, and continues to edit the talk page.
  That does not appear to me to be the conduct of an editor who is "resigned to whatever happens to the article". I urge J. Johnson to read WP:BOOMERANG, because it seems to me that the main effect of JJ's complaint here is to draw attention to JJ's failure to uphold an earlier commitment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl is right. The fact that J. Johnson probably would have received a topic ban was brought up on my page last night by User:Robert McClenon - his ownership problems put other editors off. Including me. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if all of the foregoing is granted, does that set at naught the plain statement of WP:TALKNEW to "keep headings neutral", and specifically to not address other users in a heading? It is not at all (as BHG alleges) an attempt to "remove a record" (the record is still there); I am asking if the supposed rules give Elvey an exemption to hound me from a section heading. Alternately, why not also "NOTICE" that Elvey has been blocked for disruptive editing and "general and persistent combative attitude", and was warned just this month to not harass other editors? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That wording in the talkpage guideline, about not referring to other users' names in headings, is pretty nonsensical and has never reflected actual practice. It used to say a different thing, up to c.2011 or so, which was actually about not addressing other editors, in the sense of talking to them rather than about them (i.e. discouraging headings of the type "Hey, XYZ, why did you revert me?"). Then some people misunderstood "address somebody" as if it meant "refer to somebody", and people started silently fiddling with the wording until it said something totally different.

What it all boils down to is: headers in talk pages may be about whatever is a legitimate topic of discussion on that page. It is true that normally discussions on article pages should be as little personalized as possible, but if in a given situation an individual's behaviour has been a particular matter of concern, and discussion on the article has had to focus substantially on how to deal with the disruption caused by that individual, then it is only natural that section headings may end up reflecting that, just as they tend to reflect whatever else gets discussed on such pages. If such has been the case here and you've been causing long-term problems on that page, then you'll probably have to live with the idea that other editors will refer to you while trying to clean up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that explication. I think the essence is that WP:TALKNEW is not as starkly simple as it could be taken, and the plain (naive?) reading of "Don't address other users in a heading", etc., is effectively inoperative, and not an "egregious" offense. Which is fine, I can accept that, as long as we're all playing by the same rules, and on that basis I will withdraw my request. I am greatly disappointed that when I try to have a serious discussion about content certain editors go into attack mode and make this all about me, but I think rebuttal of that is off-topic for this thread. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That's two administrative admonitions, above. The ownership problems have already come up at ANI on multiple occasions, and on the talk page on umpteen occasions, with JJ and umpteen frustrated other editors. We have no admin action, beyond administrative admonitions. We have "JJ's failure to uphold an earlier commitment". Could the self-imposed commitments be made admin-imposed restrictions? JJ now says that he still (!) thinks the problem is "editors go into attack mode and make this all about me"; it is not. Enough. A lot of good, thoughtful advice has been given to JJ by a lot of editors. Now what? Just revert to the 2011 language? --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 20:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Septate breaking his newly imposed editing restrictions

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

---

Septate (talk · contribs) is under a Community imposed editing restriction[1] placed indefinitely for all edits which are related to religion:

1) 1 revert per 48 hours per article (see WP:1RR for more information).

2) Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

Despite this he continues to revert at various articles dealing with the subject of Wahhabism. Eg [2], [3] (and in this case the article is also a religious one, Mawlid, a religious celebration) and [4]. Perhaps the topic ban would have been a better idea. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That was so quick. I knew that he will break those restrictions, I agree that topic ban is probably going to help. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller. You are seriously wrong and mistaken. Regarding [5], I made that edit after a simple discussion. See User talk:Vanamonde93#Thanks!. The problem was regarding the reliability of Apologetics.com, which was resolved when I provided BBC source. Although I am obliged to open the discussion on talk page per imposed ban on me, I don't find it useful because the dispute was resolved. When it comes to [6], I don't know why you mentioned it here. It is completely irrelevant. I have made no reverts neither another user has reverted my edits calling them vandalism or something else. Interestingly the dispute was not between me but two other users. My edits just came in the middle of there reverts of each others edits. See edit history of Mawlid. The same goes with [7]. I have made a simple edit. If some one reverts my edit then I am obliged to open a discussion talk page. Seriously, this is complete wastage of time.Septate (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, if I break the rule, I would prefer to get blocked for 2 day or week instead of topic banned.Septate (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: WTF? On Mawlid you reverted this edit by another user by making this edit. That's a revert of the change from Wahhabist to Salafist. Your restriction is crystal clear: "Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion." Also, on Al-Qaeda it is completely irrelevant that "Although I am obliged to open the discussion on talk page per imposed ban on me, I don't find it useful because the dispute was resolved". It's not you that gets to choose whether it's "useful" in any particular instance. On the ISIS article, I am puzzled by what Doug says there. Perhaps he could elaborate. But leaving that aside there are two clear breaches just a couple of days into the restriction - with justifications like you "didn't find it useful". It's definitely time for a topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't see how a discussion on a user talk page with an editor other than the one you reverted matters here. Furthermore, the discussion was about reliability of sourcing, yet User:Gazkthul's edit summary clearly indicated an objection based on POV issues NOT RS issues. If you had reverted User:Vanamonde93, based on the agreement to the edit, I can see us not acting to enforce the letter of the restriction, but that isn't who you reverted. There is no discussion on the article talk page, and you unambiguously reverted another editor. How is that not a violation of your editing restrictions? Monty₈₄₅ 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: While I agree with you on the first article, with regard to Mawlid, is there a clear edit that was reverted? Given the restriction was specifically on reverts, if something was only added to an article, in the absence of a recent removal for it to be reverting, I don't think it is obvious that the addition counts as a revert. Monty₈₄₅ 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Monty845: as I pointed out above, on Mawlid an editor changed Wahhabist to Salafist and two hours later Septate changed it back. That's a revert and he should have gone to the talk page and waited 6 hours before he did the revert. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I follow now, I listed the wrong article in my above comment, but now clearly see the violations on both articles. Monty₈₄₅ 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for not making clear the problem at ISIS. P123ct1 "Removed "Wahhabist" - reliable sources do not say ISIS is Wahhabist (see Talk page discussion)"[8] 2 days ago. Septate restored it today, ie reverted the revert.[9]. As with the others, no discussion on the talk page first. His comment that following his restrictions is a waste of time suggests we aren't getting very far with this attempt at leniency. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in agreement on both cases then. Afaik, we would need a new discussion to topic ban, so I think that just leaves a block, perhaps with an offer of a topic ban as an unblock condition? Monty₈₄₅ 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that he broke his edit restriction. [[10] this edit by Septate] was a clear revert of this edit by Gazkthul. When the edit restriction was proposed, I explained to him at User talk:Septate#July 2014 that "If you broke the restriction you could be blocked for a week for breaking the restriction. And if you kept on breaking it, the blocks might get bigger. (e.g. 1st time 1 week, 2nd time 1 month, etc.)" I think that he should have a 1 week block, and be told that if he breaks the restriction again after the block, then he will get a 1 month block.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

(Outside opinion) I wasn't involved in the last discussion but followed it as is my wont. I believe this is just about the fastest I've ever seen anyone breach a community sanction and coupled with the attempt to wikilawyer around it, I'm going to boldly throw a proposal out there.

Septate is hereby topic banned from all articles related to religion broadly construed for a period of no less than 6 months. Violations of the topic ban will be met with extension of the topic ban or escalating blocks.

Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's not only the rapid and blatant breach but also the bare-faced claims that he hasn't breached the restriction. He has a history of deceptive edit summaries to cover up his edits - which he's previously got a 48 hour block. His attitude here is consistent with that. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was considering just blocking for a month, and offering a topic ban as an unblock condition, but this is the cleaner way to do it. Not the standard construction of a topic ban, we usually go to a permanent ban, with the option to request it be removed in 6 months, but it may be interesting to see how this version works. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support I agree this seems cleaner and going straight into a breach shows that the restrictions weren't sufficient. I'm pessimistic about it working though. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Forgot, we should let User:Callanecc know as he was the one who closed the earlier discussion and notified Septate about the editing restrictions. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Against . Everyone here is just trying to find 'loopholes' to get me topic banned. User:DeCausa read this this edit again. Are you blind or just acting? I just made Wahhabis an alternative name for Salafis! Does this constitute revert? I have not removed Salafis at all. Interestingly I changed the word Salafites to Salafis. I have wasted a lot of time here. I was informed on previous ANI that if I break the the ban in future, I shall be blocked for one week instead of being topic banned. You can't go against it! I am going on a wiki break for one month. This should be enough for me.Septate (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate: Drop the pretence. Rameshnta909 took out the word Wahhabis. You reinstated the word Wahhabis. Just because you added other things as well doesn't stop it being a revert. I don't think for one minute that you think that either - you just thought you could get away with it. You also thought that if you get caught you could get off with a block for a few days. that's why you thought it was worth trying it. Well, no. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, you joined wikipedia in Feb 2014, you have over 1700 edits but you have never contributed even 100 words to any article because all you do is flip and switch words in religion articles. How you managed it? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support The wikilawyering pushed me off the fence. Septate, you were plainly warned "you may be blocked to enforce them or further restricted (such as a ban) by the community." If the topic ban is enacted, it should state what will happen after 6 months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, given how incorrigible Septate appears to be, I'm doubting the wisdom of the Tban just expiring at the 6 month point. Maybe the "traditional" approach is better. DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In the absence anyone stating anything to the contrary, I think the existing restrictions would remain in force indefinitely, so in the off chance the ban isn't violated, we go back to the current restrictions in 6 months. Monty₈₄₅ 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhhhh your explanations! DeCausa, Rameshnta909 removed Wahhabia because he thought that Salafis are more appropriate. Then I came and added Wahhabis along with Salafis because I thought that both are appropriate. Don't you get such a simple thing. This clearly shows that you are just trying to find loopholes!

Dear NielN, seriously speeking I was not conscious of those edits. I am not doubting the wisdom of the ban. I was not aware that so many users were waiting to see just a single little mistake. I just want to get last chance. Block me for one week. Furthermore I am going on a wiki break for one month. Septate (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate is going to separate from wikipedia? No issue. Little mistake and last chance? You said that dougweller is wasting time when it was proven that you are breaking editing restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, if you think that's a "loop-hole" there's no hope of getting you to comply with the restriction. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Septate:, when a proposal calling for a topic ban is started you have already lost all room for negotiation. When any editor is sanctioned, there will be many eyes watching. Recalcitrance is punished quickly, acquiescence to the will of the community results in relaxation of sanctions in time. You were sanctioned, you violated the sanctions thus your restrictions will be escalated. I proposed 6 months in the hope that at the end of it you can return to editing in that area after some reflection. You're a relatively new user and I've got enough AGF left after reading through this thread and the previous one that I didn't go for the indefinite topic ban. You should see this as a wake up call. If you go on one month now, then I would propose an amendment to to the topic ban proposal to come into force upon your return. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. The rapid breach of the restrictions shows that a topic ban from all articles related to religion is needed. I share Dougwellers pessimistic outlook. JimRenge (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've never seen this editor before, but the above evidence is unacceptable behaviour. Indeed, lest they get some idea of DIVA'ing, if they perform any additional reverts between now and when this discussion is closed, I'll block the panda ₯’ 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Given the continued disruptive nature of the edits within the subject area. A topic ban seems more than warranted, especially given the flaunting of earlier restrictions placed. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 17:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support -The violations of the ban are obvious and the Wikilawyering is clear. BMK (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Every case is different, but the usual response to violating a topic ban is accelerating blocks. If there are multiple incidents, especially after being warned, then a lengthy block is in order, not just a broadened topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs It was proposed that Septate should be topic banned hardly 1 week ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Proposal for a topic ban on Septate. It was not fixed that he should be blocked or topic banned for violating restrictions, it could be any. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Per BMK and Solarra. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Septate, you had De Causa's and my support for restrictions at the previous ANI despite all indications that you'd been interacting in bad faith. Given that you've violated the terms in such blatant manner within days of agreeing to them, a six month block is warranted. As I've recommended to you personally, and per my recommendation at the last ANI, this is a good opportunity for you to work on articles you don't have an emotional attachment to, thus giving you a chance to understand policies and guidelines and learn to be a constructive contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - he should get a 1 week block. Septate was told when the edit restriction was proposed that if he broke the restriction, he would get a 1 week block first time, and probably a 1 month block second time, etc.[11] As this is the first time, he should get a 1 week block. This is only fair. It will also teach him to respect the restriction. This will be more effective than a topic ban. It will encourage good behaviours by Septate, and will not encourage bad behaviors.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

With all respect, Toddy1, that was a statement made by you alone on his talk page. It wasn't part of the community view as expressed at the ANI thread. I can understand that, as a result, you personally might feel constrained as to how you would !vote in this thread, but it can't have a broader effect. Nevertheless, I agree that what you said would be the "normal" way to proceed. However, the speed of Septate's breach and his attitude to complying with the restriction as shown in this thread takes him out of "normal", IMO. More generally, having seen how he operates over the last few months, I suspect that him believing that there was a limited "first offence" sanction led him to think that it was worth "trying his luck" (2 days in!) to see what wriggle room there is in the restriction. I think rewarding that behaviour with a limited sanction will not be good for WP or Septate. The best hope for him to become a long-term useful editor (which I actually think he could easily be) is for him to understand that it's not worth his while trying to pull these stunts - he will be caught out. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. And give someone a one week block who says he's taking a month off of Wikipedia? Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to close? Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether he gets a 5 month topic ban, I still think that he should get a 1 week block. So if you decide to give him a topic ban, please also give him a 1 week block. (Though I still oppose the topic ban.)--Toddy1 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller and Toddy1. Please tell me what is the overall outcome of this talk? For how long you are blocking me? Seriously I am extremely tired and exhausted. DeCausa please stop calling my edits stunts. I dont know why you hate me so much. In the past few days I have realized that reading wikipedia is more enjoyable then editing it. I have been using opera mini instead of chrome in order to stop getting notifications. I am not going on a wiki break because wikipedia is an integral part of my life and I love it.Septate (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate your reply is creating confusions. You can also read wikipedia without signing like millions of others. If you love wikipedia so much then why you can't contribute in non-religion articles? If you think that someone hates you then request a interaction ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, gossiping is not going to help. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Septate, if you believe that I hate you, make a complaint at WP:ANI. I assume that your complaint will be on the lines of "Toddy hates me so much that he repeatedly argues against my being given a topic ban..."--Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Toddy1, it was not meant for you! You have misunderstood it. How can I accuse you hating me?Septate (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Septate, to reiterate, this would be a topic ban which would not prevent you from contributing to non-related articles. I've suggested it to you, Bladesmulti has suggested it to you: why not take the opportunity to broaden your scope of interest and involve yourself with subjects that interest you, but without the emotional ties you have to religion? It doesn't need to be taken as a punitive measure, but as learning curve in order to improve your skills as a dedicated Wikipedian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Insult and threat by TheAirplaneGuy

Please see [12]

• TheAirplaneGuy reverted 6 edits by me in Malaysia Airlines. I would like to point out that at least two of my edits which he reverted (the removal of the incidents from the fleet table) do reflect the consensus on the talk page. He never tried to discuss the contents of these edits with me.
• I was and am willing to enter a discussion whether or where the information like when the first A380 of the airline went into the assembly phase should be (IMHO definitely not in the destinations section) with any person who starts a discussion with me regarding that, and I do accept when the consensus is against me.
• If another editor would point out in a civilized way that he thinks I should have sought consensus first for any of my edits, I would also be willing to consider and discuss that.
• TheAirplaneGuy insulted me on my talk page as having vandalized Wikipedia.
• TheAirplaneGuy gave me an only warning threatening I may be blocked from editing without further notice if I do such edits again. Is it approved by Wikipedia policy that TheAirplaneGuy gives me such an only warning without ever attempting to discuss the issue with me in a civilized way first?
• Unless this revert+insult+threat behaviour is accepted in Wikipedia, I do expect administrative sanctions against TheAirplaneGuy that make it clear to him that such behaviour is not accepted.

Thanks for your consideration CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @CorrectKissinTime: I see that the "A380 milestones" section TheAirplaneGuy re-added with their reversion has no sources at all. Apart from that, I cannot find the insult you refer to.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Only warning: Vandalism on Malaysia Airlines. in the edit log and similar text on my talk page. Is calling another person a vandal not considered insulting? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is anyway that he tries to enforce his revert through threatening with me getting blocked instead of starting a discussion. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @CorrectKissinTime: S(he) has not openly insulted you, but I'm afraid WP:ATWV applies and {{Uw-vandalism4im}} has been used inappropriately.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see zero attempts to try and discuss this "incident" with TheAirplaneGuy before coming here to ANI. Templates are "warnings" not "threats", calling something vandalism that isn't is uncivil...and those two things belong in the realm of user-to-user discussion as neither are blockable. Yes, I agree that 4im was improperly used in this case, but that's guidance and education not administrative blocks the panda ₯’ 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Out of the void reverting of 6 edits and improperly threatening to get me blocked is not a punishable offence? I really have to scale down on the civility I've learned in real life - in the "user-to-user discussion" you want me to have with this guy I might not be much more friendly to him then he is to me (history has proven that Appeasement does not work). CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• What the Panda says. No discussion--and, on the other hand, the warning was inappropriate. The edits themselves are a content matter that should be discussed on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Maybe the behaviour does not warrant admin action, but it is not the first time TheAirplaneGuy mislabelled edits as vandalism. See User talk:John.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we've already noted that ... Airplane hasn't edited since this was filed ... I look forward to their reply the panda ₯’ 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps he is embarassed by his mistake and has registered another account to continue working discreetly while this blows over? Coming to WP:ANI can be intimidating especially when you realise you have accidentally done something to annoy someone else. I agree though the mature editorial thing to do would be to apologize and refrain from making such edits in the future without proper consideration. Alicb (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow what a welcome back! I legit thought he was a vandal, so Alicb just myob TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't delete that much without consensus proves that you are not telling the truth. Since the amount of deletion (not the contents) was the only thing you criticized when you attacked me and you even considered it possible that I could get consensus for them, it is clear that you were never thinking I was an actual vandal. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 06:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Very funny mate, but why the hell did you wait a few hours to tell me when I was busy? And I legit thought you were a vadal because of the sheer scale of dead bits TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

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

---

At a nearly settle 3RR discussion between Eric Corbett and Bloodofox, admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric. The edit warring had ended a couple hours before, so there was no immediate issue when Scotty begins tailing Eric's comments, trying to provoke a response. Please note that Scotty has indef blocked Eric before [13] and this indef block was soon reverted to one month by another admin.

Scotty continued to add to the discussion, knowing full well that he was antagonizing a situation that was already under control, fortunately no one really took the bait. In this exchange, Scotty taunted Cassianto as being a new "pawn" of Eric's. He also made a personal attack against me with the comment "The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness." although I was there merely as a commenter. It is easier to just read the report. [14] I requested that he retract it. [15] and he declined. [16]

It is fine to disagree about facts, but when an admin comes to an admin board WP:AN3, begins antagonizing the parties, then antagonizes the observers and personally attacks one (me), this admin needs to be stopped. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, perhaps you need to start taking some of your own advice. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, and I said as much at AN3 before this section was started. Throwing out personal attacks against other editors purely due to ancient grudges is absolutely not acceptable from any editor, let alone an administrator; I am even more disturbed that Scottywong appears from his responses to Dennis at AN3 and his talk page to believe that this behaviour is completely acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I will accept any punishment that the community decides is necessary for the unimaginable atrocities I have committed today. I would like to point out, however, that Dennis was actually the first to inject personal attacks into the discussion. He kindly let me know that my lack of empathy is alarming to him, and I appreciated his honesty so much that I thought I would return the favor and let him know my honest thoughts about him. I considered his empathy comments deeply offensive, and since he didn't document them with diffs (which is apparently the rule now), I ask that any punishment applied to me also be applied to Dennis equally. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When you say "block anyone that crosses 3RR without regard to why", that does lack empathy. The problem is you pushing Eric around like a bully, as you have the admin bit (and have blocked him before), trying to get him to go off on you so you could block again. You have ZERO interest in that case, you came to cause problems only. Then making personal attacks against someone who called you on it, questioning my character, when you were the one bullying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately that makes no sense. If I blocked Eric for anything, I would be immediately hauled off to Arbcom by 3 dozen editors for taking administrative action in violation of WP:INVOLVED. And Eric is well aware of that. So, your claims that I'm trying to be a bully, and I'm trying to bait Eric into doing something so that I can block him are completely farcical. And I don't believe that strict enforcement of clearly-defined rules equates to a lack of empathy. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as what is more empathetic or not is perfectly fine for a separate discussion, there is logic on both sides, but that isn't the big issue. It is at last arguable that blind block is unempathetic, even if you say you can present evidence to the contrary. As for "if you blocked Eric", I'll be honest Scotty, I don't know if you would block him, or ask someone else to block him, or just wait for it to happen, but you knew (or should have known) that pushing his buttons could have caused more disruption and caused him to tell you to piss off, etc. Look at your own comments Scotty, it looks exactly like you came in looking for a fight with Eric. NO good could ever come of you talking to him when it isn't needed. Yes, it looked like bullying because YOU have the power of the admin bit and buddies on IRC, and he has nothing except a reputation that makes him easy to block.

As for questioning my character, that is a separate issue. I didn't close the AN3, I haven't hid the fact that Eric and I get along on articles, I suggested closing by saying that neither had edited in two hours, and anyone that knows me knows I don't like to block two editors for EW if they aren't editing, that seems punitive. Eric or not. I'm NOT known to block on 4RR, I'm the guy that usually full protects the article. So yes, calling my character corrupt was way over the line. The fact that Eric and I get along is exactly why I WOULDN'T HAVE closed that discussion, even though WP:INVOLVED only covers negative interaction, not positive. It was an attack, and not the same as a merely blunt assessment. Regardless, your activity towards Eric was so massively over the line, it makes ALL admin look bad. THAT is a problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Buddies on IRC? You are making one assumption of bad faith after another. I had no intention of blocking Eric, asking someone else to block him, or logging in to IRC (which I never use) to start a conspiracy against Eric. I was merely commenting that I thought this 3RR offense should result in a block, just as you were commenting that you thought it shouldn't result in a block. All the rest of your assumptions about me and my intentions should have been checked at the door, and they were probably a result of your aforementioned positive INVOLVEments with Eric. You really get overly emotional when it comes to defending him; perhaps you should refrain from commenting on complaint threads about him. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's okay because the other party shot first? Two wrongs don't make a right (although three rights do make a left). Calling another editor corrupt is pretty uncool no matter what the circumstances are. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My empathy comment was directly in response to his, there was no diff. This is a weak attempt to deflect attention from everything he said on the page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you re-read the discussion, you'd see that your first comment to me was to characterize my (rather civil and level-headed) comments as soapboxing and drama-mongering. You then go on to tell me that my lack of empathy is alarming to me. Only then did I decide to return the favor by giving you some honest criticism. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The easiest thing is to close this, close the EW page, hat them and move on. Discussion is ongoing on the kelpie talk page and folks can just ignore the ad hominems and move on. I'd hat both these myself right now but have been peripherally involved at editing the kelpie page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some wisdom in that Casliber, but this is pretty far over the line, and ignoring sends the message that it is ok for an admin to torment editors you've blocked before, and then insult someone who stands up to them. This isn't exactly the first time we've seen this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so let me get this straight. There is an editor who you perceive to be uncivil, who is casting insults and attacks, being inflammatory and argumentative, and you see this as a long term pattern of behavior. Hmm. Who else can you think of who fits that bill, and why are you so enraged by one instance of this behavior and so forgiving of another? ‑Scottywong| babble _ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first time we've seen admin torment editors. We can't just do nothing every time we see it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Well, I'm sorry for "tormenting" Eric about reverting the same page 4 times in a day. I'll be sure to ignore such trivial policies in the future. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ok you 2, what the feck is going on here. Two Wikipedia editors that I appreciate suddenly squaring off on ANI...fan-fricking-tastic. Scotty, considering your history with Eric, you had no fricking business on the AN3 report - you were simply inflaming something that would have been better off being cooled off. Well-fricking-done - THAT was the part that was really conduct unbecoming. The job of an admin is NOT to pour gasoline on a freicking fire. Dennis was indeed right to call you on it. That never should have HAD TO EVER HAPPEN. What the feck were you thinking? the panda ₯’ 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Panda, I believe I have a right to express my opinion at AN3. My intention wasn't to inflame anything, it was to express my opinion that clear violations of 3RR should result in a block. It was not until my opinion was derided as "soapboxing" and "drama-mongering" by Dennis, and it was not until I was told I have an alarming lack of empathy by Dennis that I decided to let Dennis know what I thought of his comments. I am fully aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Eric in just about everything, and had no intention of acting as an administrator with respect to this AN3 complaint. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, other than the fact that we have no "rights" to speak of, we always have to temper whatever right we have with common sense. You personally know that your post there would take on a life of it's own ... and look, it did. You know better than that for crying out loud. This is absolutely disappointing and disgraceful the panda ₯’ 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • Then if you know you are INVOLVED, why bother to speak out there at all, except to get in a few shots against Eric? You couldn't have actioned it according to your own methodology, right? Was it just to opine how all editors that break 4RR should be blocked? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, actually, all I was doing was putting forth my opinion as an editor. I don't believe being INVOLVED with an editor prohibits you from expressing your opinion of how a complaint about their behavior should be handled, does it? Just because I've had arguments with Eric in the past (and who hasn't?) doesn't mean that my comments are automatically soapboxing or drama-mongering, and I do not appreciate your comments at the AN3 thread to that effect. In fact, I believe it was your comments that inflamed the discussion in the first place. If you had put away your assumptions of bad faith and treated my comments respectfully, we wouldn't be here right now. Perhaps you should refrain from vehemently defending Eric to prevent him from being blocked, if you can't do it without immediately deriding anyone who disagrees with you. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Bullshit. Your first comment was "I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous." and you could plainly see that Eric didn't make any such complaint. You went directly after Eric, like a laser beam. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I am sorry that you misunderstood my first comment, which was actually directed at the editors that were saying Eric shouldn't be blocked because he wasn't properly warned, not at Eric himself (which I made clear in subsequent comments). ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 01:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
          • That stretches credibility Scotty, particularly since that last half of that post included " Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined)" . They are all there, I can keep using your own words to show you were focused on harassing Eric, but it seems pretty obvious why you were there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't see any evidence of harassment. I believe that everything I said in that statement is arguably accurate. And honestly, that statement is less directed at Eric than it is at the editors, yourself included, who enable Eric's behavior. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
              • And the fact that you don't see any problem with how you acted, how you treated others is exactly why we are here. It is conduct unbecoming of an admin. It is harassment and personal attacks. The community has the choice of either saying this is acceptable behavior, or saying it is not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
                • Well, I believe that your conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And if you think the community gives a shit about your whinging here, you are mistaken. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly both Scotty and Dennis come off sounding like children in this discussion. Why not just move on and stop sniping at each other? Chillum 01:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Forget the attack against me, you think badgering an editor he had previously blocked was ok? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I see an admin commenting on policy, I see prior admin involvement. Previously blocking a user does not make you an "involved admin" so if there is something else I am missing point it out. Your immediate response to his presence on the noticeboard was really rather confrontational.

It has mostly been you two going back and forth at each other not the initial incident that is being disruptive. Chillum 01:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I probably was a little defensive after his first comment, which was a snide remark that started the badgering. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by a user that couldn't give a flaming toss, but just happened to stumble across this - I would like to ask what you all hope to achieve with this? Drama like this (in my experience at least) has two possible outcomes: You keep arguing on and on until words are said that causes users to rage quit the site or see most users involved in such a dispute face some sort of consequence, usually both sides of the debate. The second outcome involves apologizing to each other (even if you think you are in the right) and moving on. Walking away from this, you can't change anything that happened. All you are doing is bringing up stuff that has already happened and trying to gain some sort of moral highground, which is a pretty lame tactic in my opinion. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oh FFS- Dennis, there is nothing wrong with saying an editor breaking 3RR should be blocked for it. Scotty, you are becoming ultra-defensive and belligerent. Both of you, knock it off and go edit the encyclopedia. This is too stupid for words. Reyk _YO! 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How is it Panda and Blackkite see it so differently? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably because anything involving Eric gets all kinds of opinions on both sides. I think I'm practically unique in that I am a 9 year veteran with lots of edits, who nevertheless has had nothing much to do with Eric at all, and I have no opinion regarding this particular 3RR dispute. But I do recognize that Scotty can legitimately think someone should be blocked for breaking 3RR, even when that person is Eric. Reyk _YO! 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I completely agree that is a valid point of view. That isn't the issue. It was calling other editors pawn, the attack, claims, etc. Given their history, `it looks a lot like badgering to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop. You are acting no better. This matter seems resolved, I don't think any 3RR block is coming. The problem that remains is one of sniping at each other and the solution is to stop. Chillum 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm ok with closing this thread immediately. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 02:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Of course you are, you badgered an editor in what looks like an attempt to set him off, you made personal attacks, and a few are willing to sweep it under the rug. You should be giddy. The community is none the richer from it. I guess it is ok to badger the editor if they are unpopular, because that is what it looks like. A few have already spoken out against you here, but their voices are drowned out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • So, in summary, this drama thread predictably failed to produce any results, and now you're angry about it. You've become somewhat megalomaniacal, Dennis, and the power of adminship seems to have gone to your head. You think you can come to a discussion and casually deride my comments as soapboxing and drama-mongering, and comment on my lack of empathy, etc.? Other editors might take that kind of shit from you, but I certainly won't. Remember that you're no better than anyone else on WP, admin or not. Your judgment is no less flawed than anyone else. Next time you find yourself typing out a negative opinion of my personality (or anyone else's, for that matter), I'd advise thinking twice before posting it, and ensuring that your opinion is not based on any assumptions of bad faith, as your opinions throughout this thread have been rife with them. I'm still in favor of closing this thread, and would suggest that Dennis and I strive to avoid each other in the near future. I will certainly make an attempt to be more civil in future conversations with Dennis, as long as he doesn't come out swinging with insults and disrespect like he did in this case. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 15:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Question for Scottywong - You made a reference to what you perceive as "Eric's privileged status on this site" and this may be the root cause of the dispute. Are you able to substantiate your claim with strong evidence and concrete examples? -A1candidate (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it would not be even remotely worth the time and effort required to do so. So, I decline your request. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not a "yes", it's "no", but understandably so in your case. Eric Corbett 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The question was whether I am able to substantiate my claims, and the answer to that question is yes. The answer to the question of whether I will substantiate my claims is no. Anyone with any knowledge of your history would not argue that you frequently push the boundaries of the rules (to be generous), and that you are simultaneously the recipient of immunity from consequences from some and hypersensitivity to your transgressions from others. Both of these polarizing effects are natural reactions to each other; asking which one came first is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. But, it is undeniable that both of these extremes exist as reactions to your behavior, and providing evidence of either would not be difficult. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. While I'm not taking sides, I do think that the close should -- even if no action is taken (which seems likely from the above) -- touch on the issues of: a) was there a violation of wp:admin here in terms of a personal attack, and b) does the fact that a sysop has blocked an editor mean that he should not comment at AN3 in the manner we see here. The one point that I will make is that it would appear that an apology would have prevented this entire drama. But apparently the thought is that the asserted violations of wp:admin are baseless, so no apology is in order, and if that is (or is not) the case I guess we should clarify it. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett blocked for personal attack

It may or may not be relevant to this discussion that I have just blocked Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for an apparently unrelated personal attack via edit summary [17]. The substantive comment made was uncivil, but the edit summary was a direct personal attack.

The length of the block reflects the number of previous blocks which Eric has received for similar misconduct (see block log). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This is going to go smoothly. Anyone for popcorn? Doc talk 11:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmmm popcorn. I think I may have seen this show before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-admin unclose) You can't just close this at "Eric blocked, nothing more allowed to be said" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Does an edit summary of "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" justify a 72-hour block? Let the mob decide, and let the games begin... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For my part, the question and answer were...

• Q: " So, it's your contention that in the course of a conversation, which includes a female, that the deliberate use of the word cunt is not a personal attack because it was not really directed at her?" - @Saffron Blaze:
• A: "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?" - @Eric Corbett:

Anyone see anything other than a stupid question and a bleedin-obvious answer there? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Larks' tongues. Otters' noses. Ocelot spleens." Doc talk 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Albatross" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Down in front, Bignose! I can't hear a thing!" Doc talk 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Got any nuts?"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to apologise for that NAC screw up, I left the edit window open for too long and when I completed the edit, it somehow didn't edit conflict with all the intervening edits and saved around the whole discussion after BHG's block. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I see a slight problem as BHG seems to have been WP:INVOLVED having started the conversation at UT:Jimbo. I am also struggling to see any sort of warning towards Eric. I would encourage any uninvolved admin to reverse this block and I encourage User:BrownHairedGirl to explain her actions here, and to consider handing in her admin permissions if she is unable to use them properly, as seems on first glance to be the case. --John (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I did not start the conversation. If you are unwilling to take a second glace before you falsely accuse another admin, then your admin permissions are the ones which should go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • John, I take no position as to the propriety of the block itself and whether an administrator should reverse it as being placed outside the boundaries of administrator discretion or community consensus. With that said, I do not believe that BHG has violated the Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins policy in this situation. NW (Talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Clarify at 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC): The reason I believe this is that BHG's statements on that talk page were all a reflection of how she believed that Wikipedia's code of conduct should be enforced, which I believe falls into the emphasized portion of the policy highlighted: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." NW (Talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you, NW. For the record, I am not aware of having had any prior involvement with Eric Corbett. nor any prior involvement in the disagreement between those editors. The sole grounds for John's accusation appear to be that I had posted on the same page[18] to advocate foundation-level involvement in upholding policy.
      I hope that John will take time to either withdraw his allegation, or to clarify why he thinks that a post to a discussion about policy disqualifies an admin from upholding that policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • User NW, thank you for that. User BHG, you were in a heated argument with another user and you then blocked them without a warning. True, or false? --John (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • False, John. As previously requested, please look at the page history rather than making false allegations on the basis of a first glance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• And none of this has anything to do with the fact that this started with Scotty stumbling into AN3, looking to piss off Eric and set him off, the purpose of this filing. The clear lesson here is that it is ok for an admin to badger an editor as long as that editor is unpopular. And sorry, BHG, but I also disagree with the block as I see nothing incivil in his comment, just an obvious answer, and granted, a rude summary. We shouldn't block for singular instances like that. So far, all the discussion about sexism at Wikipedia has done has divided us, even though we all agree in principle that sexism is a bad thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, Dennis, it's all my fault, I think we should unblock Eric and block me instead. So, just to clarify: me telling you that I believe your character has become corrupted is a personal attack of the highest order, necessitating an ANI thread and my immediate desysopping. Then, a few hours later, Eric asks someone if they were hiding behind the door when God gave out brains, and that's just salty old Eric up to his old games again, no harm no foul, right? As an admin, I believe that you need to strive to be fairer in your judgments of peoples' actions, regardless of whether or not you happen to like or dislike the person whose actions you are judging. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Dennis, are you really sure that you see nothing uncivil about a complaint relating to misogynist language getting a response which gratuitously challenges an editor's rationality, even when accompanied by an extraordinarily abusive edit summary which makes it unambiguously clear that it was intended as a pure personal attack on that editor?
    Even when that editor has a long record of blocks and warnings for personal attacks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • You're still arguing from your opinion that any use of the word is misogynist, something that you've just accused me of on Jimbo's talk page, and now you're conflating that issue with Eric's somewhat rude edit summary in an attempt to justify your block. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Black Kite, I did not Eric block because of the misogynist language. I blocked Eric because his response to a complaint about it it consisted of an accusation of irrationality, reinforced by a blatant the personal attack in the edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I see him say "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?". Are we assuming that since he was replying to a woman, it was meant differently than if he were saying it to a male? He seems to be saying that it matters exactly the same, male or female. I'm lost, is "rational editor" an insult to a woman but not a man? I think you are reading too much into it. Eric has lots of history with rudeness, but none with sexism. He is an equal opportunity offender, so I don't see any lines to read between here. I don't doubt you meant well, but I do think the block was a knee jerk reaction. There is a lot of tension right now about sexism floating about, but Eric probably has more collaboration with women than any other editor I know. I personally think you misread him. I'm not going to go revert myself, but I wish you would reflect on this and consider it. The summery was rude, but I've done worse, I bet you have, too. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • He's also driven away more women than any other editor I know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Name them. --John (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dennnis on all counts - any admin got the courage to unblock (as I would, and have done in the past)? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • PS: There is no such thing as misogynist language outside of context and intent, and if you, BHG, think there is, then you should not be the one to administer admin sanctions on such issues. You have acted based on your own subjective response, and I would say that's a bad admin action - I would reject calls for your recall, but I think you should revert your block and wait for community consensus — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • PPS: Considering BHG's expressed personal feelings, she is absolutely not the right person to be issuing a block here - but there is time to put things right before a request for admin sanctions is needed. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No it hasn't got anything to do with the AN3 thread. Cuntgate kicked off quite separately from threads at AN (and multiple other venues) about sexism, harrassment etc. BHG tacked this thread on to an existing one about EC, but actually no connection, other than EC being the common factor. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• (non involved opinion) This is a great example of the problem we have here over the past few years. An editor that has an obvious history with maturity and basic respect problems is blocked and admins fight over it on a technicality. What has happened is Admins have lost their ability to preform minor blocks to even the worst kind of editor because of backlashes that may happen. The community at large should be the focus - not saving ones ass from scrutiny because an editor like this is clearly a detriment to the project. Our admin system is failing the average editor. -- Moxy (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So you're going to be blocking Scottywong for his behavior also? I found that sort of baiting/badgering to be more offensive than anything I've ever seen Eric do ... (and for the record, I don't subscribe to the "worst kind of editor" description for Eric ... nor do I believe he's "clearly a detriment to the project". I'd call those PAs but... I'm not an admin so I guess I'm not allowed to say things like that about others) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Scottywong has a history of low-level passive-aggressive incivility, and one of my biggest regrets is that I supported his RfA — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And you know he is laughing his ass off over all this distraction, and has already moved on. Eric seems to the be the shiny thing that distracts the community as a whole. Meanwhile, this kind of admin aggression will continue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And people wonder why confidence in admins is low and why there are so many calls for reform. Pathetic. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Full support for the block. A clear personal attack from a user with a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Stupid block, misuse of admin tools to advance a personal campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• A "personal campaign"? Could you elaborate? Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Have you been on Jimbo's talkpage recently?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is BULLSHIT. As there is no god. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Stupid block! - IMHO Eric's known for being outspoken but at the end of the day he's a great editor and unless he's is wound up -He usually hushes up and gets on with it, I don't condone his language but IMHO Eric's never going to change and we either lose him or put up with it and I'm certainly with the latter! ... You wonder why we lose so many great editors here.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Got it backwards - we loose way more editors over all because of people like this. Best we loose editors like this over loosing many many other editors that can edit just as well. We loos ediotrs becaus so many are not willing to follow basic conduct expectations - not the other way around. -- Moxy (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Davey2010: So writing content means people can be as rude as they like and get away with it? In that case, I'll go write a few articles and then drop some well chosen insults wherever I please. What price the n-word? </sarcasm>

But seriously, if a user contributes to an atmosphere of incivility, that drives other productive editors away. In any case, it's stupid to excuse any editor from the requirement of decency. BethNaught (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah there's pros and cons to my statement, I don't believe anyone should be rude simply because they're a great editor, But as I said Eric won't change and blocking him achieves nothing IMHO –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So the community should do nothing because he wont change. Again all backwards if he not willing to follow basic conduct norms that are found in normal society then the community should step up..not let him run wild because he wont change. If his not willing to conform to normal everyday social norms then its time he goes. -- Moxy (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What it achieves is to demonstrate that incivility is unacceptable and to remove a cause of an unpleasant atmosphere here. By your argument people can exempt themselves from all need for respectable behaviour by being sufficiently obstinate. BethNaught (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• In as much as his enablers like to point out the difference between UK and US slang as a defence, I have very little doubt that Eric so frequently chooses to refer to people as "cunts" (directly or in general) specifically because it pisses people off. He's basically trolling, and got all the drama he desired. Resolute 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No more than all the others have got the drama they desire, by allowing themselves to get riled up by it. It's a choice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Did he call someone a cunt recently? I found 13 hits for "cunt" on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, but none of these occurrences were posted by Eric. If I understood correctly, he was blocked for writing "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" in an edit summary. Maybe I missed something, in which case I'd like to see a diff. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The entire thread on Jimbo's talk page centres around Eric's continuing usage of the term to bait people, and the comment he was blocked for was meant to act in defence of this. Resolute 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No, the entire thread is about a singular recent use that was aimed at no one. And the block was because he said usage that isn't directed at someone isn't a personal attack, and left a rude summary in the mix. That is the nut of it. All the hubbub is more disruptive than the singular use of a very ugly word. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, and Eric does not have an extremely long history of incivility and personal attacks, and we should not consider that history whatsoever when looking at this single, isolated incident. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Jimbo has intervened at Panda's talk page, which renders the closing of this section inappropriate — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Sigh - I'm no fan of Eric's, or incivility in general, but a block for this edit summary is way over-the-top! GiantSnowman 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• The block was within discretion - the comment appears to be a personal attack - and appears to be consistent with prior used manner of personally focused commenting. The admin was uninvolved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

See I would see this post as BHG taking a position on this. Had I made a statement and taken a position like that, I would not have blocked an editor involved in the debate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not an involved position on NPA and "you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, bad unblock - BHG has it right, and I agree with everything she has said and her action taken. The unblock is deeply flawed and deserves community scrutiny. As for the subject of this latest drama-festival, he will continue his offensive insults until the community shows him the door. The only question is how much longer that will take. Jusdafax 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock BHG is right. The block should NOT have been reversed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock - The discussion was closed prematurely and there was no consensus to unblock. Blocks are supposed to deter undesirable conduct, but how can they if they are undone so quickly? The fact that this type of conduct from Eric Corbett has occurred so many times before would seem to support harsher sanctions, not this recurrent "catch and release" program.- MrX 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Good block, bad unblock Dennis is normally pretty level headed, but seems to have a blind-spot when it comes to EC's constant and repeated disruptive conduct. Given the fact that Dennis has repeated defended EC's conduct, he should be seen as WP:INVOLVED and should not have made the unblock. Dennis, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Dennis did not make the unblock. Please do at least minimal homework before posting here. --John (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock This has nothing to do with Dennis. I think Eric deserved this 3RR block. I saw it pop up, I looked and the report was valid. Eric is about the last editor to be "roped into a revert" he knew very well what he was doing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Good block, bad unblock Eric violated 3RR. Block is deserved. That Eric refuses to alter his behavior, as obliquely noted by Jimbo Wales, makes an indef the best option. Dennis and DP should hand in their tools, given they are neither prepared to nor have demonstrated the ability to act in the best interest of the community where Eric is concerned, allowing him and his apologists to create a hostile environment for other editors, and to create a sexually hostile for women in particular. I don't care how much content Eric, Giano and their cronies create. It comes at too high a cost to other editors. --Drmargi (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line between incivility and personal insults?

Disclosure: I have no personal interactions with any of the involved parties prior to this incident.

On 29 July, 2014, User:Eric Corbett posted a series of extremely uncivil edit summaries and comments that were clearly meant to intimidate and provoke a response:

• First, he threatened to throw verbal abuse on Drmies' talk page, but didn't get blocked.

• Next, he directly resorted to name-calling on Drmies' talk page, but didn't get blocked.

• Finally, he misused the edit summary to insult an editor's intelligence on Jimmy Wales's talk apge and he still remains unblocked as of now.

I am shocked, appalled, and absolutely disgusted by the majority of administrators on Wikipedia who failed to take action and even condoned such a blatant attempt to provoke and intimidate. I strongly recommend the following actions to be taken:

1. Reversal of DangerousPanda's unblocking of Eric Corbett

I disagree with DangerousPanda's loose interpretation of WP:NPA. The misuse of an edit summary to insult someone's intelligence is not just a direct personal attack, but also an attempt to threaten, intimidate and provoke a response. This is not a one-off comment but a series progressively blatant insults.

2. Review of Dennis Brown's comments

After Scottywong responded to the 3RR report, which is what I expect administrators to do, DB responded with vulgarities such as "we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log". After failing to provoke a reaction, DB continued to harass SW by going to his talk page and telling him to "put up or shut up. This sort of conduct is extremely unbecoming of an administrator and it is certainly not what I expect of any editor, including those without administrator privileges.

Although I have never had any personal interactions with DB, I've always held him in high regard, but I think he may have simply lost the plot here.

3. Re-consider the establishement of a cvility board

This was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Where_and_how_to_request_a_Civility_board, but the proposal was knocked down by some of the same admins and editors involved in this ANI report.

I want to emphasize again that I have no personal interactions with any of them prior to this discussion. The only reason why I'm posting it here is that I edit controversial articles regularly and I have been subjected to the same sort of personal attacks and accusations that I see here. Althought the attacks came from a different group of editors, the tone was similar to that used by Eric Corbett to provocate and intimidate.

Either we enforce WP:NPA strictly, or we remove the guideline altogether. Maintaining the status quo, however, is the worst option and it will only exacerbate the current situation.

-A1candidate (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• If anyone reblocked Eric now, they would be wheel warring and almost certainly loose their admin tools. I think the whole case needs to go to Arbcom, both the civility / NPA disagreement which has been well documented elsewhere, and the disagreement over enforcement of WP:3RR which also seems to have arisen. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, and with most of what A1candidate wrote. This does need to go to ArbCom. One editor and a few enabling admins should not be permitted to cause this much disruption, so many times.- MrX 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Alas, Arbcom has already and repeatedly chosen to bury its head in the sand. There will be no solution coming from the body ostensibly designated to solve such problems. Resolute 20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

---

I am not posting to the above proposals but rather just talking down here. I think that our policies are very clear on what is a personal attack and when they need a block. The block in this case was valid.

The unblock shows either a lack of understanding of WP:WPA or simply an opinion that it should not be enforced. Well my position is that if a policy enjoys concsensus then admins should not be reversing actions taken by that policy.

The community widely agrees that personal attacks have no place here. Yet I have seen many cases where an established editor is protected from enforcment by admins who will simply unblock.

The block should be reintated. Dennis' actions certainly do need examination. Most importantly blocking and unblocking based on WP:NPA should only be handled by admins that understamd amd accept that consensus.

Don't think someone should be blocked for personal attack? Fine nobody is making you block anyone. But reversing a valid action taken by an admin following consensus based policy because you don't agree is not admin behavior. Chillum 17:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree.- MrX 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As one of those tangentially mentioned above, I had to guffaw when I saw EC post the following, "You are quite obviously entirely bereft of any insight into your own behaviour, a not uncommon condition here."[19] I assumed it was meant ironically, but now I'm not sure. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't want to join the circus show here but how on earth is that a personal attack???♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld - It is a childish and immature case of name calling ("sunshine"). -A1candidate (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sunshine" is a term of racial abuse. I declined to be offended, even if it was meant as such. --Pete (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't in any way whatsoever in England. I'm guessing you're both American. It's pretty common in speech from older guys in England when speaking to younger ones, particularly in the north to use "sunshine" or "sunny Jim" when addressing somebody, usually a younger person in a slightly heated way. Scottish Fat Bastard used it in Austin Powers, "Look 'ere sunny Jim, I ate a baby". It's as mild as mild can be. If that's a personal attack then everything could be interpreted as a personal attack. That Eric would have even thought about racially abusing somebody is preposterous. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a patronising put-down but it's got nothing to do with racial abuse. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd always assumed they were embellishments of "son", along with "sonny" and "sonny boy" and as you say, used by older guys speaking to younger ones. NebY (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• He explicitly insulted an editor's intelligence when he asked "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains". I'm sure that is understood to be a degrading personal insult in most parts of the world. -A1candidate (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We might seek clarification from EC on what exactly he meant. I doubt it was positive. As I say, I took no offence. It is part of a pattern of behaviour we see far too often. Disagree with someone and instead of addressing the substance, attack the person: by abusing them, demeaning them, threatening them, whaever it takes to get them out of the way. And then deny what is quite obvious to their targets, Is a lack of self knowledge a requirement to be a productive editor on every other subject? It sometimes seems that way. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The personal attack is here[20]. The other diffs show that this was not an isolated incident but was part of a pattern of incivility. Chillum 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The premise of this "proposal" is completely faulty. The diffs to my talk page are not evidence of anything--they are responses to a. someone I blocked before who came by to troll and b. some other one I blocked before who, in my opinion, was stirring the shit pot and, I see, still is. Mr.X--"enablers"? That's something I've heard before: it's a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

So it's okay to throw personal attacks at blocked editors? And it's okay to respond to trolls by trolling them back? -A1candidate (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Being intentionally offensive is a violation of WP:NPA and is disruptive. I doubt I'm alone in preferring Wikipedia be a more polite place than it is now. When we see editors persistently abuse others, they should be directed towards a more community-minded attitude. Saying "Oh, he's always been like that! It's just his way." just makes it worse. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Really Drmies? Who exactly was I personally attacking? Perhaps the reason that you've heard it before is because there are several editors who believe it to be true.- MrX 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The premises of A1candidate's second point "After Scottywong responded to the 3RR report, which is what I expect administrators to do, DB responded with vulgarities by telling SW that "we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log"" are respectively misguided and a serious misreading or misrepresentation. First, we do not expect all the 602 active admins to respond to a 3RR report and four had already responded when SW joined in. Second, DB did not tell SW "we are going to fucking spank you"; he wrote "When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log. No thanks."[21] A1candidate, please could you strike your statement and reconsider the arguments and proposals you have based on it? NebY (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, because there is no rule that prohibits an admin from responding to a 3RR report, but WP:VULGAR and WP:NPA do prohibit provocative comments (even if not directed at SW explicitly) such as "we are going to fucking spank you", regardless of whether DB is an average editor or an all-powerful administrator. -A1candidate (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You do realise DB was saying to SW that "we are going to fucking spank you" is not a constructive attitude? NebY (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and how is that not a violation of WP:VULGAR? The expletive and "spanking" did not come from SW, but DB. He could have made his point nicely without resorting to uncivil language. -A1candidate (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It takes more than avoiding words like "fuck" or "spank" to make one's point nicely - otherwise "I am shocked, appalled, and absolutely disgusted", "I strongly recommend the following actions to be taken: ... Review of Dennis Brown's comments" and "I think he may have simply lost the plot" would seem persuasive, not aggressive and punitive. NebY (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think A1candidate's point is that Dennis didn't have to make his point in such a crass manner. The "we are going to fucking spank you" in quotes is a kind of impersonation of me (or, at least, of Dennis' perception of me). In other words, Dennis is saying that he believes that I derive happiness from punishing users for various things. He imagines that I troll around Wikipedia looking for people who are doing something wrong, and threatening that "I'm going to fucking spank you" and add them to my "spank list", like a big game hunter hanging animal heads on his wall as trophies. I could care less about the vulgarity; the comment itself is insulting enough. Especially coming from someone who has blocked 1,730 users (compared to my 109 blocks, despite Dennis and I becoming admins at practically the same time). ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to re-post what I said on my talkpage moments ago: Wow, the absolute ironic part of this discussion is that I'm supposedly well-known across the interweb for having one of the strictest interpretation of WP:NPA and for making supposedly atrocious civility-based blocks. I'm most certainly not considered to be a "fan" of Eric, nor he of me ... and I believe my name is in his block log at least once prior to this. Nevertheless, this unblock is based on NOTHING related to my personal disdain for incivility - it's based on consensus on the discussion, and nothing else. So, put your emotions and past dealings with the editor in question away, and think to yourself "if the asshole who blocks people for civility issues actually unblocked in this case...what the hell am I missing?" With the risk of sounding sexist, put that in your proverbial pipe and smoke it the panda ₯’ 21:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you assumed there was consensus, but there was none. -A1candidate (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There was none. Was BHG consulted, as is required? (And now you mention it, it does sound sexist.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reverse the unblock. Block Dennis Brown. Create an RfC/U on DangerousPanda. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reverse the unblock. Leave Dennis alone.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reverse the unblock. Dennis and DP should hand in their tools, as unable or unwilling to follow WP:ADMIN or face desysopping. They are fostering a climate hostile to editors in general, and to women in particular. --Drmargi (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo

Jimbo has personally intervened at User talk:DangerousPanda#Unfortunate (which seems like a personally intimidating approach to me when he could have commented here and taken part in the actual community discussion), and that makes this discussion very much not closed. Should Jimbo be pressuring admins to reverse their actions? Should be be using his status to sway things? Open to discussion... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Should not those questions, in the first instance, be directed to the god-king in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

In my view Jimbo is absolutely within bounds to comment, and to request a reblock, on Dangerous Panda's talk page. And wow, I think that Wehwalt's characterization of him is way out of line in this discussion, and ramps up the drama needlessly. This is an admin page, for crying out loud! I call on an admin to use the powers granted to them by the community and take preventive action. At some point this vituperation needs to be stopped. And if not now, when? Jusdafax 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's a common phrase used around here with reference to him, and he's made reference to that or similar appellations in his paid speeches. And your comments do nothing to diminish any drama. It sounds like you're about to break into "first they came for the rollbackers ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy has as much say as anyone else here. In my experience when he says something was a mistake, it is most often the case. Chillum 19:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Calling it "personally intimidating" is silly. He is jusy saying the unblock was mistaken and that he hopes it will be reversed. No intimidation there. Jimbo should pressure admins to reverse bad decisions, so should admins and regular editors. Chillum 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that User:Jimbo_Wales must be allowed to voice his opinion to the exact same degree as everyone else, and that voice should be heard by the merits and strength of its reason alone. I personally disagree with his opinion here, but I don't see his expressing it as intimidation, and I hope Dangerous Panda doesn't either. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Who precisely is User:Jimbo_Wales? I don't believe I'm familiar with his work on Wikipedia; whereas Eric Corbett's work seems to be scattered over thousands of content pages. It really is distracting when these newbies jump in with their uniformed opinions. Giano (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're not joking about not knowing who he is, he credits himself to be one of the founders of Wikipedia. (Though it's a complicated thing, go read his article at Jimmy_Wales#Wikipedia to better understand the conflict of only 'one of the founders') . Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think Giano is asking how his work on content compares with Eric's.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Giano knows exactly who Jimbo is. He's just trolling. Resolute 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that a personal attack? Oh wait, it can't be. No naughty words. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Resolute's insult towards User:Giano is every bit as bad as the comment leading to the block that is being discussed. Does anyone think he/she should be blocked? --John (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency, yes, I do think he should be blocked. Eric Corbett 21:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, ffs, and consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative, or the hobgoblin of little minds, and so forth. It is bad for the encyclopedia, in my opinion, to block regular content contributors such as Eric, or Giano, or Resolute (and, Resolute, it is also unimaginative and bad for the encyclopedia to call them trolls or a net negative). Just about every work environment I've experienced had its share of unkindness, profanity, and mean spirits. There are other ways to smooth the waves and reconciliate. The block-button is a stupid way. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If he has a recent history of throwing verbal abuse, then yes he should be blocked per WP:Civility. -A1candidate (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought this was pretty rude too. --John (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I am a "prolific content contributor". The only suggestion could be made in this case as it relates to "the sake of consistency" is no action whatsoever. Resolute 21:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now we have "sophistry" to go with "troll" and "enabler". Resolute, do you like being an admin on this site? --John (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I add "histrionics" too? Because unless you are prepared to begin blocking Eric and Giano for civility violations as mild as those I have allegedly made, I would appreciate it if you would spare me them. Also, prolific content contributor immunity. Sorry. Resolute 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"Prolific content contributor" applies only to Eric, not anyone else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

If you guys (Resolute and Hawkeye) believe you are examples of the civility to which you claim the rest of the community should aspire, I counsel you to take a long hard look at yourselves. --John (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing anything by User:Jimbo Wales which rises to the level of actionable abuse. He just stated his opinion, as is his right, he didn't wheel-war. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm aware that Jimbo Wales has just acknowledged on his talk page that "progress involves working on some real issues with enforcement of civility", so I would like to hear what he has to say. -A1candidate (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I suggest you go there and listen to it then. An overpowering preoccupation with civility shows a lack of intellect and genuine interests in one's life. Giano (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sluzzelin Please do not compare Resolute to Giano or Eric Corbett.Giano and Eric Corbett has repeatedly been blocked, most commonly for edit warring ,Personal attacks and incivility over a prolonged period.There is a diverse opinion on how far a lot of article creation by an editor should be allowed to influence decisions on other matters concerning that editor. There are many who come close to thinking that a "good content creator" should never be excluded, no matter how grossly he has abused their position in other respects. At the other end of the spectrum there are Many who think that it should make no difference at all: a given offence should be treated exactly the same, no matter who committed it.

Giano and Eric Corbett have already repeatedly had allowances made because they are substantial content creator. Ignoring a blocks and unblocking again and again is evidently a mistake which seems to tell the community that they are above Wikipedia or a Carte blance to admin friends and they always got unblocked without even posting an unblock request.Please do not compare Resolute who has never even been blocked.Please note how much of time has been wasted in Arbcom cases due to these 2 editors.It is net negative to the Project.205.178.136.76 (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

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

More!

Yet another example where an active discussion about this matter is closed in the midst of discussion. Now editors will disperse to various venues having achieved no consensus and whatever underlying issue is at hand will explode again in several months time. Perhaps instead we will have multiple discussions all over the place involving the same users but lacking the centrality. I challenge premature termination of the discussion (only 2 days after it had started) as it influences the ability of the community to come to a rationale decision, and we cannot solve whatever issue is causing this without a fully-fledged discussion, which is currently ongoing. Please reopen the discussion. 101.116.91.82 (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - Highly dubious close of an active discussion, and it should be noted that six consecutive editors !voted Good block, bad unblock in just a few hours at the time of the closure, which gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of an attempt to stifle an emerging consensus, as well as an active discussion on Jimmy Wales' commentary on Dangerous Panda's talk page. This ANI closure itself becomes a further part of this snarled mess, and the admin responsible deserves scrutiny by the admin and editing community. Deeply wrong action. Jusdafax 00:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - I would like to add myself to the group of six editors who voted Good block, bad unblock, because personal attacks such as "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" cannot be tolerated. Make that seven consecutive votes. -A1candidate (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seven who think that "you're stupid" is some intolerable insult? Damn! Well, I'm nobody, and I've heard far worse in this very discussion. What do you think of "you're a corrupt admin"? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's an insult, and it becomes an intolerable insult when hurled repeatedly at various individuals, after multiple warning and blocks, and scores of pages of discussion. "You're a corrupt admin" is also an intolerable insult, unless of course there is evidence that the admin is actually corrupt.- MrX 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Make that eight. I'm not seeing consensus here for any one course of action. This is something that needs to be resolved or we are going to be doing the same thing over and over. WP:3RR works fine - why cannot we find some similar mechanism that works? We're not stupid. We can do this. We've solved harder problems. --Pete (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (I got blocked for saying someone was of average intelligence, once. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC))
• Reopen. This is exactly why we can't have nice things. It is impossible to address systemic issues when we handle them in this manner, where initial discussion is loudly disrupted by a few drama mongers, then the discussion is relatively quickly closed under the rationale that there's "too much drama", so thoughtful editors are unable to steer the discussion in a productive direction because it was closed before they even noticed it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

By "dramamongers" are you including those who persistently misread a comment and then forum shop until they get what they feel is an appropriate measure of satisfaction in that matter, failing to abide by consensus that what they thought they heard is not what was actually said? Or is that a description of a reasonable discussant? It has all been said 300 times by both sides anyway... Carrite (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I've opened a formal close review near the bottom of this page, for anyone interested.- MrX 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed - Bad block, bad unblock. Nothing to see here, move along. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed on ANI but move to new venue and reopen. Perhaps the Gender Gap project talk page would be a good place. Viriditas (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed. A lot of questionable decisions were made but I don't see anything actionable at the moment. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think "drama mongers" describes perfectly some of the behaviour here. Gender gap? More like a civility gap. Guys, you cannot make the world "civil" by shouting, screeching, poking or threatening. It is best done by showing an example, not something the civility drama brigade are terribly adept at. I will make no further comment on this dreadful episode, unless BHG's tools are up for review. --John (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• There are places within the wider community where civil behaviour is mandated. Temple, law courts, news broadcasts, parliament. We cannot stop editors from having differences of opinion, but we can at least send a message that incivil behaviour and personal attacks are not tolerated. What I'm seeing from some quarters here is support for the exact opposite: that editors can do whatever they want. So long has they have a pet admin backing them up. Well, I say that the sort of encyclopaedia produced by the sort of people who think that attacking other people is good sport is going to end up being something that isn't as useful or savoury or neutral as it might be. It's not a matter of fighting for peace. It is a matter of setting a good example and not tolerating those who do not. --Pete (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  So when do you plan to start setting a good example? Eric Corbett 00:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed Nothing to be gained by further discussion, the unblocking admin will not be overruled by consensus so why spin the wheels?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed - With all respect it's gone on for long enough - Reopening won't solve anything. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep closed. There is nothing to be gained from furthering this dispute at this time. TParis is certainly correct that ANI will not provide a resolution. Not now, not the next time and not the time after that. Resolute 15:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep closed. It was never a "fully-fledged discussion." It was an incomplete Frankenchicken, a mashup of vampire arguments and zombie animosities, capable only of destroying hope before drifting into the frozen archives still bitterly seeking closure. NebY (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - This is a conversation that needs input and consensus. We can't keep on saying it's okay to attack other editors and get away with it, because we think it's too hard to find a solution. The gender imbalance thing is something that concerns me greatly. Are we becoming a monstrous community where women are not welcome unless they fart and curse along with the lads? A bit of scuffle and stoush is fine so long as we keep on cranking out articles on obscure border wars and loud cars and porn stars? --Pete (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

  If you're in any way shape or form referring to me then I suggest you check your facts. Eric Corbett 00:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reopen - Civility is a policy. Good block, bad unblock. An admin took action. Her action was dismissed. Is "you're stupid" an intolerable insult? In an isolated instance, no. As part of a pattern of behavior. Most definitely. Message to community? Civility is not a policy. Lightbreather (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Keep closed. A lot of the people crying out for civility wouldn't recognize real incivility if they fell headfirst into a bucket of it — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Let it happen If something keeps getting re-opened by several people then it is no longer appropriate to close it. If closing 4 times does not work then it is time to talk about it. Clearly there has been some very poor behavior and admin action may be called for. Also, Good block, bad unblock. These constant closing are sweeping under the rug that many people think that an admin made a bad move, we need to talk this out. Chillum 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, but at this point wouldn't it make sense to use another venue and focus the discussion either on Eric Corbett's conduct, or admin accountability per WP:RAAA, WP:INVOLVED and WP:CON? There is no way the block will be reinstated now, especially with DP on a wikibreak. It would seem that either RFC/U or (more likely) ArbCom would be the best next step.- MrX 16:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• [22].--v/r - TP 17:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. Somehow a squabble about 3RR, a naughty word, a bad unblock have all gotten mixed up into a sticky mess. I would like to see a serious discussion on the appropriateness of admins preventing the enforcement of the NPA policy which enjoys consensus. The above discussion is a shit storm of multiple topics and confused votes. There is a serious issue and frankly I think the actions of several people need to be reviewed in an organized fashion. Chillum 17:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• I remember Malleus/Eric having issues with civility years ago when I edited as an IP. I can't believe that this drama llama is still going strong! Sure, he's a good content editor, but so what? Is he a good user? Do the self-serving contributions that he's made to some exceedingly obscure topics really justify the extraordinary amount of effort he has required of others for years on end? Maybe, if Eric refuses to be civil and appropriate with others, he should rescind any expectations that others will be civil to him. Think about it. If his grand stance for justice is nothing more than fighting for the right to swear and hurl insults like a drunken teenager – his maturity is, at best that level – then that's what he deserves in return. I say he's a whiny little bitch that regularly disrupts the project for no other reason than he is an attention whore. There, I said it, so if the great Malleus is to be respected, he would want me to be able to say that to him. This cult of personality has long out-lived its usefulness to Wikipedia, and Malleus/Eric is easily the biggest waste of resources that the project has ever had. He is no longer a net positive, and he hasn't been for quite some time. We need to start focusing on protecting the project, not individual editors who build-up a following of sycophants. MaximumEdison (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Keep closed - a morass of walls of text is impossible to gain true consensus of. structured debate somewhere will be more helpful. Any further sanctions on past actions at this point are punitive.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck

Such a minor issue but nevertheless escalating into an edit war. Could someone look at the recent edits to her categories by Johnparklambert? His deleting her from the general American journalists category in favor of American women journalists category smacks of the sexism that appeared earlier in categorization reported by Salon.com. thanks--Aichik (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this is a misunderstanding? Look at this diff, where he explains why, because it's in the subcat, so no need to list it again. Also, he left a note at your talk explaining as well.(talk) 00:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) From the edit history on that page, it appears that the user respected your objections and merely retagged it a different way that wouldn't be offensive to you. I don't see an issue here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The box at the top of Category:American women journalists says it is a "non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American journalists". That means the latter is not removed when the former is added. Except there is an "out" which is claimed to mean that women should be shunted to their own category because of another category. There have been previous disputes regarding gender wars, and I would welcome a decision somewhere that no "women" categories should exist unless a corresponding "men" category is created, with both categories being populated in the same manner (actually, I would welcome a decision to delete all "women" categories like this). Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

People aren't actually doing it enough, I grant you — but ideally, all American journalists are supposed to be subcatted by the particular type of journalism they did (radio vs. TV vs. newspaper vs. magazine; reporters and correspondents vs. columnists vs. news anchors; fashion vs. sports vs. political; etc.), and Category:American journalists itself is supposed to be empty of individual articles. In addition, I see that 27 US states have their own subcategories of Category:American journalists by state, while the other 23 don't yet — but if that scheme were complete, it would also diffuse all journalists out of the undifferentiated "American journalists" category. Then Category:American women journalists wouldn't be causing a problem, because it wouldn't be pulling women out of any other category that they should be in.

As long as the parent category isn't actually getting diffused, however, I understand that this looks like a problem — but the point is that Category:American journalists can be fully diffused on grounds independent of gender. It isn't the final base category that any journalist, male or female, is supposed to be sitting in — the journalists are actually all supposed to be diffused into more specific subcategories, and are sitting directly in the parent category only because of simple editor laziness rather than because the category itself is nondiffusable in principle.

The ghettoization rule was always meant to preclude gendering categories that couldn't otherwise be diffused on non-gender grounds, which isn't actually the situation here. I realize that the current "gendered subcategories aren't diffusing of the parent, while nongendered location or specific-type subcategories still are" situation is causing a lot of confusion about how we are or aren't supposed to be handling gendered categories — but the only "violation" happening in this case is that people aren't actually doing the work of cleaning Category:American journalists up properly. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• The underlying problem here is the promotion of the flawed concept of "non-diffusing subcategories". The default rule (WP:SUBCAT) is that an article should not usually be in both a category and its sub-category, and diffusion of categories is routinely done on that basis. The existence of a few rare exceptions to the general rule turns the process of diffusion into a minefield for any editor, who is now expected to check the contents page of every single category before diffusing. This massively increases the amount of work involved, because what would previously have been a simple exercise of using WP:HOTCAT now requires loading up a raft of new tabs.
  The idea of "non-diffusing subcategories" has been promoted in good faith as a solution to the ghettoisation problem (in particular by Obiwankenobi), but it ignores the practical reality of the means by which categories are populated and diffused. It is theoretical solution which doesn't work in practice, a point which I made repeatedly in this discussion and which Bearcat has made in a more recent discussion.
  Bearcat and I do not often agree, but we appear to take the same view in this case: that if a sub-cat can exist only by being labelled as non-diffusing, then it shouldn't exist at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent, so let's delete Category:American women journalists because it is absurd that for whatever reason a female journalist, unlike her male colleagues, is not in Category:American journalists except from a ghetto subcat. Alternatively, create Category:American men journalists for the males (yuck). Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody, male or female, is actually supposed to be filed directly in Category:American journalists; they're supposed to be filtered down into more specific subcategories for the specific type of journalism they did (fashion, sports, politics, etc.), the specific platform in which they did journalism (radio, TV, newspaper, etc.), the specific journalistic role they held (reporter, columnist, anchor, etc.), and on and so forth. The fact that people aren't actually doing the work, and are instead leaving thousands of journalists directly in the main parent category, speaks to editor laziness more than anything else — Category:American journalists isn't the end category that any journalist is actually meant to be sitting in. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• This again? You'll never fix the category "system" without a fundamental rethink. You don't do it by creating every category you can think of as an answer to every question everyone might ever have. You certainly don't do it by having inconsistencies like "non-diffusing", then trying to use them willy-nilly as band aids to hide the gaping wounds in the "system". You do it by storing attributes then querying them.

Don't create a category "Fluffy pink bunnies living in France with white cars and 6 children", then put Foofoo the bunny in it, only to later move her to "Fluffy pink bunnies living in France with blue cars and 8 children". That's madness.

Give Foofoo the attributes: Texture=fluffy, colour=pink, species=rabbit, children=6, car owner=true, car colour=white, residence=France - etc - for anything you care about. Then categories are simply queries of attributes (which you can cache/provide links for).

Yes, it's a huge task, and a whole new system, and should have been addressed years ago - but the task won't get smaller, and what exists as a category "system" now is fundamentally useless in many cases, and utterly unscaleable. Honestly, if all the time that went into arguing about it was diverted into designing an attribute/query system that worked, you might be surprised how much progress could be made. Perhaps this was intended to be the point of WikiData, or one of them, but regardless, it's the only sane alternative. Begoon ^talk 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This makes too much sense. I've often wondered why we stick with unwieldy categories when attributes would be more flexible and allow for much more powerful searches. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's actually been proposed many times by many editors over the years. You're absolutely correct that it's probably a better way than our current system, because it would indeed be more flexible and more powerful — we do occasionally have users who have legitimate and genuine reasons to want to see groupings that are either are either too overgeneralized (e.g. "all women" or "all American people") or too overgranular (e.g. "feminist organizations based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" or "people in a particular occupation born in a particular year") for us to permit under the current method. (And as someone who devotes far more time than I'd wish to category cleanup, I can attest that we also have quite a few editors who do seem to think categories already work that way — I come across entirely too many articles where instead of adding the intersected Category:American science fiction writers, an editor has applied "American", "science fiction" and "writers" as three distinct standalone category declarations.)

Under a tag-based system, we could apply each individual attribute on its own as a standalone tag, and the user could generate the specific grouping he or she wanted to see by generating an on-the-fly intersection of tags X, Y and Z, instead of requiring us to actively curate that intersection as an actual category. As well, it would vastly reduce how much time we would need to waste on tasks such as arguing at CFD about categories, or monitoring categories such as Category:Writers or Category:Politicians for entries that have been directly added there instead of to appropriate subcategories. And I also believe that there could be ways to make such a system directly watchlistable, so that inappropriate or unsourced categories (e.g. the frequent use of "LGBT people" categories as a form of vandalism or attack editing against people who aren't LGBT) can be caught more promptly.

But despite the many times moving to a tag-based system has been proposed in the past, we're still working with the current flawed system. I don't know if the development team have tried in the past and found it to be unworkable for technical/programming reasons, or if they just haven't ever really acted on the proposals at all for some reason (e.g. as often as I've seen it bruited about among editors as a wishlist item, maybe nobody's ever actually approached the developers with a real suggestion for them to actually act upon?) Maybe one of the developers could speak to the situation, because I don't really know whether there's a specific reason why things haven't moved in that direction or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Oh, BEG...we've certainly had our disagreements over the years, I won't deny that. But we've had many times where we've agreed too, don't forget that. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
• Aichik, for the record, this isn't actually a problem. As I explained above, Category:American journalists is supposed to be fully diffused on non-gendered grounds, such as the subject of their journalism (fashion, sports, politics, etc.) or the platform in which they did journalism (radio, TV, magazine, newspaper, etc.). So she's not getting removed from that category on the basis of her inclusion in Category:American women journalists, but on the basis of her inclusion in Category:American fashion journalists. The "women" subcat may be marked as non-diffusing — but that's actually a moot point, because the by-subject and by-platform categories are diffusing and so Category:American journalists is actually meant to be empty of individual articles — the fact that people aren't actually doing the work is a different matter entirely. So JPL's edit here was actually exactly correct. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Gonna take me awhile to figure all this out. Thanks for your patience;)--Aichik (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No worries. It's not your fault you're finding this confusing — the current situation results from a lot of conflicting imperatives that have collided without coherent resolution, and is absolutely a dog's breakfast. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I knew the way I was doing the diffusion was bound to be confusing, at least if people just read the individual edits, but it was clearly in line with the guidelines. For an example of why Category:American journalists is not going to get dispersed anytime soon look at Anya Kamenetz. I guess I should have put her in a more specific sub-cat. Is there Category:American magazine writers?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• The number 1 program with categories is they are not effectively watchable with a watchlist. You have to periodically go to categories you want to watch to see what is there, and this means that if they have over 1000 entries, it is hard to know what is going on. On the other hand, Anya Kamenetz may show the draw-back to our current system. She is now in 4 sub-cats of Category:American journalists, and if we fully disperse that category, I would expect us to average even more, since she is not in a category based on the genre of journalism she does, just the medium. To make things worse, I would expect significant over-lap between magazines and newspapers. The journalists by state may also be a less than helpful way to break them down, since many journalists have moved between several television stations or newspapers, and thus been journalists in nearly half a dozen states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Another question that we may want to consider, should categories for people at a specific newspaper be sub-cats of the by nationality categories, or not? I would say not, because a person can be a Los Angeles Times or any other newspaper correspondent without every actually setting foot in the US, let alone being a national of the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you removed any male journalists from Category:American journalists? Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This whole question is based on a false premise that somehow being in Category:American journalists and not in some sub-category is some sort of badge of honor. It isn't, with 2 schemes in existence that should remove every single direct entry, and another scheme that should be able to remove most entries, it is a sign the article is under-categorized. If the answer is was no when you wrote it, it was mainly a reflection of the fact that some types of journalists (fashion journalists for example), have often just been classified as that, and not put in any by nationality categories for being journalists. On another note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• A few more thoughts. Only my recent work has gotten Category:American women journalists to be slightly larger than Category:American female pornographic film actors. According to some commentators the fact that the later is larger than any chosen other category is a scandal that indictes Wikipedia as a horribly sexist place, etc. The reality is that it more reflects different methods of categorizing by gender in different fields, than the prevalence of articles on females in different females, let alone the prevalence of females succeeding in that field. On another note, we have even Category:Pennsylvania political journalists, to show there are all sorts of levels of sub-categories to Category:American journalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Another example of multi-layers sub-cats is Category:American newspaper journalists has the sub-cat Category:American newspaper editors, which is further sub-catted into 19th-century and 20th-century sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: The number 1 program with categories is they are not effectively watchable with a watchlist. I assume you meant "problem". No, the number one problem with categories is that they are divorced from the mainstream of the encyclopedia, and don't work. As an offshoot, they attract obsessive and less than wholesome edits from those who would like to use them for less than lovely reasons. See above for how this can be fixed.

Now, one thing I'm not clear on, Johnuniq asked Have you removed any male journalists from Category:American journalists? Was that a "No", amidst the rambling dissembling? It was a simple question, I thought. Begoon ^talk 14:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The actual answer to the question is yes, but it is a question that misses the real issues entirely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. As Bearcat says above, then, I guess we need to find out from developers if there is some reason we need to keep this arcane, inconsistent, unscaleable "system", with all its attendant drawbacks and vagaries, or if we can indeed move towards a proper system of attributes and queries. Begoon ^talk 05:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

75.156.178.30 / "Daman Hongren"

75.156.178.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been fairly uncivil and often does not write in standard English which makes communication difficult.

In this edit he calls me a LIAR! and removed the fact that I am on vacation from my user talk page.

In this edit he writes I teL yuu. Pleez riit in Ingglish! which is a common strange method he uses to write.

Additionally some of the text he has attempted to add is not really understandable nor supported by the references in question such as here [23]. I have concerns about their ability to contribute to Wikipedia productively. As they use a bunch of IPs they may be difficult to address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The ratio between our ages is 5/3, and I will let you figure out which way that goes. I hav used swear words. They are *not* uncivil, because I am not attacking anybody with them. 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is evidence that you do not know how to take a vacation. Turning off your computer is the first step to getting some rest. Wikipedia is very addictive. As a professional, I suspect that Doctor Heilman has already gotten a tool to log himself out at pre-set times, so that he is not late for work. The edition in question contains evidence that Doctor Heilman was making it inconvenient for me to find what he had deleted. 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

In context, I thot it was funny. This is how wikipedia looks to me, sometimes. 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I use an e-mail address the first time I write on a talk page. That's an exceptional degree of identifiability, so raising issues of any kind with me is not a problem. Avoiding me, and trying to do anything about my excercises in understanding the lack of philosophy in your favourite medical editorial is a problem. Do you want me to make it your problem? If you will complain about Jimmy Wales principle that anybody can edit wikipedia, then you should complain to him. Doctor Heilman is strongly in favour of deleting material that he does not understand, whether it is sourced or not.

I am an artist. He is an applied scientist. We are bound to clash. Assume that all of these accusations are essentially true from either standpoint. Are any of them serious enough to warrant an investigation? If so, then keep your mind open; not at both ends, though! Follow the links, and understand the issues on Talk:Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Avoiding_Discussion_of_Causation_with_Evasion. If you want to contribute, then the more the merrier. A backlog of questions is there for me to answer. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50,

30 July 2014 (UTC)

This editor who uses IP addresses and sometimes calls himself "Bohgosity BumaskiL" is, on the balance, disruptive. Some of his article edits can be interpreted as good-faith although even that can be a stretch, and the edits often make the article worse by changing article content to very complicated language, and most often getting reverted. He deliberately uses peculiar non-standard spelling for reasons only he understands, going so far as to refactor his own comments to make spelling worse, even after being asked to write in plain English. He refactors the comments of others for reasons that don't seem to be allowed by WP:TPG. He seems to have something out personally for Doc James, see his bizarre comments on Doc's User Talk. Overall this guy comes off as a troll not here for any good reason. Zad68 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This IP editor has now registered the account Daman Hongren, apparently naming himself after this one: Daman Hongren. Zad68 13:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Now blocked for trolling/WP:NOTHERE by Bbb23 Zad68 02:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• This isn't an English problem. The user is simply a troll and toying with us. Either that or, to use a technical term, he's bananas. Either way, he's WP:NOTHERE and I see no point in attempting to reason with him, even though it no doubt amuses him.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Various epithets

Does this fall under the category of "demeaning fellow editors, an article subject, or any other person, on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity or expression" and as a result considered to be "offensive and damaging to the editing environment". User:H-E-Double Toothpicks in a Bucket has declined to remove it. —Neotarf (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Get a sense of humour. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not constructive and it's not sensetive to the gender gap. There are better ways for Hell in a Bucket to explain his viewpoint.--v/r - TP 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Definitely it was an ill advised comment. We could argue over whether it violates NPA, or justifies some type of sanction on civility grounds. But Sitush is right about the question asked. The comment does not violate that particular principle in that case. There is no indication that the comment was made based on any of the protected characteristics. Monty₈₄₅ 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

What gender gap? This is all BS promoted by, mostly, a vociferous group of people who, if they chose to apply the anonymity that they are entitled to, could just get on with doing what we're supposed to be here to do. I see as many "gutter" words about men as women in that message. Take you social consciences elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that an edit made by an actual contributor to this project? Dear me. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes for almost 4.5 years, the ironic part is the part about AN and ANI and here we are. I'd also like to show [[24]] and [[25]]. I'm glad someone actually caught on I was liberal about the targets because no one is totally blamesless here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is "Wikipediot" OK? Or is that the One Banned Word? --NE2 00:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that when an editor talks like a low-life, it does no harm to you, it only reveals the character of the one saying it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking userpage desecration! And Baseball bugs if a person is that superficial and surface oriented it's better to not have that person around, you will never get to below the surface because all they can see is the surface. what a sad place to be stuck on the surface always knowing more is there but never able to get there...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The bot wiped out your entry in an edit conflict. Just as well, since your comment really doesn't make sense. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

iF YOU CAN'T SEE BELOW THE SURFACE THEN YES IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER BUT IF YOU LOOK BEYOND JUST THE SURFACE YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED HOW MUCH IS THERE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that ugliness is only skin-deep? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

If I base my answer on your sweeping generalization above sure does. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Foul mouth = foul mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refer to comment about being unable to see past the surface, reread then let sink in and then reread again just so it sticks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Refer to foul mouth = foul mind and then reread again just so it sticks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Big feet = big meat. Wait, what was that about womenfolk? --NE2 02:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Since there has been some question about what was actually said, I will post it here in its entirety:

I'm sorry to whoever did the thoughtfulness of writing all of the manifesto above but holy shit what a load of bullshit. I'd sure like to see where this is a huge problem on wikipedia, sure every once in a while some moron will come across that thinks he is superior cause he has a dangler...but holy shit 3 days of fucking bickering and whining? Who cares who calls who a cunt, queer, nigger or insert offensive comment. Pull up your big boy pants or panties let's not let those get in a twist either and move the fuck on. AN, ANI and Jimbo's page are not places to solve issues like this, they are places to ferment the discord and draw more people in. Drop the motherfucking sticks and go and beat vandals with the self righteous angst you are putting in this. (Emphasis mine. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC))

And BTW, he is also mocking this discussion on Jimbo's talk page. Have a nice day. —Neotarf (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It could be worse. There are several entries on George Carlin's word list that the editor forgot to include in that funny rant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf. You are quoting improperly by adding emphasis (bolding) where it does not exist in the original. This is a form of exaggeration. If you quote and add emphasis, make sure you note "(emphasis added)." Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Tim. Quite correct, and I have made the necessary adjustments, although it looks like a missed a few; that's what happens when you have 6 tabs open. —Neotarf (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf highlighted what he sees as the real message. He is quite right to highlight it. It is not its poster's place to lecture others on how they "should" read it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's clear that I was mocking you replying to your thinly veiled attempt at an insult. I like how you are pretending to be a victim and trying to twist it though, keep trying something might stick. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying you can dish out insults, but can't take them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No but when they are petty i reserve the right to mock you, care to give it a try Bugs? I'm not complaining at all, notice I didn't start the thread, I haven't misrepresented what happened, I think this is a whole big WP:COATRACK thread. If yuo want to see the whole picture look, if you can't well that's up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, your vulgarity-laden rant, highlighted above, definitely qualifies as "petty". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your vastly enlightening surface analysis, I'm sure we are all enriched having been privileged with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad to be of service, George. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Aha I knew you weren't acting in bad faith you just seem to have confused me with someone else. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

COATRACK is about article content. This discussion is about TPOC, WIAPA, and RPA. Lightbreather (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The words are being referenced, not used. So no. Though said in an aggressive tone, his usage of these epithets is akin to every usage on the article Nigger. He could learn to calm down though, and speak in a manner that doesn't come across as uncivil, but him littering his comment with profanities is just hurting his own characterization. There are better places to use profanities, other than a debate about an obviously sensitive topic. I (fruitlessly I bet) advise removing it out of common decency. moluɐɯ 04:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Fruitlessly, indeed. —Neotarf (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

... and I've reverted the refactor again.. I would ask that you abide by the policies on refactoring other's comments, just because you couldn't manipulate it to suit your needs within the arbcom case doesn't mean you can just remove it. Thank you and by all means have a great day. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no place in this project, Jimbo's page or otherwise, that is suitable for your puerile nonsense. Grow up, please, and learn to present your point without being WP:POINTY. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That comments attacks no one or any groups. It reflects the futility on focusing on a word rather then the message behind. An, ANI and Jimbo's page isn't solving the problem or improving the encyclopedia. The whole point behind that is take the drive you have and move it elsewhere to something productive. Even the emphasis added comment above cherry picks what is said to present that persons view. There's lots of comments I don't like on wikipedia but I don't remove them just because they are coached in language I disagree with. At some point a person has to be able to look past whats on the surface, that's the whole point of the above. If you judge a book just on the cover you may miss the message or opportunity inside. I'm sorry if you can't or won't accept that but honestly that is your limitations not mine and I've not broken any policies, attacked anyone or otherwise opined other then that there could be a different avenue of using your energy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If the cover of that book reads like the way a low-life talks, why should anyone bother opening it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are missing out on some good books. Chillum 20:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Name a few. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a page turner. Chillum 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Funny, attention-getting cover, and unlikely to tell me anything I don't already know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is still open, right? What HiaB's remark was - was a personal attack. And WP:RPA says: "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." It was an obvious personal attack. And if it wasn't directed against Neotarf (I think it was), the policy doesn't say "ONLY where such text is directed against you." Lightbreather (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that so many actual personal attacks are ignored but this is an issue(non-issue)? There are some naughty language and the only insults are to a hypothetical person. We do encounter moron's on Wikipedia, we can say that. We just can't call them a moron once we finally meet them.

Personal attacks have both an attack and a person. As far as I can tell nobody specific is being attacked, rather it is a call for sanity. It is not how I would have expressed myself but it is not an issue for administrative action. Chillum 19:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have expressed myself more above. I mocked Neotarf after some passive aggressive behaviors but that comment was not to anyone but an opinion on the situation and overall futility of those avenues for issues such as this and many others raised there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You would do well to read about "Fighting words". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article especially that bit about the Jehovah's Witness bit but the relevance to this still doesn't quite ring right. Are you insinuating that the mere mention of those words is enough to be fighting words even when not directed at anyone? How would this apply to our policies we have set here? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone talks like a low-life, they should have no expectation of respect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

So what you are saying is a woman with a low cut shirt or a mini skirt should have no expectations to not be raped? Yes I am aware that's hyperbole but so is the above comment and that's why I am highlighting the ridiculousness of the comment with another. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

HIAB, any position sounds ridiculous when taken to ridiculous extremes. This is a straw man argument and a tacky one at that. Your are better than engaging in the logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum. Chillum 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually... (PS: fuck the popo, and the admins too) --NE2 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks have an attack and a person (target) or persons, per WIAPA bullet 1: "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." (emphasis mine) And how does that section end? "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." HiaB's rant had a target: every WP contributor who is complaining about civility. Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a stretch and you know it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

They ignore the comments about the moron with a dangler who thinks he's superior and a couple others because it doesn't suit their preferred course of action. It's gradually changed over the course of the original complaint til now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And by the way the edit warring on Jimbo's page needs to stop now. That is a great way to get blocked. Jimbo can remove it if he wants. Chillum 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I would ask them to stop removing a legitimate comment. I don't know what else to do it's not actionable but if I have three people grouped on me like that not sure how to proceed because I do not plan on removing it. Honestly at this point I am in a pretty combative mood over it too. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that what this "trolling" is about [26]? And most above also disagree that it is legitimate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is what they called trolling, templates are easier and I have twinkle so it is easy to let it do the talking and throw a link in there. I am aware there is a strong opinion on templating the regulars or not. I think they are made for a reason and doesn't bother me too much. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Templating the regulars (in this case, one who's been here for 6 years) is a highly patronizing, contemptuous thing to do. But that kind of thing is consistent with what you insist is only "surface" behavior: vulgarisms, patronization, contempt. When will you start revealing that inner beauty that you claim to possess? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As soon as you open your eyes Bugs, I guess it is up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No matter what point you might try to make, when you lace it with obscenities, the obscenities become the message. Until you open your own eyes and see that, you'll be stuck where you are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can't see the message because of naughty words then you are exhibiting selective blindness. While the whole point could have been made without "bad words" the presence of them does not make the point unclear. If the obscenities become the message for you then that is something happening on your end. Chillum 21:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you've got it wrong. It is not your place to lecture others on how they "should" read a message. The message is however it's perceived. Obscenities are used for shock value and aggression, and they obscure whatever the alleged "real" message is. When someone talks like a low-life, they have no reasonable expectation of being regarded and treated as anything else. If you remove the "naughty words", as you childishly call it, there's almost nothing there. So, the obscenities are, in fact, the real message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok Bugs I can only show you the water it's your choice whether you drink or not. Cheers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your core complaint seems to be that it's up to your target to read your message the way you supposedly intend it, rather than the way it comes across. That mindset falls into the "patronizing, contempt" category, just as templating a regular does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not only Carrite's talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And you've been here over 2 1/2 years. However the user tries to justify his behavior, there's a goodly amount of consistency to it: Vulgar, patronizing, contemptuous. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please close this? It's clear nothing good will come of discussing it further and at this point Bugs is just adding needless heat to the discussion. 91.232.124.147 (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When LC starts sticking his ugly mug into it, it probably is a good idea to close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I might have some sympathy for "use-mention" distinction, there is no doubt this posting was going to offend a significant number of people. The same point could easily have been made without doing that. Therefore the post is gratuitously offensive and the poster should reflect that this is not acceptable. I have no idea if this is a pattern of behaviour, if not lets all move along. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC).

Brought to ArbCom

LT910001 has opened up an ArbCom case based on all of the drama started by Eric Corbett's use of the word that shall not be used again and has included everyone who's commented here and Jimbo's talk page, particularly those who have reacted negatively in some fashion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this, Ryulong. To be clear, this relates to HIAB and the comment made at the beginning of this thread, and this case at AN/I, which has not received administrator attention, in part because the burden of proof for what constitutes incivility is unclear. I make no mention of Eric Corbett in my request for arbitration. I haven't posted an ArbCom request before, but I think I need to show members of the community on each side to prove that it is a dispute. I am sorry to have caused you distress by stating you are an involved party. I hope a clerk will clarify this situate. Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett is the reason that this week of drama mongering on both sides has taken place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

In fairness he hasn't mentioned everyone who has commented. I don't think this is productive, though, and I will make my thoughts clear there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

But I commented all but once in this thread (prior to this arbcom mention) and 3 times in the thread where this shitfest started. I'm far from involved and I do not want to be part of something where I'm just expressing amazement that people are still mad over one person's actions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That was the whole point. He said the word CUNT, people were going batshit crazy. Words only have the power you give them. You can fuck or you can make love, does the word fuck make that action any more or less dirty? The answer is no. You can say feces or shit, does it make it smell any better? Yes I'm aware I'm not perfect and yes I'm sure a more level headed person could have phrased it differently but I'm not now nor ever will I be an administrator so I will have to deal with being a "low life" with no expectation of respect and be true to who I am and let the people here who want to live in fantasy castles in the cloud where everything is perfect fix the world on wikipedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

I am opening this closure review of the ANI discussion Conduct unbecoming of an administrator per WP:CLOSE. The closing admin has declined to re-open the discussion, and an attempt by another editor to re-open it was reverted by an involved admin. Please indicate you views on reopening this discussion.- MrX 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - Reopen

1. As nom. Let the people speak. - MrX 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
2. This is exactly why we can't have nice things. It is impossible to address systemic issues when we handle them in this manner, where initial discussion is loudly disrupted by a few drama mongers, then the discussion is relatively quickly closed under the rationale that there's "too much drama", so thoughtful editors are unable to steer the discussion in a productive direction because it was closed before they even noticed it. (Also, it was very inappropriate for an involved admin to re-close the discussion. If there's anywhere you can find an uninvolved admin, it's here, so there is absolutely no reason not to leave it to one of them.) Gamaliel (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Support as stated. It's clear some users want to continue the conversation. Whether or not we continue it here shouldn't be subject to a majority vote. There are clearly some longstanding issues at hand and these need to be dealt with. If we sweep this under the carpet, again, no problem will be solved. The conversation should continue as long as several users are contributing. This is also unfair to users who did not contribute in the first 36 hours, particularly as this issue is likely to surface again and again and this conversation will be used as precedent in some future date. The users who are not interested shouldn't have the right to gag the users who want to continue participating. 101.116.116.59 (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Re-open. For better or for worse...this is what this noticeboard is for and no one is immune. The community seems to be getting shut out of this and that is rather disturbing. It appears the community can very much make these determinations and this is likely to come to some determination. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
5. Re-open - There was obvious momentum towards a community consensus on a block of editor Eric Corbett by admin BrownHairedGirl, with six editors in succession, in a space of just a few hours, !voting to support a Good block, bad unblock position that by extension condemns the unblock by admin Dangerous Panda. The sudden closure of the above ANI discussion by admin TParis gives the appearance of an attempt to derail that seemingly emerging community consensus. This goes to the very heart of rank-and-file editor complaints of autocratic administrator abuse. When you add in the fact that an active discussion was in progress, of a high-profile request by Jimmy Wales on Dangerous Panda's talk page to reconsider the unblock, you get a situation that calls for a review of Admin TParis' actions across the board. Many of us feel there is a cancer on Wikipedia. Closures like this one are why. Opposes below that attempt to dismiss the gravity of this matter are deeply unconvincing. Jusdafax 05:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Jusdafax I understand this is an emotional issue, but you cite the "growing consensus" for "Good block, bad unblock". Would you please have a look at the last three !votes above the subsection "Where do we draw the line between incivility and personal insults?" ? Each of them, including Mark Miller's, who is also here saying "re-open", didn't understand what happened - who did the unblock and/or what BHG's block of Eric was for. (It was not for 3RR, it was for a PA on Jimmy's page, in an edit note.) So how would those three !votes even factor into anyone's consideration of whether the unblock was appropriate? (real question, not rhetorical) Too much emotion and confusion all around, I think. I also want to say that TP closed because the discussion was unfocused and confused. So... a real question for you - for those who are still upset about any matter that arose from that teratoma of a discussion that TP closed -- is there that something that would prevent generating new discussions in appropriate venues, focused separately on any one of: review of BHG's judgement in blocking, review of Panda's judgement in unblocking, review of TP's judgement in closing (as opposed to reversing the close itself), review of Dennis Brown's judgement for the OP, an RfC/U on Eric, or any other matter? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   First of all, you got it wrong in regards to me. I knew who made the unblock and I also knew that the ANI was about multiple issues. I also know it wasn't Dennis Brown that made the unblock. That is why I said to leave him alone. I also knew that Eric was blocked over a different issue and if you look at the last reply on the 3RR report you will see that I make the comment to block...for that issue ONLY. Then that 3RR was closed as stale within minutes of my comment.

   To answer your question: "is there that something that would prevent generating new discussions in appropriate venues"...that would be because all the venues are being closed. But I am not that concerned if the outcome is to remain closed. At least it was asked in the proper manner--Mark Miller (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for answering Mark! On the first thing, I just double checked (and had double checked before I saved my edit). you wrote "Good block, bad unblock. This has nothing to do with Dennis. I think Eric deserved this 3RR block. I saw it pop up, I looked and the report was valid. Eric is about the last editor to be "roped into a revert" he knew very well what he was doing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)" So... 3RR. not PA. I don't understand. Also,you didn't answer the question, if anything prevents new discussions from being opened. You don't have to answer, of course. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Nope, you are right. I actually remember that very well now and did indeed believe (at that time) that the block was the 3RR violation. I have no excuse. You made a truly good call and I was wrong there. But I did answer the question. Although it should state that because all of the other venues were being closed I am guessing any new one would be as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   thanks very much, Mark. And thanks for completing the answer. I am not fully aware of protocols on these boards and wasn't sure if it would be appropriate to open new threads after one had closed that had so many open items. So thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Re-open: The appearance of bias and manipulation is too great to ignore. The discussion was ongoing, Jimbo encouraged just such discussion, and another of Eric's sizable, WP:INVOLVED fan club did the closing. Open it back up! --Drmargi (talk) 08:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Re-open per Jimbo Wales: "I'd like to invite kind and reasoned discussion based on the fundamental premise that we do have a problem, and that some people should be banned for it." -A1candidate (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   • Since when is it a fundamental premise that whenever there is a problem someone should be banned for it? Thomas.W ^talk 17:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   How does "we have a problem, and some people should be banned for it," become "whenever there is a problem someone should be banned for it"?

8. Support. This is a problem. Lightbreather (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
9. Reopen - This is a conversation that needs input and consensus. We can't keep on saying it's okay to attack other editors and get away with it, because we think it's too hard to find a solution. The gender imbalance thing is something that concerns me greatly. Are we becoming a monstrous community where women are not welcome unless they fart and curse along with the lads? A bit of scuffle and stoush is fine so long as we keep on cranking out articles on obscure border wars and loud cars and porn stars? --Pete (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
10. It looks like something will actually come of discussion. Chillum 03:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Remain closed

1. As I believed when I closed it the first time, nothing productive is going to come from the discussion. Editors are just getting more and more worked up, and its very unlikely enough consensus to do anything will arise. (One of the points was that there was movement towards consensus on the block/unblock question, but they are supporting a block for a reason other than the one that triggered the block, which just doesn't make sense in a block review) Rather than continue to get madder at each other, this should remain closed, and we should just wait for someone to take it to WP:ARBCOM. Monty₈₄₅ 03:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose, because this is supposed to be an online encyclopaedia, and this endless exercise in drama-mongering has nothing to do with improving article content... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
3. Oppose- the entire thing was an unproductive dramalanche, never had the remotest possibility of solving any actual problem, and should remain closed. Reyk _YO! 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose. I'm watching (on TV) a bunch of Nubian ibexes fight. It's the mating season in the desert, you know. If they lose a fight, they may never mate. We're not Nubian ibexes. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   On the internet, no one knows you're a Nubian ibex. moluɐɯ 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

5. Oppose— Those who are interested can have a far more productive conversation at arbcom. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   Oh, I don't know. Seems that we're getting a lot of views out in the open here. Let's not inflict unformed discussion on ArbCom. Let's see what emerges here and give them a fair chance at ruling on something structured. There's enough clever and experienced Wikipedians here to generate something worth pushing forward. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose - as this is ANI. It is not an RFC, a usertalkpage or arbcom. The "incidents" in this thread (Dennis v Scottywong, and EricCorbett's block) are not likely to lead to future admin action. The discussion of various people's conduct, or the ongoing debate over civility enforcement, may be worthwhile ongoing topics but they belong on the pages designed for them. Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose reopening the ANI thread and support bringing this debacle to ArbCom. This is the fourth time in little over a year that Eric Corbett has been blocked and subsequently unblocked, and the nth time I have seen calls for desysopping admins involved in it. This was a common pattern on the previous account as well. A binding resolution on this is overdue, and I can't see that coming from AN/I. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose reopening. ArbCom is thattaway -----> /// Carrite (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

   BTW, I feel this is a case of Bad Block (involved party in the heat of a debate), Bad Unblock (non-consultative reversal of action). There are plenty of mistakes that have been made by all. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

9. Scottywong's unbecoming use of casuistry is adequately documented in the user's own contributions to the discussion as it stands—an instructive outcome. As for what triggered the expressions of outrage that in turn spawned this and all the other Eric-centric drama, the real toxicity in the editing/discussion environment comes not from the straight talker but from the milquetoast, the prig, the liar, the officious little twerp, and the pompous ass. In the words of Hell In a Bucket, "Pull up your big boy pants or panties . . . and move the fuck on." Writegeist (talk) 06:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose reopening, as per all those above me — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
11. Oppose, everyone's time would be better spent actually editing articles instead of watching personal vendettas being played out. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose per Writegeist. Nicely said. --John (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose per Carrite, or as one of my local judges supposedly stated, "the road to Richmond (where the appeal courts sit) runs right outside the courthouse." I am sure ArbCom will welcome having this case. Someone remind me of how many arbs have resigned or been defeated over previous Eric/Malleus cases, I've lost track.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Cut the drama and get back to creating an encyclopaedia, that's what we're here for. Thomas.W ^talk 09:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Good gods, people. Encyclopedia. Remember? That's what we're working on... not a social utopia. Go write, not run with the drama llamas. (No insult intended to any llamas...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose - The discussion was quickly devolving into ad hominem, even about irrelevant tangents. Arbcom was suggested multiple times both there and here, and, given the behavior and remarks of some of those involved, that seems like the best choice now. I mean, because, obviously they can't interact civilly here at ANI. moluɐɯ 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose. This is clearly not going to lead to intervention regarding Scotty Wong, Dennis Brown, Dangerous Panda or Eric Corbett, or to making a major change in the editing environment. Anyone who wishes to achieve any of those things is going to have to find another way, because this maelstrom is impassable and pouring more energy into it will just make it wider. NebY (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose - With all respect it's gone on for long enough - Reopening won't solve anything. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
19. Oppose - everyone knows that anything to do with EC is basically kryptonite. Let's put it back in Pandora's box and move on, at least until the next poor soul opens it. Blackmane (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose - this is a remarkably dull thread; once one could rely on Corbett for fireworks but this is the merest squib. Oculi (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
21. Oppose -the thread was a mess, and folks (as I understand it) are free to open new discussions on any specific matters they still have concerns about it. Hopefully, well focused discussions.Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Scottywong got his money's worth of drama by stirring the pot. Keeping it close is the best possible outcome at this point. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose - No good will come of this. WP:CIVIL = WP:PERENNIAL. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose - messy walls of text will not result in anything apart from being disruptive in and of itself. Per WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternate option

I'm not opposed to discussion. I close the thread because it lacked direction and progress. As Gamaliel says, reasonable editors should be able to address systematic issues without drama mongering and I agree. Address systematic issues - systematically. Address them with structure, guidelines, and direction. That thread, and ANI in general, are not the place to do it. Besides lacking structure, ANI attracts those who like to treat Wikipedia like a mid-day drama tv show. Please please feel free to discuss any issues you want to. It is far from my intentions to chill discussion. But do it in a way that does more good than harm.--v/r - TP 04:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't your fault TP. Seriously. A number of us have closed the discussion, me included. But I did so because there were other venues...then suddenly all those venues were shut down but Jimbo's talk page discussion. That will remain open and I am sure if the outcome here is no consensus or to keep closed...the sky will not fall and Wikipedia will survive.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there any point in discussing "Eric Corbett" (the quotes meaning not just the user but the topic that swirls around him) in any venue? The community and ArbCom have shown itself/themselves consistently incapable of definitively resolving it one way or the other. It's just too polarizing. BrownHairedGirl on Jimbo's talk page, on the linkage of civility and the so-called "gender gap" proposed that WMF intervene to put in place standards rather as they did with BLP. I don't think I agree with that. But given (a) the nature of the disruption of this civil war and (b) the WP community's clear incapability of reaching anything approaching consensus (c) ArbCom having previously not been able to provide a final resolution, is the only hope of a long-term resolution to ask Mama WMF to rescue us from ourselves and impose something (one way or the other)? Jimbo on his talk page seems to have taken up the idea of WMF staff monitoring civility generally. But, IMHO, it would be preferable for it to be just a one-off solution: I don't see any other issue around with quite the same characteristics as this one. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to proposing having WMF ban Eric when you say "one-off solution". In what way does that advance us towards having a quality encyclopedia which I understand is the point of this exercise? And is it really worth tearing down the community structure we have so painstakingly built to get to Eric?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that at all. Why do you say that? A one off solution imposed on the community could be anything, including (off the top of my head) no admins allowed to block him, maybe only WMF staffers? I'm actually fairly on the fence about EC generally: I can see both sides. My point is how does seeing dozens of the most prominent users tear this place apart for days at a time every now and then "advance us towards having a quality encyclopedia". Take it out of our hands; we're not grown up enough for it. (And btw, this particular part of the "community structure we have so painstakingly constructed" is an enormous pile of crap that needs to be torn down.) DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

When *this one* gets closed "prematurely", can we have another section where we discuss re-opening it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Ah yes, the old "close review review", which is just lawyer talk for "I didn't get my way and won't shut up about it". Reyk _YO! 12:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

TP, I think you were completely justified in your closure. I might even go far as to suggest renaming that section to "Conduct unbecoming of multiple admins". moluɐɯ 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I for one agree with TParis's closure and there closure comment which was completely justified and clearly needed. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I disagreed with the closure and reverted it, but TP was right at the time..that there were other venues that this could be discussed at. So, at his good faith request to self revert...I did. Then, when I went to check out the other venues they were closed..accept for 3RR...until I commented that editor in question should receive the block for that violation and then it was immediately closed as being stale. That is why I support the re-opening.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Should we transfer all of the !votes from the sub-thread More to the above (without doubling !votes of course)? Then again...I would hope we are counting them towards consensus even without moving them.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Pretty sure this has other venues discussing this now. At this point I formally retract my support to re-open.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

block user Easycalculation

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

---

I can see a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Easycalculation

In which the user named Easycalculation is trying to project him/her as part of the site Easycalculation.com

I represent HIOX, which owns the site easycalculation.com The user Easycalculation should be blocked as it is being used to harm the reputation of the site Easycalculation.com in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanhiwiki (talk • contribs) 03:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Easycalculation has only made 25 edits, all on the 25th or 26th of February this year, very few of which are in article space. While there is a vague claim concerning Easycalculation.com on Easycalculation's user page ("Easycalculation name is based off my site Easycalculation.com It is a math site that was started 2007"), I see nothing that could be considered remotely harmful to the reputation of the website - and I doubt anyone would take the claim seriously, given the grammatical errors etc. Why is this a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems like the username falls under WP:CORPNAME. PaleAqua (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

This is about Easycalculation (talk · contribs).

Andy is correct—the user's edits are entirely innocuous (and, I suspect, have all been reverted). I reworded the user's page because it is clear that English is not their strong point and it would be a mistake to read too much into their "my site Easycalculation.com" (I changed that to "the site Easycalculation.com"). Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Autorum and the creation of non-notable BLPs

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

---

I came across this user while patrolling Special:Newpages, when he had created Andrei Condrea. I prod'd the article as a BLP of a non-notable football player who plays for a non-professional league, per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Association_football. When I went to post to the user's talk page to notify them of the prod, I found a long, long list of prior prod and speedy notifications. I also noted a significant number of warnings:

• User_talk:Autorum#July_2014_2, where he was warned not to remove prod notifications from articles he authored. This was on July 18. Yet, today he continues this behavior [27] without doing anything to improve the article.
• User_talk:Autorum#July_2014_4, where he was given a {{uw-create2}} warning. Yet, he continues. A whole new raft of articles has been created by him today which are clearly inappropriate; all but two (Vasile Lepure, currently tagged for speedy, and Vadim Istrati, which was deleted but subsequently restored by the deleting admin) are recreations of previously speedied/prod'd articles. Examples: [28][29][30].
• User_talk:Autorum#July_2014_7, where he was given a {{uw-create4}} final warning for creating inappropriate pages. Yet, he recreated it at least three more times (See deletion log noting it was deleted twice subsequent to that and has been recreated yet again).

This editor has been warned on multiple occasions. He has refused communication at every turn, and ignored all warnings including the final warning received on July 20. I recommend that this user be blocked, and all articles this user has created be deleted. All articles created by this editor are for non-professional level football players. The league all of these players play in is the Moldovan "B" Division, which is not a professional level league. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Fully_professional_leagues#Men.27s_leagues, and note that only the Moldovan National Division is a professional league in Moldova. User has been notified of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Maybe this user does not understand English, maybe he is simply not listening; either way, his activities are a waste of everyone's time. Anyone may unblock if he convinces them that he has read and understands WP:NFOOTBALL and will not continue to create NN footballer articles. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

...and new user Ripensia (talk · contribs) popped up and started re-creating the articles. Blocked per WP:EVADE. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Anon on a category and simple fact deletion rampage

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

---

‎89.139.184.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) is removing material at a fast rate in numerous articles, mostly related to sadism/fascism/bondage in books and fiction. It began with questionable category deletion, borderline vandalism. When I reverted them, he restored them with mostly lame explanations in his edit summary. Since then, he's been deleting more things, obviously incorrect, like removing several famous works from Sadism and masochism in fiction [31]. Anyone want to deal with this? A brand-new IP, he seems to know exactly what he's doing, perhaps a banned user. Choor monster (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the equivalent of a genre warrior for literature. Several of the works were by the Marquis de Sade, from which he's removed from BDSM categories. I don't know enough about the works to know whether these are good edits. I'm not sure why no warnings were issued to the IP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Initially I didn't, since they were borderline vandalism. Then I noticed he kept going, so I think it's a little out of hand. Anyway, all the works of the Marquis de Sade, and American Psycho and Gravity's Rainbow definitely belong there. Choor monster (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I did not intend any of the edits as vandalism nor am I a banned user evading the ban. In fact, I am mostly deleting edits I have myself made in the past but am now seeing as erroneous. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that includes your removal of Category:BDSM literature from Gravity's Rainbow, you made this edit [32], and are thus a sockpuppet of banned sockpuppet 109.186.234.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Certainly your use of Edit Summary for discussion purposes appears identical. Choor monster (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I was indeed banned once but I believe that this ban has long ago since been revoked due to the passage of time. Also, as my computer changes IPs from time to time without me asking and without my control (this is rather common I believe), I am not a sockpuppet. Anyway, take it easy. I am not here to pick up a fight. You can retain those categories if you wish so with such vehemence. I simply believe I have read somewhere that editors have a right to delete everything that they have ever wrote. I may be wrong. But, yes, that includes the edit you mentioned. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. Once you press SAVE you no longer own the text or whatever that you have contributed. Thomas.W ^talk 15:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I believe what I read was that [r]everting your own actions ("self-reverting") is counted among actions [that] are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR over at WP:RV and may have overgeneralized from here. Again, no malice whatsoever intended. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That 3RR-exception has nothing whatsoever to do with what you wrote about "editors having a right to delete everything they have ever written". Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again, a little misundestanding and nothing more. There really is no reason to get worked up. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting worked up. I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and why you're wrong. Just friendly information from a fellow editor. Thomas.W ^talk 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I understand perfectly now and I am promising that I will not do so again. Now, I am not getting banned, am I? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of getting involved in that part of the discussion... Thomas.W ^talk 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The IP address 89.139.184.192 is not banned as such. If the user wants to get un-banned, he should convey his personal information (specificially, his former user ID or IDs) to a trusted admin and see how or if he can get reinstated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As my computer changes IPs from time to time without me asking and without my control (this is rather common I believe), the IP under which I was previously blocked for a limited amount of time is both irrelevant (being inactive and irretrievable) now and, regardless, the block was long ago since then revoked. What I am interested in is knowing I will not be blocked again for this misunderstanding. It would be nice if someone could help me at [33]. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Were you banned or blocked? They are not the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It was temporary, for a month or so I think. This means blocked rather than banned, right? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)@Baseball Bugs: The block log above indicates that there were 3 blocks, the most recent of which being in August 2013 for a duration of 1 month for edit warring. I don't think any circumvention or sockpuppetry is taking place, based only on this thread. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So, would it be possible for you to help me not get blocked again over at the aforementioned link? Thanks. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I doubt you'll get blocked for sockpuppetry, so I wouldn't worry about it. They'll look at the block log and see you aren't evading blocks. There's no rule that says your IP isn't allowed to change. You might still get blocked for these vandalism accusations, but I only looked briefly at this, so I can't predict really what's going to happen with that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Again, I wasn't trying to vandalize, it was all a misunderstanding. By the way, they won't attempt to block my previous IP or something, right? It's completely inactive. 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Inactive IPs are (almost) never blocked, so you should be good. (FWIW, this is because blocks are to prevent further damage and if nothing else is being done, there's nothing to prevent.) —LucasThoms 17:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it be possible for you to help me avoid being blocked again in that aforementioned link? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading something, it doesn't look like anyone is trying to block you. Didn't see that link You explained everything here, the SPI links here, it looks to me like you'll be fine.—LucasThoms 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you kindly write an opposing position there? 89.139.184.192 (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Already done. You'll be fine.—LucasThoms 18:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again! 89.139.184.192 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Meanwhile, 89.139.184.192 is continuing to damage articles, inexplicably removing the mention of Crime and Punishment from Crime novels and Category:World War II novels from Gravity's Rainbow and so on. (His statement above that he was merely removing edits he had made before is simply untrue, he was also removing other information.) Choor monster (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: User is now actively cooperative, so I believe there's nothing worth talking about anymore. Choor monster (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to kindly close down now this discussion? Thanks! 89.139.184.192 (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Persistant incorrect additions made on alien 3 article

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

---

editor Kidbuu504 (talk · contribs) repeatedly insists on replacing correct information on the Alien 3 article with information pertaining to storyline retcons in a video game[34] [35] [36] etc. Multiple editors including myself have reverted them and given our reasons but he continues to make these edits most often with no explanation why. no attempt has been made by him to bring his argument to the talk page. his edits are disruptive enough that I beleive a block should be considered.

Comment This would be better taken to WP:AIV once the editor has been sufficently warned. Amortias (T)(C) 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor already blocked just needs closing. Amortias (T)(C) 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Neo-nazi needs a block.

76.64.45.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP behaves the same as (the now blocked) Themainman69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), IP has proceeded to harass me for pointing this out ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41]), and has vandalized the SPI page. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but now he's switched to 76.70.42.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Looks like we'll need a range block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Huh, well I blocked that one for a week (the "israeli shills" thing is just too much) for block evasion, but we'll need a more experienced sysop to do the range block, 'cuz that's something I've never done, honestly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson and FreeRangeFrog: rangeblock appears to have very large collateral in this case, so is not recommendable nor likely effective. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate tagging; edit warring; uncivil behavior

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

---

On July 26, 2014, I started an article about the Broadway theatrical producer and entertainer Frankie Grande.

• On the same day, user:JHUbal27 nominated it for WP:AfD, and the AfD is ongoing here.
• Later that day, JHUbal27 tagged the article with a redundant "Notablility" tag and also a "BLP sources" tag, even though the article was thoroughly sourced. After working on the article further, I removed these tags on July 28.
• On July 28, JHUbal27 tagged the article with a "third party sources" tag, which is discussed on the article's talk page. Another editor removed the tag.
• On July 30, JHUbal27 tagged the article with the "Unreliable sources" tag, which I have removed.

The article is thoroughly referenced. It has 25 footnotes, some of which have more than one ref in them. Most of the references are to national newspapers and magazines, or other recognized sources, as discussed on the Talk page and on the AFD. A few of them are based on non-controversial WP:SELFPUB sources. At this point, I believe that this editor is simply trying to make a WP:POINT and should be asked to stop tagging the article and to wait for action on the AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have left some thoughts on the editor's talkpage, prior to the latest round of tagging. At this point I have to agree that this editor should be asked to step away from this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will not edit article anymore until the AfD discussion is closed. It's just that simple. I cannot believe you went so far as to start a WP:ANI discussion. I really feel that was inappropriate and uncalled for. ~~JHUbal27 21:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The WP:ANI is totally called for. When I warned you that you were edit-warring and suggested you take any issues you had to the Talk Page you reverted the edit again and wrote "You take it to the Talk Page" (see here [42]). In my opinion you have been editing and tagging in an aggressive manner while lecturing very experienced editors like Ssilvers and others on how things are done on Wikipedia. Jack1956 (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I am disappointed to note that the same editor has re-added a manifestly inapplicable tag to the same article, after having promised above to stop for awhile. Perhaps someone else could counsel him to desist, as I have plainly been ineffective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Update

JHUbal27 just restored a "conflict of interest" tag on Frankie Grande for absolutely no apparent reason. I've removed it again and asked him for an explanation as this conduct is not acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

An IP deleted the article and redirected the Frankie Grande article. Can an admin investigate, please? [43] . I have reverted twice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It has been deleted and redirected again. Can an admin help, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've got my eye on it as well. Quite a persistent little bugger isn't he.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• JHUbal27 has acknowledged here [44] the use of two sockpuppets (User talk:66.87.87.208 and User talk:209.150.98.119) to further revert/vandalise the article and used one of them to add this offensive message [45] to my Talk Page. Jack1956 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Eight reverts in the past hour. Can someone block/fullprotect? --Carnildo (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)By my count, he's at 8RR and still willing to edit war, I'm at 2RR and I'm not. He is obviously going to be blocked and the article will return.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• JHUbal27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:JHUbal27 has continued to revert on August 1, so they are now blocked 48 hours per a 3RR complaint (permalink). Another admin has semiprotected Frankie Grande to stop the possible sock IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Violations of WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup by User:Serialjoepsycho

I am asking for an administrator to please review the following, and take remedial action against User:Serialjoepsycho for violating policy, including WP:Civility, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups. I closely reviewed the aforementioned policies before bringing these incidents to ANI, a decision I made with some reluctance, but I am concerned the taunting and other policy violations will not stop without administrator intervention. I apologize for the length of my report, but I had no choice considering the time involved and number of violations.

Serialjoepsycho has clearly exhibited several of the named incivility behaviors Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. The following diffs demonstrate his taunting, false allegations of me being racist, attempts to malign me in Talk page discussions, and repeated incivility despite my asking him to please stop, even after I refrained from responding directly to him, and tried to ignore him. [46] [47]

This issue has been on-going since March 2014, beginning with our differences over the inclusion of the Islamophobia template in the Investigative Project on Terrorism stub which was little more than a WP:Coatrack for the template when I first began my attempt to expand it into an article worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Serialjoepsycho continues to bring up our past disagreements from Talk:Investigative Project on Terrorism to other discussions, and has repeatedly misrepresented my position in a taunting manner over an extended period of time - see following May 2014 diff for more taunting, and another false and misleading allegation of me having a "systemic bias". [48]. In the latter discussion, I even tried to make peace with him by apologizing for my out of character comments, but to no avail. I have tried to ignore his taunting but his behavior is so disruptive it has become a distraction to three different projects I've been editing in good faith, including User:Atsme/Investigative_Project_on_Terrorism_Foundation, The Investigative Project on Terrorism, and the ongoing discussion at Template_talk:Discrimination_sidebar.

Not only is Serialjoepsycho violating WP:Civility policy, he has violated WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups. I am not the only editor who has seen some of the problems with the IPT article as evidenced in the following diffs, one dating back to March 2014, [49], and another more recent: [50].

A recent ANRFC review by User:Sunrise regarding my merge-delete proposal is here [51], but it did not resolve the ongoing issues of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The reviewer kindly suggested the following: Note that this close does not evaluate whether the articles are compliant with policy (e.g. WP:NOR); it would be a good idea for the editors here to resolve these issues. Diffs: [52]. After he archived the opinion of the reviewer a few days later, he continued with his disruptive behavior toward me. [53].

The WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR are evident throughout the IPT article, but are most evident in the grossly inaccurate infobox Serialjoepsycho edited in the sidebar. To date, the only information good faith editor's have been able to confirm about IPT using what some may consider reliable sources is that the Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation was organized by Steven Emerson in 2006, and is controlled by Steven Emerson who is the Executive Director. See [54], [55], [56]. Atsme☯^Consult 22:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. Try trimming this down a bit. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe the OP could summarize the issue in 25 words or less. And what's this stuff about how Islamophobia doesn't exist? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Trimmed it down as suggested. Hope it's trimmed enough. Atsme☯^Consult 22:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• This ANI is not about the Islamophobia template, or whether or not Islamophobia exists - it does exist, no question about it - the ANI is about the violations stated in the subject header which cover nearly a 5 month period. I again apologize for the lengthy report, and trimmed it as requested. Atsme☯^Consult 22:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It looks like a dispute over content and the meaning of words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The original post could use a signature just so we are clear who this is from and where the original post ends.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It got trimmed. The OP needs to un-trim that line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Baseball Bugs - Sig replaced. Trying to accommodate the requests without compromising the important issues in the original report which are very important considering the violations involved. Atsme☯^Consult 22:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Good. Now, what you could have done was to leave the original intact and present a 25-words-or-less summary of the issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Response by Serialjoepsycho I haven't really read that wall of text but it seems alot like the same thing Atsme opened up against me a couple of weeks ago. Here it is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• I'm also unaware of any false allegations that I've made.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Atsme, the admins don't need all the policy alphabet soup, it just gets in the way and bloats up your post. They're familiar with those policies. They need diffs. I don't see any violations in the few diffs you do give. Serialjoepsycho wasn't editing in a good-tempered way, certainly, but I can easily see how his/her patience was being tried in those contexts. Bishonen | talk 08:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Atsme's SHORTENED VERSION: It is very disruptive when a fellow editor who doesn't even know you keeps labeling you, and implying that you are a racist and a bigot, and taunts you repeatedly for months. His behavior has been extremely disruptive to the projects, and to my ability to edit or participate in discussions. He has singled me out in discussions for the sole purpose of belittling me, and trying to make others believe I am a racist and a bigot in an attempt to destroy my credibility. Furthermore, what he is doing is blatant bad faith editing, and should not be taken lightly because he has repeatedly violated WP:Civility. Following is a short list of a few of his offending comments with accompanying diffs, but the list only addresses the WP:Civility violations, not WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:BLPGroup which also need to be addressed.

1. "Thank you for your irrelevant comments here. My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [57]
2. "Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status?" [58]
3. "You literally have grasp at straws to have anything to say. You know little of Wikimedian philosophy." [59]
4. "But by all means report me please. Let's play this game. Do it." [60]
5. "What you fail to understand {{ping:Atsme}} is that your opinion is irrelevant." [61]
6. "Your mention of the little kidnapped girls and much of the rest of it amounts to systemic bias." [62]
7. "She came up with a scheme to get it deleted, so that she could recreate it to her desire." [63]
8. "It seems to fit in with her borderline racist claim that muslim terrorism is proof that Islamophobia doesn't exist." [64]
9. "Or hell just watch as she circles thru arguments and schemes to get rid of the Islamophobia template." [65]
10. "Maybe you can explain to them how there actually are Muslim Terrorists out there and that proves that Islamophobia does not exist. You know, like you did here, Atsme." [66]
11. "If you do not want editors agitating you on the talk page by commenting on your comments then don't comment on a talk page." [67]
12. "I strongly suggest you do not make any changes in Islamophobia related articles to pursue the goal you have outlined above about your desire to Push POV." [68]
13. "But if you start that article I'll happily bring over the Islamophobia template before I start a AFD." [69]
14. "On a side note this looks like another episode of Atsme gaming the system. WP:STONEWALL logic. [70]
15. "Bad faith negotiating is what it is called. But I really can't "well say color me surprised." [71]

I again apologize to the admins and other editors who have already reviewed my incident for the bloated beginning, and respectfully request remedial action so that I may return to my work as an editor without taunting, and uncivil disruption by Serialjoepsycho. Atsme☯^Consult 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

These diffs all seem to be from talk pages. Can you provide some diffs of where the editor in question has reverted or altered your edits or comments? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Diffs you requested - [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77] - I stopped editing the IPT article June 30th because I felt that with the reverts, violations, and taunting, my efforts would be wasted, so I started a correctly titled article for IPTF on July 2nd. A quick review of Serialjoepsycho's edit contributions will show that he participates far more on Talk pages than he does editing main articles which is why you see more diffs originating on Talk pages. I took my BLP concern to the BLP noticeboard which produced partial results, and then to ANI which produced no results. The taunting and Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH violations are what provoked this ANI. The only action that resulted to date came from an ANRFC review about the proposed merge - [78]. Atsme☯^Consult 17:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

While I did revert this I have to point to the next edit here In the first I say I'm going to move it to another section and then I do. This removal she justified with cherry picked sources. Note she also removed the Islamophobia template which was her original reason for being there even though there was a consensus to keep it. These others went from irrelevant statements to BLP violations. I and another user saw them as relevant. It was then taken to BLPN and the previous ANI I linked above. It's interesting that she says she created her This on July 2 second because on June 27 she went to have it merged and deleted. On July 2 she comments, "A new article should be created with the proper title, The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation, complete with an accurate infobox, and any information that is relevant to the foundation."[79] It's interesting that her sandbox was made for the reason she claims above when it seems like an attempt to remove the Islamophobia template without getting consensus. Some of the "new text" seems to be ripped from the original article. Previous editors wouldn't be attributed for their work.I actually called her comments racist. I haven't to the best of my knowledge called her racist yet. Her assertion that because Muslim Terrorists exist that there can not be Islamophobia is racist. Since there are Jewish Terrorists can we then claim there is no Antisemitism? She is tendentious editor breaking her back to get around the consensus. Look again at her ending response. She acts like this ANI new and all of a sudden when its a continuation of the previous one from 2 weeks or so ago. There aren't even any new claims. I'm also not sure what my contribution history will show? Have I been mostly on talk pages? Is that even remotely relevant? I do alot of RFC's. Am I getting accused of Metapedianism?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI - Baseball Bugs noticed the majority of diffs originated from talk pages which is why it was mentioned. Rest assured, no one is accusing you of Metapedianism, so your narcissistic smoke screen was unnecessary. Metapedians contribute to projects in positive ways, unlike what you've been doing. They do not single out one editor to taunt, or troll a particular article in an effort to win some game they're playing as evidenced by your statement above: "But by all means report me please. Let's play this game. Do it.". Blatant taunting. My editing goals are, and always have been to create and improve articles, and my user contribution stats prove it. My intentions are not and never have been what you have falsely portrayed. You stated your purpose and intent for me, are following through on it, and have demonstrated repeatedly that you are willing to violate policy, and create disruptions in order to achieve your goals. See the diff above: My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia. You developed your own preconceived notions, all of which are unsubstantiated, but I suppose such claims are useful strategies in your pursuit to win whatever game you think you're playing. Why on earth would any good faith editor think a correctly named, properly sourced article with accurate information prohibit the use of the Islamophobia template if its placement in an article is relevant, and serves a useful purpose? Why have you been taunting me because of it, and disrupting the project from being improved as you did with your WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations? There is no doubt the current Investigative Project on Terrorism article has major issues, and you've made it worse with your talk page disruptions, reverts, threats, and the redirects you recently created including a potentially serious Wikipedia:BLPGROUP#Legal_persons_and_groups violation as a result of your WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations. I am not the only editor who is aware of the problems with that article. Perhaps a topic ban against you is necessary, especially in light of your continued belittling and false allegations against me. I remain optimistic that the admins will recognize the seriousness of your violations, and will take some form of remedial action against you to correct them. If they don't, I'm concerned your behavior will only worsen. Atsme☯^Consult 18:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This post is not worth responding to. You attack my credibility with my editing history but then when it comes to the question of how that's relevant you go on an irrational tangent. Which claim do you want substantiated? If they aren't already substantiated here then they have likely been Here. I've made no false allegations against you that I'm aware of. There is no denying the IPT article has problems. It is like many articles in that respect. I'm sure it will be fixed by it's deadline. Eventually is the deadline.The articles been on BLPN and this is the second time you have brought it to ANI. All by you. I mention the article is brought here because that's what this seems all about. You moved to merge and delete the article while planning to recreate it in your own image. [80] [81] [82] I linked the evidence of your canvassing in the original ANI. Hell there really is no point in responding. Everything has been said and verified and multiple times.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You attack my credibility with my editing history... - if you believe your credibility was attacked by your own edit history, you might want to reconsider your purpose on WP. This ANI is about your policy violations, bad faith editing, disruptions, and taunting. My attempts to correct your WP:BLP violation at the BLPN are not justification for you to continue your disruptive behavior, and neither is my prior ANI report. You refuse to stop, and have forced me to again ask an administrator for help. Atsme☯^Consult 06:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Orlando Bloom

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

---

For some reason this article is getting spammed with vandalism (from mobiles?). It's on PC but semi might be a good thing for an hour or two. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

Its a fight between Justin Bieber fans and Orlando Bloom fans, semi is probably a good idea. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I give it 3 days of semi, and extended PC1 for another 3 months in light of the ongoing issues. Monty₈₄₅ 23:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks! We have many conflicts spilling onto WP, but I hadn't expected one between the Beliebers and the Bloomers! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC).

No one expects the fannish imposition. Deor (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it's because of Bloom allegedly punching Bieber in the face last April. A well-deserved punch IMO. Thomas.W ^talk 08:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Already moving to the talk page, so eyes needed at Talk:Orlando Bloom. Monty₈₄₅ 23:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Help with autoblock, please

A user I blocked, Mosfetfaser (talk · contribs), remains autoblocked. I don't remember how to do that stuff… and when I clicked on "Auto-blocked IP addresses are not listed here but can be found via this tool" I got a 403 because it was on toolserver. Perhaps the tool has been migrated (though aren't the migrated tools redirected to the new URL? Why not?), but I would like the user to be unblocked a little faster, rather than me trying to research how to do it. Somebody help, please? Also feel free to tell me the new URL, if any, for User:Nakon's autoblock helper tool or other similar functionality. Bishonen | talk 08:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

Jim Carter - Public (talk · contribs) reported being autoblocked on his talk page. And then discovering it was lifted. Nothing on JC's block log. Jim1138 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how autoblock works, when I was trying to leave MusikAnimal a message, I saw that I was autoblocked by Anna Frodesiak. I came back to my talk page and made a request. And almost after the request, when I edited my sandbox, wow.. there is no block. And then searched my block log, I'm surprised to see no block log! Don't tell me I'm dreaming. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you never had a block on your own account, if you were hit by an autoblock it can only be because you happened to be on an IP shared with somebody else who was blocked previously. Unless you remember what the autoblock message said it will probably be difficult to reconstruct what exactly happened. The reason it was gone again so suddenly might be because you happened to be reassigned to a different dynamic IP in the meantime? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

What you do in the absence of the extra tool is, you go to Special:BlockList and scroll/page down searching for an "autoblock" entry with the blocking admin's name and a block summary resembling that of the original block. I found your Mosfetfaser entry somewhere on page 3 or so and lifted it now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Fut. Bishonen | talk 09:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC).

I vaguely remember hearing that we've recently gotten a feature whereby an autoblock is automatically lifted when its original block is lifted. If we block an autoblocked person quickly (e.g. one second), will that override the original block and get rid of the autoblock? I tried that some time back, unsuccessfully, but it was well before I heard of the automatic-ending-for-autoblock feature. See the last section of the "Automatic reset" section of WP:Autoblock for the feature I'm talking about. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Given the username, Jim Carter - Public is likely editing from some shared internet portal. A temporary hard {{anonblock}} was likely placed on the shared IP, preventing Jim from editing even though he is logged in. For this reason, I'd argue hard blocks are not fitting for shared IPs... but the point is to prevent the vandal from using an account to continue vandalizing. Disabling account creation is usually all that is needed, as it's unlikely the vandal already had an account or else they would have used it. Fortunately, autoblocks automatically expire after 24 hours, so maybe that is what happened here. If the problem persists, he can request to be ip-block exempt, but that should be a last-ditch effort, especially since most admins won't hard block anon's anyway. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC needs your input

I realize this isn't the place to post RFC's normally, however, I'm requesting experienced users input (at the moment ) for an RFC over here . I've already posted this same request on the three projects that cover this page, the village pump and the non-free image board and received no new responses. I'm looking to establish consensus on whether or not a second image ( this one * MAY BE NSWF * ) fails NFCC 3, 5 and 8. Whatever the consensus is, it's fine, however, at this time, there's not a consensus to speak of. Your input is appreciated. Kosh Vorlon    11:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think this is an appropriate place to advertise this RFC. I'm guessing that you're not getting comments on it because it's not formatted as an RFC and it's hard to parse what's going on. As I suggested over there, I think you should start a new RFC formatted as an RfC is supposed to be formatted, with a simple neutral statement. Perhaps you'll get more interest then. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This still? TonyTheTiger has a long habbit of taking an article to good article and then to featured article. He has discussed the fair use rational extensively with you and met the policy concerns. Just let him improve the article, why you so against the use of this image even after he has brought it up to NFCC? Chillum 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Because there's no consensus on whether the image fails NFCC 3,5 and 8. There's TonyTheTiger (the article's creator) yourself and I, and that doesn't make for any consensus. I still believe using that image fails nfcc 3,5 and 8. I closed the original RFC as two individuals have advised me it's malformed and not neutral and have re-create it to be compliant. I'm looking for a consensus only, doesn't matter if it's for or against me. Kosh Vorlon    16:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Funny how when I agreed with you on this matter you said there was a 2:1 consensus, and now that I think it is up to our NFCC you are saying 2:1 does not make a consensus. I agree that 3 people don't make a consensus in either case. Chillum 21:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That not just me saying that, I've seen caes in the past where 2 to 1 was not considered consensus. Also remember, since I'm involved (and I've said this on your talk page ) I can't declare any kind of official consensus, I can only state what the consensus of opinion is. I'm looking for a few more voices, that's all. Kosh Vorlon    10:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

harassment and threat from User:Milowent

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

---

He has began harassing me ony my talk page today, so I reverted it, he then unreverted it and just left me a message on my talk page saying "Don't screw with me, Me" here Me5000 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• LOL. So this user has a hidden motivation of long and undetermined standing which has led to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 29 (re Columbia Mall), which I've politely tried to ask about (see the DRV and User talk:Me5000), and he's avoiding it. Me was just blocked within the last hour for unbecoming behavior (3RR violation in spirit). I honestly want to know what his beef is with deletion processes, no one has paid any attention to him in a meaningful way. I'm duly admonished for using the word "screw" in frustration and shall move onto other things, but please watchlist his talk page.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"Don't screw with me" is neither a threat or harassment. It is not a personal attack and only slight uncivil if at all. It is a naughty word in some families but that is not against the rules. Seems he is just asking you to leave him alone. Anything other evidence of an issue?

Milowent, if you are seeking a productive conversation then that is probably not going to help. Chillum 16:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Below is the harassment I'm talking about, Chillum. I have never even talked to this person and now he's say I'm harassing him? And this is what he unreverted on my talk page here "Aren't you enjoying doing that yourself though? Please respond to me inquiry above, I'm a social scientist with deep interest in your motivations." regarding an event from something that happened a week ago which I was blocked by RoySmith for, although he admitted the block was just to get my attention. Additionally, the "don't screw with me" remark he left on my talk page for reverting his harassment, if not a threat, what is it? Just a friendly reminder I am not allowed to revert his comments and that I am required to answer him because he is a "social scientist with deep interest in [my] motivations"? Me5000 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Come to think of it, "don't screw with me" is actually a complaint from me (not Me) against Me's (not me) horrible harassment and treatment of me (not Me). I'VE BEEN BULLIED. Amusingly, Me (not me) has now gone over to two unrelated mall AfDs to vote delete. That was part of my inquiry, he created a bunch of stubs on probably non-notable malls awhile back, to make some unknown point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Me5000 is allowed to remove all but sanctions and declined unblock requests from his userpage per WP:UP#CMT. I've removed the content again. "Don't screw with me" isn't a threat or harassment. This can be closed.--v/r - TP 17:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Anarcho-capitalism RfC

A recent RfC on whether to include a specific, well sourced, sentence in the lead about the relationship with Anarchism proper was closed with the conclusion that it should be there. Prior to this, there had been persistent edit-warring over the content, with two bouts of page protection. Since the RfC was closed and the material included, three different editors – the three who opposed its inclusion in the RfC but failed to carry the discussion – have continued to repeatedly take it out. User:Netoholic has now done that three times in the past two days: here, here and here. User:Knight of BAAWA has done it twice – here and here – and User:JLMadrigal once, here.
I'm bringing this to ANI rather than say the EW board, first, because none are technically in breach of 3RR (and of course their deletions have themselves been reverted by others) and, secondly, because this is about abuse of the RfC process as much as it is about edit-warring. Editors can't simply ignore the result of an RfC because they disagree with it or because they think the agreed text happens to be "redundant" or that they suddenly have a better idea for the text. If they really want to contest the conclusion, there are review options. Knight of BAAWA was blocked previously for actions on the page. Netoholic was involved in similar behaviour recently on a related page – ignoring or trying to work around an RfC result. I tried to head off having to come here on the talk page but there has been no substantive engagement or response there, while the edit-warring and deletions continue. N-HH talk/edits 16:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI discussion is appropriate as N-HH is rightly pointing to three editors. However, the discussion could also have been taken to the edit-warring noticeboard because of the obstruction of these three editors to implementation of this RfC close which determined that there was a consensus of "weak yes" to include the sentence. The three named editors are pushing back because the RfC result was "weak", even though it was also "yes". These three editors appear to be adherents of anarcho-capitalism, which makes them very interested in having the topic be presented in a positive rather than neutral light. Binksternet (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected for three weeks. Somebody else can judge the consensus. If someone wants to unprotect then feel free. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

But can we protect it in the version that accords with the RfC? I know WRONGVERSION and all that, but we had the RfC and consensus has been determined – we've basically rewarded edit-warriors who felt free to ignore an RfC conclusion that they disagreed with. N-HH talk/edits 17:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I'm endorsing CambridgeBayWeather's protection. And no, N-HH, we cannot protect the right version. The OP misstates the dispute. The RFC was on including a sentence to distinguish the subject from anarchists - that has been accomplished. This is over adding a second sentence expanding on that matter which the RFC didn't come to a consensus on. Protection, and not blocking, is appropriate here.--v/r - TP 17:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but my original post states the position correctly, with links. The RfC was precisely about the exact text in question. This is very clearly not about any "second" sentence. N-HH talk/edits 17:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Advice #7.--v/r - TP 17:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point? N-HH talk/edits 17:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

TP states the situation very well. The 3 editors the OP calls out here have each offered variations of the wording of the point, and worked to incorporate it in a meaningful and more widely acceptable way. The OP and others insist on a particular exact phrase. Frankly, if something isn't working out, you are supposed to come up with a new solution, not just drag the same dead horse through the muck each and every time. Generally speaking, those that try to compromise and try new solutions are coming from a stronger position than those that just rehash the same points. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you have tried to insert different wording about a different point, nor has that proposal been through the same level of discussion as the wording discussed in the RfC or garnered the same level of support. Anyway, there are more fuckwits on WP than I thought and nothing anyone can do about it. I've wasted probably two hours overall on this issue on the page itself and now on various boards only to end up with the page protected in its flawed form again. TP accuses me of misrepresenting the situation and then gets all sarky and pithy when I try to point out that actually he's the one who hasn't quite got it. Fuck that. N-HH talk/edits 18:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI Advice #16.--v/r - TP 18:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the protection, but is there more that can be done? The page has been protected a couple of times and, once removed, the edit war resumes. I believe there is a deeper, POV issue at hand that needs resolution, but the NPOV noticeboard has a backlog. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Since OP has left the building, and the page has been protected and endorsed, I think we're now better off just continuing this on the article talk page. I've opened a new section there which hopefully can get to the root of this continuing problem. -- Netoholic @ 19:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from RFC Closer

I closed the RFC as No Consensus on statement A and a Weak Support of statement B. It is my understanding that an RFC establishes consensus (if weak consensus) and that ignoring the RFC is editing against consensus, which is a form of disruptive editing. If any editor thinks that my closure was incorrect, they can request closure review, and I agree that my closure was a judgment call that can be reviewed. However (although I may be considered WP:INVOLVED after the fact by having closed the RFC), I think that ignoring the closure, rather than requesting closure review or opening a new RFC, is disruptive and tendentious editing. That is my opinion. If my closure was wrong, criticize it, or move on with a new RFC, rather than ignoring it. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This diff (which shows the changes from the start of the RfC to today) demonstrates that the lead indeed now does have a brief summary which satisfies Statement B of the RfC (but without the accompanying problems. What is happening post-RfC is that the RfC opener still wants his exact line "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism..." in the lead, and doesn't accept the new section which incorporates the basic idea "Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from... anti-capitalist anarchists...". The RfC and Statement B in particular was not about any specific wording, and the "weak support" result you noted is a strong hint that the OPs exact wording is not the route to go to solve the issue. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A formulation which says "anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from [other types of] anarchists" does not reflect, and cannot be a replacement or alternative for, the RfC-approved observation that "anarcho-capitalists are often not considered to be anarchists [at all]". This has been pointed out on the talk page, and there is no consensus whatsoever that such phrasing tallies with the RfC conclusion. Anyone who understands English can see that, even if such people are in short supply on Wikipedia. Your spanning diff is also misleading as it omits to make clear that the statement about minarchism and other distinctions etc is included in the post-RfC version. And regardless of what you and TP seem to have taken away from all this, as pointed out, the RfC was very much about a specific form of wording, and how to reflect that; again, as anyone who can read and understand English can see. Maybe there's another way of doing that in terms of exact wording, but this is not it. And as noted, if you think the viewpoint I have argued for is wrong, or that the RfC closure was wrong, there are other avenues for addressing that. Edit-warring against the conclusion is out of order and it is ridiculous that subsequent admin action has in effect given such actions a seal of approval. I don't mind time-consuming bureaucratic process as long as it gets somewhere sensible in the end. When you have it and you still end up with nonsense – and this is not the first occasion for that – there is no point. N-HH talk/edits 20:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content on template documentation page

There was a RfC concerning a possible removal of the manufacturer parameter on Template talk:Infobox automobile#RfC: Should the manufacturer field be removed?. The decision was to keep it. Since then, I have asked for sources concerning the parameter’s documentation on the subpage a bunch of times ([83], [84], [85]), but nothing has happened. So I have removed the documentation, according to WP:UNSOURCED: “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without […] a reliable source.” This is constantly being reverted by several users ([86], [87]), stating that I may not remove anything because RfC decision was to keep the parameter. I have tried to explain that this technical term must be properly sourced nevertheless ([88], [89]), but some users don’t seem to understand one of the core content policies and keep saying that there must be a consensus to remove it (if they say anything at all, that is; User:OSX neither answers on the discussion page nor gives an edit summary when using Twinkle). How can this be solved? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The requirement of reliable sources applies to encyclopedic content, not to Wikipedia-internal discussion, guideline or instruction material. Unless the documentation in question was proposing a non-trivial and potentially contentious claim of encyclopedic fact, I don't see how "sourcing" for it could be an issue. What's contentious here? The idea that cars have manufacturers? I may be missing something here, but that seems utterly bizarre to me. Who else would build a car if not a manufacturer? What's the deal? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that no source is given for the Toyota XYZ being manufactured by Toyota. Someone searching the Goog for "Toyota XYZ" will end up at Template:Infobox automobile/sandbox, which transcludes the documentation. If someone were to write an article at Toyota XYZ with a source for the manufacturer, we wouldn't have this problem. But it would be rather difficult to write such an article, since the car doesn't exist. --NE2 20:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the fictitious car is not the problem here (although I personally would prefer a real one, but that’s a whole different question). -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

“Who else would build a car if not a manufacturer?”: So you expect the manufacturer to be the one who builds the car? That’s contradictory to what template documentation says: “the company, division, or subsidiary responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development”…

What if the term manufacturer was non-trivial? Actually, that’s just the problem. I don’t expect anybody to read through the whole lengthy discussion; but if you did, you would notice that people think they can use the term as they want to and don’t pay any attention to the fact that it’s a technical term. Just have a quick look at Vehicle Identification Number#World manufacturer identifier.

Most comments during RfC were like: “If there is wrong data entered in some articles, just fix it.” How am I supposed to do so if template documentation is not correct? The first step must be to give an exact and sourced definition. Only then can infoboxes be filled in correctly.

Why do you think that template documentation is not encyclopaedic content? Of course it is, just look at “the one who builds the car” vs. “the one who is responsible for the vehicle's engineering and development”. Parameters are not always self-explanatory; sometimes you need template documentation to understand them, at least if there is no appropriate wikilink for them. Like in this case, for example. -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit the technical distinction between those different meanings of "manufacturer" escaped me on first reading through this. But anyway, the community at that RfC has decided that they want the template to continue to have a parameter under that name, and that people feel that in the majority of cases the use of the field is not problematic. What you can do now if you are still unhappy about how it's used: you can propose new or clarified guidelines on the doc page about how to deal with those (I suppose relatively rare) cases where the role of "manufacturer" is unknown, unclear, or where the company that technically "manufactures" a car is different from the one that developed and designed it. You can propose changing the display label of the field in the infobox if you think it's technically misleading in too many cases. You can go through articles and spot problematic cases and start discussions on the article talk pages about how best to deal with them. What you cannot do, now that the RfC has decided that the field will stay, is to use the documentation page for an end-run around that decision and make it appear to the reader as if the field didn't exist. That's what you appear to have been doing, and it's a rather blatant case of disruptive editing against consensus, so you really need to stop doing that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically, manufacture includes design (which corresponds to engineering and development here) and assembly stages/processes as well (Manufacturing engineering). It seems that the users who created/edited the template documentation in question, had tried to make a distinction between the parent company and the tier 1/2/3 suppliers or assemblers (which is rare), in case some users might not fill in that field correctly. Because parent company makes the "design" (engineering and development) in general, they might have thought that such a portrayal/characterization would be acceptable/sufficient. Logos5557 (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not an admin issue, and as Fut.Perf. stated above, WP:V only applies to article space. Whether a particular template parameter should be kept or not was decided by the RfC, but WP:V cannot be apply to whether or how the parameter is documented. —Farix (t | c) 16:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please have a look at the template. You will notice that some parameters include wikilinks, such as [[Model year]]s, [[Car classification|Class]], [[Automobile layout|Layout]] or [[Automobile platform|Platform]]. There is no need to switch from main namespace to template namespace in order to see the definitions of these parameters. Do those definitions, which are all within main namespace, have to be verifiable? If so, why not those that don’t have a wikilink, but just a description on template documentation? -- Brakehorsepower (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Timewave P2

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

---

Could do with a talk page block and some rev-dels. Abusing talk page after a block for WP:SOCK. Appears to have turned their focus on me for now so at least their not knitting more socks. Amortias (T)(C) 17:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Monty has blocked him and I've rev del'd the rest.--v/r - TP 17:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

They now appear to be going through the talk pages of previously blocked socks that have not had talk page access revoked and spamming abuse. Monty₈₄₅ 17:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Logged in then back out appears to be one if not spotted already. Amortias (T)(C) 18:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

These are User:Evlekis. All socks now reblocked with talk page access blocked. Please block talk page access for future Evlekis socks. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Bewbslova

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

---

I'm a fairly new editor (my IP changes frequently, not as new as my contribs might lead you to think) who is having all contributions made today reverted by Bewbslova. This is in retaliation to me reverting his 4 edits (in my mind, they were all unencyclopedic). Nothing I've done since my last IP switch was huge (other than some section blanking reverting) but I think I had a positive impact on the project unlike Bewbslova. I'd like to request a warning and rollback from a more experienced user. 165.214.12.80 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry my bad I am trying to undo it I did not mean to undo the edit in the first place then someone else started editing it so I could not undo my message. Bewbslova (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That seems pretty reasonable, I'm still not fond of your edits though. I think you should try to copy the tone of the articles you're working on. Is there any chance someone with rollback can fix the mess we've made of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_Students_in_Ireland&action=history? 165.214.12.80 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Some1 will sort it eventually because it is really fucked up. Bewbslova (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done—LucasThoms 19:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Bewbslova is clearly not finished reverting constructive edits, such as the one I made to List of Pokémon (441–493). After reverting my edit with the descriptive edit summary "not a helpful edit", he has the guts to template my talk page. If it matters, you may examine my edit and compare. Bewbslova has had his warning, but now is the time to start taking preventative measures against further unconstructive editing. Baconfry (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Jac16888. Favonian (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Brand.com sock farm problem.

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

---

At Brand.com (an "online reputation management" company), there have been four probable sockpuppets in the last two days. See sockpuppet investigation: [90]. As each one is blocked, a new SPA account appears. Suggest a few days of semi-protection to quiet things down. John Nagle (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

You would think that an online reputation management company would avoid the very public scrutiny of Wikipedia. Chillum 21:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T.R. Threston

AustralianThreston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is threatening action for slander/libel here. Also please note the open SPI investigation on this user. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 21:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

FUCK OFF! I deleted the entire page. As I have repeatedly said I AM NOT T.R. Threston but if any of the slanderous things written by the staff on Wikipedia remain, I'm sure a law suit will not be far behind. And people wonder why Wikipedia isn't allowed as a reliable reference for REAL research. I certainly know why now!! --AustralianThreston (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threats by Future Perfect at Sunrise Chillum 22:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@AustralianThreston: You're not allowed to make legal threats here per WP:NLT. Please retract it or you will almost certainly be blocked from editing.- MrX 22:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Is WJRockford (talk · contribs) a sock, or is that user's single-purpose interest just an unhappy coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Probable sock. See the SPI link above. --Finngall ^talk 22:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Holy moly, what a crop. A classic case of trying to abuse Wikipedia to gain artificial notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs I would note that the COI/Promotional nature of the user's choices in editing coupled with their username suggested that they were trying to use wikipedia to make the family name seem notable. I was repeatedly smacked down for it by multiple users claiming that {{uw-coi-username}} is only supposed to be used for CORP coi usernames and not this kind of coi username. Just laying it out so that the opposers (WikiDan61—xeno—Protonk) at my thread at WP:VPI where I proposed forking the coi-username template to handle this type of POV pushing that isn't paid editing. Hasteur (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur, Permission granted to stop pinging me for this nonsense. Protonk (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User: BeatleManix

BeatleManix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - genre warring in spite of repeated requests on his talk page to stop. Radiopathy •talk• 23:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Air Algérie

186.18.194.54 (talk · contribs) has become disruptive by altering Air Algérie without either providing edit summaries for their changes or replying to my comments at the article's talk. All the necessary diffs can be found here. It's been almost a day since I've requested semi-potection for the article but it hasn't been handled yet (As a sidenote, the number of requests at WP:RPP has become somewhat large). Can someone please take care of the situation? Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RPP has been declined ([91]). Anyone here?--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have left a note on 186s talk page to explain that making unexplained changes could be seen as disruptive and encouraged them to use the talk page, we just need to wait and see how the IP responds. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:EEng

I consider the recent behavior of User:EEng at WT:MOSNUM as disruptive. Here are some examples: [92] and [93], [94], plus some other ([95], [96], [97]; notice the edit summaries as well). Besides being annoying and not promoting a civil discussion, the user has changed the topic [98] of a particular discussion instead of creating a separate topic. My kind requests at the original page and the user's talk page were completely ignored. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See

• [99]
• [100]

I've got to get to bed. EEng (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that EEng is far too enthusiastic in supporting their view of MOS. I started the discussion at MOSNUM and have watched EEng's demolition of Mikhail with distress. Many clever people inhabit MOS, but a couple of them are far too passionate about winning the battle. I don't expect anything much will come from this report, but IMHO EEng should be told to make an argument a couple of times, and then keep quiet. If the issue is as obvious as they think, others will agree without the need to kneecap opponents. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your participation. :–) As the original topic starter, do you agree that EEng's proposal should be discussed separately? (This is the main reason why I raised the issue here. My concern with EEng is only that he just goes his own way and changes other people's edits without even seeking any consensus.) — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think that's the issue—the problem is that there is too much aggression at MOS. Forceful responses are needed when dealing with POV pushers and spammers, but battleground tactics should not be employed in a discussion about the correct unit for kilowatt-hour. Johnuniq (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I've found him to be quite aggressive in my previous interactions with him in MOS discussions. He entered a discussion at a fairly late stage, accused me of being crazy, dismissed me in a patronising way and tried to shut the discussion down. Not necessarily disruptive, but unconstructive and annoying. Archon 2488 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• EEng, I feel like I can't turn around without finding you getting into a dispute with someone else. Please take the following advice. Even if you are correct on the merits, being a wise-guy online does not play well. There are things that you and I can say to one another on our user talk pages that you should not say to editors who are disagreeing with you. Some of the edit summaries in the links above make me cringe. If you are really smart, and I think that you are, you don't need to be a show-off about it, nor to rub it in other editors' faces. There's nothing here for administrators to do, but you, EEng, need to think about what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

*Endorse Tryptofish's advice. --John (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Tfish, your appeals to my better nature are always appreciated and sometimes even efficacious.

John, an exhortation to civility from you is almost an honor [101]. (To find that I simply searched your contributions for fuck -- as expected there it was.) EEng (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's nice EEng. A bit of a tu quoque? I am not being discussed here, but you are. "If you are really smart, and I think that you are, you don't need to be a show-off about it, nor to rub it in other editors' faces." I am sure you are smart enough to do better. Please try. --John (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Only you could introduce "If you are really smart ... you don't need to be a show-off about it" with a Latin term of rhetoric. EEng (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Propose a topic ban from MoS, widely construed. This isn't helpful or proportionate to the importance of the topic. --John (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet vandalism of candle

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

---

Set this up for archiving. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 02:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Over the last couple of days there has been repeated vandalism to candle by a number of editors whom I suspect are the same person. All the names have the form The***nerd where the *** is variously "leader", "sky", "underground" or "floor". Generally there are just two contributions listed, both to candle, changing some aspect of it to food. A couple of the puppet names have been warned but the putative vandal just changes name. Could an administrator investigate please? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Martin, sure, I'll have a look. Just so you know, request for sockpuppetry investigations normally are done at WP:Sockpuppet Investigations. PhilKnight (talk) 09:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ta, WP:AIV didn't seem right. I'll note the link in case it's needed again. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked the following accounts: Thefloornerd (talk · contribs), Theskynerd (talk · contribs), Theundergroundnerd (talk · contribs), Thecorenerd (talk · contribs), Thespacenerd (talk · contribs), and Theleadernerd (talk · contribs). Also blocked is Dfvdfvb (talk · contribs) who has a different type of name, but who's edits otherwise fit the pattern. PhilKnight (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption on AfD and the article that is up for AfD

Jose Cuello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination) and the article in question, Miss Multiverse (one of a number of articles about a minor beauty pageant that have been repeatedly created, and equally repeatedly deleted), posting walls of text and various accusations against other editors on the AfD and repeatedly both adding non-applicable templates and blanking the article. So could we perhaps have a block, to prevent further disruption, on Jose Cuello for the duration of the AfD? Thomas.W ^talk 09:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Or just collapse the walls of text beyond an initial !vote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Which would make the Afd easier to read, but wouldn't prevent disruption on the article or on the talkpages of other users. Thomas.W ^talk 10:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, how about mentioning your rude comments why is that not addressed here? or is that what you wish to have collapsed and removed, Some administrators should remember what it was like when they where new and also know that just because some one is new does not mean he will not eventually master the use of wikipedia Jose Cuello (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Rude comments? What rude comments? Everyone has shown remarkable restraint, considering both the disruption on the AfD and the repeated blanking of the article... Thomas.W ^talk 18:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Melenc

• Melenc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I want to report this user for harassment and repeated personal attacks. Their activity consists in continuous violations of guidelines, edit-warring over punctuation and even insertion of wrong information[102][103] and removal of reliably sourced text[104]. These violations led me and other editors to revert many of their edits.[105][106] Edit-warring and personal attacks (including borderline racial slurs) against me followed.[107][108][109][110][111] They keep posting gibberish on my talk-page despite the fact that I asked them to stop doing so. Their egregious attacks include the following: "can you stop to pass your all time from editing Greek articles", "People from other nationalities would be good to edit in their object", "I suppose I talk to a human be[ing]". --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ι asked a place to commumicate with this user, so I send the informations into his talk page to explain him the way he continuing be interested on the wiki-policies only for the Greek articles. For example he was edited the article Adam, but he didn't change it's WP:OVERLINK, as he actually did for Leto in Greek lang-, but upside he told me that I send him gibberishes even if he conceded shortly afterwards! So, I contact with him for some those removal information by him, that he conceded it then, later. Then I had some personal attacks on my talk page Do you actually know what you are doing? --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2014. The only interest from me is to fill leftovers made by such major empathy with the Articles by the specific user and το contribute to the correctly use on wiki-pages with no abuse.--Melenc (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where the personal attack is in the diff provided by Melenc right above.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

How hard did you look, Jetstreamer? I can see how it would be construed that way. Makes me wonder, really, do you actually know what you are doing? (see what I did, there...?) I wouldn't see that as an attack myself, but different folks are sensitive to different things, and it could be seen as a slur on competence. I'd be less than happy to have it said to me probably. Nuances can be lost when only text exists. There's obviously a language problem, and a bit of a disagreement here, but it bears mention that I see little "egregious" in the quoted "attacks" in the OP, either. Recommend hugs, kisses, tolerance, and no fighting in the playground here, maybe Melenc is linguistically out of their depth, and needs help, or advice. Maybe their English is not good enough to really edit here effectively. Nevertheless, storm - teacup. Begoon ^talk 16:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a really problem with English language, I agree that may I have some problems with wiki-tactics, yes I agree, but anyway this is something that has nothing to do, with the above documentation I just gave above and the reason I wrote those lines! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melenc (talk • contribs)

Melenc, take it from someone who has no interest at all in the topics you edit on but who does speak English fluently: you are much less fluent in English than you believe you are. Your comments here are difficult to understand because your English is so poor. Looking back at your earlier contributions elsewhere, I see the same issue. You need to improve your English if you plan to continue to edit here. Nobody is using wiki-tactics here. --NellieBly (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

After my inform he complied. My english obviosly isn't good there, because I am busy, but what it counts is that there was the responding to my informing which was proved useful!--Melenc (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See, the thing is, Melenc, Nellie is right. The very sentences you posted above are pretty poor English, and I had to read them a couple of times to understand you. Your English is far better than my Greek , but then I only ever learnt ancient Greek at school, and I've forgotten all that. Honestly, at that conversational level, you're going to find things very difficult here, and there will be lots of misunderstandings, like we see above. I know English wikipedia is the biggest, but participation does require a higher level of English communication than you seem to be demonstrating. Sometimes it's better to edit your local wiki until you've improved your English skills a bit - otherwise it can cause the problems you've been experiencing here. Begoon ^talk 23:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cebr1979 and Livelikemusic

I refer to [112] [113] [114] [115] Editors are unable to interact with each other without accusations of harassment, bad faith, edit warring, snide remarks and incivility etc etc. The last proposal for an interaction or topic ban did not gain any traction due to, I suspect, people being unwilling to read through the impressive walls of text when the two parties argue (I don't blame them, wading through it is about as fun as watching paint dry). There is no relevant dispute resolution process to follow as the two parties literally argue about everything to do with soap opera. —Dark 15:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember this story. Neither seemed willing to work on the content disputes that led to their disagreements. I was never really sure who was "at fault"... but yeah, if it's still going on something has to happen to cut this nonsense. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to get along with that one but, he just follows me around on here. To the point where even you, Dark Falls, commented on it and told him to stop.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Good Lord, I followed your link Mendaliv, and my head hurts. What do we do when the crap generated by 2 users is too much for normal mortals to bear, or even read without their eyes bleeding? Begoon ^talk 17:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• If there's no desire from either party to solve the content issues using the normal protocols, then the only option I see left for these two is WP:IBAN. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• While I support an IBAN (preferring a limited length one, such as 3-6 months, but supporting any proposal), I'm concerned that the narrow editing area these two operate in will make a clash inevitable. I'm also always concerned with the possibility of an IBAN turning into a land rush (especially when both editors are in a small topic area like this), but I'm sure those more familiar with IBAN mechanics will inform me that there is no such worry in practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point, Mendaliv, and it crossed my mind too, when posting my IBAN link. I guess the way to look at it is this: If the children won't play nice in the park, first we ask them not to play with each other at all because it upsets everyone else. If they still spoil the park for others then we ask them not to come to the park at all. In the meantime, if they can show us they've grown up now and won't spoil everybody's day, well, then everyone can play together happily again. Begoon ^talk 19:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone is prepared to fine-tooth-comb the contribs, an IBAN seems the standard way forward. A gentler approach might be a revert-ban, and a ban on commenting on the other editor while still allowing factual comments on talk pages. Dark will have a better idea whether this is worth trying. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC).

That is exactly what DarkFalls told Livelikemusic to do! Stop following my edits and, if he really feels that strongly about it, take it to that article's talk page! You can see so here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DarkFalls#Assumptions_being_made_AGAIN Cebr1979 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

However, Livelikemusic paid that no mind, continued on as though that never happened, and has been reverting my edits ever since without ever once going to an article's talk page! I mean, while I agree that perhaps some of my responses to him are not always the most professional... I don't follow his edits, I don't revert his edits (unless it's undoing a revert he unfairly did to me), and, as DarkFalls also pointed out, I've come a long way in a short time and have stayed clear of Livelikemusic!!! If any of you were to wake up to reverts by only one user every single morning... you wouldn't eventually CAPS LOCK something back? He constantly accuses me of Wikihounding him yet... I never revert anything he does! I go to a page, make an edit, and he reverts it! He follows me around and the proof is right here on this site for all of you to see! The Summer Newman comments made by him in that conversation on DarkFalls page I linked to prove it: that page isn't even on his WatchList but he knew of my edit and had even directed other editors to go look at it!!! He told DarkFalls (again in that conversation I linked to) that he reverted an edit of mine "not even looking nor caring who made said-edit" but, he's had a conversation about THAT very edit going for WEEKS now (and had even commented on that conversation that very same day where he, himself, pointed out that no consensus had been reached but, he went and reverted the edit anyhow)! Would you people not be going bonkers if this was happening to you??? Now, I'm the one who has "come a long way" and Livelikemusic hasn't budged one bit or listened to what an admin told him to do and I'm still potentially in jeopardy of losing the topic I most enjoy editing? My God!Cebr1979 (talk) 06:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I support an IBAN between these two users; the multiple issues they and some others create involving anything in the WP:SOAPS project have driven many good possible (and some of them new who flee the site) editors from going anywhere near the articles they deal with; even compared to the MMA fun of last year and the worst of reality articles such as the Bad Girls Club series, Cebr and LLM's interactions make it impossible to build consensus without having them get into it over some wrong they can only see. This needs to be a collegian series of articles, not two editors trying to 'win' them. Nate • (chatter) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Malerooster

During an ongoing, peaceful and collaborative Good Article review by User:Moisejp of Paul Conrad, an article I nominated for GA, Malerooster (talk · contribs) showed up and began making a series of unfounded deletions, reversions, and personal attacks on Paul Conrad, Talk:Paul Conrad, and Talk:Paul Conrad/GA1.[116] [117] I've asked him to stop and he's refused. As a result, I've asked him to leave the article alone and stop disrupting the reivew. He's refused and he's strangely accused me of "bullying". I would like administrative attention in the matter so I can get back to collaborating with the nominator and working on the review. Malerooster's behavior is making it impossible to edit. Viriditas (talk) 02:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Reviewing the back and forth - Malerooster appears to be only on that article to be disruptive. At least one of his suggestions is directly opposed by the MOS. A block may be appropriate if he does not disengage.--v/r - TP 03:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Please block my IP range for 24 hours

Not really willing to go into why, but please block my ip range for 24 hours. It is nothing to do with me as such, it is just what I know about. Alternatively, if you are not willing to do so, then please keep an eye on it. Thanks. 217.43.5.168 (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@217.43.5.168: Requests such as this are generally not fulfilled without good reason, as a large range block could affect many unintended users. Would you be willing to elaborate on your concern in a more private manner? Depending on the situation there are different venues. For general matters you could send a message to the OTRS team or if it's a severe privacy matter you can contact the oversight team. Best, Mike V • Talk 03:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

For anyone that would like an easy way to monitor the range, Contributions from 217.43.5.168/16 Since 2014-08-02. Also 217.43.5.168/24. (requires /16 CIDR range gadget be enabled in your user preferences) Monty₈₄₅ 03:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw reported by Msnicki

With great reluctance and apologies that this will be long, I am reporting a pattern of bullying, tendentiousness and other unhelpful behavior and a series of unwarranted personal attacks by Montanabw that I can no longer ignore.

The incidents arise in the context of the discussion of allegations by the New York Times and found to have probable cause by the US Army War College that John Walsh (U.S. politician) had plagiarized roughly two-thirds of 2007 master's thesis at the War College. Related discussion can be found at:

1. Talk:John Walsh (U.S. politician)#Plagiarism allegation
2. WP:BLPN#Allegations of plagiarism by John Walsh (U.S. politician)
3. User talk:Billmckern#Montanabw's edits.

Evidence of bullying includes:

1. Reverting Presbyterian1 with the edit remark, "Drop the effing stick, Presbyterian1 before we have you blocked." 1.
2. Repeatedly asserting in ad hominem fashion that his opinions are more valid than others' by virtue of his "over 15 featured articles to my credit" 2 and demanding, "List your GA, FA and DYK articles, please, (and how many articles have YOU contributed to that have been TFA? I have nine) or else just deal with the reality that your precious prose isn't particularly precious to anyone else." 3. (Note that he appears to be taking sole credit for 15 FAs, though he later denies doing that. 4)

Evidence of tendentiousness and other unhelpful behavior includes:

1. Continuing to assert WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:SYNTH and that the allegations of plagiarism are a campaign issue at BLPN without responding to the substance of my arguments or anyone else's in the article talk page or at BLPN, at one point prompting Nomoskedasticity to remark in frustration, "Another assertion of "campaign issue" without any supporting argument attempting to persuade us on the point"5.
2. Stating that he could "live with" my edit to the article content re: the allegations 6, eliciting a concilliatory message from me 7 but then blindsiding me twelve minutes later with series of 3 edits in quick succession 7, 8and 9 that fairly completely gutted my contribution, all done without any attempt to discuss. (Note also that the second edit also claims plagiarism in the edit comment.)
3. Stating he had been mistakenly been looking at others' edits 10 when in fact I had posted a link to the diff for my edit 11 and clearly he did read it, evidenced by his remark 12 stating that he found it "interesting that the Army itself is takign over the investigation". This is a fact I had introduced in my edit and which had not previously appeared in the article.

Most serious are the personal attacks, which include:

1. Calling me "arrogant" and claiming that I had "cast aspersions" 13.
2. Claiming that I had plagiarized material by improper "close paraphrasing", made personal attacks and and that I "really don't "get" WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTH" 14.
3. Repeating his claim I plagiarized by improper close paraphrasing and claiming that I had made "mean-spirited attacks" that he implies amount to WP:OUTING 15.

Not only are the personal attacks unwarranted, unsupported by the facts and contrary to policy, I believe the behavior is part of a pattern that has had a chilling effect on the discussion and editing of the article, contrary to the best interests of Wikipedia.

My single edit

I have made a single edit to the article adding content regarding the Times' allegations, seen in this diff 16 and announced at BLPN 17.

Each sentence states a simple claim and each is accompanied by a citation to the source(s) I relied on for that sentence. I devoted only a single sentence to a statement of the allegations and devoted most of the content in equal parts to Walsh's various responses and to the War College's preliminary review indicating they'd found probable cause. I included direct quotes from Walsh, his campaign "fact sheet" and from Lance Betros, provost of the War College. I did not mention any of the many reported (and overwhelmingly negative) reactions from anyone else. And though I personally believe the evidence is damning and that Walsh's responses are completely lame, I tried hard and I believe I was successful in disallowing my own personal views to color what I wrote.

Yes, I did not get consensus beforehand but (a) I don't think there was any real consensus to be had and (b) a corollary perhaps to the observation that it is easier to ask forgiveness than seek permission, I've observed that sometimes editors will accept an edit after it's been made and when they see it in context that they might not have not have accepted when it was presented only as a hypothetical. This worked for me in the past, e.g., when I rewrote the lede to Bash (Unix shell) a couple years ago, suddenly ending what had been a bitter debate on the talk page, and I hoped it would work here. Here, of course, it never got a chance because Montanabw only allowed it to stay there for 12 minutes, meaning almost no one ever saw it.

Having re-read of my edit several times since then (as I almost always do after writing almost anything, aware as I am that I do make mistakes), I can only find 2 things I would change.

1. In the second paragraph, I used the phrase, "Presented with multiple examples of identical passages". I gave credit to the NY Times as the source, but I think that phrase is distinctive and in hindsight, I should have either quoted it or, better still, chosen a different expression, perhaps, "Shown examples of allegedly copied material".
2. In the third paragraph, I cited <ref name=NYTimes2/> for the third and fourth sentences discussing when the War College review board would meet and how long they would take. I had been renumbering my sources and made a clerical error. That should have been <ref name=NYTimes4/>.

Of course, we'll never know now, but I think I'd have found and fixed both these errors within a day or so anyway. They certainly don't rise to anything supporting a charge of plagiarism.

Montanbw's charge of plagiarism against me

Montanabw's claim that I have engaged in plagiarism are what most upset me.

I am now semi-retired in a second career as faculty at a state university. I deal with plagiarism as part of my job. Within the academic community, plagiarism and other forms of academic dishonesty are extremely serious offenses. I am expected to know what plagiarism is, what it not and to recognize and report it when I see it. If I report it, I am expected to be right. This is why I took the NYTimes' charges against Walsh so seriously and why I am so upset by Montanabw's charges against me.

I find it completely inexplicable that Montanabw would resist in-depth treatment of the allegations against a public figure reported by the New York Times and numerous other reliable sources adn found to have probable cause by the US Army War College, but insist on making false charges of plagiarism against me in such a cavalier manner, even to the point of doubling down and refusing to retract them 18 after I had explained why he was wrong 19.

The essence of plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of someone else's work. It's using their intellectual property without giving credit. But each and every sentence I added did cite a source. I did give credit. When I invited our university conduct officer to review my edit and Montanabw's charges, here is what she wrote back:

I think your section on Senator Wash’s plagiarism allegation is very well written and properly cited – no idea what the other person was referencing.

The sad thing is, those public misconceptions is part of the need for the academic integrity education crusade. So many individuals have different perceptions about the meaning of academic integrity and the consequences….even the consequences of falsely accusing. Excellent response to that individual; absolutely ridiculous!

(I think most of you can form an opinion without need for this, but if anyone does wish to see the original email or would like contact information for our conduct officer, please send me email. I will provide it on request, no questions asked, subject only to the understanding that you should not post anything that might out me here.)

I almost walked away from this

In several of my remarks at BLPN and elsewhere, I made clear that I refused to edit war. I made a single edit and if others didn't come to my defense, I expected to walk away 20 out of concern that if I did anything to revert Monatanbw's changes to what I'd written, that it could lead to an edit war, which I simply did not want. When no one did, I had determined as of two nights ago that I was done and would walk away.

I am here because Montanabw's last edit, doubling down on his claims I'd plagiarized, even though I'd done absolutely nothing wrong and had made no attempt to revert any of edits, was simply the last straw.

I believe there's a pattern here of bullying, personal attacks and other disruptive behavior that has had and will continue to have a chilling effect on discussion. It's not helpful nor is it in the best interests of Wikipedia. It needs to end. I've become satisfied that if I don't step up and report it, possibly taking my own lumps, it won't end.

Coming to ANI is absolutely the last thing I want to do. I dread that no good comes to anyone who comes here for any reason. Having made this report, I intend to say no more. If questions are directed at me, I will answer. But if anyone has criticisms of my behavior, I intend simply to take them to heart and resolve to do better next time. I've said my piece.

Sincerely, Msnicki (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• I saw the BLP report and while I didn't do anything, I checked the edits and found that Montanabw was doing precisely the correct thing (Montanabw reverted UNDUE amplifications of breaking news that a politician facing election may be guilty of plagiarism). Thankfully Wikipedia now records the full details (with glowing prose such as "The normal penalty for plagiarism is rescinding the former student's degree, although lesser disciplinary actions are an option."), and there are nine references in case the reader wants any more muck. Thanks for trying Montanabw! Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• First point: Wikipedia has very strict copyright rules, perhaps stricter than you might encounter elsewhere. Copying phrases from sources, even if properly attributed, is only permitted if the material is contained inside quotation marks. I have done some further clean-up of material copied directly from the sources. Second point: your addition changed a 45-word section on the plagiarism issue into a 402-word section. In a 1676-word article, the material then comprised 24% of the article. This gives the event undue weight. I have trimmed it further from 253 words when I arrived, down to 185 words. I am not sure it belongs there at all, per our rules on BLPs. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
• The points made above by Johnuniq and Dianaa above, whilst correct, are content points and are not about behaviour which is what the OP claims are really about. So I went to the article talk page and the BLP thread to see who said what (or more specifically, how it was said). And what is very clear is that Msnicki's points/edit were received calmly and politely, but Msnicki soon went on the attack with allegations of bias, COI, and even abuse of admin tools - all without evidence. Msnicki's approach was confrontational and ABF from the outset. Things went down hill from there. (Just to be clear, I'm not American and have never heard of the politician who is the subject of the article so have no POV axe to grind) DeCausa (talk) 05:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Open proxy

Me - safenfree.com 23.252.109.229 (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Above user appears to be the "Maria Sharapova's fanny" user that's popped up here at least once before... - Purplewowies (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

@Purplewowies: You mean Evlekis?—LucasThoms 05:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's late, and while I could remember that the person was a sockmaster, I couldn't remember who the sockmaster was. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

uas2.com too 23.252.110.47 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)