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

User: Bull-Doser (persistent disruptive editor)

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

---

USER BLOCKED INDEFINITELY:

User has been warned multiple times about their disruptive editing, including but not limited to their lack of understanding on WP:OR (illustrated in this very discussion). Therefore, until Bull-Doser can prove he comprehends our community policies, and that he is a net positive to the project, he is blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm reporting this user for his persistent disruptive editing on Wikipedia for years. That's right, not weeks or months, but years. Some of his disruptive edits include original research, unsourced content, incorrect information, wild guessing, speculation about what he considers to be the most likely scenario, and other forms of disruptive editing. His talk page for 5 years has been filled with warning and notices. He was blocked last December for adding a dubious info in one article. The reason why he has only been blocked once in 5 years (despite his huge history of disruptive editing) is because he usually temporarily corrects his behavior for a short period when he receives a notice and then goes back to his old habit a couple of weeks after. User never respond to the warnings/notices that he receives, further proving that he doesn't care.

This is what has decided to make go to ANI. Both the edit summary and the edit itself are unacceptable. If it was a first offense, I would just say "so what". But given the excessive amount of chances that Bull-Doser has received and his unresponsiveness in general to the situation, it's time to take actions to solve this problem. On his unblock request of last December, Bull-Doser promised that he would always provide sources. Yet he continues to violates this policy on a daily baisis. I suggests that Bull-Doser is blocked until he let us know what he plans on doing to change this behavior. The block is not to punish him, but rather to make him understand that his edits are unhelpful and are hurting the encyclopedia and that there will have to be a change if he wish to remain with Wikipedia. Farine (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly ever hear 1970s hits on contemporary hit radio stations today, and CKMF-FM began adding Queen's 1975 hit Bohemian Rhapsody on its rotation. This is a similarity of hot adult contemporary radio station WSTR in Atlanta having reported to the contemporary hit radio panel until 2010. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 12:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The official link is there: http://montreal.radionrj.ca/broadcasthistory.aspx and look on 13:40 (aka 1:40pm) of October 22. They have officially had Bohemian Rhapsody on their rotation. In this business, some hot AC stations have dropped '90s hits, and some AC stations don't play pre-1979 content at all. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 12:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, Bull-Doser. OP was questioning the original research of your edits, rather than trying to discuss this issue (which should be taken to the article's talk page). – Richard BB 12:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Until a source says that CKMF is a hot adult contemporary, then this type of edit can't be added on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what song played at what the time or how the other stations qualify their radio format; IT IS STILL ORIGINAL RESEARCH. And even if Bull-Doser had provided that link about the song as a source, that WOULD STILL BE ORIGINAL RESEARCH because it doesn't indicate us that CKMF is indeed a hot adult contemporary. Saying that the station has a Hot AC format because of a particular song is pure POV unless it is backed with a source that explicitly says it is a Hot AC station. And Bull-Doser's response is the proof that he does not understand at all the WP:NOR and WP:V policies nor does he show any desire to follow these guidelines.

I would hardly ever hear 1970s hits on contemporary hit radio stations today, and CKMF-FM began adding Queen's 1975 hit Bohemian Rhapsody on its rotation. This is a similarity of hot adult contemporary radio station WSTR in Atlanta having reported to the contemporary hit radio panel until 2010.

Bull-Doser's answer above is the proof that he needs this block until he decides to follow the guidelines. If you want to provide him mentorship as an alternative to blocking him, fine. But the status quo is not an option. I also reverted his edits on the CKMF article, not because I want to make a point, but merely because it is not an edit that follow's Wikipedia NOR and V guidelines. Farine (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the status quo is not acceptable, I think a block is a little unnecessary. You are absolutely right to question his edits, they are unquestionably WP:OR. However, the other important thing to note is that his edits are still made of good faith. Perhaps he simply does not understand what we mean by WP:OR, why it's so bad, and why his edits are WP:OR. As such, I would indeed recommend guidance or mentorship. – Richard BB 14:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it's hard to show AGF when someone shows no responsiveness to change. But I agree that we should at least give him a shot at mentorship before blocking him. Farine (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Just sampled a bunch of Bull Doser's edits and all of them were OR of some sort of other. None of his claims are ever backed by sources not to mention the lack of edit summaries in the majority of his edits and marking non-minor edits as minor makes it very hard work to dig through each edit. Blackmane (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly and this has been going for years. And when we tell him this, he either ignores it or says it's not true. And I'm sorry but AGF does not apply to someone who is unwilling to change. I strongly suggest that a reviewer or an administrator goes on Bull-Doser's talk page to propose him a mentorship program. If he declines the offer, block the account until he lets us know what he plans to do to amend his disruptive editing. But one way or another, I'm not settling out for the status quo. This has been going on for years and we've been fooled into thinking that things would change and this failed big time. So we now have to take this into a higher lever because Bull-Doser's edits don't conform at all to Wikipedia. And I disagree with Richard BB about the block being unnecessary. A block is justified, not because of the OR, but because of Bull-Doser's apathetic attitude. If he doesn't care about Wikipedia's principles, then why should he be allowed to edit here? It doesn't make sense. Farine (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a strong case could be made for a ban citing WP:CIR here. I strongly urge a mentorship; however, if that fails, a block may be the only option. – Richard BB 14:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

A ban on some topics such as radio stations, shopping centres and department stores could be another option. But given the gravity and longevity of the situation, I would go straight for a block outright or mentorship. And you'll notice that Bull-Doser hasn't even address this discussion since its original response of yesterday despite that this whole ANI case is about him. That in itself is enough to warrant him a block instead of mentorship. He doesn't care at all about the problem, he just wants to edit on Wikipedia and that's it, with no regard to the policies. Farine (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

To be fair to Bull-Doser, not all of his edits are OR. I have no comment on the edits covered above, just the ones over which I have interacted with him. He likes to take pictures of cars and trucks, and drop the pictures into the articles for the places where the pictures were taken (Montreal area from what I've noticed). Thus, a picture of, say, a red Toyota model such and such will get added to the Town of Mount Royal article simply because the piucture was taken there. Pointless, but not OR or vandalism. Meters (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And by incessantly adding these car pictures on articles that don't even deal with cars, he is again causing disruption. A couple of times I had to delete some of these car pictures because they were totally irrelevant and their presence didn't make any sense in the articles. Also, I didn't said that Bull-Doser's edits were vandalism. I said they were disruptive; there's a difference. And no one ever said that all of Bull-Doser's edits are OR. That's not the point. But a very high percentage of his edits are OR, and it is seriously hurting the encyclopedia. Also, the reason the future of Bull-Doser on Wikipedia is being questioned today is not just because of OR, but because of his other disruptive edits (unsourced content, undiscussed unencyclopedic content, speculation/guessing, false information, inappropriate images, POV and more) and most importantly because he does not want to change. Bull-Doser did not get himself in this position overnight. Have you actually looked at the history of his talk page in the last 5 years?

I have left a message to User:Strikerforce to participate in this discussion. He has dealt in the past with Bull-Doser's OR and refusal to collaborate. But if the administrators must take actions (whether it be mentorship, block, ban or whatever) they don't necessarily need to wait for Strikerforce's comments. Strikerforce does not edit a lot on Wikipedia these days and it could take a while before we hear from him. Farine (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Good evening (as it currently stands in my time zone)! I must say that I have been expecting a discussion of this nature for quite some time, as my own frustrations with Bull-Doser have more than a few times led me to consider beginning one, myself. However, as I do not - as pointed out by Farine - edit as regularly anymore as I did for awhile, due to increased responsibilities at my employment and a few other non-Wikipedia related factors, I chose not to open a discussion that I didn't feel that I would be able to contribute to in a needed fashion. All of that being said, my biggest frustration with Bull-Doser is his insertion of OR into articles about radio stations. While there are many aspects about radio stations (speaking from the POV of someone currently working in the industry and who has 12+ years worth of experience in it) that do lend themselves to a bit of speculating, Wikipedia is not the place for those speculations to be made. A common edit summary or reasoning that Bull-Doser likes to resort to is like the one that apparently prompted this discussion, i.e., "I heard (song) on (station) and since that song doesn't fit the format that the article calls the station, then it must have changed formats to (new format here)". I have also seen - and reverted, many times - various edits where Bull-Doser makes assumptions about things that have happened within a given station's market and he has tried to use those things to draw conclusions about why Station X did something. Again, this falls under the umbrella of OR. I can not speak for the other areas that Bull-Doser edits in, but in regard to radio stations, I wholeheartedly endorse a topic ban. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 03:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to radio stations, a similar ban would be in effect also for shopping centers and retailers. I personally think a block outright is more justified due to Bull-Doser's unresponsiveness to this thread and his editing in general. Seeing how Bull-Doser has blatantly rejected this discussion after posting his dubious original response, I'm not even remotely interested by the mentorship option anymore. How can we help Bul-Doser when he does not want to be helped? On the other hand, topic bans can be an alternative to a block while still preventing further disruption. Now all we need to do is to wait for the verdict from the administrators. Why has not of them addressed this thread in 3 days is beyond me. I will insert a comment to prevent this thread from being archived until the issue has been resolved. Farine (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Farine, you do understand that I was just poiunting out an area of problematic edits that had not been mentioned before, right? I'd hate to see how you would react if someone actually tried to defend Bull-Doser. You've made your point and no-one has argued against it. Take a break and let the process do its thing. Meters (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to be on the defensive Meters. I'm not angry at all at you . I was just pointing out that no one ever said anything here about the edits being vandalism or that all were original research. And I don't mind if anybody wants to defend Bull-Doser. But if something controversial is said, it must expect reactions. Cheers. Farine (talk) 07:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Editors have been indef blocked in the past for persistent insertion of original research and synthesis as it effectively amounts to persistent disruption. His lack of participation does not help his case. Blackmane (talk) 07:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I would be willing to mentor Bull-Doser within the area that I have had encounters with him (radio stations), as I consider myself to be knowledgeable enough to help him edit constructively in the future. His other preferred eras of the encyclopedia, however, I would not consider myself as a capable mentor. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• If Bull-Doser will agree to mentoring, and apply himself to learning what is and is not allowable as OR, and we can find a suitable mentor who is willing to take this on, then I'm willing to agree to giving mentoring a chance. In my experience, mentoring does sometimes work. Otherwise, I would support an indef block, as the editor has been inserting OR for a considerable time and shows no sign of mending his ways. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

While it's good that we are addressing OR, don't forget that this thread is about the disruptive editing in general (unsourced nonsense, false information, unencyclopedic trivialist content, etc), not just OR. All of these have to stopped as well. Bull-Doser has to be responsive and the change must be permanent, not some temporary tactic to calm down the storm.

I wouldn't be interested in becoming a mentor for the simple reason that I'm an occasional editor and Wikpedia is not my #1 hobby in life (in almost 7 years, I haven't even made 10 000 edits). But Bull-Doser is always welcomed to come to my talk page for advice. I just don't want the status quo because I'm really fed up of reverting/correcting his nonsense and I often get the feeling that we're going round in circles. Farine (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the mentor would have to monitor and correct all of BD's bad habits; I apologise if my failure to enumerate them all specifically and only mentioning his most egregious failure has caused concern and/or confusion. However, it may all be moot, because thus far we have no mentor stepping forward. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If we have to proceed with the indefinite block, then so be it. It's not like it was unwarranted. The mentorship is merely a bonus alternative to what should have otherwise been a block applied a long time ago. I've seen disruptive editors being indefinitely blocked for things less worse than what Bull-Doser did. Let's face it, Wikipedia, like anything else in life, is not made for everybody. Farine (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Indef block proposal for User: Bull-Doser

Suggested by Blackmane above.

• Support as editor has had many chances to improve his editing habits and learn to adhere to policy, but has not bothered to profit from those chances, and as no mentor has stepped forward as willing to attempt to mentor him, this seems to be the only way forward to protect the encyclopedia from a series of OR and other policy violations. Editor not found to be a net benefit to the project. To make matters worse, the editor in question was notified several days ago and has not seen fit to respond here. I have advised Bull Doser to respond here; advise not closing this for a bit, even if there are no objections to the indef block. We should give BD another chance to respond, IMO. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Persistent disruptive editing and violation of Wikipedia's policies for a very long time. User does not have the competence required to edit on Wikipedia. Many chances given. Total disregard and unresponsiveness from user to address the problem. Farine (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

User continues to make edits while ignoring this thread even after the message KillerChihuahua left on his talk page. I rest my case. Farine (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I will mentor him. Together he and I will make Wikipedia a safer and happier place for all. Hizzmatte (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, sock springs to mind for reasons unknown. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You must be a psychic... same thing came to mine! KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You've only made 19 edits and been on Wikipedia for 3 weeks. It's too early for you to envision such an ambitious task. Farine (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How ambitious could this possibly be? Either the kid straightens himself out or I'll take him to the woodshed and give him the what-for. I'm good at that sort of thing. Hizzmatte (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You would need much more experience to be acceptable as a mentor; even if you have experience under another username you are unacceptable due to poor example of sock farming. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, AGF, budro... Hizzmatte (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

12 month block, not indef

• Support block of twelve months with no review before four months have passed.  People change, and there is no capital offense here.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

  That's actually harsher than the sanction being suggested; an indef block can be reviewed before any specific time has passed. Conversely, it also does not protect the project as well, as a 1 year block will expire whether or not Bull Doser has any intention at all to improve his editing habits and follow policy. Finally, as your proposal is different from the one proposed above, are you implicitly opposed to the indef proposal, or are you neutral on it? thanks - 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 year block for rationale given above by me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious closure

It looks like something should be done about Bull-doser, however the above closure seems a dubious outcome given that a WP:BAN wasn't even proposed above. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting at all on the merits of a different sanction, I too was very surprised to see this closed with a WP:BAN, if that is indeed what the closing admin intended. Zad68 01:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He tagged his page with ban and fully protected it too! Also threatened to block me on my talk page. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo098: Quit with the feigned surprise with the intent to spark outrage. It's standard protocol to fully protect a indefinitely banned/blocked editor's userpage. And I think you know why I warned you with a potential block as well. -- Zad: The only inherent difference between a block and a site ban is that one focuses on a particular account and the other focuses on a particular editor. From my perspective the most pragmatic way to handle this was by focusing on the particular editor, as in most cases like this the person tends to bypass the block... and from his reaction here I think it's fair to say my analysis and prediction was 100% correct. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a dubious closure at all. Bull-Doser has disrupted Wikipedia since 2006. Editors have left him numerous messages, warnings and even block threats on his talk page to stop his disruptive editing. He never bothered to respond and even less to mandate his behavior. When the ANI case was going on this week, he didn't bothered to participate (other than his original response the first day). Even when KillerChihuahua told him to respond because sanctions were being considered against him, he continued to ignore the ANI case.

There isn't a specific amount of times to be blocked in order to be banned indefinitely. If someone does not collaborate, is showing no willingness of stopping his or her disruptive edits and that the community has reasons to believe that this person is compromising the integrity of the project, this person can be banned regardless how many times he or she has been blocked in the past. The ban is not to punish Bull-Doser but rather to prevent disruption to the project as Bull-Doser is not capable of providing the edits that Wikipedia needs. Of course his individualism and poor sense of collegiality does not help his case, both of which are incompatible with Wikipedia's mandate. And if you looked at what Bull-Doser has wrote on his talk page to get himself unbanned/unblocked, there is absolutely nothing convincing that he will indeed make helpful contributions. This is just the usual mantra used by editors over and over here on Wikipedia to get themselves unblocked. He has also proven that he knows nothing about the policies on Wikipedia . How can he asked if he can create a new account and discontinue the "Bull-Doser" one when it is specifically written on top of the page that he is hereby forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. Also, in two of his edits, he is making pressure to get unbanned for a specific date without even addressing why we should do that.

The block and ban on Bull-Doser are both justified. Farine (talk) 04:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Side note on Hizzmatte

Clearly not a sock of Bull-doser; Bull-doser can't express himself as well as Hizzmatte even if you paid him. Hizzmatte appears to be a returning editor or a sock of someone else based on his first edit being one to an ArbCom-related RfC page. Bull-doser has only a handful of project-space edits in 6 years. None to any RfC/ArbCom stuff [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No one ever said that Hizzmatte was a sock specifically of Bull-Doser. They just said that he was a sock. Also your comment about "Bull-Doser not being able to express himself as well as Hizzmatte even if you paid him" is a personal attack. Farine (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on Bull-doser

For someone who was blocked only once before and then for only 24hrs [2], a ban is a highly unusual outcome. The stubs he created on various cars were sourced and did not seem problematic, e.g. [3]. It looks like he caused disruption in radio station articles. A topic ban from radio stations would have been more appropriate in my opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He did not only caused disruption on radio stations. He also caused significant disruption on articles related to shopping centers and retail stores. He has historically disrupted car articles as well if you look at his talk page. When a ban topic has to be applied to 3 or 4 different topics, you may as well ban altogether because it no longer becomes an issue with a topic but rather with all topics and the editor himself. Farine (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblock/unban requested by Bull-doser

[4]. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments by closing administrator

The community's intent here is best served with a ban... it's also a purely pedantic difference to point out my wording of ban versus block in this case. He was banned as he refused to understand the concepts of our editing policies, and he refused to address the problems brought up here. He was also made aware of the possible sanctions to be levied against his account, and entirely ignored them. Therefore the best course of action was to ban him until he showed true signs of understanding and a change in his behaviour. He is now requesting to be unbanned, and if the community sees fit then I'll happily unban/unblock him (as I said in the banning statement). Tijfo098's opinions on this weren't taken into account as he failed to present any until after the discussion's closure, and his opinions don't equal community consensus. He also stepped way out of line by reverting my closure here, instead of simply requesting on my talk page that I add a signature. So yes I indeed threatened to block him for repeating the action or doing so to any other administrator's closures. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 03:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The block and ban are both justified. User had many chances to change his ways and he didn't used them. Nothing in his unbanned requests indicates that he truly understands the nature of the things he did that has lead him to no longer be part of the project. He just wants to be unblocked/unbanned, that's all. Farine (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is nice that the prosecution finds the hanging judge to be a reasonable person, but this result given the input above is a travesty. Carrite (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You do not get to decide that the communities intent is best served with a ban on your own. While closers are given considerable latitude, you cannot claim there was consensus for something not even proposed, and only as a result of a consensus may an editor be banned. The difference between a ban and a block is more them semantic, particularly in when it comes to requesting unban/block. Monty₈₄₅ 07:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

What's going on here?!?!

Why is the death penalty being given so quickly, with so little evidence, with so little input? Why are alternatives, such as the offer of mentorship expressed above, not being explored? This is a terrible close and debate should be reopened at once. Carrite (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why should he get mentorship? He wouldn't even participate on the ANI case that was about him. You can't help someone who doesn't want to help himself. And for your information, this isn't "dealth penalty". This ban is to prevent disruption, not to punish. User received countless of chances and he never saw fit to amend his behavior. It is very likelihood that Wikipedia is simply not for him. Nothing wrong with that. I love watching football but I wouldn't play it because I know it wouldn't work out. Bull-Doser may like reading Wikipedia. But he does not have the competence nor the mentality to contribute on Wikipedia. That doesn't make him a bad person. That just means that is isn't the right hobby for him. It happens all the time. Farine (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I mainly encounter Bull-Doser in the form of his car photos. They are all horrid, usually dark and blurry , although sometimes they depict rare cars otherwise unavailable. Bull-doser himself is usually not available for conversations (I tried to bring him into this one) and when he responds, it is usually with non sequiturs. I am fairly certain that Bull-doser has never actually been brave/clear enough to directly respond to any comment/question/request of mine. I support a block until such a time that BD can make a statement in the form of legible English, stating an(y) actual point of view.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

An indefinite block is reasonable. A ban by 'the Wikipedia community' when no ban discussion took place is not. Semantics are a bitch, but they do matter sometimes. --Onorem♠Dil 07:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. T. Canens (talk) 07:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edic conflict X 4)I agree that it should be reopened. I don't support many of the edits made by the indef'ed editor, but this process just does not look right. I don't spend much time on this board, but this has probably been the worst I've noticed. When I said above "let the process do its thing" I didn't mean that a kangaroo court should be convened. What was it, 18 hours from proposal to indef? I certainly don't see community support for such a rapid decision to indef a prolific editor with only one previous block. And comments on editor's mentality are clearly unacceptable as a personal attack. Meters (talk) 07:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. If people leave me numerous messages on my talk page to change my ways and I ignore them and if, on top of that, an administrator urge me to quickly participate a thread because actions are being considered against me and I ignore this as well, then I don't have the mentality to be on Wikipedia. Mentality not as in intelligence, but mentality as in philosophy. The philosophy of Bull-Doser does not correspond to that of Wikipedia which is to work with collegiality. Farine (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly an out of process ban. It is not consistent with the WP:BAN policy, as no ban discussion took place. An indef block is substantially different from a ban, particularly in that a blocked editor may more easily return to editing if they resolve the underlying issue. The closing admin doesn't seem to understand either of these points. Monty₈₄₅ 07:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, agree with others above that this ban is inappropriate. Indeed, I would consider it already null and void as there was no consensus for it in the first place. Bans and indef blocks are not the same thing. Keep indef block, but no ban without an actual discussion. Also support trouting Coffee for his treatment of Tijfo on the latter's talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I also am uneasy about a ban. We have (respected) admins with longer block logs and fewer edits than this editor, and a ban is using a thermonuclear bomb where a flyswatter would work. Mentorship or topic bans should be applied first, but a siteban is not the first step in dealing with an editor who has (apparently in good faith) been inserting OR into articles. Horologium (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what mostly played against Bull-Doser is unresponsiveness. I don't know about the other users you dealt with that that had longer blocks. But it's possible that maybe they were more responsive which is why it took them longer to be banned. Bull-Doser, on the other hand, was never responsive, whether it's in the notices left throughout the years on his talk page or the ANI discussion thread that took placed this week, and this is probably what has prompted Coffee to ban him. While I personally think the ban is appropriate due to the user's repeated unresponsiveness, I guess we could drop the ban and just restrict this to an indefinite block if that's what the community chooses. But even then, it could be very hard for Bull-Doser to convince administrators to let him edit again. He does not seems to understand the nature of what has caused him to be in the situation he is today. None of the unban/unblock reasons he gives on his talk page explain why he ignored all the notices that people have left him for years on his talk page or why he didn't participate on the ANI thread that was about him. He is even taking upon himself to set up dates we should unblock him, which of course makes absolutely no sense. So while I have no problem lifting the ban, I have absolutely no reason to believe that unblocking him will not jeopardize the credibility of Wikipedia and serve in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Also, given that Bull-Doser has disrupted articles in all topics he has been involved with (radio stations, shopping centers, stores and cars), a topic ban on all of these topics pretty much equals to an indefinite block since there isn't any topic of interest left for Bull-Doser to edit on. Farine (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He was asked not once, but thee times to participate here.[5] He ignored the requests and kept editing elsewhere, and only responded when actually blocked; his responses have not been encouraging. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Edit request: Could a mop-wielder please unprotect and remove the Badge of shame from User:Bull-Doser? Nobody Ent 15:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Until there is consensus for a community ban, that template should not be in place. I have restored his userpage to the last version before Coffee edited it. Horologium (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Second Comment by Closing Administrator

I know how much you all love a good opportunity to get out your pitchforks, trouts, torches, and whatnot... but you can put them away for now as I've changed the wording from ban to block. Now then, how about we all use our energy to go talk to Bull-Doser and see if he's willing to listen, and if he could change to becoming a net positive. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an entirely inappropriate, snarky remark. Quite simply, we expect a minimum amount of competence from admins, and one who thinks they can unilaterally impose a ban, or there's no diff between a block and a ban, or that user pages are routinely FPP'd in the event of bans or indefs clearly has not keep up with current practices. With great powers comes great responsibilities Nobody Ent 15:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Or... we could just continue to bicker over this. My comment was not meant to be snarky, but instead to lighten the mood just a touch here. I assumed the community wouldn't have had a problem with the ban... I was wrong. Therefore, I've changed it to a block instead. I really think this would be appropriate to discuss further after the community comes to a final conclusion with User:Bull-Doser... but maybe that's just me. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand the motives that has lead Coffee to ban Bull-Doser indefinitely and I also understand the concern of those who are opposed to a ban decided unilaterally by an administrator . With that being said, let's all stop this arguing about the whole ban incident and stick to the original indefinite block proposed by KillerChihuahua. Farine (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course one would be expected to "understand the motives" of the closer if one brought the case in the first place!!! I still don't have a clue how the — still closed — testimony above results in a site ban on an editor with tens of thousands of mainspace edits and very little trouble showing on the block log. It's a close outside of all reason and proportion and makes me wonder, in light of the snarky self-defense of the indefensible above, whether a detooling is called for. I don't even see consensus for a short-term block, let alone an indef. Carrite (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jesus... the consensus at the very least was for a block, and an indefinite one at that. Unless User:Bull-Doser was open to mentorship and willing to listen to their mentor. If you feel so strongly about this why don't you sign up to be his mentor? — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Long-term abuse is always justified for an indefinite block regardless how many times the said user may have been blocked in the past. It is not uncommon for editors to disrupt Wikipedia in cycles, leading them to intentionally or unintentionally circumvent potential blocks. Farine (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have said that they did not see a community consensus. The most you can say is that there was consensus that there was a problem, not that any particular solution had been agreed upon. If you want consensus, reopen this and wait for the community to decide. Meters (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

While I will not be calling for your tools, Coffee, "the consensus at the very least was for a block" does not equate to community ban him after 18 hours; there was no chance that this would qualify under the snowball clause, either. You should not have even indef-blocked him until something resembling a consensus was hammered out, and a community ban is much too severe. As for snark, snarky comments are sometimes appropriate, but this was not one of them. Horologium (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll AGF that there's some confusion. A community-imposed indefinite block is the equivalent of a de facto ban. It is not, however, a formal ban. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that BWilkins... I had assumed that going the extra step from it being de facto to an actual ban would be a minimal and uncontroversial one. I was obviously wrong in this case. My only intentions here were to implement the community's wishes... nothing more. Which is why I'm completely fine with unblocking Bull-Doser as long as we can assure the issues with his comprehension of policy are dealt with. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The community does not impose indef blocks, individual administrators do. It doesn't become de facto until no admin is willing to unblock them. That requires the passage of time to determine. Nobody Ent 19:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the exact problem here?

Although opinion essays rather than actual organizational law, I think the ideas behind COMPETENCE IS REQUIRED and WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THERAPY are probably very widely accepted. I'll just mention that in passing since those ideas might inform this discussion. There is no requirement that one must be responsive; yet there is a requirement that edits be NPOV and verifiable through sourcing — and a strongly implied additional requirement that they be accurate and truthful. Are we dealing with an editor here incapable of making NPOV, sourced, accurate edits? If so, show a series of diffs which illustrate the problem, don't just allude to longterm frustration. The comments of the editor in question are so far off the mark in terms of speaking to the actual issue at hand that I wonder whether the editor is capable of comprehending the issue at hand. This is not intended as a personal attack, but if that's the underlying problem here, we need to be frank about that so that the result of action actually corresponds to evidence. The two edits by BD at the top of this thread were his 9th and 10th to Wikipedia space since 2006, with over 30,000edits to mainspace. PIE CHART That is......... amazing. This is almost a 100% content creator — and a productive one. So is there an issue with the edits? Demonstrate the issue. Is there an issue with the editor's innate ability to interact with others? Then demonstrate the problem. Don't go blocking a good editor who is different, but if a prolific editor is adding impossibly bad content, don't hesitate to block him for the good of the encyclopedia. Prove your case and get a real consensus before passing judgment is all I say... Carrite (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mention mentorship, which definitely needs to be tried. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there an issue with the editor's innate ability to interact with others?Then demonstrate the problem. Editors have left him countless messages on his talk page for more than 5 years and he almost never replied to any of them. And for the rare times he did answered, his reponse never directly adressed the problematic issues he was being criticized for. He didn't participate on the ANI thread that was about him, even after an administrator warned him that sanctions were being considered about him. What more proof do you want about his lack of interaction? I have seen mentorship actually produce tremendous results on Wikipedia. But they were all instances where the troubled editors were receptive. In the case of Bull-Doser , his lack of communication makes me skeptical that the mentorship program will even work out. Farine (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

How about some diffs rather than an impressionistic statement of "countless" messages over "more than 5 years"? Carrite (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

From the closed thread above, the most problematic edits of BD are WP:OR categorizations of radio stations. I think that issue may be solved with a topic ban. I'm not convinced that the other issue are sanctionable. I've perused BD's talk page archives and I don't see other long-term concerns besides occasional editing disputes over the quality of some car photos he took and their relevance. But he seems to acknowledge those issues, at least nominally, in his unblock request. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

He is telling what many blocked users typically say in their unblock requests. He was blocked for OR, unsourced content and disruptive editing in general. So of course, he's gonna say that he will no longer do OR, unsourced content or disruptive editing. That's nothing unusual in unblock requests and there's nothing there convincing that the problematic issues have indeed been resolved, especially that this is the same type of unblock request made last time Farine (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward

In the interests of finding a full resolution to this issue I present the following proposals to the community:

• 1. - Bull-Doser is unblocked with the condition that he has a devoted mentor guide him through our policies on content creation.
• 2. - Bull-Doser is unblocked with the conditions of proposal 1, and is also banned from any editing that introduces WP:OR.
• 3. - Bull-Doser remains blocked until he can prove he comprehends our policies, and that he will edit accordingly.
• 4. - Any other idea the community might have to resolve this.

I have no vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. I only want to enforce whatever the community lays out. So tell me what to do and it will gladly be done. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

3, hopefully followed by 2. --Onorem♠Dil 20:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

All of the above. Number 1 because a mentor must be available for him. If a mentor cannot be find, he will remain blocked until a suitable mentor is found because Bull-Doser is not capable of editing without supervision at the present time. Number 2 because disruptive editing (not just OR) must be immediately stopped. Number 3 because Bull-Doser must convince us by himself that he no longer pose a threat to the credibility of Wikipedia. It is not other editors that are supposed to make the unblock requests for Bull-Doser.

As per number 4, I will add some complementary requirements to the terms listed by Coffee should Bull-Doser succeed in being unblocked.

• The mentor must assist Bull-Doser in ALL topics, not just radio stations. If a mentor cannot be found for some of the topics, Bull-Doser is strictly forbidded from editing these topics until a qualified mentor step forward. For example, let's say a mentor can assist him with radio stations but not with shopping centres and cars, then Bull-Doser is banned from editing shopping centres and car articles until an acceptable mentor is found.
• Bull-Doser is to ceassed ALL disrupting editing on Wikipedia, not just original research. This include (but not limited to) unsourced content, inappropriate images on articles, irrelevant and unreleated trivialist content, speculation/assumption, incorrect information, wild guessing about the most likely scenario, and so on.
• Bull-Doser is mandatory forced to reply to any problematic message a user leaves on his talk page. The reply can be done either on the user's talk page or on Bull-Doser's talk page.

Should any one of the three criterias is not respected, Bull-Doser will be indefinately blocked without warning. Farine (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I could become a mentor to Bull-Doser in car-related areas (assuming I seem qualified) once/if he fulfills condition #3 above. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• The simple, and I think most fair way forward is that Bull-Doser remain indefinitely blocked until such time as they can convince an uninvolved admin that they understand Wikipedia Policies (WP:OR in particular) sufficiently they that can resume editing without causing further disruption. In the alternative, Bull-Doser may agree to a mentoring arrangement, subject to the approval of the admin reviewing the unblock request, which should include safeguards to avoid disruption while the mentoring arrangement has time to work. We need not get into any greater detail then that here. Monty₈₄₅ 23:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to mentor Bull-Doser in regard to radio station articles. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!}

• I favor option 1 and thank Mr. Choppers, Strikerforce and any others willing to attempt mentorship. This is a hugely tenacious and productive content editor and every positive effort should be made. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is pointless as there is no mentor; the only ones who have offered have limited the topic area they will be responsible for. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not pointless. Bull-doser could be topic banned from any area in which he doesn't have a mentor. The only area in which I'm convinced he was way too disruptive to allow him to continue editing is radio stations. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion but that doesn't change the facts. And the facts are (supported by his talk page) that his disruptive editing touched all areas he was involved with including radio stations, shopping centers, cars and, to a lesser extent, retail store chains. Farine (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Tijfo098: Are you suggesting that as a remedy? Because that is not the remedy which I called pointless. Further, the editor would have to agree to such restrictions, and so far he hasn't even suggested that he will cooperate with any mentoring at all, let alone a huge restriction in pages plus mentoring. So yes, at this juncture, completely pointless. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: reading his talkpage, he seems a bit bunny in the headlights. I don't get the impression he understands what is happening at all. Someone needs to explain it in very plain English, and see if we can work something out. At the end of the day, if he can't understand what he's being asked to do, and some semblance of why then I'm not convinced he's actually able to come back. Someone above said that his car stubs were OK - could he perhaps be restricted to that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • His user page is bit weird as well. On one hand he says he is 21, on the other he has a userbox saying he "cannot drive" o_O Tijfo098 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, a look at the talk page indicates that his edits with cars were not okay. I often get the feeling that Bull-Doser, when editing, is in his own world, forgetting that there are policies and other editors involved in the project. Anybody who is willing to devote a 30 minutes of their time reading every single message on the talk page since 2006 will see that the block is justified. The only ones who claim the block is unjustified are those that didn't take a good look at the talk page's history. And I don't even want to go about all the disruptive edits I saw from Bull-Doser that never made it on his talk page. Farine (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I've read them, and I disagree that they require an indef block. You, Farine, on the other hand, seem rather strangely focused on an editor who has rather poor wiki-selfdefense skills. And I guess we should mention here that he self-discloses in an userbox that he has Asperger syndrome. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I know that he has AS. The same way you saw the userbox, I saw it too. I didn't brought this up this because that's his personal life and this has nothing to do with Wikipedia. And I've seen before AS editors on Wikipedia and they were not unresponsive like Bull-Doser so that's a very poor excuse that you're trying to use. And at risk of repeating what Nobody Ent and Dennis Brown already said, someone's disability does not privilege an editor over another, nor does it penalize them. Farine (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
        • not therapy and all that. Farine's made a good faith request for assistance which unfortunately has been convoluted with some issues regarding admin functions. The latter has been addressed and I think it's best to drop that stick / leave that horse carcass. This has been been an somewhat long ANI discussion -- let's just provide BD a little rope with a clear as we can warning. There's always time to indef later if it doesn't take. Nobody Ent 00:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Has anyone actually looked at his history? I'm seeing mainly the same couple of names complaining in his archives, and a sampling of his original research has been in articles that aren't even sourced properly to begin with. He has well over 31,000 edits to his credit. I haven't looked at all 31k of his edits, but most seem to be without incident. He needs someone to explain WP:OR adequately, and he needs to be able to articulate it in his own words before being unblocked to demonstrate he "gets it", this is reasonable. I'm inclined to agree with Nobody Ent, that rope (and not a ban...) is the proper response. And like Ent also said, disabilities are not held against anyone, nor do they afford them any extra slack. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
            • • Then go ahead and unblock him if you think his block is so unjustified. I'm seeing mainly the same couple of names complaining in his archives. That's a very poor judgement, especially coming from an administrator running this website. It doesn't matter how many people are "complaining". Whether it's 5 people or 50 people, does not change the fact that many people (who don't even know each other) can't all be wrong. You're not the one who had to incessantly correct his unencyclopedic content, to repeat him the same things over and over, unsuccessfully try to communicate with him or going in round circles. Also may I remind you that original research is NOT the only issue that is problematic here. But anyhow, good luck in trying to communicate with him. Maybe you can be his mentor. Farine (talk) 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
                • To add, if the community were so inclined, I would ask someone to just close this as it has turned into more drama than was necessary, and I will be happy to follow up with the editor, be open minded as to any resolution, while mindful that he needs to completely understand the issues that got him into this block to begin with. I've already started a discussion with him on his talk page and strongly feel that is the best way to proceed: slowly, deliberately and off the front page of ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your thinking, and would like to see BD become a useful contributor. I feel, however, that you will be soon frustrated as BD isn't exactly communicative. I have tried to engage with him many times over the years and have been met with deafening silence interrupted by the occasional response to questions never asked. Anyhow, best of luck, and my offer to mentor still stands - if he meets the prerequisites.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Although there was no official consensus, I think what aligns the most to what the community wants is that Bull-Doser remains indefinitely blocked until he truly understands what he did wrong and refrain from doing it again, that he starts communicating with others, and that he gets mentorship for all topics (particularly radio stations) and disruptive issues (particularly OR). Unfortunately, the community couldn't agree on whether he should be unblocked outright or remain blocked until he makes a convincing request. But the number of editors who favor the block outnumbers the number of editors who think he should be unblocked. I know that consensus is not a vote. But this ANI case could easily go on another week if we don't close it. So the best is to go with the wish of the majority in this situation and that Bull-Doser remains blocked as per Coffee's number 3 proposition. I do however support Dennis Brown's approach of initiating a conversation with Bull-Doser to eventually turned him into a positive contributor. Others Wikipedians have failed in doing this. But maybe an administrator will succeed. Farine (talk) 05:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Having been tied up with a few things IRL, I came back to the thread after it had been closed, my comment taken as a proposal and BD indef'd. I saw on BD's talk page that Dennis has tried to engage him in discussion. At this point, my view aligns with Dennis' that he should stay blocked until some fruit comes to bear based on that discussion. His reply however suggests that this may take some time. I propose that we close this for the time being until Dennis, or any other editor or admin, has had the chance to work things through with BD. Further discussion isn't productive. Blackmane (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeated violation of RfC restrictions - site ban proposed for Youreallycan

Please see the user talk page at Youreallycan (talk · contribs), where the history shows an on-going edit-war conducted by this editor to restore details of the alleged RL identity of another editor. This needs intervention now. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The edits have been suppressed by Oversight. However, this is a very clear violation of the restrictions under which YRC is currently editing. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal, the following restrictions were applied, with his agreement:

1. - Three month BLP topic ban
2. - Six months 1RR restriction
3. - Six months strict civility enforcement.
4. - One month voluntary total editing restriction.
5. - Site ban if any condition violated.

He has violated item 2 with at least 5 reversions of 4 editors to restore the oversighted material [6], and item 3 with his repeated posting of the oversighted material despite 3 requests from 2 editors to desist. I am therefore proposing a full indefinite site ban for these violations, in accordance with the terms of the RfC. Youreallycan has previously been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations and 6 times for civility violations.[7] Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• YRC's user-talk page is currently under full protection. Can someone with the requisite permissions please inform him of this thread. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• User:Alison has done this at my request. Prioryman (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Since admins can't see the material it is difficult to judge this. We have to trust our oversighters (indeed that's why they are chosen). However, in the interests of not having arbitrary sentencing, would it be possible to get one or two other oversighters to review and endorse the proposed ban? If so, I'm happy (well happy isn't the word) to support.--Scott Mac 23:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility. I would be content to uphold an indefinite ban on these terms. James F. (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Considering that this editor has been blocked nineteen times before, and narrowly avoided a community ban by promising to kep his nose squeaky clean, a community ban is the only option. It was a condition that he himself agreed to. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't done anything wrong, or breached his undertaking. Restoring your own comment on your own talk page is not edit-warring, unless that comment is a breach of policy here, and that's not the case. It's been demonstrated below that Prioryman has identified his real name on-wiki. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support If the edits were bad enough to be oversighted, they're clearly major violations of the principles they agreed to. The next step is unfortunately site ban, but he should be indeffed for outing in the meantime (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated below that this was not outing. Prioryman has already identified his real name on-wiki. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I have indefinitely blocked the user in question. Whether or not the community decides to enforce a ban for his behaviour overall, this individual incident is simply unacceptable. There is no excuse, no string of content citations, that justifies outing another editor. Ironholds (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  It's fairly clear that the outing is...an ambiguous charge at best, given additional evidence presented. But at the same time, the diffs in question clearly show that he was attempting nothing more than to bait and kick at Prioryman - something that violates the spirit (if not the letter) of his civility restriction. Ironholds (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

YRC did not out Prioryman. He was accused of it and it was probably prudent to oversight the comment while it was investigated, but Prioryman has already acknowledged his real name on-wiki. This appears to be a good-faith error on Nomoskedasitcity's part. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just wondering... is the editor he's allegedly trying to "out" damaging wikipedia in some way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Is the "outing" of a person whose identity is already widely-known and used by the person himself, though? That is usually the sticking point when the collection of WR/Wikipediocracy/WMUK luminaries gets into a spat for the nine-hundred-and-thirty-third time. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That point is indeed an issue from time to time. If an editor has made his identity known, he has no basis for crying "Outing!" No way for us peons to tell in this case, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:OUTING is clear: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." Mentioning old usernames is fine, mentioning non-voluntarily-disclosed full real names is not. Prioryman (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, you identified your real name on-wiki. Since then it's been common knowledge who ChrisO is. Your friends here address you by your real name and you don't demand oversight and banning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • • Precisely. So how do we know this was non-voluntary? And was the alleged "outee" engaged in damaging wikipedia? Not that that justifies public disclosure, though. Things like that should be handled behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Prioryman, so the issue is not the old username. Is it just the surname that is the issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's correct. Prioryman (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• So in the hypothetical scenario of an old username being the person's actual name, or a reasonably close approximation thereof, said hypothetical person gets perpetual immunity from anyone ever pointing that out? Tarc (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• The username didn't include the surname, which is, obviously, much more identifying than a first name.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Was the outing for some greater purpose, i.e. to prevent damage to wikipedia? Or was the alleged "outer" just being a jerk? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bugs, sorry for repeating myself here, but as I said below - 'Prioryman is currently the target of an off-wiki hate website whose staff are known for proposing visiting London with boxcutters "to slit a few throats". (I'll send you a screenshot if you like.) Yes, he's currently their top target (I think it was Jimbo before, but I don't really keep up with such things.) And yes, they love to "research" WP editors' locations and identities in order to facilitate this sort of "boxcutter" behaviour.' --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me this page (or possibly AN) had an otherwise-unrelated case recently about off-wiki activity in which it was concluded that wikipedia cannot control off-wiki behavior. However, a direct threat of violence is never good. Has YRC himself, either on or off wiki, directly threatened anyone with physical harm? P.S. No link or picture needed. I'll take your word for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice question, but no, of course he hasn't. Then again, if the instigator (Andreas) were so innocent, he could've waited a half-respectable amount of time before turning up here to put the metaphorical knife into the target (Prioryman) after YRC already did what was needed. I've been asked before to make clear that I am not accusing Andreas or Dan Murphy/Daniel Murphy themselves of threatening to use boxcutters on British Wikimedians' throats. Oh, and sure we can't control what people do on other websites. But we shouldn't be encouraging or facilitating this sort of thing. In my personal opinion, people like that should not be permitted on this website. It's a project to build an encyclopedia, not a project to see how many people you can "hunt down" and threaten. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For sure. So an interaction ban in both (or all) directions should be the right solution - with a lengthy block for any violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, I am very disappointed by the way in which you are defaming my husband – a smart, funny, and wonderfully loving man, and a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia – by trying to associate him with a snippet of a joke made by one of the more acerbic critics on Wikipediocracy. That critic also qualified his comment by saying that the WMUK clique simply wouldn’t be worth his time, which is something you consistently fail to mention on here whenever you try to establish that non-starter of a meme. You wrote: "Then again, if the instigator (Andreas) were so innocent, he could've waited a half-respectable amount of time before turning up here to put the metaphorical knife into the target (Prioryman) after YRC already did what was needed."

Just so you know, Andreas/Jayen466 is the kind of person who would never raise a knife, metaphorically or otherwise, against another living creature. In fact, this beautiful husband of mine will spend ages "hunting down" bluebottles, wasps, and even mosquitos in our house, glass in one hand, discarded envelope in the other, and, once caught, escort the various critters to the safety of our backyard, all out of a heartfelt belief in doing no harm.

I admire my husband for not rising to the many insults you, Prioryman, and the rest of your cronies have been lobbing at him in various WP forums. Sure I'm biased. But at least I for one have never made a secret of my love and appreciation for my husband and his delectable personality.

Now, against the backdrop of you stating on your user page that you live in the United Kingdom, could you please explain your connection to UK resident Prioryman and to WMUK? Also, in light of you vehemently opposing any kind of "censorship of the main page", could you do me a solid and look up Twitter Joke Trial before accusing an accomplished US audio engineer, inventor, and businessman with plenty more interesting things to occupy his time than socializing with WMUK "volunteer" types of murderous intent just to help out one of your WMUK buddies? Thank you! Draco^E 02:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Full Ban - He had his chances, he blew it. He's been highly combative and I doubt that he will change. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I saw the edit that has been revdeled. I would feel more comfortable if an admin (besides me) who either saw it or who has oversight capabilities would comment on whether what YRC put on his talk page constituted outing. With the exception of one piece, which may or may not be known, the material seemed public to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • See Jdforrester's comment above. --Rschen7754 23:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, and thanks, Prioryman (for above). So, let's be clear. We are proposing a full indefinite ban for the outing. We certainly wouldn't ban YRC if he edit-warred on his own talk page as he has the right to control his own talk page (with very limited exceptions). So, my next question is which condition does outing violate? We should be precise in these things, and we shouldn't rush to judgment, even if the ultimate decision is for a full ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, the 1RR restriction from the RfC is a universal one - it's not limited to any area of Wikipedia, whether article space, talk pages or user talk pages - so the edit-war on his user talk page would indeed count as a violation. Further, the normal 3RR does not apply when reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.[8] One form of content that breaches those guidelines is "Personal information of other persons without their consent."[9] YRC reverted to this at least five times, violating both the universal 1RR and 3RR, which applied because the content being reverted breached the guidelines. Prioryman (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
        • That's extremely helpful, Prioryman, thank you for taking the trouble to connect the dots.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full indefinite site ban for violating first, second and probably third condition from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#YRC Proposal.--В и к и T 23:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

But he hasn't done any of those things. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full ban and since there's nonpublic information involved, appeals should go right to WP:BASC. --Rschen7754 23:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The information you refer to is very public. ChrisO pointed to his real name on-wiki and it's been well-known here ever since. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • Strategic oppose, this is something ArbCom should handle. --Rschen7754 21:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support site ban. I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Asserting that doesn't make it true. (I saw the edits too.) YRC addressed Prioryman/ChrisO by his real name. Prioryman has acknowledged his real name on-wiki and has been addressed by that name here more than once in the past with no complaint, not a peep. This is about gaming YRC off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sheesh. What happens when you throw Prioryman, Jayen466, and YRC into a discussion? One ban, for starters, a bunch of fire and brimstone stinking up the place, and bad press coverage. You all should group yourselves under the user category "Wikipedia crusaders", and for practical purposes we should assume that in any given discussion you are all wrong. I had a look at this Wikipediocracy site, for the first time--holy shit, what a crock. "To expose the corruption!" Onward, soldiers of the truth. BTW, I support the ban for YRC--enough is enough. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Wikipedia. So, per YRC's own proposal in their RFCU, I've little option but to support. Resolute 00:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban - As Drmies says, enough is enough. Jusdafax 00:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This is not how I would have envisioned YRC's tenure ending at Wikipedia. I would have expected him to go out in a blaze of self-righteous BLP glory. Instead, it comes down to a personal feud with another editor. I suppose the symptoms are the same (YRC's inability to control himself), but it still saddens me. What a waste.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• For the moment, I am striking my vote, partly per Wehwalt's initial comment below and partly based on Andreas's diffs. I can't sort out the diffs, frankly, i.e., whether they are enough to constitute voluntary disclosure, but at this point I can't support a ban without the outing being clear. Everything else, in my view, is derivative of the alleged outing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ban per Resolute (i.e. given all YRC's past history, the ban is justified by the edit warring to re-insert the person's name even if the name was already known). YRC clearly hasn't let go of his drama addiction and we have to face that he is doing the project more harm than good. That said, the other person has also been something of a dramaphile in multiple conflicts recently, and should tone it down. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Outing = Ban pbp 00:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Who is YRC supposed to have outed? If it was Prioryman, then please bear in mind that Prioryman has revealed his identity here on Wikipedia, on at least two occasions, and so did arbcom. These edits are live today. His name can also be found on a fair number of talk pages where other people have called him by his real name. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This bears looking into. If Prioryman himself has disclosed his full real name ("unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information"), then I don't see how this constitutes outing. Also, per policy, if Prioryman disclosed his full real name but later redacted it, then what YRC did would still be outing ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman redacted it on YRC's user-talk page, today. It was a violation the very first time YRC restored it there. The subsequent edit-warring he conducted was absurd. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Until someone gives a real explanation instead of this tip-toeing that's going on. It's now provided, and demonstrates that the "outing" claim is false. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Prioryman's name was revealed by arbcom in the findings of fact here and here when it was noted that he had cited self-published materials. ChrisO confirmed that he was indeed the author on the talk page. [10][11] AndreasKolbe JN466 00:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• His name is also mentioned in full by Tony Sidaway for example on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement/Archive1. And a number of other talk pages. So why was Tony Sidaway not banned? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Very good. You have demonstrated that the outing claim is thoroughly bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It seems an entirely opportunistic use of WP:OUTING. Say nothing when a friend (or arbcom ...) uses your name on wiki, and clamour for a ban if it is an enemy. Prioryman knows full well that his name is on this wiki, and that he owned up to it. Is is not the sort of thing you forget. What his conduct reminds me of more than anything is Fair Game (Scientology). Which is really ironic. AndreasKolbe JN466 00:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • YRC made the false claim that I had edited on Wikipedia under my own real name, which I did not do and have never done. Arbcom did not post my real name back in 2006. It posted, without my consent, links to off-wiki writings which other editors - not myself - had added to Wikipedia articles to use as sources, again without my consent (I have in fact removed such links where I have found them). I have not at any point voluntarily disclosed my full name on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Did arbcom have you in a room with thumb screws? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support for editing in violation of voluntary restrictions -- that's a breach of trust issue, as well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

First demonstrate that he has violated his restrictions. That hasn't been done yet. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Erm. You can't see any evidence of edit warring? Ironholds (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it has: "As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility. I would be content to uphold an indefinite ban on these terms. James F. (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)" -- See also, WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullet point 2), and, WP:NPA.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose At this point, it no longer looks like a clear-cut case, which means I won't vote to support based on evidence not available to me. Suggest a case at ArbCom as they are better suited to deal with this then a bunch of people wondering if they should take each other's word for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Do please note that whether or not this constitutes an outing violation, it is most definitely a civility violation and a 1RR violation, and as such YRC is still in breach of his restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I won't be bound by the dead hand of a RfC I took no part in in deciding my !vote on a ban. Unless I am convinced the community is better off without the person, and that is very clear to me, I will withhold my hand. I don't do "ban-of-the-week", either.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What is dead-hand about the editing restrictions? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, YRC was under active restrictions that he agreed to be under. He also agreed to a 1 month software-enforced wikibreak which was suggested (by me) in the hope that it would restore his composure. At the end of the 1 month, he reappeared, said he was doing well, and requested another 2 months of enforced break to be certain of avoiding tripping over his 3 month BLP restriction (this is in his talk page history), i.e. he understood then as well, that his restrictions would be enforced. When he came back after the 2 months, he seemed refreshed and hopefully able to edit up to standards. But he immediately returned to his battles and feuds. Even without the outing/non-outing, we're back where we were before the RFC, which closed with some last-resort measures to try instead of a ban even then. So this ban is justified due to YRC's intractable battleground editing regardless of the precipitating incident. Re the immediate incident: AFAICT, there was no excuse (such as a COI situation relevant to the encyclopedia) justifying YRC's calling out another editor's name repeatedly over their objections. He was just doing it to be a dick, coming almost immediately off of a de facto ban. That should be the end of his rope. Enough is enough. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I now oppose the ban on its merits per the comments below. You can't unring a bell or out the self-outed.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's the way we do things here. As Nobody Ent likes to say, the world is not binary. WP:OUTING gives multiple examples (username changes, self-redactions) of how it's not ok to dredge up personal info buried in obscurity to use against them, even though it's accessible with enough digging if someone else knows where to look. (And redacting something years old would have called attention to it all by itself, so it's not an advisable strategy). Obviously the info's presence on those old pages could be a mitigating factor, but the absence of the slightest justification for the repeated re-additions is an aggravating factor that far outweighs the mitigation. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've long supported YRC for his earnest and genuine efforts, in the past, to protect the interests of living persons unfairly damaged by inappropriate behaviour on Wikipedia. For some time now he's lost his direction in that, and this is beyond the "final final" straw... his actions appear to be a projection of the boxcutter brigade who are taking every possible desperate measure to act against those who defend the freedom of Wikipedia's main page. Let it be said again - there will be no political censorship of the Wikipedia main page - not for the boxcutter website and not for anyone else - no political censorship, not now and not EVER. I support a ban for this gutless and contemptible conniving with the boxcutter maggots. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What the %$*# have boxcutters got to do with this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, was I too vague. Prioryman is currently the target of an off-wiki hate website whose staff are known for proposing visiting London with boxcutters "to slit a few throats". (I'll send you a screenshot if you like.) Yes, he's currently their top target (I think it was Jimbo before, but I don't really keep up with such things.) And yes, they love to "research" WP editors' locations and identities in order to facilitate this sort of "boxcutter" behaviour. (I can't imagine why anyone should be concerned, can you?) Well, you can argue that YRC just kinda got involved at the wrong moment and had no knowledge of any of this. Good luck with that argument. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So the talk of "political censorship of the Wikipedia main page" was just more of the usual hype about DYK, Gibraltar, a large wodge of cash (allegedly), and whatever else it is that everyone is getting into a kerfuffle about, then? I wondered whether there had been a military coup or something, from the way you were getting so steamed up about it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - As Prioryman is gaming WP:OUTING policy when it suits his needs. When it has been any number of other users or admins who have used the full name in a discussion (there are examples to be found via simple search of the project), there has been none of this gasping, hemming, hawing, or wringing-of-the-hands; it was just stating whatever one already knew, much like the whole Fae/Ash crap earlier this year. But as soon as YRC does it, out come the tar & feathers? No. You don't get to set up "for me but not for thee" bullshit. Prioryman should be grateful to get out of this with out a king-sized WP:BOOMERANG upside his head. Tarc (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's be clear. YRC is charged here with doing three things:

• A repeated WP:OUTING violation;
• A 1RR violation;
• A repeated civility violation.

All three of these things are violations of his restrictions. Whether or not you believe the outing violation stands up, there is no doubt whatsoever that he engaged in repeated incivility and edit-warring. So even if you dispose of one violation, that still leaves two more. That's indisputable. Prioryman (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think the word "indisputable" existed on Wikipedia, certainly not at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the 1RR and civility concerns are largely moot, as the stem from your boy-who-cried-wolf act regarding a non-outing. You don't get to goad someone into such a thing and pretend you can get away with it. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Tarc, I don't think those other users or admins did the type of pointy edit warring that YRC did, and in those other situations Prioryman may have kept quiet because intervening would have attracted unwanted attention (just like this did, except in those other cases there wasn't already a conflict going on). Also, Prioryman may be trying to keep a lower real-life profile now than at those times in the past, which I think we should respect. WP:OUTING quote "also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." This is something like that. The past disclosures would be a balancing factor in some other situations but YRC knew he was skating on thin ice. That's why I expicitly supported the ban independently of whether the name was already known. It was unacceptable harassment no matter what the fine points of "outing" say. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I do not value the input of IP editors into topics such as this. If you wish to address me and actually want for a response, do it with your actual account. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So Tarc, you're saying that if you can subjectively accuse someone of "gaming", then outing is OK? Or are you saying something else?

Outing or attempted outing is not acceptable, ever. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

True. But the name was already visible on wikipedia, so it wasn't outing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is you can't out someone who has had his name bandied about the project for years. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless I am mistaken, the whole "outing" issue is that YRC just said what the "O" in ChrisO, Prioryman's previous account, stands for and Prioryman cried outing even though he knows full well that this is widely known due to the fact that he has been terrible at hiding his real-life identity. Hell, anyone who googles his prior user account and "Scientology", a subject in which Prioryman has edited heavily, will be able to find out his surname in short order. If he noted something more obscure that would be another thing, but if it is just Prioryman's last name then this is just an exercise in pointless drama.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Bollocks There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page. And it is time Prioryman was stopped pulling this sort of shit. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• YRC was given, and agreed to, a six-month 1RR restriction. It was purposefully not restricted to any particular content space so that there would be no edit wars of any kind in any content space. That's what's been violated. Prioryman (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You made your identity known, so there was no outing - and therefore no one had a right to edit-war on his user page. The case collapses, and YRC should be unblocked, and politely asked not to do it again because it's uncivil to you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did not disclose my identity. Nor did I edit under my own name, as YRC falsely claimed that I did. There was no reason for YRC to post that information, as it had no relevance whatsoever to the point he was trying to make. I asked him to desist from posting it and he refused. The whole incident was a completely unnecessary, gratuitous exercise in incivility of a kind which anyone familiar with YRC's conduct will have seen many times before. Prioryman (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Us peons can't see YRC's edits, of course. But if he merely invoked what the "O" stands for, you freely gave that information, as indicated in one of Jayen466's links posted here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Clarification request Darkness Shines, re There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page: I believe some of these reverts were not on YRC's talk page, but rather on Jimbo's talk page.[12] Anyone know? 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - YRC actually created his own conditions, as well as the outcome if any of the conditions were broken.[13] There's really no wiggle room when it comes to violating just the 1RR restriction unless the reversions being on his user page somehow exempted them as actual reverts (from an edit warring standpoint). Doc talk 01:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support so far as possible - I will take everyone's word that the content was disgraceful and in any case having seen how YRC behaves in general I'm cool with assuming he's been doing something dick-ish again. Of course if it turns out this outing was not actually outing then I would reconsider. There's no way I can be 100% certain on the basis of edits; but I can be very sure indeed, certainly beyond reasonable doubt, given the trustworthy wikipedians involved. Egg Centric 01:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(ecx3)With all due respect, again bollocks. There is no restriction at all regarding your own talk page. Given your recent outing block perhaps a little leeway may be called for. Your past with this person shows naught but hostility, so forgive my lack of good faith, but it looks to me like you just want this guy banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Hm? What does edit warring have to do with it? There is a 1RR restriction and a civility parole, both of which have been breached, according to the evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If all he did was post known information, then no one had the right to remove it, and the alleged 1RR violation wouldn't occur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no restriction on edit warring on your own talk page, look it up. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Edit warring that says a 1RR applies to user space. If I overlooked something, perhaps the ones claiming otherwise, could point it out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction he is under covers all the spaces, including user space. Silverseren^C 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Does it explicitly say so? Or is that only an inference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman explained it pretty well [14]: if the reverts were not exempted because of USERBIO, then the 1RR restriction was violated. Doc talk 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is unrestricted. Moreover, using personal information on a talk page in an incivil manner violates WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullet point 2), as well as, WP:NPA.Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute about whether he explicitly agreed to an exception to that rule. If he didn't, then all they can get him on is incivility. At worst, an interaction ban (both directions) is called for. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What the bloody hell are you talking about? What outing block? I've had no such thing. None of this thread really makes any sense to me at all. If it's directed at me, then please clarify. Otherwise please move it. Egg Centric 05:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. The notification posted by Prioryman was interpreted by me as a poke. The two editors have a long history which extends through both user's previous accounts. This episode began a Jimbo's talk page and escalated from there. The full name, as used by YRC is currently published on Wikipedia, I've just reviewed some links, and they are still published without suppression. Handle this with blocks and I did intend to stipulate that as plural. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Question If Prioryman's concern was revelation of his personal information, why was he posting an outing warning on a talk page with 141 watchers before the edit had been redacted? Nobody Ent 01:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• To give YRC fair warning not to repeat the edit. If he had respected my wishes and not reverted my removal of my name from his post, nothing more would have been heard about this incident. I was perfectly happy to let it drop. I only contacted Oversight after he had posted the same information four times in a row. There was absolutely no need for him to do so; it was gratuitous incivility. If I'd wanted to get him banned I would have escalated as so on as he posted, which I plainly didn't. Prioryman (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• So you didn't particularly care that your name was revealed, just that YRC was repeatedly posting it? Nobody Ent 01:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't say that. I did care that my name was revealed. It didn't matter who revealed it. Whoever the offending editor was, I would have redacted it and asked them to refrain from reposting it. I would have expected them to respect my wishes. I didn't want to make a fuss about it because I didn't want to draw attention to it. Unfortunately YRC made it impossible to deal with it quietly. Prioryman (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• If one using a user's name in an incivil manner, that's a violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:USERBIO and WP:UP#POLEMIC (bullit point 2). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You considered posting a notification of an edit still clearly visible in the history buffer on the talk page of a user under restrictions from a highly contentious RFC dealing with it quietly??? Nobody Ent 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• It might have been better to ask someone else (maybe Dennis Brown) to intervene after the first revert (i.e. revdel and tell YRC to not restore the edit). Starting the ANI in retrospect doesn't look to have been such a great idea either. YRC would have been here for something else soon enough anyway. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, I didn't start the ANI discussion. I proposed the ban on YRC on the grounds of edit-warring and incivility. The outing was merely the means through which YRC was incivil (and gratuitously so, as it was totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand). Prioryman (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I see, you made a long and very visible post early in the ANI, calling for YRC to be banned, but you didn't actually start the thread. In general I think if you're in a dispute with someone, it doesn't come across well to be calling for particular remedies. Best to just say what happened and what issues are involved, and let other people figure out what to do. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full site ban. Wasn't he supposed to change after the RfC/U and self-imposed ban? That clearly doesn't work, so something external needs to reel him in. Shrigley (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He has changed. He has abided by his undertaking. This is a con. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Is it outing, based on the diffs presented above, to say Prioryman's last name on-wiki? Separate question from whether YRC violated anything. Cla68 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if this is just about what the "O" in "ChrisO" stands for. That information has been on Wikipedia for at least six years in places such as Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_6#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• The editor who posted that, User:Terryeo, was banned in 2006 for outing violations directed against me and, I think, a couple of other people. You evidently found an edit that didn't get deleted - it's merely evidence of an earlier attempted outing. Prioryman (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I can quite believe that Terryeo was a troublemaker, but your reaction to his post was effectively to acknowledge that you are indeed the named essayist whilst pointing out that it was not you who linked your essays. Given your on-wiki acknowledgment of your identity in 2006, I can't see how you can be outed in 2012 unless more information is given than just your surname.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman has now doctored the archive I linked above. The version in which he acknowledges his name can be seen at [15] It also includes evidence that even then he was telling half truths as Terryeo links a diff where Prioryman as ChrisO references his own essay in Scientology.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You should probably go and get that oversighted as well. Silverseren^C 02:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban I checked all the links given by Andreas above and did not see a single on-wiki instance of the name being used. Are you referring to off-wiki links made against Prioryman against his will? I'm sorry, but that's not voluntarily outing oneself. And do consider the fact that most of the opposes above are Wikipediocracy members that are conducting a witchhunt against Prioryman on both their website and, it appears, on-wiki. Silverseren^C 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Seren, the instances I found in an obvious Google search of his previous username and a subject in which he is heavily interested pertained to comments he had made of his own volition on websites under that same username well before he began editing Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm glad to know that you know how to use Google. Unfortunately, WP:OUTING doesn't have an exception for people that know how to use Google. Silverseren^C 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This arbitration finding notes that he "restored self-published material". The information is in the diffs arbcom gave; you need to click on them. In addition, he acknowledged on wiki that these are links to sites containing his writings. ChrisO gave a diff in the ARBSCI workshop and on the Proposed decision talk page which showed him removing his full name from a Wikipedia article, and he said he made the edit "to remove my own work as a non-reliable source." AndreasKolbe JN466 02:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OUTING should not be used to protect people who make no serious effort to conceal their identity. That goes up against the whole spirit of the policy. It is to protect someone's privacy, not allow someone to force people to keep quiet about something a child could figure out.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, DA and Kolbe, I guess I'm a child. I searched through those diffs that Kolbe so handily provided (no doubt they have them at the ready always) and it still took me five minutes or more to figure it out. I supposed that makes me stupid, but I don't mind being stupid in the spirit of OUTING as interpreted here by Silver seren. Silver seren, I guess this makes you stupid also. What some of you seem to forget is that you have probably been involved with these disputes for years; you probably send each other Christmas cards. Things that are obvious to you aren't so obvious to others, and that's why this was OUTING. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I am just referring to the fact that anyone who knows his prior account "ChrisO" and a subject in which he has a strong interest "Scientology" will find Prioryman's last name in the first few results of a Google search. Honestly, I think if Prioryman were still editing as ChrisO, few would take this accusation of outing seriously.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Prioryman's recent indef block for attempted outing was reversed.[16] I don't see any reason YRC's indef shouldn't be likewise reversed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am not under a six-month community-imposed civility restriction for which a violation means a site ban. That's the difference. The proposed ban here is for violating the civility restriction. Outing was merely the means through which YRC chose to be incivil. Prioryman (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would think there's a significant difference between mentioning someone's prior username and mentioning someone's real name. You do understand the difference, right? Furthermore, Prioryman stopped trying to add it once he was informed by the person that they didn't want the name mentioned. Silverseren^C 02:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• No outing occurred, so the rest of the case against YRC falls apart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was indeed outing. Worse, it was a vindictive outing, rather than an accidental outing. Silverseren^C 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, it was not outing by YRC. Priory outed himself, albeit 6 years ago. As to the vindictive part, an interaction ban should take care of that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full site ban. - To intentionally and vindictively jeopardise someones ability to edit Wikipedia anonymously, advertising a user's RL identity for spite when you are well aware that they rather you didn't, is well beyond the pale, as they sometimes say around here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as you can't OUT an editor with a known identity. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This whole thing was handled badly from the get-go. On those rare occasions when someone has gone over the line with me, I've had it handled behind the scenes, by a trusted admin. And because this got dragged here, I now know both Priory's former user ID and what it allegedly stands for, which I didn't before. And so does anyone else who has read this discussion. How does that serve anyone's interests here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Outting is a big deal and YRC knew that this would cause issues. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The friction is undoubtedly mutual vide one editor's aattempt to ban YRC for what turned out to be a "Joe Job." Pursuing this further is not in the interests of Wikipedia, and the use of what was clearly a "Joe Job" to attempt to ban an editor I find much worse that the "outing" which wasn't "outing" in any normal sense. Collect (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question Can an oversighter display a redacted version of the edit in question?   little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  03:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It wasn't "the edit in question", it was an edit war with at least 4 reverts re-inserting the info, from what I understand. That's why I find YRC's conduct was so intolerable. I can see some merit to posting redacted versions, or (maybe temporarily) increasing the edits' visibility to normal revdel so admins can look at them. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support He's shown himself to be a very disruptive editor over a long period of time. He's had many chances to change, and has always returned to incivility, edit warring, and all-around disruptive behavior. Even if the outing thing is disregarded, he's shown he has no intention of adhering to the restrictions he previously agreed to. Since he agreed to the punishment of a site ban if they were violated, that's what he should get. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"...he's shown he has no intention of adhering to the restrictions he previously agreed to." No he hasn't. He's shown the opposite. He has, against most expectations, abided by his undertakings. This is a con. He didn't out the editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban And unblock, per Tarc. Sædon^talk 03:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - YRC has shown again and again that he never believes he is wrong in a conflict, and is incapable of backing away from a fight. Perhaps he was goaded into this one, perhaps not. The fact remains that he has no qualms whatsoever about going into attack mode, and ignoring the rules of Wikipedia whenever it suits him. Even now after twenty blocks, mentoring, and a self-imposed cooling off wikibreak, he comes back and is right into an argument that should cost him his editing career at Wikipedia, and doesn't even care about the rules enough to stop edit warring and ask an admin for assistance. If there's other action against Prioryman, that should be in a different section with its own evidence. YRC has shown us enough to stop wasting time on someone who's only here for conflict. 201.130.178.219 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose ChrisO acknowledged his identity on wiki [17]  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  04:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support clear violation of his self-imposed editing restrictions. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. Prove it. You can't, because he didn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, he made five reverts in a matter of minutes so there's a 1RR breach. Not to mention incivility. For Christ's sake, how many times does he need to be blocked for you to think he did something wrong. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

His 1RR restriction was designed to address a serious problem with his BLP patrolling in article space. He has as much right as you to defend his comments on talk pages. Personally, I think it was thoughtless of him to mention the surname, and ill-advised of him to restore it when it was challenged. But, I know what the 1RR was imposed for, and it was not imposed to allow others to mess with his user talk page edits. There is a world of difference between what's appropriate for an article or article talk page, and what's appropriate in user talk space. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in that RFC, and I remember no such exceptions to the 1RR restriction (and why would it exist if he was also topic banned from BLP's anyways?). I do realize it was in his talk space, which could grant leeway (I can't really comment on how appropriate the removal by other editors was, since it was oversighted). But three editors reverted him, so you'd think that would drive the message home. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

He's not topic banned from BLPs, his behaviour is restricted on BLPs per FormerIP's clarification, here, which is built into the RfC outcome. The 1RR was designed to curb his behaviour on article and article talk pages generally, it was not meant to make it open season on his user talk page contributions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It was a complete 1RR restriction. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ban. From reading this thread, there's obviously some years-long history behind the current dispute, and I don't know about most of it. But I can see that Youreallycan is violating his/her self-proposed editing restrictions, so the decision to ban ought to be pretty easy, regardless of one's feelings about whether "outing" is really outing, or one's own involvement with the users in this dispute. However, I'm not going to be surprised if this thread turns out to be irresolvable and Arbcom takes this on. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you mean, exactly, "Youreallycan is violating his/her self-proposed editing restrictions"? There has been no credible evidence of that brought here. He's been accused of outing. That's false. Prioryman has identified his real name here. Others have addressed him here by his real name and there have been no consequences. His real name is well-known here. This is just gaming a critic off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I helped hammer out the restrictions on RfC/YRC with YRC.^[1]

1. Regarding an instance of incivility triggering an automatic site ban: one instance of unequivocal, and generally-agreed incivility should trigger a permanent site ban: that was the intent of YRC's proposal. Instances where incivility is disputed by a significant number of editors who are on neither side of the Prioryman/YRC divide, as is the case here, should not trigger an instant site ban.
2. Neither I nor YRC envisioned 1RR applying to user talk page discussions, certainly not YRC's talk page.
3. The present preventative block should be replaced now by a commitment from YRC (assuming it's forthcoming) to not use the RL name on-wiki while we clarify the outing/not outing question. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but YRCs promises of good behavior have turned out to be worth less than doggie doo twenty times in the past. Could you explain why this should suddenly change now? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It has suddenly changed now. YRC has been abiding by the commitment he made at his RfC. It was not an outing, since Prioryman has pointed to his real name on-wiki and said, that's me. Others have addressed him by his real name in the past with no complaints from Prioryman. Prioryman is using this as an opportunity to rid himself of a vociferous critic. By all means ban YRC when he breaches his RfC commitment, but doing it now, on a fake, trumped-up instance of non-incivility is very disrespectful of an editor who has, amazingly, and against most expectations, lived up to his commitment. He had every right to restore his comment to his own talk page, if it wasn't outing, and it wasn't outing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's untrue that he was adhering to his commitments in other respects. He was participating in BLPN discussions and discussing BLPs at other venues. He ignored my attempt to caution him in this respect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Where? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: read the restrictions he agreed to. They include an agreement not to edit BLPs. They do not include an agreement not to edit BLPN or to discuss BLPs. Editing BLPN and discussing BLPs are not violations of his commitment. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, he is under a BLP topic ban which includes starting or involving himself in discussions about the application of BLP, as set out here and here. In the last few days he has edited Talk:Silvio Berlusconi and Talk:Florence Devouard. I believe Nomoskedasticity warned him about doing this. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, his BLP topic ban is narrowly construed.

Three month BLP topic ban - note, conditions as per FormerIP's comments below.[18]

FormerIP's clarification is:

2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people.

On Berlusconi, YRC was discussing category policy:

I don't support such cats, labeling cats at all, but opposes should understand that - readers never ever get to even get to the middle of an article never mind the cats at the bottom - with such a notable person as this - no readers come to the article via the cat list so adding the cats has no value at all - ......improve the article - its rambling and not very good - regards - Youreallycan 21:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC) [19]

On Devourd, he simply did a bit of housekeeping: reformatted a long comment in Frence, added the {{unsigned}} template, translated it into English, and archived it.[20]

All of this is clearly permitted by the editing restrictions proposed by YRC and agreed to by Prioryman. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban: Quite aside from the arguments of other Support advocates, which I find persuasive, sorry: someone with nineteen blocks plainly has a serious problem with the collaborative atmosphere of Wikipedia. I've never been able to wrap my head around the premise that a newbie with a few hundred edits would be indeffed without a blink for a fraction as many offenses. If YRC just cannot deign to follow the rules we all are expected to follow as a matter of course, then he doesn't belong here. Period. Ravenswing 06:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support time-limited ban, perhaps 1 year, based on violation of 1RR condition set at the RFC/U. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban. This was a textbook case of hostile outing; objections to that finding are utterly unconvincing. It matters not a jot to how many people that identity was already known; as long as it was not voluntarily published here by Prioryman himself, YRC has no business throwing it about, period. And he did so for no other reason than provoking and annoying the other side. Enough is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

ChrisO/Prioryman pointed to his real name on-wiki, he's been addressed by his real name on more than one occasion before without any of this palaver. This is just him gaming a critic off the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support full site ban. Hostile outing cannot be tolerated. YRC clearly knew what s/he was doing. Toddst1 (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

True. If it was outing. But it wasn't outing, as has been demonstrated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Enough is indeed enough. Those examining the 1RR are missing that YRC was antagonistic, and edit warred intentionally to cause distress to another editor. This is not by itself necessarily a bannable offense. However, we are not dealing with that one incident. There is a history here; YRC has been for some time a net loss for Wikipedia. I am sad to say this, because he clearly has enthusiasm and could have been a net positive. He has not chosen to adhere to his promises, however, and has continued to be disruptive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 06:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support site ban -- in addition to the obvious violation of the agreed RFC conditions, we have the long history of this editor disrupting Wikipedia in significant ways. On violation of conditions: one point not addressed yet is the way he was also violating the agreement not to engage in BLP discussions. On outing: some have said Prioryman acknowledged his RL identity on Wikipedia, but I've clicked on some of JN's links and it's just not there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you the proposer? There is no "obvious" violation of the agreed RFC conditions. You and he have been in serious disputes in the past. I accept that you believed this was outing, that you are not deliberately misleading the community here, but it is clear from Andreas's link in his "comment" just below, that Prioryman identified his real name on-wiki. It is clear from other links provided by Andreas that Prioryman has been addressed by his real name here on more than one occasion before with no complaints, redactions, or drama from Prioryman. This is Prioryman - and you, possibly inadvertently - gaming, conning the community, to silence a critic.--Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I was not the proposer. I initiated this thread to deal with the outing, but there's nothing at all in my initial post that amounts to proposing a ban. Honestly... On top of that, above when I refer to YRC's violation of agreement to refrain from participating in BLP discussions by posting at BLPN, your response is to ask me, "Where?". Do you really need me to provide you a link to BLPN??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support a site ban for a long record of problems and a violation of the 1RR restriction and outing. YRC agreed to a 1RR restriction, with a site ban being agreed as the penalty for breaking that restriction. As he has broken the restriction (there was nothing to say this should not apply to any particular namespace) a site ban is what YRC should expect and get. YRC has previously used up any goodwill/second or third chances he should get. Davewild (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full, indefinite site ban. The outing just tops the long list of problematic editing by this editor. If you break the rules, you're warned, counselled, given second chances. Continuously defying the standards set by the community, and you will be asked to leave. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

But it wasn't outing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment To Nomoskedasticity, Future Perfect and others who still claim there was an outing here: Go to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision (permalink) and then click on diff 67, and note how User:ChrisO describes that edit. After doing that, will anyone still claim that ChrisO did not confirm his name in Wikipedia? It is not outing according to Wikipedia policy to refer to someone by the name they have themselves divulged. And note that arbcom, in drafting that finding of fact ChrisO responded to, took it as read that either Chris's surname was out, and/or that the COI overrode any concerns related to it. User:ChrisO redirects to User:Prioryman. And note that this was not in some obscure corner of the wiki, but in the longest (almost six months) and most prominent (widely covered in the press) arbcom case Wikipedia has ever had. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I clicked on your links. I don't know what "diff 67" means, though. After clicking on your links, I searched for the surname -- and it's not there. Are you suggesting I need to visit a site off Wikipedia? If so, that would rather confirm the notion that Prioryman has not used his RL name on Wikipedia. Anyway, what we're discussing here is YRC, on which a recap: YRC posted alleged RL info, Prioryman redacted it, and YRC restored it -- in contravention of WP:OUTING and his RFC conditions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Search for this string on this page: [67]. [67] is a clickable link on that page. Click on it. Read the diff, and the name ChrisO took out. Then read how he describes that edit. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And just to answer your question, No, you do not have to visit a page off Wikipedia. His full name was in mainspace, and he said, with a diff, that he took a reference to himself out of an article. If I call myself User:JoeB in Wikipedia, and I give a diff where I delete the name Joe Bloggs from an article, and explain that that diff shows me deleting a reference to myself from that article, then I have declared that I am Joe Bloggs to anyone who is of sound mind. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kolbe, do you have any idea how ridiculous, even pathetic this sounds? "Go to this page, skip to that page, search this string, click on diff 67, ask the guy in the trench coat--it's right there!" Again I'll cop to being a child, but at first I didn't even know that Prioryman had a different username, so when you all start throwing those links around, maybe you should have given that explanation. Or are you scared to do so, since it actually does constitute outing? It seems pretty obvious to me that if anyone would have to go through some serious clicking and searching, with the added information about the username, then simply giving the RL name is outing. I think you should be happy you got someone else to do the job for you and take the heat for it. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please. His surname is in the diffs of an arbcom finding of fact, he's owned up to it on several occasions, and acquaintances of his have called him his full name to his face on Wikipedia on multiple occasions without him complaining. By the way, I agree that it sounds ridiculous, but I was dealing with an editor who professed himself unable to find a numbered diff on a Wikipedia page. Under those circumstances, there's nowt else a person can do than explain it step by step. AndreasKolbe JN466 15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• support he's broken his self-imposed terms so can't complain William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is predicated on there having been an outing, and supported by editors who claim there was one. Well, there wasn't. Go to this page. Find the string [67] on that page, which is a clickable link. Click on it. Read the diff, and the way ChrisO describes that edit. And note that this was in response to an arbcom finding of fact, in probably the most prominent arbcom case ever, which notes that he was restoring references to his own work in mainspace, with diffs linking to that work, where his name is freely available. So please go and ban all arbs of 2009 before you claim there was a ban-worthy outing here. Anyone who continues to claim that there was one deserves no respect. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to have another look at WP:OUTING ("If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia"). Again, what we're discussing here is YRC, on which a recap: YRC posted alleged RL info, Prioryman redacted it, and YRC restored it -- in contravention of WP:OUTING and his RFC conditions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He did not redact it. It is still there today. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. AndreasKolbe JN466 11:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Kisses to you, too, darling. He did redact -- he deleted it from YRC's talk page. The violation we are discussing here is YRC's repeated restoration of it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he did redact, but he did not redact what he himself had posted previously, which is the whole point of that passage in WP:OUTING. "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia". He did post it, and did not redact it. The passage does not grant blanket permission to you to redact other people's posts. If you say on here, in a prominent place, that you are Joe Bloggs, you don't get to edit-war with me over my talk page posts when I say you are Joe Bloggs, and to ban me for outing just because I repeat what you said before. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have to point to something existing only in a diff from six years ago, and you rely on that to express approval of what YRC did yesterday, then you are the one who ought to be experiencing some shame right now. I didn't know the surname until yesterday; I imagine there are a great many editors who didn't -- and they could have learned it, if not for the oversighting. OUTING was precisely what YRC intended, and his edit-warring to get it to stick was a disgraceful act. And yet you approve. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

2009 is not six years ago, and there are multiple other places where the name is mentioned and acknowledged by him. Can't you get anything right? AndreasKolbe JN466 12:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And for the record, Sir, I did not say anywhere that I approved of what YRC did. Can you please strike that? AndreasKolbe JN466 12:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. Outing was YRC's intention, and it was the effect of his actions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The above personalizations are not helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not outing to repeat a name that was and remains freely disclosed on-wiki. And people have no right to edit others' talk page posts for spurious reasons. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support He has had enough time in the Last Chance Saloon. Warden (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, pretty much per Future Perfect. This is a textbook violation of WP:OUTING and the culture on Wikipedia of excusing outing of editors (see also, Fae) is exceedingly worrying. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not outing to repeat what has been previously disclosed on wiki (by the editor himself and others including arbcom), and never redacted. To describe it as a textbook violation of outing is just bizarre, mate. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OUTING talks about a violation as "an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia." Can anyone honestly say that this has transpired? Prioryman plainly acknowledges that he was previously ChrisO. Prioryman proudly displays his contributions to Scientology articles in his userspace. Anyone who knows those two facts can plug those parameters into their Google search bar and find out his last name in two shakes of a feather. How is it then invading his privacy or putting him at risk of harm?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than that, TDA. You don't need to Google at all: the information is on wiki, disclosed on-wiki by Prioryman himself, by arbcom, and by acquaintances like Tony Sidaway. All outlined above. AndreasKolbe JN466 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Practically speaking, I think it is far more compelling that anyone can right now use elementary school-level research techniques to find the information immediately using the most basic on-wiki information. Basically one just has to go, "Hmm I see this person has said he was once ChrisO and is very interested in Scientology. I wonder if 'ChrisO' has said anything about 'Scientology' elsewhere. *searches the Google* Oh my!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. per Fut Perf., the outing was hostile and he violated his own conditions. R. Baley (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not outing. You can't disclose it and then accuse someone of outing for repeating it. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Let's find another solution for YRC. While the rules he agreed to stick to were violated, implying that he should be banned (he also agreed to that sanction), at the time I was against that. I think it's better for us to help YRC to stick to the civility and 1RR restriction. There is always the option of banning YRC, but precisely because YRC did take a hard line with himself at the conclusion of the RFC, a finding that this is a violation of what he agreed to and acknowledgement by him of that, would prevent this sort of incident from being repeated. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

His behavior at his own Rfc was breathtakingly out of line, and he only took the "hard line with himself" at his Rfc when it became clear there was an overwhelming consensus for severe sanctions. Yet here he is three months later on Jimbo's page, outing and edit warring again. In my book he has had several chances too many. Jusdafax 16:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This sort of incident has been repeated ad nauseam already. If this were his second or even third block, you might have a point. But this is his twentieth block, and he has more than amply demonstrated that he will never be able to control his behavior, and that he will always be a net detriment to the project. The project is better off without him, and, frankly, he is better off without it. It's time for him to explore other ways of constructively spending his time, because it sure ain't gonna happen here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is a big problem with YRC, at the RFC we tried to find a way forward for him given. I disagreed with the solution (not the problem), precisely because you were bound to get a repeat offense sooner or later, and then here at AN/I there would be a polarized discussion. As I suggested, it would have been much better to assign a mentor to YRC who would be the sole arbiter of deciding if YRC is in violation of the restrictions and take appropriate measures.

What we also need to keep in mind here is that we can only deal with what goes on here on Wikipedia, we can't stop YRC from outing people on Wikipedia Review or somewhere else. Then going the extra mile to let YRC get along better with other editors here would be a better solution; if YRC feels less hostility toward other editors, there less of that hostility to take to other sites. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I really doubt there will be sympathy here for the notion that YRC should be shown leniency out of fear that he might carry his misbehaviour to other venues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring has already been tried, as has just about every conceivable other method to accommodate and calm down YRC. All have failed. We didn't jsut go the extra mile. We went far, far beyond that. We are not responsible for what attitudes YRC leaves WP with when he enters the world at large. We are not his therapists. He alone is responsible for that. I wish him luck, wherever he may go, and hope that he finds a way to control his behavior. But I most certainly do not want him here on WP anymore. He has wasted literally HUNDREDS of valuable editor and adminstrator time that could have been better spent. The loss he has caused to the project is mind-staggering. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Regardless of whether use of Prioryman's real name was outing or not, YRC's actions were both inflammatory and provocative. He had a choice whether or not to do what he did, had to have known it would stir up trouble. YRC should be held accountable for the choice he made, particularly given the promises made as part of his recent agreement. An editor with any real intention of improving their behavior would have run a mile before doing what YRC did, outing or no. Moreover, his use of a name for the sole purpose of antagonizing Prioryman was accompanied by incivility and, once Prioryman requested he refrain from use of the real name, violations of his 1RR agreement. How much WP:ROPE do we have to give one editor before we refrain from doing so any longer and ban an editor who behaves as YRC has? As others have said, enough is enough. We were there long ago, and it's long past time to ban this editor. --Drmargi (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a gaming of the system as a means to reach a end in a wiki dispute. It is defintely not outing and I see admin intimidation on his page regarding people who disagree. Disgusting.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support  As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal dated 15 August 2012, YRC agreed to a site ban if any of four conditions were violated.  One of these conditions was "six months strict civility enforcement".  YRC states, "I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post - not difficult to see - this is not a punishment is it...".  As per witness from oversighter Jdforrester above, YRC has "acted with incivility".  Case closed; before beginning to consider the attempt to appear to be outing; the long history of blocks; and the issue of whether it is edit-warring to restore the appearance of outing, when it is on the user's talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hell in a Bucket and others. I don't even follow these things that closely and I knew Prioryman's real name from having read old discussions and cases even before Jayen listed all the diffs. It was right there on the wiki for everyone to see. Allowing Prioryman to have the outing policy selectively enforced like he's doing here is just multiplying the drama. He hasn't complained when others have used his real name; his real name has not been oversighted out of those other discussions; he can't possibly have a good reason for caring about it in this case. Either ban everyone who's ever used it on-wiki or leave YRC alone. After the recent debacle involving Malleus and the request for clarification, I would think that editors involved in ban discussions would understand how crucially important it is not to be so blatantly arbitrary in enforcing rules by bans. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's not outing to refer to a user by that user's self-admitted real name, and one's userspace is exempt from 3RR restrictions. However, editwarring in your userspace so that the userspace page contains another's self-admitted real name for attack purposes is definitely not something that would be permitted by "strict civility enforcement": it's harassment. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Anthonyhcole who should understand if the conditions have been broken. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - enough is enough. GiantSnowman 21:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Nyttend's succinct summary of the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Those who have made it this far are entitled to be confused about what exactly has happened here. After YRC made a series of incivil posts and edit-warred with five other editors who had removed them, the posts in question were oversighted at my request. These facts have been confirmed by Jdforrester, one of the oversighters. YRC is under a civility and 1RR restriction following an RFC earlier this year. Failure to abide by the restrictions would lead to an automatic site ban. At the start of this thread I proposed that the site ban should be implemented in consequence of YRC violating the restrictions. He has previously been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations and 6 times for civility violations. He was subsequently indefinitely blocked by Ironholds on the grounds of outing, rather than for violating his restrictions. It seems to me that there are two related questions here: (1) should YRC have been blocked for outing? and (2) should the site-ban for violations of his restrictions be implemented? I hope this helps to focus discussion a little more. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I guess I don't get the weekend off after all, as I could hear the angry mob forming. Half the support votes I'm seeing here appear to be based on a previous dislike of YRC and piling on. This likely needs to go to Arb and not decided here. Unfortunately, we don't have enough info (it was redacted and anyone linking to his real world name in other posts risks blocking) and the circumstances are such that this has turned into a lynching. Whether he needs to be banned or not needs to be discussed in a more calm and deliberate manner, rather than the slugfest that this has become. What we don't need to do is jump to conclusions about information that even admin do not have access to, and not make a decision in a few hours time. Hopefully, others will realize opposing here and allowing it to go to Arb is the better solution. If any of us is to have "justice", then all of us must. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support This isn't necessarily "outing" in the strictest sense of the term, but it is problematic. After spending a couple of months away, immediately resuming this battleground behavior shows that this YRC should no longer be allowed to edit here. The restrictions were put into place to curtail YRC's battleground activities. That he has found new ways to continue to fight that don't necessarily fall directly under his restrictions doesn't mean he gets a free pass. Was he baited? Perhaps, but he was foolish enough to take the bait and even more foolish to continue to insert Prioryman's name despite being reverted by five different editors. This has got to stop, or we'll just be back here again. If people are upset about Prioryman, we can always open a discussion about him as well. AniMate 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose User:Youreallycan has made numerous contributions to biography related articles which are very valuable to the project. Moreover, he upholds WP:NPOV, trying to see and reconcile perspectives in disputes. Echoing User:Dennis Brown's comments, "Half the support votes I'm seeing here appear to be based on a previous dislike of YRC and piling on." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As I alluded to earlier, this is not the case for banning YRC. Bad facts make bad law. This smacks too much of a personal feud and provocation. I understand the frustration of some of the supporters, but I can't endorse it ending this way.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Not enough information to support a ban, I can not tell if it is or is not outing as I can not see the edits. Would support the ban if ArbCom rule that it was either outing (how ever mild) or breach of his RfC conditions. Mtking ^(edits) 01:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  You can't see the edits because you shouldn't be able to - that's the whole point of oversighting. If an editor commits an outing offence, the edits in question get oversighted so that other editors can't see them. The community necessarily has to take on trust the statements of those who can see the oversighted edits (i.e. the oversighters) and those who saw the edits before they got oversighted. The context of the oversighted edits was that YRC repeatedly and without provocation posted my full name on the user talk pages of Jimbo and YRC and in the latter case did so after I'd told him to stop doing so. Apart from me, three of those who can see/did see the edits have commented here:

  • Jdforrester: "As an "oversighter", I can confirm that Youreallycan (talk · contribs) has indeed posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility." [21]
  • Someguy1221: "I looked at the edits in question, and I agree that they were utterly inappropriate. YRC knew that and didn't care" [22]
  • Resolute: "I saw part of this in real time on Jimbo's talk page. YRC was edit warring to repeatedly insert an editor's real name against that editor's will. Personally, I don't really care whether or not said editor's name had already previously been revealed - and I don't know whether that is the case. It was a clearly antagonistic action that served no benefit to either the discussion or Wikipedia." [23]

  Bottom line, when it comes to blocks for outing, you have to trust those with first-hand knowledge of what happened - the nature of the evidence means that you can't check it yourself. And I note that everyone who did see what happened has said that they support a ban. Prioryman (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  Your last block was for... outing. So please shut up for a second before any backlash. Check yourself. Your hands are absolutely filthy here, dude. Doc talk 03:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  I'm seeing this repeated by a few people but the block was made in error as there was no outing involved; it was overturned within 30 minutes. I had referred to another editor by his former username which the editor himself had used only 2 months previously. You can see the discussion for yourself at [24]. Dude. Prioryman (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  You were blocked for OUTING. Wrong or right, you were at least charged with it. A complete mistake? Number of blocks for me for OUTING: 0. Sympathy for your cause: Evaporated. Lesson learned for you? Doubtful. Doc talk 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  For the record, I saw what happened. (He addressed you by your real name and when challenged pointed out that you're well-known here by that so it's not inappropriate to do so) and I oppose this ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

  You've described the actions but not the context. Why did he address me by my full name when it was completely irrelevant to the discussion? Why did he continue doing so after I'd told him I didn't want him to do so? Why did he edit-war with five editors on two talk pages? As others have said above, YRC's actions were quite plainly intended to be antagonistic and incivil. Prioryman (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It would have saved me a great deal of reading and wasted time if he had not restored it when it was challenged. Why did he do that? Probably because it wasn't outing and he was defending his user talk page comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose since a mutual interaction ban should resolve the personal conflict and there is doubt as to whether outing really took place. Cla68 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full site ban. It doesn't matter who is wrong and who is right here. YRC has a long history of personal attacks and harassment which has not stopped. Recently, a user politely asked him to stop referring to his real name. Instead of replying with an apology and a promise to stop, he continued to use the real name, and even laughed in the face of the user while doing it. That the Wikipedia community continues to condone this kind of sociopathic behavior is more troubling than YRC's own actions. We should be spending our valuable time helping and training new users to research and write articles and share in the administration of this site. We should not be spending another single minute arguing over whether YRC deserves another chance. At some point, this psychic vampirism has to end. If that means putting a stake through it's proverbial heart, then that's what we need to do. Our new users will thank us for the time we spend on them instead. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose under these particular circumstances. An indefinite block is in place and will require its own remedy. The claim of OUTING is unsound to say the least. Doc talk 03:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Banning a user is an extreme measure and I believe that Youreallycan has not reached such levels of extreme and urgen call from community. Sorry but maybe a long block will do the trick, not banning. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. No one has been outed. The reverts in question occurred at YRC's user talk page whereas the voluntary restriction did not explicitly apply to user pages. Duh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked to describe YRC edits, since I saw them before they were oversighted. Not only did he mention Prioryman's name, but his edits were extremely uncivil with extremely uncivil edit summaries. I don't remember exactly, but it was something like this: Prioryman, you are [NAME_REDACTED]. You should look in the mirror=LOL--В и к и T 07:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I also saw the edits and concur with that description. Outing was certainly YRC's intention, and it was also the effect (I had not known the surname previously; had it not been oversighted, other editors who hadn't known it also would have learned it). On top of that, there was an aggressive, taunting quality that amounts to a blatant violation of the civility restriction. That conclusion was reached at an early stage here by one of the oversighters (James F.), who also saw the edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Numerous examples have been produced that show Prioryman's name has been freely available on Wikipedia for years, so a block/ban based on outing would be extremely dubious. From the descriptions given about YRC's conduct, it sounds that a block of one month would be suitable to emphasize that whether or not posting a name is technically outing, once such posting has been reverted, it is extremely unwise to repeat it. My guess is that YRC thinks PM is taking advantage of the community in relation to Gibraltarpedia —something that YRC strongly opposes, and my main reason to oppose a ban is that Prioryman has obviously taken advantage of an opponent's weakness (poor control of temper). A permanent interaction ban is required, not the banning of an opponent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - per WP:Gangup, Johnuniq, Dennis, the Devil's A, Anthonyhcole, Wehwalt et al. Unfamiliar with Prioryman/ChrisO's history, it took me all of two minutes after reading this thread to verify the on-wiki acknowledgement of a RL identity and the associated off-wiki articles referring to these personas and their RL identity.[25] This stinks, YRC is a loudmouthed, vociferous defender of stuff xe believes in, gets up people's noses and battles all the way against (perceived) BLP violations, spin and other bullshit-munchers' spew. The unholy waft of excremental hypocrisy rising up from this so called outing of a certain ChrisO leaves me reeling for fresh air. What was that? 5 ArbCom sanctions and desysopped and editing from multiple accounts, invoking the right to vanish (apparently that's okay if you permanently fuck off which is not the case here), wow, this smacks of shutting up the little fucker niggling me removing the thorn from one's paw.[26] And you want to encourage new editors to come edit with all of this double-dealing money-incentived nudge nudge wink wink hypocrisy? Lord, give me a (wiki-) break! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment — I'm going to abstain from offering an opinion on an indefinite site ban for YRC, as they are capable of many great things but have also stirred up a tremendous volume of needless drama through their tendentious editing patterns. But with regards to the recently oversighted edit (which I presume refers to Prioryman by his first and last name), it's still not an acceptable thing to do. Even though Prioryman has essentially admitted his real-life identity back in 2006, it is clearly something which he does not feel comfortable having publicized elsewhere, especially given the fact that he'd presumably gone through the RTV process for the sake of distancing himself from his actual name. It may not be a clear cut violation of WP:OUTING, but it's still inappropriate. Kurtis (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose based on information availability and editor self-confirmation destroying the outing claim. If the complaint about outing were for outing someone who did not self-out, I will change my stance (that is, if an oversighter were to announce that the editor outed wasn't as assumed here by essentially everyone) --Nouniquenames 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per not bureaucracy. Per a gut feeling. I think YRC / Rob has (not for the first time) acted like a doofus in getting into a stupid revert war. If I was applying some strick logical test I have to admit I'd say support. I've observed repeated battleground mentality with Prioryman (e.g. Prioryman / Delicious Carbuncle). And the fact that he was on YRC's talk page before retraction -- thereby drawing attention to the revelation of his name. As outlined below by Devil's Advocate, I said thought the YRC RFCU was a ticket punch for an ArbCom case -- was by many how wrong I was -- and Prioryman filed a week later. I want this discussion to be hung as no consensus and I'd like ArbCom -- who has access to all the stuff us mere mortals don't -- take a good hard look at the actions of everyone involved. It very well may the case that YRC just doesn't have the temperament to do the Wikipedia thing and we'll have to (regretfully) ask him to move on. But not this way. Nobody Ent 02:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And unblock straight away if YRC agrees to below mutual interaction ban. Reasons: 1. Very far from outing, I can only imagine ignorance of Prioryman's history is to blame for this. 2. 1rr is not realistically meant to be applied to a restricted user's talkpage - given the ample discretion users have over their talk pages its far too easily gamed - both ways. Wikilawyer posts something, user reverts, wikilawyer reposts, user 'archives' etc. No one can with a straight face say that a 1rr should apply under those circumstances, and if it is, it should be explicit. And as above, one of the people instrumental in hammering out that agreement with YRC says that was certainly not the intent. Its far too easily gameable if someone wants to get someone under a 1rr blocked. Not that I would dream of suggesting someone with a past history of misusing wikipedia's policies would do that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban Too many caveats. They Outed an editor by calling the editor by a name the editor had used before. They violated 1RR on their own talk page. This is enough for a block, but not a ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban - Classic kangaroo court stuff here. A person with a history of a grudge/dispute opens this thread. Another person, also with a history chimes in. Then another editor starts a thread of support for site ban and then folks line up on both sides with support vs oppose? Is there anyway an uninvolved group could sort this mess out or has that been tried? Site ban seems pretty harsh and drastic. --Malerooster (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban - for Pete's sake, this has pretty much been open knowledge both on and off Wikipedia. Now it's even in the press. But if folks really want a site ban, they should also look very closely at Prioryman's role within the Wikimedia movement and whether he's a net positive or a net negative, given the global disgrace of the Gibraltarpedia debacle. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose site ban per Only in death and most of the dozen or so immediately above. A strict interaction ban to keep these two away from each other's throats is what is needed. JohnCD (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose and unblock. No outing took place as Prioryman's full name has been referenced unredacted and confirmed by Prioryman himself on Wikipedia for quite some time prior to this accusation. In the absence of outing, 1RR doesn't apply to userpages and thus was not violated - YRC is free to edit his userpage and usertalk page as many times as he likes. As a silent observer to a number of recent conflicts on Wikipedia involving Prioryman in some way, it is clear that his intention is to game the system and use any means available to him to remove his adversaries, and particularly YRC, from the project. While YRC has a definite track record of incivility, his motivation is typically for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Prioryman's conduct appears to be far more insidious and manipulative and with seemingly far more personal objectives in mind. Given a choice between the two of them, I'd be much more comfortable with YRC's kind of disruptive behaviour than Prioryman's. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Close?

At a 38-34 rough count, there seems to be 'no consensus' for site ban. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the outing claim has been pretty much demolished – a fact that even the blocking admin has conceded above – why is Youreallycan still indef blocked? AndreasKolbe JN466 01:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment by Youreallycan copied from his talk page at his request by JohnCD (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC):

Support for that - I am not currently even (requesting unblocking clearly there are divisive issues and fractions here - close as no consensus - banning is completely unnecessary and undue at this time - - Youreallycan 00:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the hatting

[Darkness Shines], You are involved in both the above and below discussion and should not be the one to hat anything. Furthermore, the above discussion should not be hatted, but the consensus determined by an uninvolved admin. And the consensus should be posted in the above discussion. Only if the above consensus turns out to be not a site ban should the below discussion be considered. Silverseren^C 03:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know who's done it last time, but I've unarchived an unsigned and clearly premature closure. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

AN and AN/I recent interaction history

[27] the "Fae Homophobia case" - containing almost all of the dramatis personae (including Prioryman) with the same goal to ban YRC.

[28] same aim, same people.

[29] same cast, same aim.

And of course in the same long-running series Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan which was on the same subject once again - and the problem absolutely appears to involve Prioryman, alas.

As to citing "lotsa blocks" one ought to look at them -- vide [30]. Not all blocks were "good" to be sure, and using "number of blocks" as a reason for a site ban is contrary to logic.

In short, repeated attempts by the same editors to achieve the same result which they failed at so many times it is now risible. AN/I should not be allowed to become a perpetual battleground where people seek to ban someone primarily on the grounds that they do not like him, and propose banning the person on a monthly basis - and it is unfortunately clear that such is the case at hand. Collect (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine analysis, this stinks to high heaven. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If we go by the number of civility-related blocks, Malleus would have been banned too. Clearly that is a metric lacking community consensus. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Although Malleus probably should be indef-blocked for the good of Wikipedia, there doesn't seem to be consensus for a ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Propose interaction ban

Between PM and YRC. Enough is enough, PM has been going at it for far to long. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment People have been arguing over the fine points of whether there's a true outing if the info was already known. WP:OUTING says "[o]uting should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true... attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block." (emphasis added). That attempted outing is grounds for a block says that the conduct is sanctionable even if there's not an actual disclosure. I'm not inclined to cut YRC any slack in this situation. 76Strat suggested handling this with blocks against both YRC and Prioryman, without banning YRC. If other people think Prioryman also deserves a sanction, that's a reasonable thing to bring up for discussion (PM's activity has been far from ideal). But I think we're way past the point where we want to repeat this cycle with YRC. We have tried everything with YRC and we should be convinced by now that his drama will never stop unless we make it stop. We have to part ways with him. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support if YRC is unblocked. I've had more than enough of YRC's nonsense. If an interaction ban stops gratuitous, unprovoked personal attacks against me of the kind which we've seen tonight, I'm all for it. Prioryman (talk) 01:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In both directions - with a lengthy block for any violation. And, yes, YRC should be unblocked, or at worst have it reduced to time-served on the grounds of incivility. It's not outing. But it's not the right way to behave, either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Bugs, per YRC's self-proposed restriction, incivility from him for 6 months after his 1 month wikibreak expired is supposed to result in a site ban.[31] His comment at that time was "I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post" -- I guess it's not so easy after all. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

PM was blocked not two weeks ago for outing, he cannot come here demanding another editor be banned when he got off, plus the obvious bad history between these two users. Unblock YRC, impose an IBAN, job done and this drama can be dropped. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It was another User, who brought this to AN/I. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And there's Darkness Shines' comment falling completely flat. Silverseren^C 02:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe YOU should now be blocked for incivility. Those who can see the alleged outing have had it proven to them that there was no outing, hence the edit-warring by the other editors was unjustified. Civility is a matter of opinion. A bidirectional interaction ban is the fair solution. There are 2 things I know about YRC: (1) He can be difficult - I'm sure I've had a run-in or two with him at some point in the past; and (2) he has been a relentless defender of articles about living persons. Guess which one of those 2 topics is more likely for wikipedia's legal team to care about. That's not to say he's indespensible. No one here is. But if there's a wall put between the two editors, maybe they can both be useful without getting in each others' way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that YRC's posts were not incivil? Did you read them before they got oversighted? You don't have to believe me. Jdforester said above: "that in so doing [YRC] reverted more than once and acted with incivility." I assume you trust James on this. Prioryman (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it. But James got the outing wrong, and hence the alleged 1RR violation wrong, so while I would not question his good faith, why should I trust his judgment on the alleged incivility? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You've misread James: "[YRC] posted material that needed to be supressed per the Oversight policy, and that in so doing they reverted more than once and acted with incivility." (See also, WP:USERBIO and WP:NPA).Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He needs to comment on whether anything was suppressed besides the alleged full name of the user Priory which has since been revealed multiple times via the links in this discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) That outing (by PM) was inadvertent and he didn't edit war over it, so you're making a false equivalence. PM also doesn't have anything like YRC's history (maybe he's working on it, sigh). I suppose it's not that big a deal by now if we unblock YRC (I still think we shouldn't), since based on his overall activity since returning it's a pretty sure bet that he'll be back here soon about something regardless. The only thing I want to know is how many more times are we going to accept repeating this. I now fear that the answer is "infinity". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If the interaction ban is enforced and adhered to, the bad-blood should stop. Any violation should result in blocks of accelerating length. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Your premise is that YRC is able to stay out of conflict with people other than Prioryman. That sunny picture makes me smile. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing that says only one interaction ban can be applied. Interaction bans do work, IF they are properly applied and adhered to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, a discussion on ANI determined that referring to a user's former username is not, in fact, outing. Prioryman (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• This was outing by YRC with hostile intent, and edit warring on one of the highest-profile pages on Wikipedia. It flies in the face of the intent of YRC's latest "deal" that was cut when numerous editors were calling for a lengthy block or site ban. All YRC has to do is edit decently and avoid trouble, like most of the rest of us. But now this, YRC's 20th block. Who creates this drama? YRC, and his little band of supporters who enable this bad movie. The choice is clear: ban now, or ban later after yet another time-sucking episode. Jusdafax 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• You may be underestimating Wikipedia's appetite for the third choice: repeat time-sucking episodes every week or so until hell freezes over. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban if YRC is not site banned. But I still support the site ban. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as it would be best for both editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support.- 2-way Interaction ban if YRC is not site banned. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support for the reasons above. Also, the remedies are not exclusive, so still support site ban for violation of editing restrictions/breach of trust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support would be in the best interests of both parties --Guerillero | My Talk 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support or better yet throw them to the wolves Arbcom. There was no outing just shit stirring by Prioryman. YRC is also someone who likes to be the centre of attention. They want dramah? Then give it them at a place likely to result in both being banned.--Peter cohen (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban if he's unblocked. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Absolute pathetic and transparent attempt to subvert the consensus of the above site ban vote by making it seem that consensus exists for a more lenient outcome. Bad faith proposal as evidenced by the proposers repeated hatting of the above discussion [[32]], [[33]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Considering a number of the above voters are saying only this option if the consensus in the site ban discussion is not for a site ban, it should be okay. Maybe we should have the people in this discussion who stated "if he's unblocked" have that be bolded too? It's an important clarification. Silverseren^C 03:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The outing charge is dubious but besides the point. Has Chris ever used his last name on wiki? Who knows? — probably not even him... But here's the thing: Rob got on the train for 1RR and strict civility enforcement, or else a site ban. That seems pretty straightforward. He has demonstrably edit warred — AGAIN. It is unfortunate that he didn't last long enough to bring charges against the now-gravedancing Prioryman for having earlier falsely brought charges attempting to have YRC indeffed for the trolling posts of a Joe Job on Wikipediocracy. Check the ANI logs for that disgusting spectacle. That's show biz... Carrite (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I think the claims of outing are dubious at best, YRC was being pushy about it without good reason. On the other hand, Prioryman has done a great deal to provoke YRC, and is clearly trying to settle some sort of grudge. Under those circumstances both need to stay away from each other and I would suggest this sort of sanction serves as a perfectly reasonable basis for unblocking YRC.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Give me one "perfectly reasonable" reason for unblocking someone who has been blocked for the twentieth time now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I previously provided a detailed analysis showing why that block log was a worthless gauge of present conduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

He was combative and uncivil nineteen (actually, more) times before, and he's being combative and uncivil now. Seems like the former blocks are a very good gauge of present conduct. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, since I am supporting the full ban on YRC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - What makes any of you think this is actually "on the table"? Did YRC violate his self-suggested restrictions or not? I could give a crap either way: but vacate those restrictions before we start talking about whether there was actual outing or not, splitting hairs. He broke the 1RR restriction that he said he wouldn't, and he told the community what should happen if he did. There's no vote necessary. Is this really that difficult? Should we amend his own terms after the fact? Yeesh... Doc talk 06:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: since a site ban for YRC is the right outcome here, he will not be interacting with anyone. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as YRC is going to be/should be banned anyway. Davewild (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Youreallycan should be banned for violating his own conditions from RFC/U. --В и к и T 09:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support only if the site ban somehow doesn't occur (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. AndreasKolbe JN466 12:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Interaction ban to be imposed in parallel to YRC's unblock. --AndreasKolbe JN466 01:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• oppose. This YRC violated his own terms. R. Baley (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Interaction bans are like a parent telling their kids to stop bickering. Parents enforce this by turning the car around, Wikipedia enforces this with blocks. If two users cannot get interact cordially with each other, they need voluntarily not interact. The only reason for the rest of the community to get involved is when the bickering gets so bad that blocks are needed. I think blocks to both parties were/are needed here, but an interaction ban is pointless. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Action should not be punitive. Just enough to get the job done. An interaction ban prevents further bickering. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support The claims of outing (in any straight forward and reasonable sense) have been shown to be not true. This is the most logical step forward to prevent future issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, interaction bans are always a bad idea. Two editors can voluntarily decide not to interact with each other if they don't get along, but to impose an inteaction ban which then has to be policed is just stupid. Count Iblis (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is an effort to avoid the real issue. Puts a very small bandaid on a very big wound. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose  Prioryman had every right to get oversighted removals in this case, and obviously the oversighters agreed.  Prioryman has done a reasonable job of preparing the issue for community discussion from the viewpoint of the community.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Prioryman above (@ 01:48) and YRC here. Independently of whatever other sanctions might be needed. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Already filed. :) --Rschen7754 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support a 2-way WP:IBAN. Both editors wish it, and the world will be better off for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support' mutual interaction ban between YRC and Prioryman because YRC has said on his talk page that he approves of this remedy. Based on the comments above, the two-way interaction ban should probably also include Nomoskedasticy. Cla68 (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sigh. As the closer of the user RFC on YRC it saddens me to see this. The reason user RFCs fail so often is that the subject either refuses to agree to any terms or ignores the entire process. In this case YRC not only participated but agreed to some rather severe sanctions, with the clear understanding that he would be banned if he breached them. I am very sorry to have to say that it appears he did indeed breach those terms and I think WP, and YRC, might benefit from some time apart from one another. Note that this is based on him violating the terms he agreed to and not the "outing" issue. This probably could have been avoided by YRC and Prioryman additionally agreeing to an interaction ban as they clearly despise each other. It seems a bit late for that now but if YRC is not site banned I would fully support a binding, permanent interaction ban, construed as broadly as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I think you mean indefinite not permanent. There is always the possibility, however unlikely it may seem, that Prioryman and Youreallycan will have crises of conscience that could cause them to reconcile and become the best of friends. You must always believe in the potential for real human kindness to win the day, though never try to get your hopes up too high about it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please don't presume to tell me what I mean. Some people just can't get along and are better off avoiding each other. These two obviously both lack the self control to do it themselves, the chances that they will both grow up and realize they are their own worst enemies is so slim as to be virtually non-existent, so they should just stay the hell away from one another permanently. However I retract my support for an immediate site ban on YRC in favor of kicking this up to arbcom. I don't believe ANI is effective at resolving complicated personality conflicts like this one and as there is a suppression action at the center of the current furor ArbCom and WP:AUSC are better equipped to deal with it. It is important to note that although YRC agreed to the restrictions Priorymans repeated characterization of them as "community imposed sanctions" is hogwash. User RFCs by definition cannot impose binding restrictions, they are geared towards voluntary agreements. YRC may have gone back on his word but that is not the only issue at play here and a thorough examination such as the one I would expect from ArbCom is more in the greater community's interest than just kicking out one user who, whatever errors they may have made, is not the whole problem here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support PM and YRC will never be able to calmly discuss anything. The Fae and Gibraltarpedia cases involve great bitterness on both sides, and neither can be resolved within this community. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Very strong support — Nothing good will come of allowing their feud to continue. And I agree with it going both ways, as I feel Prioryman's culpability in this scenario is no less than YRC's. And yes, I would support having this measure in conjunction with a full site ban, presuming one passes (which I'm going to abstain from commenting on; YRC is capable of many great things, but also a tremendous volume of needless drama). Kurtis (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support As per comment in above section. With YRC's agreement. (Left alone YRC has shown he can follow fair restrictions) Otherwise this should probably go to the Arb-case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Darkness Shines ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support full two-way interaction ban. This disruptive feud should be stopped. YRC has behaved badly but it seems clear that PM is out to get him. Ban to include addressing, discussing or mentioning each other, and particularly bringing complaints about each other to AN/I. JohnCD (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Boomerang action needed on Prioryman

It has now been clearly established above that Prioryman's surname has been present in numerous places on Wikipedia and that his real name has been known here for over six years and that he has seen and responded to mentions of his name in ways that show he was aware of them and that he did not immediately get them revdeled. He has used the bogus outing as a way to get his enemy YRC blocked and , he hopes, banned. Prioryman's behaviour therefore needs to be addressed in its own right.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Though it may be considered forum shopping, a request to start an ArbCom case is open here and as you earlier stated, this venue would likely have the full round of sanctions. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if Arbcom is going to bounce that back to the community. We need to show them what a big tangle we can ge into here and then bounce things back.--Peter cohen (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. If it happens, it happens, but it's good to make a honest attempt to resolve the issues first. --Rschen7754 04:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no inclination to choreograph a filibuster and I'm AGFing that Peter cohen wasn't suggesting any such. I understood it more as ridicule of a process that refuses to act until the community emerges fully incapable, forcing a full measure of folly when the half measure has shown the divide. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

His behaviour is really problematic currently. He is aggressive, especially over the Gibraltar stuff constantly battling anybody who offers a hint of criticism, driving people into submission.Secretlondon (talk) 11:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prioryman? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the meretricious outing claim deserves a short block, with a clear message that any further pork pies told with the apparent intent to get another editor blocked or banned will be greeted by a considerably longer one. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my belief that YRC's actions were at the very least against the spirit of WP:OUTING - misusing personal information to intentionally cause aggravation and distress. He falsely claimed that I had edited under my real name on Wikipedia, which I never did, and acted in a gratuitously incivil and insulting fashion towards me and other editors. I requested oversighting in the good faith belief that WP:OUTING had been violated, and I did not ask for YRC to be blocked for outing. I note that when I was myself accused, wrongly, of outing Volunteer Marek by using his former username, VM asked in good faith to have the edits in question oversighted under WP:OUTING and was not penalised when the community determined that no outing had occurred.[34] I've said that I am willing to withdraw my request for a site ban for the sake of resolving this amicably, and have already agreed to a mutual interaction ban. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A purely hypothetical question

If a user complains on ANI about a perceived outing, should their complaint be given less weight because they have very recently committed the very same offense? To illustrate, let's say hypothetical user Bolunteer Barek's changed their username because it related to their real life name. Brutal Shoe (another hypothetical user) has previously been warned about using Bolunteer Barek's former username and agreed not to do so. When Brutal Shoe repeated the offence, they were blocked but quickly unblocked when they falsely claimed that they were unaware of Bolunteer Barek's feelings about the former username. With that history, if Brutal Shoe complains that Bou Beally Ban (another hypothetical user) has outed them by referring to their real name, should we take into account Brutal Shoe's own recent behaviour in this regard? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In the realm of hypothetical exploration, see Two wrongs make a right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No less weight should be given. To use an overblown comparison which should nonetheless make my view clear: If I am a murderer and I report a murder, the second murder should be handled as an independent crime. The second murderer does not get off lightly because the person who brought the second murder to the attention of the authorities has previously committed crimes. Same logic applies for lesser misdeeds. The difference in seriousness and scope does not render the logic less meaningful. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be more of a case of one person calling for the death penalty while getting away with murder themselves... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you interaction banned from Prioryman? If so, starting threads complaining about him is probably a violation of said ban, and you really ought to let someone else pursue this. But, anyway, an RFC/U would be the next step for anyone who's concerned about Prioryman's actions. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

My question is purely hypothetical. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I just blocked DC for two weeks for this transparent attempt to skirt the limits of the interaction ban. T. Canens (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. Pure gaming of the ban. R. Baley (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the DC's last comment, especially, TCanens is correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Great call on the block, T. Canens. YRC's behavior at Jimbo's page yesterday seems to me to be even more designed to skirt limits, and given how many times we have had to debate correctional measures with the same crew of his supporters, of which DC has been an example, I hope DC's block will serve notice that the community has taken all it will tolerate. Jusdafax 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Fully supportive of this. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I need someone to make a list, or a table, that has the different sides listed. I'm always confusing DC with DS (are they on the same side?), I didn't know that Prioryman was ChrisO, I noticed only a few days ago that Jayen is Andreas Kolbe. Maybe Cirt is in here as well, with a new user name. I guess everyone knows that YRC was Off2rioRob, or however that was capitalized. And what all were they fighting over? Scientology, Gibraltar, Tom Cruise--what else? Yes, we need a table, with room to check them off once they're indeffed, and with colored lines to indicate who is on an interaction ban with whom etc. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we have some kind of scoring system? Silver smiley face for blocking one, gold smiley face when you ban one, and if you block or ban five you get to be class monitor for a day? Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

We'll call it "WTF BINGO!" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be exclusionary and present a high barrier towards understanding it; Wikipedians can't properly get a concept unless it has at least 3 TLAs. So, I'd advocate calling it OMGWTFBBQBINGO, or preferrable WP:OMGWTFBBQBINGO - we should try to organise this on the DL, though, because if the CO finds out we'll be on KP. Ironholds (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of presenter, obvious point is still obvious. Ban them both or unblock them both (so they can feud all over the place and what not). If they do the same things (and they seem to), then treat them the same. --Nouniquenames 16:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The point though, interaction ban or not, is valid. Prioryman was recently indef blocked because of the very thing he is accusing YRC of doing. It was actually a bit worse in his case because he also linked to off-wiki sites to "support" that outing. When I complained he escalated the offense in a manner similar to YRC by redoing it again on their talk page. Once he was blocked he played the 'I wasn't aware that this was a problem card' and got unbocked.

The thing is, I had completely forgotten (I honestly don't keep track of these grudge things) that he (Prioryman) had ALREADY done this before, and I had to ask him before (back in March) not to do it [35]. So I don't know about YRS or DC here, but there's a tremendous amount of bad faith on the part of Pioryman here. As Peter Cohen points out above, a hefty boomerang is also in order. Volunteer Marek  16:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek makes an excellent point. I unblocked Prioryman when he was accused of outing VM, and this situation looks very, very similar to me. It is not as cut and dry as some are making it. This is why I suggest closing the ANI to allow ArbCom to review the case in a slower, more deliberate way. This allows them to review the actions of all parties, view the actual diffs that have oversighted, and come up with a more equitable solution. I have no idea (or opinion) what the final conclusion should be, but the process should be shifted to ArbCom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Prioryman actually promised VM he would not call him by his name again at the time. Yet a few months later, he said "I honestly didn't realise that Volunteer Marek didn't want me to refer to him by his old account name on Wikipedia". I believe he lied to you, just as he lied to arbcom about his intention to vanish two years ago. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary of recent Prioryman-Youreallycan dispute

Just so we all get caught up to speed on what is going on here I think it is important to know the recent history between these two editors. During the ArbCom case regarding User:Fæ Prioryman was a prolific contributor to the discussion in Fæ's defense, making 206 total edits to the related case pages (see here: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]). During a discussion of the results of the case on Jimbo's talk page where Prioryman was continuing his defense of Fæ, Youreallycan asked him to declare a conflict of interest with regards to Fæ due to financial ties with Wikimedia UK. Prioryman denied any conflict of interest and further responded with "why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness?" About a half hour later he began building an RfC/U against YRC.

During that RfC/U Nobody Ent provided a statement that Prioryman's opening comment in the RfC/U about eventually going to arbitration suggested the RfC/U was not being filed in good faith, but as an attempt to "ticket-punch" on his way to an ArbCom case against YRC. It was further alleged by Collect and by Jayen (Andreas Kolbe) that Prioryman was attempting to game WP:CANVASS by nearly exclusively mentioning the side of the dispute against YRC and making notifications regarding those mentions, without mentioning nearly any of the disputants on YRC's side i.e. notifying admins who blocked YRC and not those who unblocked him. A week into the RfC/U, and while it was still ongoing, Prioryman filed an arbitration request regarding YRC. While that request and the RfC/U were outstanding, Prioryman made a proposal for a cocktail of restrictions. YRC's "self-proposed" restrictions provided above just had minor alterations to the duration of said restrictions. Under the threat of being railroaded by ArbCom, YRC was essentially forced to make that move.

What we come up to now is the comment made by YRC in this discussion on Jimbo's page that prompted this incident. The mention of Prioryman's last name; something that is well-known, noted repeatedly in many places on-wiki (some discussions are littered with mentions of his last name from both supporters and opponents), and can be discovered in the most simplistic of Google searches; is the only thing that could even remotely be described as uncivil in said comment as it was essentially just supportive comments about Jayen/Kolbe in response to Prioryman's serious accusations against Jayen. Prioryman pursued YRC on this frivolous point and is now trying to get him site-banned on top of an indefinite block claiming this as a violation of those "self-imposed" restrictions. In short, YRC was a cornered tiger and Prioryman is calling for YRC to be put down because he got scratched.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating, but ... What did YRC mean when he said "@Prioryman you edited under your real name"? Now, some of the edits on Jimbo's talk page have been suppressed, so I can't see everything, but YRC actually mentioned Prioryman's real name, which was removed (but not suppressed - probably an oversight, heh), but putting aside another possible example of YRC's outing Prioryman, I don't get what YRC is referring to.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Chris" is Prioryman's first name and "O" is the first initial of his last name so he did edit under his real name. Essentially, Prioryman is complaining that YRC said what the "O" stands for in "ChrisO", his previous account on Wikipedia that he freely acknowledges was his previous account. However, as noted above, his last name has been confirmed many times on-wiki by many people, including Prioryman himself, and it is incredibly easy for anyone to find out as he has made many public statements off-wiki under the moniker "ChrisO" regarding a subject on which he has edited heavily where his last name is noted right alongside that shortened version.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• For those who do not wish to read the ever so long first section a couple of articles to put the complainant's good nature into perspective. Gibraltarpedia, Keeping track. Yes I have read Wikipedia:Sarcasm and this is such commentary, cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• As there have been mentions of Gibraltarpedia, editors may want to note that there is currently a related RfC, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Gibraltar_hooks_RfC. AndreasKolbe JN466 20:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Note that the situation with Prioryman is being broadcast on Wikipediocracy, whose regulars dutifully show up at these discussions - including, I believe, the people making "neutral" summaries of what one another are doing. If you want to talk about "canvassing", that I believe would be your first proper stop. But the policy is apparently dead in the water, utterly without relevance at least where they are concerned. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Has YRC flouted his BLP editing restriction?

The restriction:

• Three month BLP topic ban - note, conditions as per FormerIP's comments below - diff

The diff is important; it defines the nature of the narrowly-construed restriction:

1. For mainspace: no content that falls under BLP policy to be added or removed in any article. I would exclude non-controversial attributions (e.g. "according to Professor Plum").
2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people. (My bolding)

Above, Prioryman says, "In the last few days [YRC] has edited Talk:Silvio Berlusconi and Talk:Florence Devouard." But on Berlusconi, YRC was discussing category policy,[41] and on Devourd he simply did a bit of housekeeping: reformatted a long comment in French, added the {{unsigned}} template, translated it into English, and archived it.[42] All clearly within his agreed restrictions. Prioryman knows this.

Above, Nomoskedasitcity refers to YRC's violation of an agreement to refrain from participating in BLP discussions by posting at BLPN. No such agreement exists. At BLPN YRC has tidied the page [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54] commented on the notability of an article, [55] recommended article deletion, [56][57] discussed vandalism [58] discussed COI [59] discussed WP:NOTAFORUM, [60] and questioned the accuracy of a categorisation; [61][62] – all of which is allowed by his RfC undertaking.

One edit concerns me. In this edit an IP added "He was a drug dealer" to a university chancellor's biography. An hour later, an IP reported it to BLPN, and YRC immediately reverted it. According to 1. above, he should not have reverted that edit. According to 2. above, he should not have engaged in discussion about it. But he reverted it immediatelyand mentioned what he'd done on BLPN.

Are we really going to ban an editor for that? Don't do it again, YRC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by the above that he didn't substantially breach the BLP restriction other than possibly with the Atleo edit. But I proposed this ban on the basis of incivility and edit-warring, which are at the heart of his long-running conduct problems (18 blocks for violations in those areas to date, not including the latest one), not BLP restriction violations. Prioryman (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit-warring in that instance occurred in user space, and the problematical edit warring we were addressing with his restrictions was occurring in article space. I'm not convinced there's a problem with edit warring in user space. Were there unjustified instances of that before his last block? Most people revert you when you delete their user talk page comments. People often take umbrage when you do that. (I've done a bit.) YRC's revert-warring is a common response to that situation.

May I say that I think it was rude of YRC to address you by your real surname, though, and I'm thinking now that it's been rude of me to address you by your first name. I apologise for that. Do I need the community's permission to redact those? I don't think anyone's commented on them yet.

I'd like to work on a project where that level of rudeness is not tolerated. We tolerate rudeness here in a way that no civilised community does. This society at en.Wikipedia is being undermined by boorish behaviour. And don't get me started on the quality of debate here. We have a couple of huge developmental steps to take yet: social sensitivity - concern for the feelings of our fellows, our subjects and our readers, and reason - as embodied in respect for and exercise of the highest quality rhetoric.

But I digress. I can't support us banishing YRC for this relatively common level of boorish behaviour. If there is seriously a culture change occurring here, if the (presumed) majority here who can't abide rude, insulting behaviour is actually going to really start insisting on respectful treatment of others, then fine. See you later, YRC. Is that culture shift occurring? Will the next person subjected to unambiguous rudeness be able to appeal to the community to correct the bully's behaviour? I don't know the answer to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And again, you insist that the 1RR restriction doesn't apply. Show me where that was mentioned in the RFC. And why are you defending someone who has been blocked not one, not two, not three but 20 times. Hot Stop (Edits) 13:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You'll find that TDA did an analysis on the blocks during the RFC/ArbCom case and showed pretty conclusively that the majority of those 20 blocks were spurious and unwarranted. I made my comment on this bullshit at ArbCom go read it. This is more of the same. Now either YOU are being mislead or you're one of those on the bank of the ditch. Which is it? John lilburne (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of the 1RR was always that it was a universal one. When I proposed what eventually became the final set of restrictions there was no suggestion from anyone that it should only apply to one particular content space. It would have been pointless if it had. It wasn't about giving him permission to edit war in certain places. The point of the restriction was to completely stop YRC from engaging in any edit-warring anywhere. Prioryman (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the restriction was not to allow you, or anyone else, to edit his user talk comments. Is that what you think, that you can just go to his talk page and alter his comments without his permission and edit war to keep your version in, and cry "ban him! ban him!" to the community? That's not the way I see it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be how Prioryman saw it. Let's note that Prioryman made a meretricious claim of outing against another editor, and almost succeeded in having them banned for life on the strength of it. Even now the honest editor is blocked, and he is not: even though his behaviour seems considerably more calculating and insidious. AndreasKolbe JN466 02:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Did I read an accusation somewhere that Prioryman was aware VM didn't want to be linked to his previous user name when he did just that? Was that accusation substantiated? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. told not to do it again, promised not to do it again, claimed "I honestly didn't realise that Volunteer Marek didn't want me to refer to him by his old account name on Wikipedia". AndreasKolbe JN466 02:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You know better than that. If someone is edit warring on their own talk page it is because someone, who has no right there is there prodding and provoking. John lilburne (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom case request

Was filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So? The community is allowed to decide something separate from Arbcom. In fact, the community is allowed to override Arbcom, if need be. So the existence of the fact that a case was started is meaningless if a site ban is decided in this discussion. Silverseren^C 20:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

So it was a courtesy notice. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I had thought you were the one who started the Arbcom case when I made that comment. Silverseren^C 21:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it looks like they're going to decline for the exact fact that the community is dealing with it right now. Really, Rschen7754 (if you read this), you should have waited until after the discussion above was completed. Doing it in the middle of the ongoing discussion is just going to make things worse. Silverseren^C 20:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Since there is an arbcom case, Would it be appropriate to unblock on the proviso that he can only edit his talk page and the Arbcom case? If not, he has posted a comment on his talk page with the request that it be added to the arbcom case. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted that statement to the Arbcom page. Just to clarify -- it's not a case (yet), it's a request for a case. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

oh, right. thanks, I had missed a step. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It would only be appropriate to unblock if the case was accepted. I presume it would have to come with the proviso that he would only be allowed to edit the case page - is that the usual way it's done? Prioryman (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking as AC Clerk, there are 2 possibilities: (1) He's unblocked pursuant to only editing his userspace and the case pages, or (2) he remains blocked but can edit his own talk page and have comments (and such) cross-posted. Generally (1) is the way to go, but I have seen a few cases where (2) ended up happening. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think it's more prudent to stick with (2) for now. YRC appears to have trouble controlling his temper in tense situations sometimes. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• That generally will fall to the ArbCom to decide, however. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I stand behind my decision, as privacy issues are involved, and as the discussion was spiraling out of control last night. --Rschen7754 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. ANI is ill-equipped to handle complicated disputes with a long history, which is what we have here despite some users attempting to focus solely on a few edits. ArbCom is generally better at resolving such things in a more comprehensive manner, by which I mean not just kicking out one user who is only part of a larger problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There's no consensus here. The next admin who comes along and agrees with this assessment should close the thread. It's become just another battleground for the factions to argue. While a few uninvolved voices are here, they are mostly drowned out. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've stated elsewhere, I agree that there is no consensus and this should be handled by the existing ArbCom case request, so all the evidence can be reviewed. I'm involved, but would hope an uninvolved party can close as such, soon. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears to me that there may be consensus on the mutual interaction ban. I would suggest an admin impose the mutual interaction ban and unblock YRC once both YRC and Prioryman agree to it. I think the closing admin should also make a decision on whether one or two other editors also tried to railroad YRC. It appears to me that Nomoskedascity may be culpable in that. The easy solution is just to include him/her in the mutual interaction ban with YRC. Then, an ArbCom case wouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept an interaction/desire an interaction ban from these two users User:Prioryman and User:Nomoskedasticity, I have been requesting such for quite some time - over a year/perhaps two years when I check the diffs in the case of User:Nomoskedasticity - Youreallycan 23:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC) (User talk:Youreallycan. Mephistophelian (contact) 23:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)).

It is clear from the above that Nomoskedasticity and Prioryman falsely accused YRC of breaching his BLP editing restriction and of outing. YRC did restore his comments on user talk when they had been deleted on spurious grounds - just as Prioryman had a week earlier.[63] And so he should. His editing restrictions were not open season on his user talk. The final accusation, that he was uncivil: well, was it uncivil to address Prioryman by his real name? If it was, was it the kind of incivility that would attract a sanction, given that Prioryman had earlier pointed to his real name, and when Tony Sidaway addressed Prioryman using his real name, it didn't even squeeze a peep out of Prioryman?

This case is clear. There was no outing. There was no breach of BLP editing restrictions. If there was incivility it was very mild and never the kind of thing we sanction. And the "edit warring" was YRC defending his user talk record against unjustified removal by others, something most of us would do under the circumstances, and something Prioryman did a week earlier.

Prioryman and Nomoskedasticity have wasted a great deal of others' valuable time here bringing unfounded serious charges - with very serious penalties attached - to this board, and compounding it with untruths. And they will continue. This thread should be closed now, with a widely-construed interaction ban between YRC and Nomo, and YRC and Prioryman – something Prioryman and YRC have already agreed to. If Nomo would sign up to that, I think we could all go back to work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Added 04:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been watching this discussion very closely. Some editors with clue have suggested that no consensus has emerged. I'll assume that's a correct assessment and fashion my regards to that assumption. So yes, the discussion should close as no-consensus and Arbcom can accept the case and fashion a remedy. Also I think YRC should post a thoughtful request to be unblocked and I hope it would be fairly evaluated. I'd be interested to know Ironholds thoughts regarding such a prospect. Nevertheless, protect the wiki above all else, and feel free to disregard me altogether. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, the blocking admin, has now unblocked YRC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that and find it significantly therapeutic. I had just finished posting a comment to a user telling him that I was wrong about thoughts I held about them. I will say, and must, I've underestimated Ironholds too. But I like being wrong when being right is so wrong. Best regards to all who endure the StratSpeak. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've told YRC that I'm willing to withdraw my request for a site ban and I've already stated my preference for an interaction ban. There is already widespread support for that in the community. No IBAN has been proposed yet for Nomo-YRC but I suggest that they should discuss that separately, as it's not something that has come up in the discussion yet. I've asked Dennis Brown (YRC's former mentor) to enact the IBAN between myself and YRC. Once that's done, and now that YRC is unblocked, I would consider the matter resolved. Prioryman (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Way u die and User:Titanic225

Don't have much time to explain everything here, but these accounts seem to be related (or someone's impersonating the latter, but this slightly puzzles me). Titanic225 has been given multiple notes from other editors for BITEy warnings and such and, though there have been some good reports/warnings and such, it would seem that there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue here..any thoughts? If this is nothing, I'll gladly take a WP:TROUT then... – Connormah (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• As admins can see from Titanic's talkpage, I gave him the last substantive warning for giving other users some rather abusive warning messages (many of them without cause). He has has numerous warnings and has ignored each one, regardless of the lengths others have gone to, to be civil. Though he has has a couple of good edits here and there, the majority have been fairly bad faith as far as I am concerned and the unwillingness to discuss his abusive warnings (especially his bitey ones) suggests, on balance, he is not here to build WP. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • And another inappropriate warning.... – Connormah (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
    • It would seem that the user is not communicative - perhaps a block is in order per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:COMPETENCE? – Connormah (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Move to close - Turns out the users in question were the same person all along. All linked user names were blocked for socking before anyone had a chance to get to the issues above. So this can probably now be closed. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Rajkris

Please take a loot at the edits here [64] pertaining to the Kshatriya article. User:Rajkris has been repeatedly deleting referenced material. Please also take a look at my user page [65] -- User:Rajkris alleged a lie, and still went on to yet again delete referenced material. Am reporting him for vandalism. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

I have removed based on the fact that these are details and should be written in the dedicated (Vellalar) page and not kshatriya. And on the other side, I have more recent refs which tell the contrary.Rajkris (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

User Rajkris kept removing referenced content from the Kshatriya page without a valid reason, and now comes up with his idea that it should be mentioned in the Vellalar page. Can he please explain why he has been deleting referenced material from the Kshatriya page so far? --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

From the beginning I am telling that there is no need to write so much lines in a Kshatriya article. What I have written is fairly enough, details can be we written in the vellalar (which is already done). On the other hand, Mayasutra is using old refs whereas I have more recent ones which tell the exact contrary.Rajkris (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this a discussion that should take place on the talkpage of the article in order to obtain new consensus for the changes over a period of days? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please go thru the short paragraph he is repeatedly deleting. It is not a point of consensus. Basically, the content goes against what he claims (goes against the nobility claims for his caste). Hence, the repeated deletion from his end. This is merely vandalism (borne from certain casteist ideas). Thanks--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

And btw, the so-called 'old references' pertain to the fact that his caste group was given the Shudra position in the British Government colonial period of India. Which he does not want to be mentioned. He wants only content claiming Kshatriya position for his caste.Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

concensus must be reached through discussion, Mayasutra tried to add contents (using olf refs) without any discussion. I am just telling details must be written in the dedicated page with proper recent refs. Regarding the nobility of the Vellalar caste, there are number of recent books writtren by proper scholars which assert this: [66]. Therefore his old refs cannot be used to counter more recent ones.Rajkris (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no pb about Shudra status during British colonial period. Proof of that, I will add it right now in the kshatriya article. But for me colonial articles are not good sources. Other users such as Sitush, Mathewvanitas share my position on this.Rajkris (talk) 10:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No its not a matter on consensus. You repeatedly deleted content which was against the grain of your Kshatriya claims. Glad to see you want to add Shudra status of your caste in the Kshatriya article right now. Good. Why were you deleting it so far then? There were elaborate legal dramas fought by Vellalars for Kshatriya position in the colonial period. Am not sure on what basis can you claim colonial sources are not good ones. Anyways, i will be doing the Vellalar article. And all vandalism will be reported here. Just letting you know in advance. And btw, you have still not responded why are you repeatedly deleting this paragraph (and i request the admin to check against your allegations of old references and what sort of references you have used):

However, The Journal of Kerala Studies states "etymological interpretations to connect Vellalar with Velir appear unconvincing". It is suggested the word Vellalar comes from the root Vellam for flood, which gave rise to various rights of land; and it is because of the acquisition of land rights that the Vellalar got their name. The Vellalars were supposedly Shudra agriculturists who arrived from northern Canara and unconnected to the Velir chieftains. The Vellalars, though land-controlling and tillers of soil with brahmanic ideas of purity, did not follow Kshatriya ritual practices as codified in the dharmashastras, and were officially classified as Sat-Sudra in the 1901 census; with the Government of Madras recognising the 4-fold varna division did not describe the South Indian, or Dravidian, society adequately. It was noted that families regarded as pure Vellalar caste (Saiva Vellalars) were reluctant to question the bona fides of those pretending to be Vellalar, since the line between them was noted to be very thin indeed; with the former occasionally drawing partners for marriage from the ranks of the latter.

--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

Such details about etymology is not needed in kshatriya page. Few lines are just enough. For details there is Vellalar page. That's it.Rajkris (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To the admin, Am fine with the citations and the presentation of Rajkris on the Kshatriya page now. Thanks.--= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Mayasutra

(Rajkris, this is also my response to your comments on my talk page) Bwilkins is correct--you were WP:BOLD and tried to remove content which you felt better belongs in another article. That's fine, and something we encourage. But then, someone objected and reverted your. That means you now need to go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. If the two of you (or you two plus other editors who, heaven help them, watch Kshatriya) can't come to an agreement, we have a whole variety of dispute resolution procedures which you can follow. What you can't do is edit war to enforce your preferred version. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat in AfD discussion

Just a heads-up: User:Horrorian posted a legal threat in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yotta Kasai, [67]. The user is one of several probable socks investigated in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Film1024 and so they will probably be blocked as a sock in any case. (The confusion between active/passive voice is not an uncommon problem for English learners - they are almost certainly saying that the company would take legal action, even though it looks as if they are saying that the company would be the target of the action.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it's an action against Wikipedia - and it's more of a suggestion towards the film company; the AFD is closed, let SPI do its magic (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a legal threat. He's not threatening to sue anyone. It is an opinion, it may be right or wrong, but that's it.--Scott Mac 13:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Opinions of various people that have been written here is libel. It will probably be a problem if the production company was sued for defamation," looks very close to a legal threat. However, the way it's worded could arguably be expressing concern rather than intimidation, with a poor choice of words due to limited English knowledge. Regardless, I see that he's been blocked as a sock, so the legal-threat question fades into the background. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As someone with a lot of experience with Japanese English, I can agree with Bonadea that this is a threat, though a poorly worded one. Since the user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, the issue is probably moot, but given that the page in question, Yotta Kasai, has been created a total of four times, I would not be surprised to see this user return in another form. Michitaro (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Racist remark relating to Pakistan in edit summary

Disruptive editing and personal attacks by User:Euroflux

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

---

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

User:Euroflux started editing last July. Unfortunately, the editing style of this user is very confrontational and uncompromising. Advice or, even worse, disagreement with his edits, are met with ridicule, angry challenges to other editors' "authority", personal attacks, or xenophobic diatribes and assumptions of bad faith. Discussions (for instance at "Categories for discussion" get large walls of (often irrelevant) text dropped onto them. Euroflux seems unable to admit to even the slightest mistake. An example for this was his insistence that no notable foreigner ever graduated from one of the "grand" French engineering schools. When confronted with examples, he argued that 1/ a Belgian engineer with a French name was Walloon (despite being born and having gone to school in Flemish cities) actually was French (because apparently all Walloons desire to be French), 2/ that an engineer from Morocco actually also was French because Morocco used to be a French colony, and 3/ proposed a bio of a clearly-notable Lebanese engineer for deletion. In addition, Euroflux has on more than one occasion engaged in edit warring over the correct titles of articles and emptied several categories out of process, despite having been informed on multiple occasions of the proper procedures to follow to propose a category for renaming or deletion. I have tried to reason with this editor for weeks now, to no avail. There are many examples of this type of behavior in Euroflux's edit history and I only give a few examples below. Note also that Euroflux is in the habit of removing any critical comments from his userpage. It should also be noted that Euroflux has been warned on multiple occasions by multiple users that this kind of behavior is unacceptable.

Examples of personal attacks: [68] [69] [70]. An example of disruptive participation in a CfD, interspersed with personal attacks on other editors and denigrating remarks about people of other nationalities (note the remark about the bragging Dutch students :-): [71] [72] (the latter including a warning). An example of an inappropriate discussion on a BLP talk page: [73].

I suggest that at least a short block would be appropriate, in order to drive home the point that WP is a collaborative project and that this behavior is not tolerated here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Euroflux could stand to be a bit more polite, but I'm not seeing anything that rises to the level of a personal attack in the diffs provided above. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 16:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree I can't really see any personal attacks either, but this one does look to be somewhat in the competence department, since it obviously doesn't matter if you are an admin or not, or how many edits you have for someone to be right, and in that post Euroflux seems to focus solely on the percieved "social status" of the other editor. That is not the way to discuss content disputes. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, how about these: [74] [75] And the remark "I guess that Guillaume2303 was admitted for a limited period of time in a French school with lower middle ranking... His ego might be flattered that he might be considered an "alumnus" of a "Grande école" even if he was nothing more than a "postgraduate"; but this school is obviously not a top one..." in this discussion? And as I said, this is only a selection and the problem is not just personal attacks, but also edit-warring, pointy deletion nominations, etc. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Euroflux has shown a complete inability to work with others and the problems are much deeper than "he could stand to be a bit more polite". Let's start with the discussion highlighted by Guillaume: it went something like this (and I'm not making this up).

Euroflux: "all notable graduates from French engineering schools are French"

Other editors: "That's not true. There's at least one Moroccan example (Driss Ben-Brahim) and one Iranian example (Mehdi Bazargan).

Euroflux: "Moroccans are sort of French and anyways that guy is not notable" (he then proceeds to nominate that article for deletion despite the obvious third-party coverage listed in the article. The article was speedy kept)

Euroflux: "As for Mehdi Bazargan, he probably never attended that engineering school and it's a legend propagated by Iranian ayatollahs." (he then proceeds to Stalinist-style edit the article to reflect that vision, despite numerous references mentioning his degree at Centrale)

Others: "Here's a Belgian example: Alfred Belpaire"

Euroflux: "He's not Belgian because Belgium did not exist at the time"

Others: "Fair enough. But that would still make him Dutch and not French"

Euroflux: "No he's Walloon and Walloons are French"

Others: "No they're not"

Euroflux: "But they all wish they were French".

This is pathological behavior but it would be only a mild annoyance or even slightly amusing if it was a one-time thing. Unfortunately, it's a pattern. In fact, Euroflux was banned on fr.wiki for his "manifest inability to work collaboratively"' [76] and for sockpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. Scottywong might be right in saying that the diffs above are not personal attacks but they are the sort of harassment that drives people off the project. He's written many rants on other editors' talk pages whose core message is "who the hell do you think you are, you moron?" although these exact words do not appear in it. I don't think that makes them any more acceptable. The constant belittling of others (here's another victim [77]) is toxic and Euroflux has been completely unapologetic and has shown no sign of efforts to change his approach to conflict resolution. He still believes in the power of caps lock and exclamation points which obviously is not a criminal offense but it does reveal a certain state of mind. What worries me most is his penchant for using personal information against other editors. For instance I find this completely unacceptable not only because it's an obvious personal attack but because it's trying to bring one editor's personal life into a debate that's about merging categories. This sort of bullying needs to be nipped in the bud because it's the highway to harassment, off-wiki harassment and outing. If you believe I'm exaggerating, just consider what happened on fr.wiki. Pichpich (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've also had encounters with User:Euroflux which show similar issues. And I would agree with Guillaume2302 that the following cross the line into personal attacks: "Aren't you overstimating (sic) your own intellectual and linguistic capacities"; and an accusation against a Wikimedia Board member, Florence Devouard, of practicing meatpuppetry on her article page in order to get a job, "On this French talk page, Anthere gives orders to her "little brothers" and tells them exactly what to add, what to correct, in order for her to get a job!" and "She explicitly tells her friends what they should add on her own biography, in order for her to get a job" and "Anthere even gives some technical tricks (subpage written by somebody else, in order not to be traced !)". Euroflux has been placing such accusations at various article and talk pages[78] — these are violations of WP:BLP that should be revdeleted and the user warned. First Light (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Euroflux is not here to improve the encyclopedia, that much is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in a weird way I think that's unfair. I'm sure he is here to improve the encyclopedia but he can't function in an environment where others disagree with him. When you're driving down the wrong side of the highway, you should notice pretty quickly because of all those cars coming straight at you. I'm afraid Euroflux' reaction would be: "boy I can't believe how many people are driving down the wrong side of the highway today". I think that's a dangerous driver no matter how good his first intention is. Pichpich (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Euroflux intentions are to improve WP. Unfortunately, he insists on doing things his way and that is the only correct way. For example his use of categories to rank articles, by using numerical sortkeys (01, 02, etc), according to some scheme that may be clear to him and even be based upon some published ranking, but remains opaque to others and, by screwing up the alphabetical listings in a category, defeats the purpose of cats (i.e., helping users in navigation). Euroflux has been told this multiple times, but only hears what he wants to hear and keeps on doing this, creating a huge mess that at some point somebody will have to clean up. The net effect is that, in the end, Euroflux is indeed not here to improve the encyclopedia, but to change the encyclopedia according to his views, to the detriment of the project. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Per this revert, Euroflux has obviously decided that this is not an issue they need to deal with. Blackmane (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have just reviewed Euroflux' contributions and I have come to the conclusion that he has shown an incredible battleground mentality and a general unwillingness to work in a collegial fashion; therefore, I have just indeffed him. He can be unblocked if he can prove that he's willing to play nice with others, but until then I believe that Wikipedia's better off with him blocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Perplexing behaviour on archival of Talk page

Yesterday, user HammerFilmFan decided to partially revert the archival of the Talk:Michael Servetus page that I had implemented last August and which had been confirmed after a favourable resolution on a COI request. Apparently, HammerFilmFan considers that conversations that are a couple of months old (although he has restored sections until last June, i.e. more than 4 months) must still considered "active" even after their ending. When I wrote in his Talk page that, according my knowledge of the archival policy, requirements for archival are that a page either exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections, but not about how many months must have passed after the last entry, this user has simply ignored and deleted my entry, which I guess it is OK if he wants to in his own page, but not so much when he is not providing no further explanations about his decision. My impression is that this user does not seem to be open to dialogue, and that he is simply imposing his criteria about restoring the archived page. I would like to know whether this "a couple of months old must remain active" is really a standard Wikipedia policy on Talk pages, if user HammerFilmFan has the authority to decide whether or not the Talk page should not be archived, either totally or partially, and with no dialogue with involved parties, and whether this criteria about when to archive is indeed in effect according to Wikipedia policies, particularly in this context in which archival had already been considered correct after a dispute resolution. Thank you. --Jdemarcos (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored the archived content and explained to HammerFilmFan they do have options (not including the blanking of talk page comments without explanation). Tiderolls 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you set up automatic archiving, for example using MizaBot. That means it happens routinely, everyone can see (discuss, change, ...) the criteria and any conversations which need to be retained longer can be held back with {{dnau}}. --Mirokado (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Automatic archiving is the best option. Thank you both. --Jdemarcos (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Guinsberg and WP:BLP

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

---

I noticed today that Guinsberg (talk · contribs) had described a living person as a "vile skank". I removed the comment as a violation of WP:BLP, and put a uw-biog2 caution on his Talk: page. His response was to revert back in the "vile skank" attack, and remove the note from his Talk: page with a personal attack on me in the edit summary. I planned to issue a final warning before blocking him, but thought I'd bring the issue here first for broader input before doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Another admin has blocked Guinsberg for 72 hours for BLP violations. --Jethro B 22:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User:Bwilkins has blocked Guinsberg, so I don't need to. I'll remove the BLP violation again, and we should be done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Vexorg and WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE

User:Vexorg has quite a lengthy block history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles.

Most recently, Vexorg posted a rant that clearly falls under WP:SOAP, where Vexorg promotes various conspiracy theories. Vexorg also attacks Wikipedia as a propaganda site that uses the "Zionist Controlled mainstream media." Vexorg declares that "Wikipedia doesn't work on truth."

I hatted this rant that invoked numerous conspiracy theories, explaining WP:SOAP and Wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracy theories. WP:HATTING writes that "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors or administrators in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring," and I am uninvolved editor who did not comment in that section/talk page.

Vexorg reverted this, despite being an involved editor, asking according to who it's a conspiracy theory. I explained again Wikipedia isn't the place for this, and reverted. Vexorg then informed me that it's not up to me, an uninvolved editor, to hat discussions, and reverted. I stopped at this, rather than edit war.

I think that Vexorg's behavior should be looked into.

--Jethro B 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Vexorg's comment contains a serious BLP violation relating to Rothchild which should be removed. Ankh.Morpork 23:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP?? No it doesn't. I didn't refer to any living Rothschilds. Don't be so ridiculous. Vexorg (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A similar violation of WP:SOAP to promote WP:FRINGE conspiracies can be found here. --Jethro B 00:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Another example, where the editor agrees to a WP:SOAP rant about how "so much of the financial, political, medical, education, media and entertainment seems to be predominated by such a small group of people with Israeli / Jewish connections." --Jethro B 00:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? I have nothing against Jews, but I do recognise the Rothschild-Masonic-Zionist power in the Western World and like it or not they do exert considerable power over Western governments/Media/Money. YOu might wish to note that many Jews are also against Rothschild-Masonic-Zionism, but that's an issue which isn't something to be discussed here. Vexorg (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

VOXORGS's response: to Jethro B

A general note about this ANI report: How childish!! It's like being back at school. An editor, 'Jethro B' in this case, has taken umbridge about my reversion of his sanctimonious edit claimng authority to close down a discussion on a talk page, and becuase of that he/she has decided to research my edit history.

"Wikipedia isn't the place for conspiracy theories." This is also nonsense. Wikipedia has countless articles on Conspiracies theories. What you really mean is that Wikipdia isn't the place for views you don't agree with. You may wish to note that Wikpedia also isn't the place to waste time with ANI notices because you oppose the political views of another editor

What makes this ANI report even more absurd is that is regarding a discussion on a talk page, not the actual article.

"I think that Vexorg's behavior should be looked into. " - LOL - that just looks so Stasi. Go ahead look into my behavior if you've nothing better to do. I've nothing to hide. I have a political viewpoint. So do you. Everyone here has a political viewpoint. Deal with it.

"User:Vexorg has quite a lengthy block history, including blocks over 9/11 pages and I-P articles." ---- That's right. All that means is some administrators with opposing political views decided to exert their power. It's no big deal. The fact you're using my block history as some kind of currency this report speaks volumes about your agenda Jethro B

Jethro B says: Vexorg declares that "Wikipedia doesn't work on truth." --- This one really got me laughing. It's not me who declares that "Wikipedia doesn't work on truth.", but it's Wikipedia itself! [[79]] - here we have an editor, [User:Jethro B|Jethro] B, who doesn't even know the ethos of the Wiki he obsesses with editing.

That's my response to this pointless and childish ANI report. Feel free to look into my behavior. You will certainly find even more commentary regarding the caveats of Wikipedia so don't forget to note them down in order to present them to teh relevant authorities :) :) :) ---- Peace. Vexorg (talk) 05:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support lengthy block Ankh.Morpork 08:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It would have been clearer if Jethro had said "Wikipedia is not the place to discuss conspiracy theories". Wikipedia certainly has articles about conspiracy theories but discussing the theories instead of the article is not the purpose. Support a block for the usual alphabet soup. Blackmane (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I should've made that clearer. --Jethro B 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support block. At the very least, the article talk-page comment needs to be removed per WP:NPA, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:TPNO, and it looks like the editor is requiring an admin to do that based on his revert at the article talk page. If it were just this one incident, removal of the comment and a note at the user's talk page would be sufficient. But looking at the editor's block log and user talk-page history, this user has a history of occasionally making this sort of rant, and his reverting to keep the article talk-page comment visible after being pointed to the relevant WP:RULES is troubling. There also appears to be a failure of this editor to get the difference between a neutrally-written Wikipedia article describing a notable conspiracy theory, and personally engaging in one at an article talk page, and in a way entirely irrelevant to the article. The fact that he's repeated the conspiracy theory here at ANI makes it appear that he's using Wikipedia here to WP:SOAPBOX in front of as large an audience as possible, and keep his comment visible in a disruptive manner despite having his fellow editors point out that it's not an appropriate use of Wikipedia editing capabilities to do so. A block of escalated duration might send the message that this sort of soapboxing is not welcome and discourage him from engaging in this sort of disruption in the future. The editor does seem to be productive in other areas; if this sort of thing continues, a topic ban might be in his future. Zad68 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Vexorg's rant in this ANI thread speaks for itself as well. --Jethro B 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mild support - Though I'm not sure a "long" block is warranted. Have there been previous escalating blocks? Yes, but they are a bit of a mixed bag and have fairly wide gaps. This is more for the disruption of reverting the talk page and the ensuing incivility than the SOAP. Bluntly: The SOAP can be removed and Vexorg pointed to the policy it breaks. If a clear pattern can be shown that they are using it to disrupted discussions, bully, goad, attack other editors, sligh/smear/attack living people mentioned in or related to articles, promote their own interpretation or agenda, and/or are here for reasons other than working with others to build and improve this encyclopedia, then a longer block for it would be justified. - J Greb (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I can show other examples of such behavior.
  • [80] - Agreeing to a WP:SOAP rant.
  • [81] - warned about civility, but removed the warning.
  • [82], [83] - various personal attacks on an editor.
  • [84] - explains that no one actually uses Wikipedia to find the truth and it's flawed.
  • [85] - complaisn that the article on 9/11 is "absolutely dreadful" and "one of the most politically biased pieces of crap," while sticking up (as far as I can tell) for bin Laden.
  • [86], [87], [88], [89] - edit wars and violates 3RR in order to put his fringe soap comments back in, which is essentially the case described in this ANI thread above, but on a different article.
  • --Jethro B 00:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Guinsberg now socking

Guinsberg (talk · contribs · logs · block log) was blocked a few minutes ago for WP:BLP violations. He has apparently now started reverting editors using an IP address: 187.34.251.246 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). This is not the first time he's done this, and the geolocation of the previous IPs he's used to do this make it pretty clear it's him (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Guinsberg). I plan to block the IP and extend the block on the main account, but have brought the issue here first for further discussion before doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Block evasion, clearly. Tiderolls 23:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• Based on your evidence, I blocked the IP for the same 72-hour time that Guinsberg's been blocked. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Should Guinsberg be blocked for socking? In the past, Guinsberg was only suspected, but now it's confirmed? Or would WP:SPI be more appropriate venue for this? --Jethro B 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's one thing to say "You're evading by editing logged out"; we have enough evidence for that. Do we really need to extend the block substantially? I don't see how that would fit the "preventive, not punitive" bit of WP:BLOCK. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's preventative, because the editor is showing that, even after blocked, s/he still does not intend to follow WP:BLP. In fact, that's probably justification to bump the block to indefinite, to last until such time as we know for certain that the editor is willing to abide by our policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Block evasion. User has been previously unblocked with a warning to "avoid future block evasion via the use of anonymous IPs." after previous socking. Ankh.Morpork 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. There was already some suspicion that the user had operated socks before, which the user denied, but now the new IP address confirms that those were in fact socks. --Jethro B 03:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian- Please note the IP has only made one single edit, which is not a BLP violation, or even in an article related to BLP. Dlv999 (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that the page itself has now been protected due to sockpuppetry. --Jethro B 04:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have extended the block on Guinsberg to match the duration of block on the IP. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk: 99.242.222.52

Hello.

An user, User talk: 99.242.222.52, insist in adding unreferenced films in the List of films based on Marvel Comics and List of films based on DC Comics. What I must do? or, I'm on an error? Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the action.OscarFercho (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oscar. Please try to engage the user on the article talk pages, or post a personal note on the IP's talk page. They just don't know our rules, and could use some information on our sourcing requirements. Just so others know what's been done so far, I've placed an edit warring template on the IP's talk page and protected both articles for three days to try to drive them to the talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Your note is good. -- Dianna (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and help.OscarFercho (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Trolling-only account

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

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Antonio2105

[90] Ban also the IP. --Niemti (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not trolling, their contributions are garden-variety puerile vandalism. WP:AIV would have been the correct place. You're also required to ADVISE them of this ANI filing. Although I have blocked them for a week for vandalism - including BLP-related - please go back and advise them of this as per the directions (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Trolling because of [91], also don't forget to ban the IP. --Niemti (talk) 12:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not trolling - indeed, it actually seems like a good faith addition to the definition. We don't WP:BAN IP's ... we probably block them though, and it's typically a default setting, so no need to tell us how to work :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It was how Antonio described his efforts in all the other other edits. --Niemti (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bwilkins. Antonio2105 spent an hour making fourteen different edits, all of them puerile vandalism. He even made an edit to troll (disambiguation) just to emphasize what he was doing. (Yes, that was his least objectionable edit; I could have assumed good faith about only that edit, except in the context of every single other thing he wrote.) While it might have been faster for Niemti to go to AIV for this – and I'm sure that he will remember to do so in the future, now that he knows – there was no need to be so snippy. I have reblocked the account indefinitely as a vandalism-only trolling account. There was no point to sending Niemti off shrubbery-gatheriing. Don't encourage good editors to waste time feeding trolls. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There was zero snippiness: I'll encourage you to go through exactly what happened: Niemti posted here. I blocked. I reminded Niemti that he was supposed to advise Antonio. Niemti re-advised to "ban the IP" - I advised him they weren't banned, and it was already blocked by default. Where's the snippy/shrubery-gathering? Nowhere. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I presume that TOAT is suggesting that while it's okay to remind Niemti they were supposed to advise Antonio, there's little point asking Niemti to advise Antonio after you'd already indefinitely blocked them for vandalism (for a week) Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think it's vital for the blocked editor to know where the discussion was started that led to the block - so IMHO, notifcation after the block was important. Yeah, I could have done it myself, but I prefer to have people do the things they were originally supposed to do by themself (more of that "teach a man to fish" concept) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find editors sniping at each other over whether the proper courtesies were extended to an editor who has made edits such as this and this. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty straightforward vandalism account only. Proper procedure for those are indef and no courtesies extended. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Everyone has something to add to Wikipedia - many just don't know it yet. Simple courtesies - like a set of rules, and advising them they they have been reported are due to all editors. Yeah, they might be done along with a block for the persistent ones, but every editor is an editor. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 06:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Feline1 and accusations of homophobia

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

---

• Feline1 (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Crisco

Today, this user posted to Talk:Crisco, responding to another user's support of the inclusion of sexual material with "...a dedicated meat-puppet campaign by homophobic editors to remove all mention of fisting from the Crisco article". I reverted this as a pretty crystal-clear personal attack and bad-faith assumption against a group of editors. The user restored it soon after. feline1's block log shows a history of similar behavior, with 2 successive blocks in 2009 for edit-warring at personal lubricant to try to get Crisco listed there, e.g. here on Dec 8th then again here on Dec 11th] resulting in the 2nd block. More recently a 1-week block issued for this WP:BLP transgression.

Also in 2009 this user was on the same Crisco talk page making the same slurs against others, that time Alison of all people. User talk:Feline1#Crisco has a lengthy section between this user, Alison, and Lar concerning this behavior.

What we have here is a user who, failing to edit-war their preferred focus on the use of cooking material of sexual purposes, is now content to set back and label those who have opposed those edits as being homophobic. Tarc (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no recent edits on that article, and feline appears to be replying to a thread which was most active in 2009-2011. In other words, there's no need for immediate administrative action, because the people whose precious feelings are to be hurt are probably inactive or not watching the page today (at least, until you decided to stir the drama pot). Besides, what feline1 says is basically true: a notorious offwiki sabotage group did organize to remove this material with antigay dog-whistle rhetoric. However, whether these people were homophobic in their hearts or had some other motivation is probably irrelevant. Feline1 should be advised not to generalize editors based on qualities which he cannot know; but that's all. By the way, it's kind of despicable to portray accusations of homophobia (generally directed at privileged bullies) as an equal or even greater offense to actual homophobia, which kills some of the most disadvantaged and persecuted people on earth. I take more offense to your ANI thread here than to feline1's comments. Shrigley (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, feline1 here ;) I do feel User:Tarc is somewhat mischaracterising the situation. My comment was not being directed against any particular person (in fact, I wwas basically *supporting* some recent comments by editors) - I don't really see how "no personal attacks" applies. My comment alluded to various editing best summarized on [92] by edit summaries were gay sex acts were referred to as "nauseating" and "disgusting". (Sorry don't seem to be able to do diffs on an archived page) - I stand by my characterisation of these comments as "homophobic".--feline1 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

An example diff of what feline1 is referring to. SassyLilNugget (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

And the person that made that comment back then is 100% correct; just because gay (AND straight, really) people may use a cooking product for sexual purposes doesn't mean that that gets a mention in that product's article, any more than vaseline or bananas should. We have a user here who has been denigrating other users as homophobic off and on for years around this subject matter. If the last one was in 2009 and the next one in 2012, that sohuldn't be taken as "oh, those are too far apart to matter" but rather "this is a pattern of inflammatory abuse". Tarc (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If you seriously believe an editor was "100% correct" to characterise gay sex acts as "nauseating" and "disgusting" I suspect many people will consider you "homophobic" yourself... And I have not been "denigrating other users as homophobic off and on for years" - IIRC I maybe got into an edit war discussion which such views were put forward once in the last 10 years... possibly twice... --feline1 (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need to argue about whether this comment from 2006: You are pushing your own personal agenda by continuously forcing this gross and offensive stuff into this article. It demeans both the article and wikipedia itself. And enjoy your German ass-fucking while you can, because when Islam takes over Europe, you'll find out the true meaning of "whacking off". qualifies as "homophobic" or not? If so, as we going to drag the still-active editor who called it out as "homophobic" in 2007 into this discussion? Nobody Ent 20:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I notified him that his comment was being discussed, debating a 6-year old comment is pretty silly though. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I love nostalgia trips. Well, I wouldn't say something so crude and vulgar nowadays. I like to think I've improved somewhat in the last 6 years. However, the general point stands - that someone was (in my judgment) pushing a fringe POV in the article. Nowadays, I would take a more civil approach. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Someone's been flogging a dead horse again? Well, just be on the watch out for them bloody, nasty horse-gnats~! (Or, is it the odd shape thing that flies around and hit you in the back? I'm really confused.) Later, got to go catch some Zzzz now. *poof!* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 01:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• I tagged this as resolved some time ago since a possibly intemperate edit summary from 2009 is not an incident requiring admin intervention, but that tag has been removed. I will not re-tag but it does seem that someone should hat this thread, and they would certainly have my moral support for doing so. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC).
  

• Like Dilbert I hoped my diff would prompt some realization and someone would reclose the thread. Surely there's some sort of wiki-drama Statute of limitations?? Nobody Ent 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Cooly123

Cooly123 (talk · contribs) has continued for several years(!) to disregard warnings about adding copyright-infringing material to Wikipedia articles, and about improper use of the "minor edit" flag. [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] His user talk page history is pretty much a string of warnings and his removals of them. He's already been given several final warnings for various types of disruption. From a quick glance at his contributions from the last year or so it looks like there are other copyvios which haven't yet been discovered or reported (like this edit copied and pasted from http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/x_factor/3794272/Seven-stars-back-in-X-Factor-finals.html). It doesn't look like he's going to reform his behaviour any time soon; perhaps this is a competence issue. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The copyvio you listed is from over 12 months ago. Is there anything more recent? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted history needed to recreate probably over-written article

Resolved

• Variational method / Variational method (quantum mechanics) have been moved over each other, presumably there's an article buried somewhere.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

I've dug the article back out and left the move artifacts deleted. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks as always. Rich Farmbrough, 01:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

Cut and paste move needs sorting out

Resolved

• The Six Wives of Henry VIII Live at Hampton Court Palace

Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

• It appears Reaper Eternal has handled this one as well. Monty₈₄₅ 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC).

Better late than never

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

---

I'm requesting that User:Brews ohare be blocked indefinitely for talk page disruption, gaming the system and incorrigible violations of his physics topic ban [100][101] despite the numerous attempts at enforcement.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 19:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how that violates physics (Virtually an idiot in that particular area here) however the main thing I see as a possible issue is the overall length of the actual talkpage posts. Brews really does mean well but sometimes the responses are pretty long. I don't support a block or ban for Brews because he does bring a lot to the table and is immanently qualified for quite a few things but I also think that wiki is stuck in a virtual repeat cycle as far as brews is involved and that well has already been thoroughly poisoned in his respect. Not sure why the block is always the solution. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Question: What emergency action is requested/required? ANI is typically a page for immediate/emergency requests. Looking at some of these (and trying to figure out where the violation is) I notice that several of them are stale more than a few days. Perhaps you'd like to try one of the Civility Dispute Resolution options (Like RfC/U, AN, etc.). Regardless, it's always a good idea to start indef block/ban requests at WP:AN instead of here. Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The alleged violation seriously stretches the reach of broadly construed. The article isn't about physics, and the quote is borderline. Its also clear that the two editors are in conflict more generally, and that this report is being used as a bludgeon to win that dispute. At most, we should decide if including the quote is a topic ban violation, and advise Brews ohare accordingly, but I don't think it should serve as the basis for a block/ban. The rest should be referred to normal dispute resolution channels. Monty₈₄₅ 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Causality is rated high importance for WikiProject Physics but it's not an article ban, it's a topic ban. Niels Bohr is a famous physicist and he characterized Bohr as representative of the "distinguished past" of the mind-body problem, claiming that Bohr's was the "most extreme view", "an analogy to his work on [[complementarity (physics)|complementarity]]".

You're attempting to rubbish this without diffs to back up your false allegation and mistaken impression that it's "Its also clear that two editors are in conflict more generally, and that this report is being used as a bludgeon to win that dispute"? Had that been my goal, I'd have taken it to WP:AE.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are clear violations of the topic ban. Discussing Bohr and quantum theory in the context of a psychological article is in direct contravention of his ban from "all pages of whatever nature about physics"[102]. I urge the filer to request arbitration enforcement rather than press the issue on ANI, as it seems the respondents here are unfamiliar with - or, in one case, have abetted - BOH's years of disruption. Skinwalker (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The case history is tl;dr so I could easily be missing something, but a topic ban doesn't address his tendentious behavior and besides, he violates it with impunity despite the numerous attempts at arbitration enforcement... I wouldn't have thought an indef block would be overturned, but it seems that too would just be a waste of time. Thanks though.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any disruption in the first diff, and any topic ban violations are stale by this point. I can say that I'm going to decline this report if it gets filed at AE, so don't bother. It appears to me that MachineElf is trying to use the topic ban to gain an improper advantage in a content dispute. Boomerang? T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You would actually have to read the talk page, but we all have better things to do.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I see! Small wonder he thinks the rules don't apply to him. They don't. Why don't you come help Brews win his so-called "content dispute"? LOL—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

@Skinwalker would you mind explaining your remark? Is there something n my comments or rationale for this issue that stands out as wrong? Does being a person that has supported Brews in the past somehow remove my ability to comment on a situation? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Persistent vandal on Green Day-related articles

An IP vandal/troll has been causing problems for at least the last 2 months. This vandal likes to go around to articles related to the band Green Day, inserting the names of voice actors from various children's cartoons into the credits of their releases. He also goes around to articles about various children's cartoons inserting the names of the Green Day band members into the credits of the cartoons. These are deliberate factual errors, since none of these people have actually had anything to do with the works he's crediting them with. He also likes to create hoax pages on fake bands and releases: See for example Talk:The Sunshine (band) (currently marked for speedy deletion) and Help Me (Green Day song) (deleted). The IP address changes each time this guy pops up, but it's always the same kind of edits. Here are a few of the IPs:

• 70.137.138.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.137.148.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.137.147.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.137.146.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These are just the ones I can remember. As you can see they're all from the same range. The person seems particularly obsessed with topics related to Green Day, Michelle Rodriguez, Tara Strong, and SpongeBob Squarepants. The edits are all blatant vandalism, but they're so all-over-the-place and the IP-hopping is so frequent that I don't know what to do about it. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe some smart person can calculate you a rangeblock. I'd suggest picking out a couple they vandalize often and getting it semi-protected: make a good argument (here or at RFPP) and ask for long-term protection. Good luck with it, IllaZilla. Oh, I blocked the most recent IP, of course, and deleted that talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Mass deleting of a well-sourced statement

User:Binksternet has been deleting the sourced phrase "democratically-elected government" from various 1953 Iranian coup-related articles in a disruptive manner. [103] He claims to have a "consensus" based on the closing comment and "suggestion" of a volunteer editor who routinely closes RFCs and has stated on record that he is not an expert on this particular topic, when the RFC was clearly inconclusive with seven editors opposing User:Binksternet's argument that because Mossadegh was "appointed" Prime Minster, his government could not have been "democratically-elected". [104] The problem with this rational, is the fact that this is User:Binksternet's own original research, and in fact many democratically-elected governments around the world such as Australia or Great Britain , have "appointed" head of government. Now, there are literally thousands of sources that use the phrase "democratically elected" to describe the government of Mossadegh[105], and this is the position of the vast majority of the scholars and historians. User:Binksternet, however, insists that because some sources use the phrase "Mossadegh was appointed Prime Minster" , that means that Mossadegh's government was not "democratically elected", yet he has failed to produce even one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically elected" and he's allowing himself to mass-delete the "democratically elected" statement from various Wikipedia pages, based on his own original research, without a consensus to do so, and despite thousands of academic sources confirming the fact that Mossadegh's government was indeed democratically-elected. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When you previously discussed this, one-on-one with him, on his user talk page, what did he have to say in response to your concerns? --Jayron32 04:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see our discussion here[106]], he dismisses the fact that he's engaged in WP:OR (ie he can't produce one source that explicitly says "Mossadegh's government was not democratically-elected" when there are thousands of sources that say it was[107]), and insists that he has a "consensus" to delete "democratically-elected government" from Wikipedia articles. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At Talk:1953_Iranian_coup_d'état#Was_Mosaddegh_democratically_elected.2C_or_appointed_prime_minister.3F, the consensus was that the phrase "democratically elected" was not supportable by itself in the presence of just as many other reliable sources saying "appointed". The existence of reliable sources saying "democratically elected" is not enough when there are opposing reliable sources saying "appointed".

Do we all agree that Mosaddegh was legitimately the leader of Iran's government? Yes, of course. Was he elected? No, he was approved by parliament as the sole candidate and ratified by the Shah as prime minister. He was never elected by popular vote, nor was he elected by indirect vote. He was appointed, not elected. The point that a lot of reliable sources are making is that Mosaddegh was immensely popular and that he was supported by a democratically elected parliament. The coup, however, was not aiming at the parliament, it aimed only at him. Binksternet (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources saying " he was appointed" do not say that his government "was not democratically-elected". That part is entirely your own original research. Indirect election are the norm in many democratic countries where the head of the government is "appointed" by the head of the state. Wikipedia works with sources. Your own opinion on the subject, is not relevant to this discussion, as there are five thousand sources saying the government of Mossadegh was "democratically elected". You either need to produce a source that explicitly say "it wasn't democratically elected" or stop trying to refute sources using your own original research. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Jared Padalecki being used in a scavenger hunt

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

---

It has come to my attention that the above page is being used in a scavenger hunt, the goal of which is to vandalize the page repeatedly. This has been happening several times tonight. This page needs protection for a weeks time from all users. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism is increasing. Any help would be appreciated. Gateman1997 (talk) 04:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The talk page has also come under attack if anyone would like to semi-protect that page as well. Gateman1997 (talk) 05:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article and semiprotected the talk page for three days each. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the website, this "event" doesn't end for another 6 days, give or take, so extending the protection preemptively might be prudent. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Urgent attention

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

---

User:Divinearmor has been warned several times about POV-pushing on various Tennessee and abortion related articles. He seems to have a particular want to "highlight" the various places, people and institutions that allow or promote abortion in that location.

Today he created Bristol Regional Women's Center and included the personal details of doctors working at the clinic as well as contact details and an address. It has been written to sound like an advertisement but given the nature of the user's previous edits the intent seems obvious. His claim that he is part of a "cooperative" to "highlight the services in Bristol" is clearly rubbish.

Can an admin please shut this down, delete the page, close the AFD and indef the user. Repeated warnings on his page have been deleted.

Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Update: Page has now been blanked for obvious BLP violations. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Given the obvious WP:BLP issues here, I have blanked the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Due to the above concerns, I have deleted the article. Calmer Waters 05:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The account remains unblocked? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible harassment

There are a couple of editors who are unhappy with the result of WP:DRN cases where I was the dispute resolution volunteer and have criticized me for same[108][109][110] (which is fine, they certainly have that right). Lately they have started acting in a way that borders on harassment, getting together on their own talk page (and possibly off-wiki) in order to coordinate their attacks.[111][112][113][114][115][116]. I would rather that they moved on having voiced their complaints instead of making me and my perceived shortcomings an ongoing crusade. Given the block logs for both users, I would like to have someone uninvolved look into this rather than confronting either of them directly. (Please note that Codename Lisa, who also had criticism for me (for which I have since apologized) is a good editor who is not involved in this or any other questionable behavior.) ANI-notices sent. --Guy Macon (talk)

I've never been to DRN, have never reviewed any cases there, so have no opinion about any of the cases that have ever been at DRN. You've accused of intention to "attack" you. Completely baseless. (This seems to be a pattern by you; you've done it before, as noted in my criticism of same accusation at the Nomination board, in your edit summary when you indef'd one of my subpages.) IMO, your use here of ANI was unnecessary and an attempt to intimidate and use WP as battleground, game the system, falsely accuse of harrassment. You are derailing your own Nomination for MED COM, IMO. Get a clue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC) p.s. Oh, as long as we are in this very public venue, could I ask, for the 5th or 6th time, that you never post to my User talk again? I want no contact with you at any time in the future, as has been my consistent request for quite some time now. Thank you.

"Given the block log of both users". Don't you know, this is a worn & tired & transparent attempt to prejudice others about anyone who's ever had a block? News for you: not everyone who's received a block has deserved it. (I've recently read discussion that the trick you are employing to prejudice because of a past block, is creating a "criminal class" on WP. Consider the fact that you may be doing that: You have spread the "news" of my block by Toddst1 over as many WP pages you had opportunity to do so, and repeated as often as you had opportunity to do so. [Do you want a diff list for that?]) You noticed me about the ANI case. It was not my idea to be here and levy more complaints about you. But IMO you deserve these criticisms. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. Guy Macon claims I was "unhappy with the result of a WP:DRN case where GM was the dispute resolution volunteer and have criticized him for same"! Firstly, GM had nothing to do with the DRN. As you can see with this diff, it was closed by Steve Zhang without any involvement by GM and without a decision.[117] So his very first sentence is false. Secondly, my comments about him were my reasons why I oppose his candidacy for the MED COM because the MED COM No mination page says "Input from editors who are not members of the Committee is very welcome". Apparently not.[118] As this diff shows GM has posted on my Talk page whereas I have never posted on his.[119] And the invitation to chat with two other editors who also objected the GM's nominations can hardly be construed as harassment anymore than GM's private emails with Steven Zhang. Perhaps if GM were to apologise to me as he has to CL he might be able to move on instead of wasting my time with this unnecessary harassment.Momento (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll chip in here. I closed the DRN thread because the Prem Rawat disputes have been an ongoing issue on Wikipedia for at least five years, and the participants have strong, ingrained opinions. As I've mediated this dispute before, I offered to assist on the talk page. Guy Macon popped in, and I figured that two heads are better than one, thus I emailed him to discuss a way that we can move forward, to resolve this issue in the long term. There was no conspiracy or harassment going on - just DR volunteers discussing how we can resolve a dispute. I find that Momento's comments towards both Guy Macon belligerent, and thus I have declined to take part in resolving the dispute any further, which I think to be a shame. History has shown the unwillingness of volunteers to take on the Prem Rawat disputes, and I think this will do very little to improve that situation. I fear the only thing that will resolve this dispute is a salted earth remedy. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is bad. I'm inclined to say both Momento and Ihardlythinkso should be blocked for battleground editing, personal attacks, canvassing, etc. Perhaps they should be given their choice between a block and an interaction ban. Their Chewbacca defense raised above is not helping the case. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would add that I haven't gotten around to responding to that email. Hardly the stuff of conspiracy. Besides, I am busy with an actual conspiracy, which you can find here:

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#Emperor of Wikipedia redirects to your page
(Bottom comment)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 4#Opening DRN threads as volunteers
(Second and fourth comments)

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 5#Proposed changes to instructions at the top of the page
(Suggestion number 4)

I hope this helps... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of dispute resolution should be to deescalate situations. If you go around interjecting yourself into other folks disputes, you should expect a little blowback. (I speak from experience.) My own wikocratic oath is First, cause no drama. I highly advise Guy Macon not to stalk other folks' talk pages -- it just leads to aggravation. Additionally, if they do not wish to deal with stuff like this, stop getting involved in other folks stuff. Nobody Ent 13:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Autostereogram

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

---

You never know what someone's going to edit-war over. An IP complained about the article being condescending to those who can't figure the bloody things out. Hyacinth (talk · contribs) posted a rather snippy comment / personal attack to the IP. Then I tried to soften the attitude in the article, and Hyacinth immediately reverted it, without comment. I say that's a totally improper use of rollback, and if the user doesn't explain him/herself, they are a candidate for having their rollback privilege removed. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Diff: [120]

Note that comments on the talk page are not relevant, except for those made after the revert. Also note that timing (immediacy) is not relevant.

One change is not an edit war.

Perhaps I would explain myself if Baseball Bugs asked for a explanation. Hyacinth (talk) 07:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

User has stated that they would have found the use of "undo" unacceptable as well, indicating this posting has little to do with the use of "rollback". Hyacinth (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is explicitly not to be used to revert good faith edits. "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool." Why did you use rollback and have you used it for content disputes before? Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the personal attack. The editor identified as being unable to see the image.

Hyacinth wrote matter of factly. He could have spent hours thinking of nicer ways to express things, perhaps.

BTW, this is a fascinating featured article, which is worth examining. It does not mention the work of Persi Diaconis on the Julesz conjecture.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly fascinating that it's a featured article. As for this silly little dispute, Bugs is quite right that the revert was both improper (his minor toning down of the language was good work) and improperly done (through rollback), but there was zero need to run off to ANI about it. I assume we're to either full-protect the page or block Hyacinth? Editors are supposed to work out conflicts by themselves if possible, and given that there's already discussion on talk it should have stayed there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Rollback abuse is something that any Admin can/should deal with as removal is an Admin matter, that limits it to ANI (Needs immediate attention) or AN (more sedate response). I doubt one instance of it is an ANI matter, but since its here, I would like an answer to my above question. IMO there is no point blocking over something like that, preventative blah blah blah, but it does need to be looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that I am on trial and am being asked to enter a plea (actually more than that, I'm being asked to both enter a plea and testify as my own character witness). If that is that case I would expect to be provided with representation. Hyacinth (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't be so dramatic. A trouting to you for biting an IP and mis-using rollback (we don't want to see either again), and a trouting to Baseball for this premature ANI. Other than that I see no further action here. GiantSnowman 11:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about the IP.

What is the purpose of asking the accused? For example, when asking a liar if they lied, one may expect them to lie and say they didn't do it. How does one tell if an honest person simply told the truth and said they didn't lie? Hyacinth (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What do I say? Well, what does Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentsHeader say? " Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. " (emphasis original) See you at ANI isn't what's meant by this. Nobody Ent 11:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nobody Ent, this was a somewhat premature ANI report. Equally, I agree with Bugs and Only in death - this was clearly improper use of rollback. Hyacinth, either offer an explanation as to why you thought rollback was appropriate, or 'fess up and admit you made a mistake; there's no "trial" here, just an attempt to understand what went wrong, fix it and ensure it doesn't happen again. Either way, a single instance isn't (IMHO) sufficient to require rights removal; we all cock thigs up from time to time. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As per Yunshui - my question was to determine if Hyacinth knows when rollback should be used. If he does, trout and 'dont do it again', if he doesnt understand/know why, explanation instead of trout and 'dont do it again'. I wouldnt advocate removing it for one incident. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hyacinth has already reverted and explained it was accidential: [121]. No need to keep beating him for a one time screwup. Nobody Ent 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe we still have to include Baseball Bugs. Also, I initially could not remember having used rollback in content disputes, but I found Cent (music), which was fairly recently. Hyacinth (talk) 12:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, odd that you'd introduce evidence against yourself - I see a number of inappropriate rollback uses recently. GiantSnowman 12:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So, after we're done asking Hyacinth to stop, when are we going to just outright ban Baseball Bugs from ANI, forever this time? For a man who is deciding to try to get someone in trouble by a rigid interpretation of the rules, it sure is funny how he manages to ignore the rules himself (in this case, once again drama queening about it on ANI instead of bringing it up to Hyacinth first). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 12:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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