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. 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

Persistent incivility: Incnis Mrsi

Re: Incnis Mrsi (talk · contribs)

Came across this character following his raising a complaint at MilHist, a few weeks ago, but because they clearly did not resolve it to his personal satisfaction he took the issue to RFD without notifying anyone. At the time he left a number of uncivil remarks towards someone in the RFD. I asked him to tone it down, as I was uninvolved in the matter, and he became uncivil with an abrupt high-horse attitude about him, with total lack of AGF: User talk:Incnis Mrsi#September 2012.

Two weeks later I was asked to look into his recent behaviour, via email. Did so, still uninvolved, and he has persisted with his arrogant manner of leaving blunt edit summaries, accusing editors of being bad or wasteful, and that he is somehow "perfect" and should never he reverted because he takes insult to it. A strong ownership attitude exists in his behaviour also. He has claimed to have quit editing on Russian Wiki because of double standards, but it is clear that he sets the standards himself, often contrary to Wiki policy, and has a total IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to anyone asking that he stop leaving uncivil, border-line personal attack remarks. I wouldn't say he was down-right offensive, but his manner of "outing" editors as being poor or inexperienced is hardly appropriate in the face of the poor editor retention we have at present. Following this (User talk:Incnis Mrsi#Personal Attack) lengthy discussion, he went on to pursue his disrespect towards editors, and has been asked again to lay off. Again, he claims not to be in the wrong... ever.

I'm not asking for a block here, his actual edits are neither controversial nor disruptive, but his behaviour is certainly unwarranted, and it is inappropriate for him to react with spite towards every editors commenting on his behaviour. I think a couple of admins need to give this fellow a few pokes, after reviewing his edit summaries and underhand remarks towards a few editors, lately. Maybe he will get the jist, given that he feels only someone with authority has the right to rebuke him, then I don't see any other way, he ignores everyone else's concerns. My own remarks started off politely, but his egotistic responses just started to drive me nuts after a while, because he refuses to accept that he is ever saying anything wrong, in an annoying "civil POV pusher" fashion, even with 3 or 4 editors stating the opposite, so the discussions linked do start to lose coherence in a way. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Nutation - much the same experience from my viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, I am not the best Wikipedia user, but this request is made in a bad faith. Yes, I know what I said and I am ready to account for my words.

• You have 4,273 edits on en-wiki I have 9,640 edits on en-wiki I guess actions do speak louder than words, and by your own flawed comment, I am more experienced.
• Maybe you should start listening to those of us encouraging you to do that, before you dig your own grave into AN/I, hmmm?
• You can tell a good editor by the praise/barnstars on their talkpage. You have one in 6 years. Perhaps not everyone feels you're helping en-Wiki become better, because your attitude to fellow-editors speaks more than your contribs which go unnoticed as a result. Shame..

This three diffs should be sufficient, for an experienced user, to detect the nominator's motivation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoting people out of context, is bad faith. Accusing me of bad faith is also bad faith, given than there is plenty of evidence at hand that cannot be denied. Your first quote, for example, was a response to you stating "try to understand better what is means, rather than to bog into such a dispute with (sorry) an experienced user". You only highlighted my point that you think yourself better than everyone. You issued a challenge to my experience, it was met. Don;t cry about it now your civility is being questioned towards multiple editors. Quoting me, only proves you have a beef with anyone who questions your manner. You haven't even made an attempt to defend your rude edit summaries, "bad editor" outing, ownership, being "insulted by reverts", and so on and so forth. I've already openly stated that conversations with you spiral out of control, because you're massively incapable of expressing guilt, so your quotes are irrelevant tit-for-tat. This ANI thread is about you, and your history of incivility. I suggest you direct your immediate attention to that matter, and not me. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had the same experience at User talk:StringTheory11 and Superatom. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, to save people time searching for what StringTheory11 is specifically referring to: User talk:StringTheory11 dispute and Superatom edit summary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Taking a very quick look at the history of the Incnis Mrsi's talk page, people don't seem to have accused him if in-civility or personal attacks or stuff like that until about September 2012 (but I could be wrong), and he's been here sense 2008. Might the account be compromised? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. You can ask the people on Wikimedia channels at Freenode, it's genuinely me. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, Incnis Mrsi is here on Wikipedia merely to look for trouble, not to collaborate on improving the encyclopedia. And dealing with this user is all the more tedious because he/she seems to like to argue points of English language usage with editors who, unlike him/her, are native speakers. Here are a couple differences from my encounters with Incnis Mrsi:

• Me trying to be gracious in spite of my doubts of IM's intentions: [1]
• IM demonstrating what seems to be his/her edit summary MO: [2]

Eric ^talk 02:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

So what? You claimed my edit to be "erroneous" (without explicit arguments, but already with a pronounced doubt about my good faith), I tried to discuss it. Is AN/I a proper place to air grievances about disagreements in one article, or (possibly) even two or three? BTW, a mediation eventually reduced the problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have a long experience of interaction with Incnis Mrsi in Russian Wikipedia, where, especially in the end, this interaction was far from pleasant, and one one occasion I even met them in person at a WikiMeetup. Incnis Mrsi is certainly not a poster boy, they are sometimes incivil and often fail to hear others, and their communication skills are not ideal. On the other hand in most cases the points they are trying to make are valid, and their contribution to the articles is highly valuable. I do not have a good solution, but I personally just learned to ignore the trash they are saying (and believe me it was not easy, for instance, when they came to rally against me at the Arbcom elections) and to extracting valid points. I do not think any formal restrictions would work (except for the full ban of course but then we lose their contributions while gaining nothing).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

  Answered on the personal talk page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to talk about this ANI thread off-board, perhaps it should not be in the form of further personal attacks: "I do not believe that a couple of angry waste-makers and policy trolls together with few (legitimate) users which were upset about my remarks and are not willing to present grievances to me directly, all have a sufficient power to invoke a topic restriction" - this is exactly – the point I'm trying to make about your repeated high-horse attitude, and how what you believe is somehow better than what everyone else thinks,per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You always want the last word, and it's the only one you think is "right". Your disregard for the "collaborative spirit" of Wiki is of more concern than anything. Your bully-style attitude, telling people what "not" to do, "never" to do, why they are "waste makers", why you are somehow superior as an "experienced metapedian" is just not appropriate. In short, you talk down to everyone like they're shit on your shoe, and it's that condescending manner than I and others disapprove of, and the fact you can't accept it because of whatever pride/ego you have only for yourself presents a massive COI blindsightedness in favour of your opinions. The fact that you refer to almost everyone who holds a dispute with you as a "troll" and ignore them is also a poor show of will to resolve an issue; you lack tact and communication skills, again, because you somehow you feel you are superior to the rest of us, as is evident in that quote, apparently "the community" has no power over you alone. Funny.. I thought that was the whole point of consensus building: to reach mutual understandings, not let one man exert his will over others like some dictator. You do that, be bashing people with repeat ignorance of their views, and forceful reassertion of your own. It's not how Wiki works. Are you getting this? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody think that MarcusBritish went far beyond the point where his efforts to persuade me to become more civil can be, actually, useful for this community? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, do you think that? As I said before, this isn't about me, people are commenting about you, and with a number of editors now raising behaviour concerns, I suggest you stop trying to create a fork in the discussion. Also, reading between the lines, your reply reads as, "I don't want to be civil.. if I can somehow drive MarcusBritish off, no one can stop me doing whatever I want". Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

… namely: searching for illegal redirects (unfortunately, not always CSD-eligible), users and scripts inserting dashes instead of minus signs, and WP:DICTIONARY articles (which are much more common than is usually thought of). Not counting, sometimes, writing large section or even entire articles, despite "my non-native English". I make a job useful for Wikipedia. If I make certain mistakes in etiquette, then I would prefer to be corrected by a people without serious problem with etiquette and good faith, themselves. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You've been approached by several people for your etiquette, and dismissed them all as "trolls" or "bigots" or "waste-makers", because you apply own limited-vision of who you deem proper to approach you, which appears to be noone. Your preferences are irrelevant, as you are requesting (demanding) to be informed of policy breaches on your own terms. Tell me, how does a guy intelligent enough to edit physics and mathematical articles, lack the ability to apply that same level of intelligence to his social-skills, or a little inner-self psychology, and realise that he is being unsociable towards people? You've admitted that you are "ready to account for my words", so why not start doing that, instead of putting a spin on your attitude, flipping-off your detractors, and show a little constraint when it comes to lashing out at people, instead of treading on editors contributors, as your edit summaries show you do with indiscriminate irreverence. Civility is probably easier to learn and apply than the laws of physics.. how about you start giving it a try, instead of maintain that stubborn, and to be frank - selfish - attitude that you have. Yes, civility is useful for the community, without it Wiki would fail. Why did you quit Russian-Wiki and come over to English-Wiki.. "double standards" or because they too insisted on proper etiquette that you can't live up to? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, I think that. With this, EEng will likely come to sanctions. It is this irresponsive flamewar which caused him to lift any control of his own conduct. Who will account for his imminent block and/or sanctions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this thread? No one.. it's about you.. no one willaccept a shift of blame from you to him. You could open a new thread, but I'll lay odds that it will WP:BOOMERANG because everyone will see it for exactly what it is.. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

With 4 or 5 editors having expressed a similar concern here, is there a willing admin looking into the matter further? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 18:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh... Yes, but I'm starting into a much more ugly and complicated one further up on the page. Another uninvolved admin is encouraged to try and take a look, I will probably not have time sooner than tomorrow. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Don't worry, this one isn't particularly "ugly" just a little spread-out, might take a bit of looking into, I've only been a little involved in the recent developments, personally, so I can't say how much deeper it goes or the best way to resolve it, because said editor does not seem to care about resolving anything due to not accepting being at fault to begin with. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing what I would consider personal attacks or even incivility so much as odd and disruptive comments regarding other editors. For example, saying X is a waste maker is literally true -- both human and bot editors generate waste heat and of course humans generate biological waste -- so one has to try to infer meaning.
• The removal of such comments is problematic. Although there was no blowback in this case, such removal of comments by higher status editors would typically cause a fracas.
• Incnis Mrsi seems to be generally right on content but needs to improve their interaction with other editors. Quite simply, comment on edits not on the other editors.
• Note: This is a quintessential WP:WQA issue -- no admin action is needed here -- and illustrates the folly of closing that forum without first establishing a realistic replacement. But hey, the tribe has spoken. Nobody Ent 12:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• Somehow, I don't think someone is going to call a person a "waste maker" because their body generates waste heat or dumps shit... that's cutting it a bit thin and taking AGF too far... Regardless, fortunately the precise meaning can be found in his own words: User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary#W - a "botcher" (User:Incnis_Mrsi/Glossary#B) even describes it as "may be fairly harmful", this being true, why does he use it so much? One can't admit that a term is harmful, then claim not to be uncivil.. that would be hypocrisy. And calling someone a botcher or a waste-maker is essential contrary to AGF.. it's virtually accusing them of vandalism. Not civil terms. In fact, I find it disturbing that a guy who edits calculus/physics articles sees fit to maintain a list of negative words to use in summaries and comments.. add "imbecile", "twat" and "retard" into the list and he'd have the ultimate glossary of anti-AGF words. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
• WP:WQA has been terminated, and WP:DR is for resolving disputes. The problem here is that the editor is uncivil, and when asked to control his attitude even by uninvolved editors, he basically tells them to "fuck off and mind their own business".. so yes, admin intervention is needed here to look into this editor's behaviour - not his editing, his overall conduct with regards to rude edit summaries, antagonising comments to other editors such as ownership-like remarks, pretentious comments, and total disregard for other editors opinions. When an editor is allowed to be uncivil, without warning, or ignoring all concerns, they think they can get away with anything. That is the "potential blowback".. he even admits above that trying to force him to be uncivil is impractical use of ANI time, which is essentially admitting that he does not want to be civil and does not feel anyone is good enough to tell him otherwise. If that isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. The more eyes there are on this guy's interactions, the better. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to MarcusBritish he posted the link to my glossary, although I did not advertise it anywhere, even on my user: page ;) First, a "waste-maker" (sorry, I did not find a better English expression) does not necessary produce only waste and never a product of acceptable quality. Though, if a construction worker improperly installs, say, "only" 2 beams out of 40, then he can be not only fired out, but fined and even imprisoned. Happily, Wiki is not a building construction, but monitoring for low visible waste such as invalid redirects and improper characters, and, in some cases, even arguing with persons (accidentally) making such a waste, consume valuable resources of (other) users. Second, waste-making is perfectly compatible with a good faith, under such conditions as "ignorance" and "negligence". It is another thing which is not compatible with good faith: a harassment towards a specific user because he argued with another user(s) about quality issues. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• It sounds as if you're attempting to try us under the Law of Spikelets for the destruction of collective property. Are we all to be shot, or sent to the gulags? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Advertise, no, edit, yes.. thus it's plain to see on your contribs list.. no secret really, anyone might have noticed it. And we all have a Special:PrefixIndex/User:Incnis_Mrsi/ page.. so again, no secrets here on Wiki, son. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• 11:28, 24 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+428)‎ . . User:Incnis Mrsi/Glossary ‎ (+waste) (top) [rollback 3 edits]

Per WP:5P:

Wikipedia does not have firm rules.

Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone, as their wording and interpretation are likely to change over time. The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception to a rule. Be bold (but not reckless) in updating articles and do not worry about making mistakes. Prior versions of pages are saved, so any mistakes can be corrected.

So once again, I repeat that your Wikihounding list, condoning mistakes by User:Jarble is a direct attack, contrary to "do not worry about making mistakes". The list and manner in which you delivered it was uncivil. The only time that might be appropriate is if the edits were vandalism or controversial.. but in this case they were all trivial errors, typos, and you simply bullied him by making him out to be a useless (ie "waste-maker") editor. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, less try this for a tack. Incnis Mrsi, I am a member of the Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia, so if you are looking for a view from an editor given some kind of status by the community, that's me. I have three pieces of advice, which may make your editing experience less confrontational.
• First - On the English Wikipedia, calling another editor anything uncomplimentary can be a breach of the policy on personal attacks and is best avoided. Sentences that start "you are a...." are not appropriate when uncomplimentary. If you feel a user is making bad edits - and it seems that you often have a point here - the way to express that is "these edits are not good because....(no source/misinterprets source/doesn't make sense/ect)." Discuss only what the content should be - make no comment about the competence, intelligence, motivation or attractiveness of the other editor, unless you want to say something nice about them.
• Second - if you are trying to use a Russian expression and are uncertain of it's translation, don't use it - say something simpler. For example, the expression "waster" in English is terribly rude when applied to someone, and that's how everyone has been reading your 'waste-maker' (and getting angry with you because it sounded like you are being terribly rude). What you are referring to is a situation in which an editor appears to make a significant number of mistakes such as misplaced dashes or erroneous characters.
• Third - it may be considered unreasonable to pick on editors for making minor errors in spelling, punctuation etc, unless it is a really massive problem (they have just run a script that accidentally replaced every n-dash with an underscore or something like that). Normally, to assist everyone in rubbing along together, it's better to ignore minor mistakes in talkpage edits, and fix them without fuss in articles, and see if you can find a tactful way to say "are you having problems with....." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not minor mistakes is human edits is a problem. Scripts which allow to make multiple errors, which are hard to detect, is a problem. And this becomes a very problem (yes, my English is funny) when automated users are unwilling to fix their scripts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

One can only wonder, AGF aside, if his lack of response, despite actively editing since Elen commented, is further indication of Incnis' disregard for others opinions, as he was evidently willing to argue with everyone else of less "authority" – not sure if there's anything more can really be done at this stage, but I hope there are a few more eyes on his questionable interactions as a result, rather than let this matter be swept under the proverbial rug. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 22:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet comments not related to topic – SPI/CU confirmed as blocked user
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have encountered Marcus here before but indirectly as an anonymous IP, he was involved in a dispute almost a year ago that spiraled out of control, having trawled through the OP's history of contributions I can safely say that he is not innocent of incivility, as he is also guilty of battleground and bullish behavior that conveniently has been buried under a mass of recent edits. An example is an editor review submitted by said OP, when asked for an opinion. an editor then provided Marcus with some constructive criticism, Marcus than unbelievably personally berates and is very incivil towards the editor, but a more extreme example of the OP's incivility issues was when he threatened an editor in real life after a long and lengthy dispute over something stupid, this editor appears to have then be driven over the edge. With all due respect to you Marcus, you appear to have some good contributions despite everything else but you are the last person who should be submitting an AN/I report for incivility as you appear to love the drama so I suggest you stay away from AN/I for your own sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exquisiterottingcorpse (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) The above is this brand-new editor's first and only edit. Hmmmmm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, don't worry.. that'll undoubtedly be my favourite Irish stalker, User:Sheodred – I'm sure he fancies me. Feed him some WP:ROPE then I'll pass it to WP:SPI, again.. Reported to WP:SPI. He has more blocked accounts than braincells now. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 11:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good one fresh out of the oven [3]. EEng (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Funny how editors who lecture others about English mechanics so often are the same ones whose contribution histories are littered with "(reduced an overlinking and cleansed a lame typography)" [4] and similar examples of unintentional self-parody.

So ironic that he tells someone that their skills are insufficient to copyedit an article, yet follows up with a very poorly worded question. Perhaps showing that they should refrain from offering advice when they've got similar issues? Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC) P.S. Given that Incnis is now obviously ignoring this thread in the hope that given time others will grow bored and it will self archive with nothing actioned, what.s the way forward? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmane (talk • contribs)

The way forward is to go forward. A legit concern was raised, and multiple editors, capped by Really High Status Elen have addressed Incnis. Either their future behavior will be appropriate or it won't. If the former, nothing more needs to be done, if the latter, another ANI or RFCU can be opened. Nobody Ent 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whose Really High Status? Give a link or diff to "a very respectable editor who already addressed Incnis Mrsi", please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Elen of Roads' reply above.. having stated they're a member of Arbcom, what more do you expect.. Jimbo Wales to reply personally? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of typical behavior for Incnis Mrsi -- check out the discussion here for example, which Incnis Mrsi begins with typical massive incivility and personal insults. When Incnis Mrsi discovers that s/he has been wrong about several factual points in the discussion (e.g., whether a merge template was used) s/he simply ignores the new information. --JBL (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a typical behavior of a good Wikipedia user. Incnis Mrsi and D.Lazard (talk · contribs) in 2½ days wrote the article square (algebra), something that JBL was unable, or unwilling, to do in 3 weeks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the time it takes to write an article have to do with anything? That's just another typical uncivil remark where you compare yourself to other editors and claim to be somehow better. Doesn't the whole block of remarks above indicate how your persistence in that manner is unwelcome, because it's rude and not collaborative language? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 21:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The Square (algebra) article predates the filing of this ANI -- Incnis has already been encouraged to improve their collaboration moving forward; finding additional examples of past behavior isn't useful. Nobody Ent 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the irony of it all! — Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Dealing with harassment and "personal" trolling... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 16:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

[5] Nobody Ent 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I did not find it in this  for some reason. Thanks. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Now this really takes the cake. Blackmane (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Does seem somewhat hypocritical.. not that it matters, Arbcom wouldn't take the case unless it had unsuccessfully passed through other channels first.. for all his mathematical and scientific editing ability, can't understand why he didn't grasp that. I think it's more important we try to resolve this now though.. six days is more than enough preliminary discussion time for such a straight-forward matter, hence why I proposed some kind of resolution below, before this gets too tedious and appears as WP:BAITING, as Incnis has clearly frayed a few nerves lately. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 00:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that Incnis Mrsi does not abide uncivil remarks towards himself, despite his own behaviour towards others. He has opened an ironic RFC against EEng. See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EEng Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As explained here I stand by my interactions with I.M. EEng (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

This thread has dragged on for a very long time, multiple editors have commented confirming User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility across a number of article talk and user talk pages, in addition to my concern over his blunt edit summaries. So far, despite all these remarks, and an Arbcom admin commenting because Incis only expects to be rebuked by an "authority figure", he has failed to acknowledge the comments, has not voluntarily agreed that there is a problem that he should be taking steps to deal with, instead he continues to argue with editors across a number of talk pages and WP:BATTLEGROUND is becoming the case, including the initial signs of war editing, as reverts begin to show. Let's not have this spiral out of control. Given that this issue does not relate to content disruptions, no topic ban should be required. An interaction ban might be appropriate, if this was very serious, but I'm not sure that it would be worth enforcing.. Incnis might be prudent to offer himself to a voluntary interaction ban, staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months, and keeping edit summaries to an absolute minimum by only stating edits effected, without commenting on other editors, or the state of the article, and no words from his "glossary". This would need monitoring, however. I propose, the best thing might be to see that Incnis receive the necessary mentoring, from an experienced mentor/adopt-a-user editor, who can focus specifically on his interaction skills, and help him understand the distinct differences between relevant and potentially "rude" remarks to other editors, and with respect to his non-native English, it is clear that he needs to be more careful and far less bullish, pride isn't required to be a good editor, as much as patience. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a mandatory interaction ban with the conditions MarcusBritish suggested, with the agreement that any violation of the restrictions would result in a block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Considering the continuing aggressiveness, unpleasantness and lack of good faith (see for example the latest posts here in which Incnis Mrsi repeatedly misconstrues constructive comments and is borderline rude and aggressive) I support the proposal (in either the weaker or stronger form). --JBL (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose We should allow time to pass to see if Elen's suggestion is followed or not. Nobody Ent 22:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Elen's comments were made on the 25 Sept. He was still being abrupt after that. e.g. 28 Sept, 29 Sept. Given that he didn't even offer a courtesy response to Elen, do you expect people monitor him once this topic is archived.. unlike ex-WQA 24-hours and zap! archived and we have to start afresh, pain in the arse it is... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 23:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

How could you have overlooked this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)

Thought I'd mention that he did reply, only 3 days later. It's indented under her reply so it's not easily seen. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The reply is completely non-responsive to any of the concerns raised here. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So he does... and all he does is comment further on what he sees as problematic, as though trying to justify his behaviour, but either completely ignores or fails to respond directly to the concerns Elen took the trouble to highlight about his behaviour which have been raised by several editors this week. Just seems like another case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to me... Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 01:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only meant to say he responded, as opposed to responded in a meaningful way Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose interaction ban. I support some sanction, but why an interaction ban between just two editors when the issue of User:Incnis Mrsi's incivility has affected other editors too? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one proposed an interaction ban with one editor, it says "staying off talk pages beyond his own for a few months" — so all editors, all article discussion pages, not including things like requesting admin help/ANI or a mentor's talk page, of course.. just none of his usual "nasty" messaging to IPs/other editors telling them what they've done wrong, no article talk posts as he also tends to upset people on those too. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 10:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That would be a talk space ban, not an interaction ban in the usual sense of the term, which I don't think is the way to go. If he's edit warring, then slap an indefinite 1RR and a civility parole that the next ANI he's brought to is a 1 week block and it escalates from there. Simple and no need for monitoring. Blackmane (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • There were only early-signs of war editing, I don't think a 1RR need be set unless it escalates. 3RR applies to everyone anyway. "interaction ban".. "talk space ban".. it's all interaction to me, I see no need to worry about semantics as long as it does the job. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This issue has dogged you for a week now. The nature of the ban doesn't matter half as much as the fact of it. Please stop User:Incnis Mrsi from driving away more editors. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --JBL (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

South China Sea, again

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

---

This has gone on for too long without intervention. This same user has been informed of the rules multiple times, including his talk page, and here. Last time no intervention was made, but a sysop made the remark that if this user was to engage in the same behaviour again, there would be something done about it. Now that this has started yet again, can something actually be done? There's clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on, this user hasn't learned a single thing from last time. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've made an edit which hopefully will satisfy both viewpoints. Nobody Ent 10:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have been reverted by him. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

See also these edits to Scarborough Shoal made just a short while ago. If blatant POV pushing like this occurred at Senkaku Islands or Liancourt Rocks, the user would have been immediately crucified. So after almost a month of similar nonsense on a multitude of articles, why hasn't there been any action? Does the community have some kind of super secret hierarchy of priority that I haven't been told about? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 11:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. A review of their talk page shows that they were warned some time ago about it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic ban

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

---

Topic ban for this editor for any article about the South China Sea, broadly construed?--Shirt58 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No. Nobody Ent 17:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

And why not? "No." does not help collaborative discussion of the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Give Arbcom something to do? They love geographical conflicts, I hear. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't we apply discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this a dispute about the naming of the sea [6] (South China Sea vs. West Philippine Sea), not of some islands, so it may be a stretch to apply "8A" from there. But you may want to ask ArbCom to enlarge the DS area. Here's the full text:

“ 8A) An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

”

So, you'd have to (1) decide that the "editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands" (which may not be the case here since the dispute is about the sea), (2) give a warning (to whom?) that you intend to place the pages under DS. (3) wait a month after doing the previous step (4) place the page under DS (5) proceed to give AE-style warning to the partie(s) and (6) if they don't stop, place AE sanctions. (7) note that the DS placed at step 3 auto-expires after 6 months. I'm curious if this algorithm stemming from that 8A was ever actually used, because it seems so... WP:BURO. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the default principle of Wikipedia is supposed to be anyone can edit. So it's up the editor proposing a ban to make the case for it, not those opposed to the status quo. The editor engaged in inappropriate behavior. They've been sanctioned for it, and the sanction is ongoing. Good faith should dictate that the community wait until after the expiration of the block to see if the problematic behavior is ongoing, not that we sit around discussing a pile on of what else we can impose whilst they're blocked. Nobody Ent 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus as this is their first block we have to also consider WP:ROPE. It's fairly obvious that if they continue the edit war they'll be at strike 3 (You're out!) Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose topic ban based on reasoning of Nobody Ent, Tijfo098 and Barts1a. So glad I included a question mark at the end of the suggestion: obvious bad idea.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Obani

Obani (talk · contribs) has been edit warring over the correct romization of a song title at three articles: Flow (band), Eureka Seven: AO, List of Eureka Seven: AO episodes. Ryulong (talk · contribs) had attempted to engage Obani about the contested rominization,[7] however, Obani altered Ryulong's post to read as if Ryulong was praising them.[8] I reverted the altered comment and left a warning to Obani not to alter another editor's comments again,[9] but Obani pulls the same exact stunt with my warning.[10] Obani then leaves a message on my talk page calling me stupid in Japanese[11] and appears to have left similar messages on Ryulong's[12] and Juhachi's[13] talk pages. This editor is clearly not editing in a way that is constructive to Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and edit warring aside. It's obvious that Obani is using their fluency in japanese to throw it in your faces and thumb their nose at you. They're obviously fairly capable in english and japanese. Edit warring and personal attacks after a warning should be deserving of a day or 2 off. Blackmane (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I think the initial statement that the song and the game are unrelated is correct. I'm not even sure how BlazBlue comes out of the original Japanese, as it's effectively a silent z. Being able to type アホ isn't really an indicator of fluency, either, so that conclusion doesn't seem logical. MSJapan (talk) 03:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

And then there's this. --JBL (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Having now actually gone and read the thing, TheFarix was more precisely called a fool. Moreover, most Japanese speakers will type kanji in a sentence at some point, and the level of colloquialism indicates somebody who "learned Japanese" from anime and movies, because the construction isn't even the usual way someone would use it in speech - the usage is what you'd say to a friend, not to someone who was truly being a fool. So fluency's got notrhing to do with it,　アホ達. :) MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to ban the idiot at this point? He's clearly here only to repeatedly change "Bravelue" to "Blazblue" because the katakana are identical, despite sources to show the song has a different romanization.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

@MSJapan, I did pick up on their usage of the colloquial style, which kinda threw me a little, but depending on how you look at it, that may actually be even more insulting. Blackmane (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ryulong, is there a way you can cite one of those sources, either in the article or on the talk page? But I'm surprised that he hasn't been given a vacation after changing Blackmane's comments to turn them into another personal attack on me. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I found one and linked it to the band's page. —Farix (t | c) 12:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Help requested on Supercouple page

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

---

On the WP page Supercouple, there is an IP editor who keeps re-inserting the claim that Anne Heceh and Ellen DeGeneres were a "supercouple." I have reverted this three times and he will not stop re-adding this. I'm flabbergasted that such a statement is being allowed on that page, as I have never seen such a ludicrous statement here on Wikipedia. Heche and DeGeneres were not a "supercouple." That is just common sense. The source that the IP editor is using for this rubbish is a gay magazine that Heche gave an interview to in 2001 after she and DeGeneres split and Heche married a man. The interview uses the word "supercouple" once--it's an interview for crying out loud, obviously will exaggerate to promote Heche and is not a credible source in this circumstance. The definition of "supercouple" on this Wiki page is "a popular or financially wealthy pairing that intrigues and fascinates the public in an intense or even obsessive fashion." Heche and DeGeneres were neither of those things. At the time of their pairing, DeGeneres was a comedienne with her own TV sitcom and Heche was a completely unknown actress doing small parts in movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer. DeGeneres was wealthy; Heche was not (she even stated in court documents in 2008 "I have no money" to pay child support for her son during her divorce battle with ex-husband Coley Laffoon). DeGeneres and Heche did not "fascinate the public" but rather make the public dislike them, as Heche has stated on multiple occasions that she lost career opportunities due to this relationship. The IP editor simply has no merit for putting this back in. But, since it keeps getting put back despite my reverting it three time, I am requesting your help. If the IP editor gets other users to back him up, this will probably lead to getting several admins together for a group debate which is just silly and would be a waste of time. I still can't believe any user would stand by such a ludicrous statement. Sancap (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See what was explained to this user at User talk:Sancap#Sources, including by an administrator. This is a content dispute, but Sancap is failing to abide by the WP:Verifiability policy. His removal of this content is all based on his opinion; it is not policy or guideline-based. We don't get to pick and choose which couples are worthy enough of mentioning. It's not about what we think. It's about what the sources state. There are a lot of sources stating that DeGeneres and Heche were a popular pairing, especially within the LGBT community, and that the media and general public found their relationship intriguing. The source in question calls them a supercouple, which can be considered a subjective term anyway. The text isn't even worded stating that they were definitively a supercouple. It states that they were considered a supercouple. All in all, we follow what the sources state. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There couldn't be anyone more unpopular in the LGBT community than Heche! She was accused in the press of being a gold-digger and just experimenting with DeGeneres to get famous. This common opinion was reinforced when she left DeGeneres for a man. Sancap (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, see also my talk page, where (unfortunately) this was first discussed. Some uninvolved admin please close this--it's a content matter, not for ANI but for the talk page--and then, maybe, WP:ANEW. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and patience, Drmies.

Sancap, I realize that you are currently blocked for WP:Edit warring and cannot reply at this time. But DeGeneres and Heche were popular before the breakup. After the breakup is when Heche got all that backlash. 110.77.202.106 (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Xe2oner

Xe2oner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been disruptively editing articles related to Sri Lankan Colleges (i.e., elementary through high schools). There is a multi-year debate going on about the proper names of these schools. The status quo is that we use the names proposed by User:Cossde, primarily because he is the only one to ever give reliable sources. On the other side, there has been a long list of IP addresses and "new" users who routinely pop up; sometimes they just edit war, sometimes they also insult Cossde, but they never actually discuss the issues on the article talk pages. The thing is, a few of them have provided references, and there has been some productive discussion on Talk:Panadura Royal College (where a few non-disruptive editors have actually left comments), enough to make me believe that, in fact, Cossde is actually wrong in the content dispute. But because the other side basically refuses to talk, and just edit wars across multiple different articles, there's really nothing we can do other than block them. Thus, I present to you the above user; a simple look through xyr contribution list, along with the warnings of left on xyr talk page, will show the refusal to discuss and widespread edit warring. I'm somewhat involved, so I shouldn't block myself. I've tried, here and in the past, everything from kindly explaining to threatening to begging for an actual discussion...but when I opened a sitewide discussion on WP: WikiProject Schools, no one showed up. At the moment, I think Xe2oner needs to be blocked, and if anyone has any smart ideas about how to actually solve the long term problem, I'd be open to hear them. One final, additional place worth looking is User Talk: Qwyrxian#Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila, which I think points out the key problem with Cossde's POV. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem with reliable sources when it comes naming articles as been high lighted in [14]. Cossde (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Cossde has said the above even more clearly on my talk page, in this edit. In a way, this is good, because it clarifies that we can no longer rely on Cossde's analysis either. Cossde has here demonstrated that he is unwilling to work within the clear rules of Wikipedia wrt naming of places and organizations. There is never a case when we ignore RS because of some real world rationale. Wikipedia always follows RS to determine the names of things. We name the article and stick with a primary name when we can determine it, but when there are multiple names in RS, we are bound by WP:V and WP:NPOV to describe all other names that rise above WP:FRINGE (which I believe these do). I think that in addition to considering direct sanctions (block for editwarring) against Xe2oner, we may also want to consider a topic ban against Cossde for Sri Lankan schools, to last only until such time as he is willing to follow WP policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I have mentioned in [15] in Qwyrxian talk page I have no problem in use of RS. But as I pointed out [16] the RS in this case local news papers are inconsistent when it comes to naming schools, the same paper uses different names in different articles. Therefore what I say is that we can not depend on local news papers as RS for school namings even though they are RS in general terms. Cossde (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because User:Cossde chose BBC to ref the name of Royal College, Colombo:

• instead of the local news papers, doesn't automatically grant User:Cossde a wested right to stop or delete (Speedy deletion request per A7) other Sri Lankan schools that are funded by Government of Sri Lanka (or Sri Lankan Government) having word ROYAL in it's name. Colombo Royal College too is funded by the Government of Sri Lanka.
• doesn't mean that Royal College, Colombo is situated in the City of Westminster in United Kingdom. Real life Common sense.
• doesn't mean other Sri Lankan schools that has word ROYAL in it's name that has got absolutely zero references from BBC are insignificant, illegal or not prestigious and therfore not qualified to have a wikipedia article even with credible real life references. This is totally against Wikepedia's heart.
• if the name is ambiguous (User:Cossde self made rule to have only one school in Sri Lanka that has word ROYAL on it's name) in real life sources (ie: well established mainstream local news papers such as dailynews, Sunday Observer etc) then it must be ambiguous on Wikipedia (majority of Sri Lankan school articles do not have a refernce from BBC) too. Does that mean those schools are not significant to be on WP ?. Reliably sourced info can't be excluded to fulfill the self made rule of a single editor. This is totally agaist WP policy.
• whole of this argument or word war (what ever you call) about word ROYAL is self created by User:Cossde to fulfil and promote an individual's own (who is not being able to live with real life) agenda but it is an insult (others will have to seek consent from User:Cossde and then debate) to other intelligent WP editorial community as a whole. (Xe2oner (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

User:Dragon Loy

Dragon Loy (talk · contribs) has been constantly recreating articles surrounding Chester See, which has been deleted and salted, but has since then went on to create the article under other names, such as Chester See!, Chester Yeah, etc. The user has also had a past history of vandalism, as shown here: [17][18]. In the past two days, Dragon Loy has also created some redirects to YTF Legacy, which can be possibly recreated as another Chester See page, as I stated here. (Redirects: Chester Yeah!, Chester Thing, Chester Yeah, Chester See!, Chester Object, See, Chester). I believe that Dragon Loy should be temporarily blocked and the redirects be protected. ZappaOMati 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I deleted the redirects. I was pondering a temporary block, but I think an indefinite block is warranted given the complete and utter uselessness of their edits. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Nothing but blatant vandalism in an attempt to promote a band and evade the salt. An indef blcck is the only thing that will stop this and the edits to associated YTF Legacy (currently at AfD). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• So ordered. (Well, not the salting--it's kind of a bitch to do that with my netbook and it may not be necessary.) Drmies (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Just gotta hope a sock of Dragon Loy doesn't get created. ZappaOMati 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Self promotion : alexanderjason.com

It has come to my attention that an individual belonging to alexanderjason.com using different user identities that later get deleted is using Wikipedia for self promotion in CSI type pages leaving long winded self promotion od Alexander Jason and Alexanderjason.com . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_animation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Bell_shooting_incident#Trial_and_acquittal_on_all_charges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_brothers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_reconstruction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtraelv (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Csanim (talk · contribs), whom you didn't bother to identify of notify, is indefinitely blocked. Spam is all over the place in that area, including in your own edits, which seem to promote certain sites and persons as well (added in this edit). Drmies (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intent to promote any particular sites - just put reference links to sites with information. Tried to look for who posted the links but didn't find it. User:Shirt58 was very helpfull sent me some handy tips so I know a bit more now Xtraelv (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

User:UTTAM KUMAR GOUD

User:UTTAM KUMAR GOUD is obviously, from the content of their page, User:UTTAM KUMAR GOUDA, a blocked and subsequently deleted account. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I reported them to SPI, sorry if I was interrupting you Gtwfan--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably a better place for it. The user (can't really call him an editor) suffers from a serious lack of clue. ADM: Feel free to close this in favor of the SPI. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the user and deleted the user page. If the user pops up again, we may want to see if there's some aspect of that page that could be blacklisted so we don't have to play whack-a-mole. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

24 Game

There appears to be a war going on at 24 Game between User:24guard and User:Uucp, both of whom have called for admin intervention in edit summaries. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A dispute resolution noticeboard post has been opened. I've made a post on the talk page encouraging the two users to participate in the DRN. No admin necessary unless the attempt at DRN fails. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Competence problem?

محمد1992 (talk · contribs) has been creating multiple duplicates of Huvrat ehl echeik at various spellings, adding sources that don't say what he claims they say, as well as unsourced information that's clearly incorrect, some of it copied from other articles, and messed-up geographic coordinates. (He's also the creator of the corresponding article on the Arabic WP.) He hasn't responded to any messages that I and other editors have left on his talk page and may not understand much, if any, English. The thing is, I can't even find any reliable secondary sources to confirm the existence of the place in question, and I'd like to run the article through AfD to see whether there's any evidence that it meets WP:V. I hate to ask for a block of an editor who's perhaps well-meaning, but a 7-day block would at least give the AfD time to run without my having to continually monitor for the creation of duplicate articles. What do you guys think? Deor (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a 7 day block is in order here, as he has disregarded many talk page messages requesting him to stop. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as delete, the article should be indefinitely salted to ensure that it is not created. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

What AfD? Tijfo098 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerou vil. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No. That's something else محمد1992 (talk · contribs) tried to create a year ago (an alleged airport, probably just an air strip around Guerou.) Tijfo098 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I left them another note. I personally don't see the need to block yet, but if they fail to respond here or at their talk page, and if they make one more duplicate article or whatever, they should be indef-blocked for incompetence and incommunicativenessability. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I actually drove through this area (does that count as original research?) and there's nothing at that location except perhaps a couple of outlying buildings which would be considered part of Guérou by any sane measure. The article title is odd - typographically it doesn't look much like the name of a Mori town though some quirk of transcription could be at play here. There's certainly nothing on my copy of Michelin 741. I don't see how it could pass WP:N unless somebody suddenly conjures up some sources. bobrayner (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also checked my ITM map of Mali, which shows southern Mori along the border, and again it shows nothing east of Guérou. However, I'd argue that our coverage of Mauritania suffers from very serious systemic weaknesses so it might be worth one last attempt at guidance (if these edits were on a topic where we already have great coverage and skilled editors, I'd argue that a new editor like this could only be a net negative) bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Compare Kiffa with fr:Kiffa. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• OK, this discussion is clearly going nowhere. I've gone ahead and created an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huvrat ehl echeik. I guess I'll just monitor the editor's contributions to prevent further creation of duplicate articles while the deletion discussion's running. Any comments are welcome there, but this thread can probably be closed. Deor (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

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

---

IP editor User:37.59.222.92 seems to be using this address exclusively for the WP:POV point of trying to artificially declare the end of the Occupy movement. This has been reverted by multiple editors including myself. I warned in English to stop edit warring. Now these edits are escalating, trying to erase the sourced evidence that it is still active along with the declaration. Obviously these are well watched controversial articles, the IP will continue to get reverted. But proper procedure should be to block them, right? Trackinfo (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take it to WP:AN3 - the edit warring noticeboard. --Jethro B 20:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Zaiger and baseless claims of homophobia

Over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LiteralKa, User:Zaiger has repeatedly accused User:Cupco of homophobia ("Cupco is obviously homophobic", "This is anti-gay witch hunt is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. wikipedia is supposed to be a place of knowledge, not ignorance and homophobia.", "message to known wikipedia homophobe cupco" (edit summary)). Now that's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. But in this particular case it's especially absurd: Zaiger is one of the main admins of Encyclopedia Dramatica, a site not exactly known for its lack of homophobia (even Zaiger himself is happy to use the term "faggot" over there. Can't link due to the spam filter, but I'm happy to provide diffs if requested).

Still, just in case there might be something to it I asked Zaiger to back up his allegations on his talk page (User talk:Zaiger#"Homophobia"?). Unsurprisingly, he did/could not do so. I told him to retract the allegations or back them up, after which he threatened to contact Jimbo Wales and the media(!) and have my sysop-bit removed should I block him, before he simply declared me involved and having a conflict of interest (Not sure why. I used to be active at Encyclopedia Dramatica (the article, not the site), but I don't think I ever interacted with him over there). Despite the silly allegations of having a COI, I figured that having a few more eyes on this couldn't hurt, so here I am. By now, Zaiger has agreed not to call Cupco a homophobe again, though he also said that he would not retract the allegations. (For what it's worth, the origin of the homophobia claims seems to be this edit. At least that's the best I could find.)

That's a bit besides the point, though. Frankly, Zaiger is a troll. He's a main admin on ED (where he calls other people "faggot" regularly), he knows the art of trolling in and out, and he knows exactly how much he can get away with on Wikipedia. His act of being horribly offended by (supposedly) anti-gay comments is blatantly fake, and the only reason he might be doing this is, as they call it, "for the lulz". He's here to have fun, and not to contribute to the encyclopedia. As such, I propose a ban on this user. --Conti|✉ 21:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have to say that homophobia and transphobia are definate problems on wikipedia and should be handled harshly. However I do not believe that this is one of them. Also the fact that he uses his own communities slur word which I won't even type is really appalling. I wouldd also like everyone to be aware though that chances are Zaiger is really hurting and needs some help. That does not excuse what he is doing but it does say that something is impacting him. I would suggest having a moderator talk to him, inform him of the charges and the consequences, let him explain without criticism and then banning him if he hasn't explained his accusation.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in the discussion at this SPI. bobrayner (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, since Zaiger got the SPI spotlight deflected, we can look forward to Zaiger resuming productive article-space edits like this. bobrayner (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That edit is multiple years old, and Jewbuntu is an actual Linux Distribution. I am sorry but I felt that I was being attacked because of my sexual preference and got defensive. I have promised not to call him it again, yet he continues to make baseless accusations about me being User:LiteralKa when it has been proven otherwise. I feel as if I am the one being trolled. I apologize for making a couple of edits that could be taken as humorous, multiple years apart. Please assume good faith. I am not an active user on Wikipedia, but I do prefer to keep an account so that I may join into discussion concerning pages that interest me. Blocking me is going to do no good and you know it. I have already agreed to discontinue calling Cupco what I called him, I don't see what else I can do. I am not trolling, I was just defending myself from what I felt was persecution based on my sexual orientation. The language I use off Wikipedia should have no bearing on anything. I no longer plan on "feeding the trolls" so to speak, so I will not be responding to this anymore. I have promised not to say what I said to him anymore, and I would like to continue to keep this account, but I can't then so be it. There is obviously a back-door agreement to block everyone who edits the GNAA or Encyclopedia Dramatica articles on a non-POV manner. By the way I said I felt that Conti has a conflict of interest because he has an unflattering biography about him Encyclopedia Dramatica (which as far as I can remember I have never edited) and in my opinion seems to have formed an opinion about me based on emotions rather than rational thinking. I am not a bad person, I just react harshly when I feel I am being attacked, and I apologize for that and promise to keep it in check. Thanks for reading. --Zaiger (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An edit from late last year is not "multiple years old", and this appears to be the only constructive article-space edit you've made since that edit. Being an actual Linux Distribution doesn't make that factually accurate (a dead project that never gained any traction is not popular anywhere for starters) nor is it a productive edit (piping Richard Stallman to Jews). You also appear to have a history of Jewish-related "jokes". - SudoGhost 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can anyone give me a good reason why I should not just indef this editor as a troll, regardless of the SPI results? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Naive question for Zaiger: If you "react harshly when you feel [you are] being attacked," and presumably understand that other people have the same feelings you do and have the same reactions when they are attacked, then why do you spend so much time on a website like Encyclopedia Dramatica? Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Jew Bagel

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

---

Dear wikipedia administrators. I'm not sure where to put this but I really feel it has to get out. While looking for projects about the Jewish people and culture I came across this picture, Image: Jew Bagel.jpg. It is supposedly givein as an award for contributions to Wikiproject: Jewish culture. Maybe I am overreacting but I feel this is a little racist and think other people might find this a little racist as well. I mean imagine if we put a star of david above a dollar (or some other currency) bill that would be a similar instance of racist stereotypes. Also please keep in mind as well that bagels also have virtually nothing to do with Jewish culture outside of the Ashkenazi community. Maybe some of you won't agree with me and that is fine but I do not feel this picture is an appropriate reward.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the image is inappropriate, you should nominate it for deletion. Administrators don't have any special position in determining what is or isn't appropriate content on Wikipedia. The image is not widely used. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So... you (Rainbow) are offended by an image that is transcluded on one inactive page, and your solution is to post it on the most watched page on the whole project? If this image is not offensive (btw, it isn't), then posting this thread is silly. If it is offensive, then posting it in this thread is silly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what to paste to nominate for speedy deletion?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You should follow the procedure described at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Note

Rainbowofpeace (talk · contribs)

There's more to this than bagels. The OP is an editor looking for a fight. Rainbow came very close to being permanently sent away, 3 days short of a year ago, for making legal threats. Also, the editor doesn't like being called "he" but won't indicate how to be called. That's another battleground area brewing (again). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki spamming

Dear admins, 68.3.67.81 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) is spamming Wikipedias in obscure languages with stub articles about actors. Example contributions from diq-wiki. This is causing various bots to spam interwiki links on these articles here and on every other Wikipedia the articles exist. This is a great cross-Wiki problem, previously seen, I believe, on Avril Lavigne. I think this needs to be discouraged in some way. Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The address was blocked 19 days ago, for 6 months. That is about as discouraging as admins can do. If the ip's changes haven't already been reverted, you should act as you see fit. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this editor is blocked from the English wiki, but by proxy he is successfully spamming the English wiki using the agency of Interwiki bots. I understand that perhaps en-wiki admins are powerless here, so perhaps this is the wrong forum. Surely you don't expect me myself to venture out into weird foreign Wikis where I don't understand a word and pursue this editor through CSD/AFD/ANI processes repeatedly on each Wiki. The best I can do here on en-wiki is request each page be fully protected for a short time in WP:RPP, but surely you agree that this is a last-resort solution, especially for the sheer number of articles we are facing here. Perhaps a Village Pump forum is more appropriate for this particular problem. What do you suggest? Elizium23 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist, if you can think of a pattern for exlinks can be meaningfully blocked; m:Meta:Babel for a more general discussion. Small, neglected wikis are indeed sometimes a problem, for which meta is the best place to object. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Note: started at m:Babel, but moved to m:Stewards' noticeboard for steward attention.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I've globally locked the IP for 6 months. MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures

After he recently closed an RfD in which he was involved, I have a few doubts about some of this editors other closes and wondered if an uninvolved admin could look his closures over for other problems. Snottywong's Admin AfD counter seems to show a few debates where the consensus is not clearly with his close, and checking a few others individually seems to show cases where he ignores stronger arguments for one position, instead opting for a headcount siding with the opposing position (particularly worrying since the margins in many cases are low). I don't intend to start listing specific concerns with specific closes unless asked to do so (or I would be as well taking all the many cases to deletion review) but a few pairs of eyes looking over his closes would be advantageous. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal and BOOMERANG for the banner

User:TParis has taken it upon himself to monitor the 2012 election articles so as to enforce the community probation, and I really wish he hadn't because he's done a poor job of it from the start, showing a mixture of partisanship and simple incompetence. I've complained bitterly about it and gone so far as to demand that he recuse himself.[19] Recently, messed up again, issuing a bad ruling that led to an edit war.[20].

Now, I haven't edited Paul Ryan in days, but one of the changes made during that sequence of edits went too far; it violated our sources by siding with Ryan's version of the facts instead of attributing them clearly. Given that it's a biography, I reverted it.[21] To reiterate, I made a single revert (1RR) on a BLP so as to remove an edit that violates Wikipedia standards. My reward? A topic ban. Oh, and while he was at it, he went nuclear on three others.

Not a single one of us deserves this draconian punishment. I consciously keep myself to 2RR, so I'm used to avoiding reverts, but 1RR goes too far. A 1RR limit means that any two changes within a 24-hour period could be interpreted as a violation and used the basis for a block. As a result, it becomes very difficult to edit these articles at all.

I strongly recommend looking at the edit history. Note how it all started with Homunq making a good-faith edit to change the article to match what the talk page shows agreement for.[22] This led to a knee-jerk revert by Toa Nidhiki05 [23], which TheTimesAreAChanging valiantly reverted back to avert a full-blown edit war, explicitly citing TP's ruling.[24] Unfortunately, Arzel piled in with a pair of whitewashing edits [25], which I reverted. At this point, TheTimesAreAChanging put aside his earlier good sense and ignored BRD by reverting back.[26] Then the Thermonuclear Banhammer of Overreaction came down on all concerned.

Well, almost all. As Arzel pointed out, this whole thing could can been avoided if TP hadn't encouraged the edit war with his bad ruling. The problem here isn't four editors; it's one admin. I believe that TP has shown that he is unfit for the task he has volunteered for and should revoke any punishments and step away to allow more competent admins to fill his role. If he won't recuse himself and he can't stop making a mess of things, he needs to find a new hobby. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the community decide the rest, but I will point out that I've never singled this editor out (I noticed he gave no diffs of partisanship) and I have also given ample warnings to all four editors. The rest of this nonsense is an open and close case.--v/r - TP 23:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is that you overreacted in "solving" a problem that you created. Your partisanship and singling out are the background information for why you've already been asked to recuse yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend resolving this situation after November 6. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it worrying that an admin clearly involved in an RFC on the talk page of the article in question is suddenly handing out topic bans without prior discussion? I also note on the general sanctions page: "Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from articles on probation and related articles or project pages." Does this mean that the topic bans should be nullified as they were not handed out by an uninvolved admin? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, the reason that SS reverted Arzel was "We can only use Ryan's explanation if it's fully attributed to him". Therefore, I changed the wording from "acknowledged" to "stated" (I considered "claimed", but thought Arzel would object) so as to attribute the assertion more directly to Ryan. In both cases, I was attempting a compromise. Like SS, I have not been editing the article very frequently. I thought TP had made it clear that Homunq's revision was acceptable, so I reverted an attempt to remove it. Homunq certainly seemed to suggest that TP's ruling was the main reason he insisted on re-adding the material after Arzel removed it the first time. As far as I can tell, SS did not do anything even remotely objectionable, even if he has done objectionable things to merit warnings in the past.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you describe how I am involved? WP:INVOLVED says admins that act in an admin capacity are not involved. I've never given an opinion on the RFC, I've only ever commented on civil discussion and hinted at how consensus gets established. Feel free to describe with diffs where I have not done exactly as I describe.--v/r - TP 00:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you have been uninvolved as a content editor,[27] but on the other hand, you have knowingly waded into this very dispute on the talk page,[28] which makes you involved as an admin. Finally, you have been directly involved in a personal dispute with StillStanding-247 on the same talk page.[29] Therefore, when the evidence is examined, this makes you involved IMO. In other words, you should not have been the one to enforce this topic ban, and this action could be interpreted as a misuse of your position since you also enforced full protection.[30] Given the above, you really shouldn't be involved here, and one could see this as a form of gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "involved as an admin." Admins have to act in an admin capacity. If it makes them involved, then no admin could act at all unless they canvass another admin who has not watched the situation. Your logic is circular. Secondly, I am not in a dispute with StillStanding. He has time and again attempted to describe my impartial involvement as a vendetta against him as an effort to prevent me from being able to hand out a sanction but I have never taken the bait.--v/r - TP 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There is such a thing, as "involved as an admin" refers to WP:INVOLVED, shorthand for your involvement as an editor acting as an administrator. In other words, you were involved in a dispute on the talk page with the editor you topic banned. Is that clear? Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That's where your logic fails. I've never made a single edit on that talk page in any dispute not in an admin capacity mediating a dispute. That doesn't make me involved. Linking to a list of edits isn't evidence. You should try reading the edits themselves.--v/r - TP 00:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been personally involved in a dispute with the editor you topic banned since at least September 18[31] and that dispute also carried over on to the talk page in question during that time. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved doesn't work that way. TParis provided information, Still disagreed. That isn't a dispute, that is a difference of opinion. More importantly, it wasn't about the content, it wasn't a prior sanction, it wasn't even remotely a substantial disagreement. It was a trivial difference of opinion. That is not the threshold. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that TParis and SS have been feuding for more than a week, with TParis threatening to topic ban him during that time while taking the side of many of the editors editing on the opposite of SS. That is involved. TParis was not a neutral party here. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not ignoring anything, you are just interpreting the policy differently. Telling someone they need to be civil, informing them of the consequences, those are de facto administrative responses to a situation. If that disqualified an admin from acting, then editors should just scream at any admin and then say "You are involved! We had a disagreement!". It doesn't work that way. The real conversation is below anyway, like I said, if there is a policy reason that bars him (and WP:INVOLVED does NOT even bar him if he is involved, so you are beating a dead horse) then I will be happy to hear it, below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Let's stick with the burden where it belongs. What is the policy reason for topic banning SS here? Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking only to the issue of TParis being WP:INVOLVED or not in the discussion, in this case it would be accepted that he is not. He is not taking a stand on the content, he is acting in an administrative role, clerking and mediating, a helpful and neutral role. This is common, and in fact is done by non-admins sometimes as well. This would not disqualify him from taking administrative action. Protecting the page, adding content during page protection, (ie: proxy editing) are not considered involved edits, they are maintenance issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: are these edits consided to be done purely in an administrative context? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) How are they not? In one, I said it's not appropriate to take the RFC as a consensus yet, and in the other I was suggesting that Arzel calm down because an RFC is not a freeze on content. How does that involve me?--00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TParis (talk • contribs)
• Yes. He was providing instruction about the process of RfC and general accepted norms. It wasn't choosing a side on the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I commend Barts1a for providing diffs of edits that TParis actually made, but so far as I can tell they are all in an administrative role. In those diffs (and in his other edits that I've seen) TParis seems to be enforcing civility, talk page guidelines, making notes about procedure, helping editors work through their differences, warning people, and basically moderating the discussion. I've yet to see a diff where TParis takes one side or the other. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please tell me you are kidding. I've provided numerous links to discussions showing TParis threatening SS with a topic ban and taking the sides of his opponents. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• TParis threatened a lot of people with blocks, including SS's "opponents". I still haven't seen an actual diff of TParis taking somebody's side on a content issue. (I may have missed something...this discussion is growing faster than I'm comfortable keeping up with, so I apologize if I did.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• My interest is to cut through the emotion and get to the issue which was raised. To be clear, I've reviewed and his actions on the page would be considered administrative, not involved. Of this I am sure. Being involved doesn't prohibit an admin anyway, if another admin would have done the same, so that isn't the issue to begin with. Trust me or don't, but that is how it will be considered. The issue is "Was TParis within policy to make the topic bans?" I'm all ears if someone wants to explain why he wasn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, for the record, the article is under discretionary sanctions, per a decision at WP:ANI previously, so normally an admin would not make this type of a topic ban unilaterally, but it is authorized (subject to review) in this case. This is the review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing any review, only rubber stamping. How in the world does this edit justify a topic ban? The user has not edited the article in 13 days,[32] and prior to that, the last time they edited the article more than once was on September 3. I'm not seeing any justification for a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • What you are doing is being rude. I haven't given an opinion one way or another on his topic ban, and you are assuming bad faith and telling people they are rubber stamping because they don't agree with you. I have stated that the policy is very clear that he isn't considered involved, and he isn't. The only question is: Are his actions outside of policy in any way? You talk about how Still hasn't edited the article, but neglect to mention all the talk page edits, which is misleading. And frankly, I get along with Still just fine, check his talk page or ask him, so I certainly don't have it out for him. But I still insist we get passed the incivility and look at the policy involved, which is the purpose for the review. But the issue of INVOLVED isn't a valid one, as he wasn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding WP:INVOLVED: What Dennis said, this is clearly a non-issue, and time spent arguing about it is time wasted. Regarding topic bans: I'm all in favor of handing out topic bans like candy to all partisan editors until the day after election day. Also, I'm in favor of giving a really large benefit of the doubt to any admin willing to get their hands dirty monitoring these pages. Also, there's no excuse for the recent edit warring. So I won't second guess these topic bans, they should stick. Regarding page protection: I don't really have a gigantic problem with it, per GoodDay below ("A protected article, will force discussion (at that article's talkpage) & lead to consensus), but I suppose if the topic bans are upheld here, then the protection as a result of this particular edit war isn't necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• For anyone interested, here is the authority granting discretionary sanctions, so the question is only if his actions are authorized and proper under this decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• I found this little gem in the arcives... [33]. Why the sudden change of heart? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• That was before the discretionary sanctions were in place, by 10 minutes as a matter of fact. That he closed it is meaningless, as closing is reading consensus, not voting, which he didn't do and wouldn't disqualify him anyway. Again, you are beating a dead horse. I will only spend so much time explaining the policy before I give up all hope in your willingness to understand it. Your point is moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

While we're talking about the Paul Ryan article...

...I see that it's gold-locked again, which flies in the face of the consensus we had to just let sanctions work. Now, I'm fine with gold-locking it 'till kingdom come (i.e. the election), but I was outvoted last time. Therefore, I propose shortening the gold-lock to 72 hrs and reverting to indeff (yeah, folks, it's time for indeff) semiprotection, with the caveat that another one or two of these will get it gold-locked until the election pbp 23:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A protected article, will force discussion (at that article's talkpage) & lead to consensus. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

When dealing with a controversial BLP, the options are either locking down the article until it is no longer controversial or permitting admins to actively engage in enforcement of policy. Given the above discussion, it appears that individuals will not accept active enforcement of policy, therefore full protection appears to be the best course of action. If StillStanding and Barts were willing to withdraw the above thread, I'm sure Tom would be willing to reconsider the full protection. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Please describe, in your own words, how this edit justifies a topic ban and supports the claim that SS "will not accept active enforcement of policy". He's barely edited the article in the last two weeks. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if another admin would have done the same thing. Some would, some wouldn't. The only question is whether or not he acted properly, within policy. The purpose of a review isn't to second guess the admin, it is to insure he acted properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that discretionary sanctions are authorized on Paul Ryan and related articles, and that TParis is not "involved" in editing this article and so is eligible to impose the sanctions. That brings us to the merits of the topic-bans. I'd appreciate TParis's clarifying why the topic bans he imposed include the article talkpage as well as the article itself. From my arbitration experience, I know that sometimes there are reasons to ban from the talkpage as well as the article itself, while other times it makes sense to allow editors to continue discussion on talk while allowing others to do the actual editing. (And other times we forget to specify, which leads to endless arguments at AE, so we try not to forget any more.) I'm interested in that particular aspect of your thinking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post something very similar. Although it's a hell hole, I think progress is being made, albeit slowly. I suggest converting the topic ban to only cover article edits. On the other hand, I agree with Floquenbeam that topic bans should be handed out like candy to partisan editors and thus suggest that the topic bans should be widened to include article space edits to election related articles, broadly construed. Allow discussion to take place, but require edit requests to make article edits. Sædon^talk 01:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

As as a pretext, I want to say I'm not trying to throw edits to get them to stick even though there are a lot of them here. The edit warring over the marathon issue dates back quite a ways. All edits involved have tried to push one of two point of views: either Paul Ryan is a liar or he made a simple mistake. The merits of either side arn't what matters, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. What matters is the on going edit warring the POV pushing: [34]([35][36] Hector reverted himself, preferring not to get involved in an edit war)[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] I would normally consider calling someone a liar to be a WP:BLP issue except that there are so many sources that say that so I ignored it as far as WP:BLP goes. But it was still POV pushing both ways. Both sides wanted to characterize the situation to their preferred point of view. As far as topic banning them from the talk page, I felt their behavior had become disruptive and battleground. Starting with Arzel (Battleground): [48][49][50], TheTimesAreChanging (Battleground, NPA): [51][52], StillStanding (Battleground, Synth, POV pushing): [53][54][55][56][57]. Honestly, Homunq is the only one who I can see not banning from the talk page and if I am wrong on Homunq then I apologize and he should be allowed to edit the talk page. I think his editing on the talk page has been cordial and polite. My only rationale for banning him from it was to be consistent, fair, and even.--v/r - TP 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)