Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2400:8900::f03c:91ff:fe73:667d (talk) at 04:14, 30 July 2014 (→‎India Against Corruption yet again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    92.222.153.153

    Can someone block Special:Contributions/92.222.153.153. It's probably Grawp/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks @Materialscientist:...now it's Special:Contributions/62.244.31.16. There may be more in the pipeline I guess until he gets bored. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, blocked, the third one (not mentioned above) blocked too. The talk page temporarily s-protected as well. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And another one Special:Contributions/190.199.79.135. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat? from 112.175.69.140

    By 112.175.69.140 (talk · contribs)
    On my talk page here 4x and multiple times
    I'm not putting a ANI notice on the IP's talk page. Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably associated with the ANI immediately above Jim1138 (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) Death threat or no death threat... This should be blockworthy if he had offered you flowers instead. Kleuske (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked by FPAS; I've protected Jim's talkpage (since this fellow has a habit of reappearing with a new IP every two minutes). Yunshui 雲水 10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yunshui: I don't mind acting as a lightning rod. I'd rather my friend be vandalizing my pages than articles or other's talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same on my talkpage. I've s/protected that as well until our puerile friend gets bored. Black Kite (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy has now moved to Special:Contributions/190.38.118.55 + Special:Contributions/190.72.192.21 Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, both blocked. Could someone more knowledgable than me check if these and the earlier IPs are proxies? They're in different countries from the earlier ones and it would fit our friend's MO. Black Kite (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    112.175.69.140 port 3128, and 190.72.192.21 port 8080, they are open and usable. I extended the 8080 to a year, Fut Perf. already blocked the other for webhost, which is close enough. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nailed the other two as well, ports 8080. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Getting close to time to take this to law enforcement, and in my view should they begin naming names, the line is going to crossed. Jusdafax 11:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And 181.198.187.133, ostensibly in Ecuador. -- Hoary (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Port 80 was an open proxy, and with a Captcha system to prevent abuse, which I find ironic. 1 year blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He's moved to Special:Contributions/186.91.64.115 and now he is damaging content. Please semi-protect every single page he edits. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked, and I've assumed it's another open proxy. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A rangeblock is under consideration here.  —SMALLJIM  16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Block needed

    Michelle47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using a script to spam User talk:Sean.hoyland with (so far as I am aware) false accusations about anti-Semitic attacks. If, by some weird circumstance, her claims were legitimate, the actions still warrant a cool-down block. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ian.thomson: I'm sure you already know this, but it's usually best to avoid describing it as a cool down block.—LucasThoms 00:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, ten null edits and then spamming the same personal attack on the same talk page several dozen times seems pretty blockable. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is most likely this guy Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. Reported him here, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, he's blocked, talkpage protected, please WP:DENY. Acroterion (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Back again as 190.198.91.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and 186.88.232.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) , Huldra (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Both blocked. Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also 190.79.128.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Electric Wombat (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, now he is on my talk-page, rev-dels needed, please? And block of s 190.72.30.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Huldra (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now as 186.88.64.47, on User talk:Zero0000. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And under an attack-username I will not cite here. Obvious on the page history of abovementioned talkpage, however. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Account-name created at 1.36 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers User talk:Malik Shabazz under attck. Huldra (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    and 186.89.187.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Huldra (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is part of what is filed at WP:SPI for a quick check. I already did a /17 rangeblock, but it needs more and I'm off to bed and have a busy day tomorrow. It needs someone who knows how to block ranges to do anon blocks on a dozen or so ranges, which means doing homework, and I just don't have the time for at least 16 hours. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another sock [1] ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy aka JarlaxleArtemis is back

    Any page he touches needs to be semi-protected. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would extend that to some talk pages as well. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And More Nonsense

    Posting here as well as AIV: [2] ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More eyes needed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers, block and rev-del abusive user-names, please, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen at least one ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 08:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, we all got them, take it a very special barnstar... I do! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Khan Yunis ...the article, that is, is now under attack. Check: 190.75.228.58 and 186.88.199.183 Huldra (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Heres another Sean.hoyland paid propgandist 4 EI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 09:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    More JA ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More from Special:Contributions/190.203.98.221. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More JA ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "I will kill you, evil piece of shit", a direct death threat against a named person, so Jeremy has probably just broken Californian law. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He's already violated a half-dozen federal (US) laws. But I'll leave that up to the Foundation. I don't place too much faith in his nonsense. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 10:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S.: He Also Called Sean a "Nazi Subhuman" in his edit summary. This Getting Slightly out of hand. TF { Contribs } 15:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Article was protected a few hours ago, and I've now revdeled that edit summary. Monty845 15:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    This has been quiet for a while now, I think the range blocks placed seems to have solved the issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In future situations, it would be best to not repost the concerning sentences in the diff links as this defeats the purpose of using revision deletion. Mike V • Talk 20:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Aye. Speaking as someone who's dealt extensively with him in this phase of his cycle and someone who keeps up to date on his LTA page, revert the garbage, provide a diff of the disturbing edit (and/or forward any disturbing emails you receive) to the Foundation via email as per the LTA report, and semi-protect his targets for a brief while. (Abuse filters don't work too well as he just probes them until he finds something that works.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term abuse user again back

    See previous thread. Now back as Special:Contributions/201.243.126.28. (Edit summaries and edits are pretty obviously JarlaxleArtemis, particular in their attacks against Sean.hoyland. Likely to reappear under a different IP or username as soon as blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis disruption. Please block

    ...and semi-protect every page edited. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging from the nature of the edit at 1929 Hebron massacre and the details for 186.93.164.54, these IPs are likely to be Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis.

    Others include

    Every page edited by JarlaxleArtemis needs semi-protection. That is more important that revdeling their edit summaries. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    201.243.161.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) tried to delete Sean's above post, and then reverted a random edit of his, so I'm guessing it's probably the same guy as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Need eyes on user creation log. Attack usernames are again being created, similar to the spree at 22nd July. (revdelled) example can be found at 22:08 (20:08 UTC) in the user creation log. Going by the pattern established, more usernames of a similar kind will likely pop up soon. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please look through this part of the userlist and block the one not yet blocked. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, someone locked it globally. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, good to know. Hope that's the end of this for now, I can imagine nicer things to do with my time than hunt this one down to prevent further disruption. Also, my strongest possible sympathies for having to deal with this, Nawlin. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem - I'm used to it. Jeremy's obsessive/repetitive behaviors haven't changed one bit since he was 15 years old and was upset with Wikipedia for not posting his Dungeons and Dragons articles. It's almost Pavlovian. Interfere with his vandalism, and he starts posting the same old cowardly, yet machinelike insults. Not even interesting anymore. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It's really quite sad to see that even after all these years he's still at it. You'd think he would have grown up and moved on by now. Blackmane (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NawlinWiki I put in the request for oversight. As for a more permanent solution, the Foundation legal department really should file a complaint with the FBI under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Appeals to him, his mother, his ISP(s) have all fallen on deaf ears. I know the Foundation has (to my knowledge) never pursued charges against an individual, perhaps it is time. With so many years as evidence, it's the only way I can see to get Jeremy to stop. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 19:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    IANAL, but due to his constant use of open proxies and his (past) tendency to have 4chan users post his threats by proxy, wouldn't it be nigh-impossible to confirm it is him as far as a court of law goes? (Also, I'm under the impression from the LTA page that the Foundation is either already contemplating or in the process of doing so, in which case they wouldn't be saying anything one way or another.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a lawyer. (this is not legal advice just opinion) The long, long history easily confirmed enough of it is him to give at least probable cause for various search warrants. The proof they would gather from the various ISPs, the Foundation, Wikia, etc could easily lock him away for a long time. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition: I agree that the LTA page points that the foundation is already considering legal action, I'm just requesting that the Foundation actually pursue it. I'm sure I'm not the only editor that would be more than a little relieved to see a story on CNN about Jeremy being arrested. Now, the fact that some of the abuse occurred when he was a minor could complicate things, but since he's been at it so long, even just prosecuting the stuff since he was of legal age would most likely garner a conviction. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 23:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Solarra: I doubt very much that the WMF will ever do anything here. It would be wonderful if I was wrong, but I just don`t think so. I have not had my email enabled for years, because the WMF never even got a filter in place to stop him sending hundreds of abusive emails in a couple of minutes. In short, so far, they have not lifted a finger to stop him, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if they did, you wouldn't know about it until after the fact, Huldra. And unless you're a specific current target of his ire, it's perfectly safe to have your email enabled (He's all but given up on me and NawlinWiki, for the most part.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 20:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I´m a specific target of his (one of many!)...so I think I`ll pass. Seriously, the WMF attitude to editors leave me not much hope that they will ever do anything (for us) against Jeremy. Hope I´m wrong... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view, death threats have got to be dealt with firmly, using available legal tools. If it is at all possible, WMF needs to be proactive about filing complaints in such cases, especially where long-term behaviors are established. No one should be afraid to edit Wikipedia. Jusdafax 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect this (just blocked IP) is the same: Special:Contributions/ 200.222.64.106 The next few hours might get "interesting"..... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistently mass-nominating templates for deletion during discussion

    Hi,

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

    I've complained once before about this sort of behavior with redirect nominations, though apparently my complaint wasn't correct in some way. While I've had positive interactions with The Banner in the time since, my belief is that this sort of mass-nomination behavior is disruptive. I sort of look at is as an extension of the rulemaking versus adjudication distinction in American administrative law: think of XfD as an adjudicative process (good for small numbers of items, and not generally binding on future decisions), while a RfC is a type of rulemaking (good for making general rules that can be applied over and over without much argument).
    I believe there are more than enough templates at issue here that it's inappropriate to handle them through piecemeal adjudication (i.e., TfD). Keep in mind that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if a significant mismatch between the codified policy and the actual practice appears, the answer is to first reevaluate the policy to see if it still reflects community consensus. In this case, I would argue that there are more than enough "violating" templates from more than enough sources to make this an inappropriate matter for resolution via XfD.
    Yes, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... but that same argument cuts against creating dozens of individual XfDs claiming some basis in practice... when each of those XfD subjects is a counter-example to the practice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to highlight The Banner's approach to collaborative editing, here is a statement of their personal vendetta against another editor. When they post their own defence, the Banner then has the nerve to accuse them of lacking good faith, see this post to their talk page. This issue is not really about how to nominate, but how to behave during this, or any other, discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen the banging at the door heres User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July where I told Ahunt multiple times that it is not the case of convincing me or his peers, but that he has to convince the administrators active at TfD. That was an argument no one wanted to accept. The sheer fact that I accepted a barnstar for the nominations, was followed by a backlash. Referring to the revenge aspect: almost from the beginning Ahunt was accusing me of doing bad faith nominations. I have asked him multiple times to stop with those false accusations, as it is not true (I still believe the WP:NENAN-nominations are valid). He went on and on so at one time I make the (not so clever) remark that I would nominate the templates of an extra letter as long as he did not stop with the false accusation. He did not stop, so I nominated. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I mean? Two fingers up to ArbCom, we know it's not so clever, but let's just spite another editor anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice that the aggressive defence is ending up on AN/I. A beautiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. In general, the aircraft boys refuse to believe my argument dat WP:NENAN is a valid argument, although it is an essay. See a few links:
    1. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8
    2. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 2
    3. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 4
    4. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 13
    5. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 3
    6. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26
    And then, off course, you have the editing guideline WP:REDNOT with is argument: Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, (...).
    The very reason to nominate just a few templates a day is to give Ahunt, and the rest of his Wikiproject, a fighting change to write the articles needed to comply with the threshold of five valid blue links. Flooding TfD with long lists of articles failng WP:NENAN is also possible but that is in my eyes unpolite, as it reduces the time/chance to write the needed articles. The Banner talk 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, there are 478 pages on TfD where WP:NENAN is mentioned/used as argument. The Banner talk 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So after more than 450 times of usage, it is suddenly not a valid argument? The Banner talk 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mass nominations of this type have been strongly discouraged by ArbCom as fait accompli. They've asked you to take this to discussion, not deletion, you should be discussing those there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The Project did. The consensus has so far been solidly against The Banner - see here. Hence the repeated returns to TfD in a bid to gain a more persuadable audience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, the vast majority of the templates closed with the primary reason of "Failing NENAN" were uncontested deletions. A significant subset were "moved" rather than "deleted". --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is right, quite a few are merged, moved or extented. That is what I mentioned as "rescued". There are just very few templates with less than five relevant links kept. That was usually based on good arguments (IIRC arguments like the likelihood of more links coming in the near future). The Banner talk 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was hoping this problem could be resolved simply by the upcoming admin closures of the existing template nominations for deletion, since all have clear consensuses to "keep", which should have sent a clear message that further noms would be a waste of time. But it seems that User:The Banner wished to force the issue here to ANI, as had been discussed by some editors previously here, by his continuing to nominate WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer navigation box templates for deletion against a solid consensus that was established, with his participation, here. User:The Banner has stated here and here that he will not accept any consensus about these nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus regardless. This is Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and he has been warned about that previously here. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for continuing to nominate templates against consensus is one of revenge. He has been warned before not to do this to make a WP:POINT but has continued, adding uncivil edit summaries, such as here and uncivil responses such as here for two examples. At this point it is clear that User:The Banner has become disruptive just to make a point and that means that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would suggest that the the best resolution at this point would be a topic ban of all aviation articles, and specifically a ban on nominating aviation templates for deletion for User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget your long list of accusations of bad faith nominations, for instance on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 16 (3x), Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 17 (4x). And don't forget to tell that your false bad faith accusations were just a part of you protecting your own templates. And in the mean time you just go on with your harassing. Just wait a bit more and see what happens when the administrator starts judging the templates. In the mean time: there is nothing illegal to write extra article or add more relevant links to a template to have those 5 relevant links. The Banner talk 20:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who frequently !votes at TfD, (and one who individually examined and !voted keep or delete on most of the templates in question here,) I don't think either Ahunt or The Banner acted in bad faith. The Banner was only nominating as he believes correct. The way he went about it annoyed me in this situation, but was not bad faith. If he had been approached in a different way, he probably would have worked with the project, at least allowing more time between nominations. Many of us have been notified of XfD nominations or other deletions. Ahunt and others in the project received an intimidating stream of these. I didn't follow user talk pages well enough to know if anyone overreacted, but I haven't seen anything I would call bad faith, (though calling each other bad faith came pretty close.) I hope an RfC would be a good way to settle the dispute. Although NENAN significantly overlaps many other editors' basic requirements for a navbox, there is enough variance that consensus can be hard to reach. —PC-XT+ 04:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sorry, I am just a rude guy who treats every template, regardless of local hobbies, exactly the same. Just like articles are judged on their own merits, I judge templates on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rudeness doesn't bother me (although it might bother others). Your stubbornness on the other hand... I believe that you were originally acting in good faith, however, you seem to be digging your heels in (and digging yourself a deeper hole), despite a preponderance of seasoned editors telling you that you're mistaken. Mojoworker (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

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

    I am willing to listen to consensus. That means, a wiki-wide consensus not a local one invented to protect the interests of a very limited group of people. Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. The Banner talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Banner, you repeatedly illustrate that you cannot accept consensus. You're one of the most stubborn individuals I've ever encountered on the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A limited group we may be, but we are trusted by the community. This is because we work together, discuss things and have the grace to accept when consensus is against our particular point of view. We also have the ability to prevent you from editing. Let me be quite clear, the only reason I've not topic banned you or blocked you from editing indefinitely is that I'm involved insofar as I commented at the Wikiproject discussion. I dare say that if I were to block you, there wouldn't be a rush to reverse the block. It's getting late here in the UK, so I'm minded to leave this open overnight, unless sufficient consensus is gained for action to be taken or not, as the case may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as not necessary. Start a RfC to resolve the underlying policy question, list it at T:CENT. If Banner starts more TfDs while that RfC is pending, then you can talk ban. But I suspect Banner will be reasonable enough to allow that RfC to run. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - as a minimum [updated 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)]. This emphasis on RfC is a little invidious. The WP:RFC section on Before starting the Request for comment process states, "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." All aircraft articles have by their nature a degree of technicality and complexity, while uniform presentation across articles is also important. At risk of repetition (link given twice already), we had that Project discussion and the result was total community consensus against The Banner. Their plea for an RfC and debasing remarks about the project look suspiciously like an attempt to wiggle round that. Also, judging by remarks made above, ArbCom et. al. have cut little ice with this user in the past, why should we expect sudden compliance with an RfC now? A ban would at least get across the reality of the message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list of airplanes in a navigation templates is not difficult to create. The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't be silly. These templates serve to orchestrate the presentation of the technical and sometimes complex articles they appear in. From the viewpoint of RFC, they are effectively part of the article structure and need to be discussed in that context. Recall that favourite essay of yours, where it says that in such circumstances, a few simpler members of a much wider set are acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose There's nothing wrong with nomination templates for deletion, yes nomination a lot of them at the same time could be considered a disruptive act, but nothing presented here shows that to be true in this case. Kosh Vorlon    10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - the main disruptive act is that we have a consensus here not to do that, which he participated in, but didn't like the outcome of and is ignoring. Predominantly the issue here is one of editing against consensus to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment SOunds like a localconsensus issue. Localconsensus would have bearing , as far as I know , on the page being worked on, as long as it didn't conflict with Wikipedia policies at large. There's no policy on submitting anything for deletion, unless, of course, it's disruptive, which again , hasn't been shown to be the case. Kosh Vorlon    16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You are happy for anyone to persistently mass-nominate templates for deletion during discussion, are you? Even a bunch of templates you might happen to be discussing at the time on the relevant Project talk page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And in fact you keep ignoring the fact that I am stating that you try to create a consensus on the wrong venue The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Since he has shown he will not accept consensus and is being intentionally disruptive, I support a ban from nominating any further templates for The Banner. I don't see the point of an RfC at this point since it will just duplicate the consensus arrived at here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose I think the templates should be deleted. It would be in line with other TFD results and WP:NENAN has long been considered a valid argument. Also I see this whole ANI thread as an attempt to shut an editor up. Sometimes that might be in need of doing, but in too many cases its just an abuse around here....William 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This ANI is not about trying to shut an editor up: it's about getting him to listen to counter-arguments and accept consensus. The principal counter-arguement is well put below by DieSwartzPunkt, a non-involved editor.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    comment This sideswipe at the ANI nominator is from the very same editor who took a sideswipe at the project in his barnstar award to The Banner for starting their campaign. It is now clear that this campaign has been about circumventing the Project consensus from the word go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support but read on: {uninvolved editor} If one starts with AGF, one should assume that, to begin with, the nominations were made in good faith following WP:NENAN. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that that is not a policy but an essay (i.e. nothing moe than a point of view). However, despite that being pointed out, the nominations continued. As it is just an essay, one should consider the points that the essay is attempting to address with respect to the use to which the template is put. The text makes it clear that the issue with articles is, ".. before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". Looking at the affected articles, that does not seem to be the case as the infoboxes are relatively small. Therefore, I would suggest that WP:NENAN is a non arguement in this case. However, as far as I am concerned: WP:AGF left the stage when The Banner made it clear in various talk pages, that most (if not all) of the later nominations were in direct retaliation to the opposition put up to the deletions by (if I have this right) one or more other editors. This cannot be acceptable behaviour. Reviewing The Banner's edit history (always a good idea) shows a past substantially free from many of the editing problems seen at these pages, suggesting that a block may be excessive. My recommendation would be that The Banner should accept that the consensus is largely against him and withdraw all the nominations. If he is not prepared to do that, then a topic ban 'broadly interpreted' would be the best solution for the project. If the topic ban is ignored: then go ahead and block. (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, take a look at the edits of Ahunt too who accused me multiple times of bad faith nomination and is still continuing his campaign of discrediting me.
      • Secondly, the NENAN-agument was a valid argument for a couple of hundred times. Just the fact that one Wikiproject has a problem with it, does not my my nominations invalid. They are out there and soon an administrator will judge them. And soon, there will be an RfC to see if WP:NENAN is in the future a valid reason for nomination. I will honour the outcome from that RfC. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I will refrain of using the NENAN-argument till the new (RfC)-consenus is reached.[reply]
    I did review all the contributions involved - it would be impossible to provide an uninvolved viewpoint otherwise. In the first place: it was clear from all those contributions that consensus was against you (though granted, not entirely unanimous). In the second place: you made it clear that your nominations were retaliatory. Both of those factors made subsequent nominations bad faith. I said so above. I am not interested about the history of the WP:NENAN arguments, I am considering this only in the current context which is what the established consensus is addressing. Essays have to be interpreted in the context of the current discussion - it actually says so within the text. I do not accept that others are discrediting you, when you continue to act outside of consensus. This is not your encyclopedia any more than it is mine. This is a comminity project and can only work with co-operation. The only question in my mind is: 'why are you persuing this?' - given that you do not have a history of tendentious editing. (See below)
    I fail to see why an RfC is required when consensus is already against you. This is merely trying to game the system by trying to get a larger consensus because you do not like the outcome of the current one. What would you propose if such an RfC went against you - a world wide referendum?
    A more important question is: 'why does this bother you so much?'. Why can't you just accept the position as it is and move on to editing something more acceptable and worthwhile? (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the discussion was not on a neutral venue and that specific local consensus was en is clearly intended to protect the own project and its templates. It is not a consensus set up to match the best interest of Wikipedia, something a RfC will most likely do. The Banner talk 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you really believed the project was so rotten and the wider community would overturn its consensus at RfC, why didn't you just take it to RfC yourself? Why start a vendetta? That was the behaviour that got you dragged here. And why should we believe your pleadings for an RfC are not motivated by that same vendetta? Wikipedia is a big playground, why not just move on and recover your composure. That's why I like this proposal, it buys you that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) [Update] Except, contrary to the suggestion of good conduct made by DieSwartzPunkt you have a history of losing your cool and getting banned - see my later comment below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:The Banner, it is local consensus, but it is indeed consensus. What part of WP:CONLIMITED do you think applies here. Quoting from there: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." What policy or guideline do you think trumps the consensus of the WikiProject in this situation? Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – As I said above, The Banner appears to have a flawed understanding of WP:CONLIMITED. He needs to read and understand WP:POLICY before taking anything else to TfD. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My friend, that is why I suggested to start a RfC. Just as WP:CONLIMITED says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Seeing the few hundred times that WP:NENAN was used on TfD, there was at least some consensus that it was a valid argument. TfD is the wider scale, so a RfC is the way to go to get the wider scale consensus. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Might the solution be to replace the typical begging-for-money banners with one directed to a referendum page? Then, anyone connecting to Wikipedia could post an opinion. Hard to get a much wider "community" than that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support That The Banner is even still allowed to edit wikipedia is because of the incompetence of the admins in dealing with his repeated problematic behaviour. He was allowed to return by HJ Mitchell on condition that he meets certain terms, and as far as I can see he's violated every one of them. Any editor who can't respect consensus should not be permitted to edit wikipedia, and Banner repeatedly illustrates he cannot accept consensus. In fact I'd say that the ban proposal should be extended to nominating articles for deletion as he repeatedly illustrates incompetence in nominations too and nominating notable articles which just need cleanup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has been said above somewhere that The Banner's edit record has generally been good. Let me refer you to their block log and to this archive of their user talk page, in which the most recent indef blocks are discussed. Nobody can hold that The Banner is innocent in all this aggressive PoV-pushing, deafness to argument and personal antagonism. It has quite evidently been their personal style for a long time. The current proposal may well not go far enough in dealing with such a chronically aggressive editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC) [Updated 16:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    Thanks for pointing that out. It is indeed troubling. I see that his allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland were conspiring against him three months ago seems very similar to his interaction with WikiProject Aviation now. A disturbing pattern. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahunt, I am willing to accept that Banner has stepped on a bunch of toes, and that he can be abrasive. I could accept a lot more, maybe. But what I will not accept is someone saying that NOTHERE applies to Banner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think his record and his block log speaks for itself. He is consistently disruptive and ignores consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And when I responded on your many bad faith accusations, block fishing and personal attacks, your block log would also grow quickly. Please use arguments in this dispute, do not get personal. The Banner talk 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me. It was very remiss of me not to check the block log or to see if there was a talk page archive. In the light of these revelations, I have struck parts of my posts above. Also, it is now apparent that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE. I have also changed my !vote to an unqualifie 'support'. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Banner cites NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. It looks like (from the RfC linked below) that NENAN is thrown out as a rationale for deletion nominations. Ergo, Banner will no longer cite NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. If he does, he's courting a block.

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

    I have always said that I will honour the outcome of the RfD. No matter what the outcome is. The Banner talk 10:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to let that RfC run to conclusion, which it will soon do, but I agree right now the consensus there is that WP:NENAN is of no value at deletion discussions. The only editor who seems to be still defending it there and opposing the WikiProject consensus on the matter is User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What consensus? That consensus reached on WikiProject Aircraft that according to the closing administrator of quite a lot of the nominated templates is NOT a convincing argument? The Banner talk 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You have already been challenged to explain how you come to that non-logical conclusion but have failed to explain it, as usual. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you fail to understand/accept what the closing administrator did. But I am willing to repeat that over and over again for you: Easy: an administrator is not counting votes but is balancing arguments. The fact that so many nominated templates are kept as "no consensus" means that the administrator was not convinced by the arguments to delete nor convinced by the arguments (in this case the local consensus) to keep it outright. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies is wrong about this discussion. The narrow issue over the templates is being discussed at TfD. I specifically brought The Banner's behaviour here to ANI. It has now emerged as part of a wider and longer-term pattern of destructive behaviour and it needs dealing with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute, so you try to get me blocked. The Banner talk 10:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The matter at RfC has been firmly decided by yet another consensus against you. What we are discussing here is your record of intentional disruption of Wikipedia to make a point. As I have said before your record speaks for itself, you have been blocked multiple times in the past for the same thing. There is no need for you to keep pretending this is a content dispute when it isn't. Your response above shows clearly that you don't "get it" and aren't willing to change your behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, mr. Hunt, stop this harassing and personal attacks. Just accept the facts. Indeed, except for miracles WP:NENAN will be shot down as argument for a deletion nomination. But you fail to accept that the closing administrator also shot down your local consensus as argument for an outright keep. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can stop trying to deflect the discussion here. It is your behavior that is being discussed here, not mine and your response is to accuse other people of "harassing and personal attacks" without any evidence. I have provided diffs above that support all complaints about your behaviour, as have other editors. Your attempts at deflections here provide only vague accusations and continue to show that you "just don't get it", aren't willing to admit that your editing is a problem and aren't willing to change. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 2: RfC

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

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

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

    This is not relevant to the current discussion, which is about you. Posting about it here looks like just another of your attempts to deflect attention from your violation of your previous promises, as discussed above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is related, and a notice here is appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment

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

    Threat of a block

    IP warned by Acroterion and FreeRangeFrog. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An IP editor, 100.1.172.140, told me through an edit summary (this one), "You touch this update one more time and I'll have you blocked.. The updates are fully acceptable.", and on his talk: "You touch those updates one more time I'm yanking funding. The links work..". I reverted his addition because he used Wikipedia in three of his five incorrectly formatted sources. I take the threat as especially hostile because of the manner he said it in. I cite WP:Harassment, "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely. and "Threatening another person is considered harassment." MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Left a message in the IPs talk page, hopefully they'll rent a clue. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an empty threat, and inappropriately hostile. I've left them a note. Please avoid being drawn into an edit war yourself, something that's easy to do when one encounters this sort of baiting. Acroterion (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Egregious section heading at Talk:Earthquake prediction

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

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

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

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

    User:Elvey has been notified, and notices placed at User_talk:64.134.48.248 and User_talk:64.134.150.40. User:Joe Bodacious has been notified, but might not be able to respond immediately as he has been blocked as a sock puppet. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a good section heading but the criteria for using rev/del don't cover this (nor can we actually change edit summaries, although of course we can hide them). Dougweller (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't WP:TALKNEW pretty clear? Under "Keep headings neutral" (emphasis in the original) it plainly says: "Don't address other users in a heading". Also, "Never use headings to attack other users", which is deemed not simply "not good", but "especially egregious". (I have detailed all this at Talk:Earthquake prediction#Discussion of contested removal of section with non-neutral heading beginning "NOTICE".)
      Deletion from the active talk pages would ordinarily follow archival. Joe's view seems to be that this attack should be permanently memorialized. Shouldn't this sockpuppet's reversions also be "struck out"? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR: SRSLY? This is about an edit I made months ago! My comment echoes the views of other editors regarding edits by the user that have lead to similar criticisms of JJ by many other editors on many occasions before and since. JJ WP:NOTHERE? --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome constructive feedback, particularly in the form of an edit to the edit I made that this ANI section dredges up and characterizes as harassment and trolling; the guideline WP:TALKNEW says "Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user." The heading is currently, "NOTICE: ANI discussion re. WP:OWN, WP:DE and User:J. Johnson's commitment to not revert" to make it demands much admin action that seems all about a tempest in an old teapot. While JJ claimed that "no admin was interested in a topic ban", and that may or may not be true (neither of us has ESP...), what is true is that User:BrownHairedGirl is an admin, and did say at that archived ANI discussion, "... I hope that JJ will moderate his tone and accept the outcome of the RFC. A warning would be appropriate on that issue alone." --{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 07:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BrownHairedGirl is right. The fact that J. Johnson probably would have received a topic ban was brought up on my page last night by User:Robert McClenon - his ownership problems put other editors off. Including me. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    That wording in the talkpage guideline, about not referring to other users' names in headings, is pretty nonsensical and has never reflected actual practice. It used to say a different thing, up to c.2011 or so, which was actually about not addressing other editors, in the sense of talking to them rather than about them (i.e. discouraging headings of the type "Hey, XYZ, why did you revert me?"). Then some people misunderstood "address somebody" as if it meant "refer to somebody", and people started silently fiddling with the wording until it said something totally different.
    What it all boils down to is: headers in talk pages may be about whatever is a legitimate topic of discussion on that page. It is true that normally discussions on article pages should be as little personalized as possible, but if in a given situation an individual's behaviour has been a particular matter of concern, and discussion on the article has had to focus substantially on how to deal with the disruption caused by that individual, then it is only natural that section headings may end up reflecting that, just as they tend to reflect whatever else gets discussed on such pages. If such has been the case here and you've been causing long-term problems on that page, then you'll probably have to live with the idea that other editors will refer to you while trying to clean up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Odd behavior by GinAndChronically

    Would anyone be willing to look into the recent edits by GinAndChronically (talk · contribs)? The issue that has come up lately is that they are adding "ewns" to right before "corner" in an article, such as this edit, where they used the summary, "a two street intersection has four corners, which corner e w n s ? otherwise the building is in the middle of the intersection." Another example of that is this edit, where they change a page for a town located in the northeastern corner of Connecticut to say, "Windham County is a county located in the upper most northeastern section of the U.S. state of Connecticut." To say that these don't add confusion would be an understatement, as I reverted all of the examples in their recent edits, along with Pi.1415926535. Furthermore, we have both left messages on his talk page explaining that this behavior does not work, and we have been met with responses that have edit summaries such as boneheads. I really didn't want to have to bring them here, but I was wondering if someone would be able to look into this, as they clearly aren't getting the point that we are trying to help them, and are instead getting borderline insults as responses back. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to that: they're prone to respond to any criticism with lengthy rants as seen on their talk page, and have no interest in engaging in actual discussion. They reverting one of the edits that ktr reversed, but their other editing since has been largely uncontroversial spelling corrections with incorrect edit summaries. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that many recent edits are filled with false edit summaries, but they are all for spelling corrections. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) They've also made a series of edits with the summary "ambiguous colloquialism", but some of these are either effectively null edits [3] or outright wrong [4]. It appears the goal is to correct misspellings of individual (see [5]), but in a very confusing and ineffective way. This feels like a competence issue more than anything but GinAndChronically needs to do better. Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    More on this; two of the edits were to add the {{sic}} template to blockquoted sources: [6] [7]. I checked the sources and the error was in the transcription--the source spelled the word correctly. These edits (which I changed) took a bad situation (transcription error) and made it worse by making it less likely it'll be caught and corrected. Mackensen (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is a competence issue. The editor reads everything literally and edits accordingly. Without mentorship, this will not end well. The user cannot handle any ambiguity or the existence of multiple interpretations. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So, what do people think should be done here, as I don't think them continuing to attack us will be very productive, and it seems like there is agreement for something to be done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I definitely feel like a WP:CIR block could be justified here. It seems as if the pattern is: 1) GinAndChronically introduces a bizarre batch of edits with a similar pattern of changes and/or edit summaries; 2) GinAndChronically gets asked "why?" and is asked to stop on their talk page; 3) GinAndChronically goes on a tangential rant about it; 4) GinAndChronically eventually abandons that line of editing and returns to step 1, only for the cycle to begin again. Repeatedly having to clean up such generally unconstructive mass edits does not seem like an efficient use of other editors' resources. Given the most recent batches of edits, I'm not certain what benefit mentorship could have here, but if someone wishes to make that effort, feel free. --Kinu t/c 17:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin--What is the problem here? I have every right to advocate my position on my TP and to provide an edit summary that best supplies me with that ability to isolate it from all other edit summaries that I have made--the several thousand. As far as I know these summaries have not used racially derogatory or cuss words and there is no WP policy or guideline that should be applicable toward what has been used to warrant a change in what I have done with the matter of edit summaries. To use my edit summaries as an example of how someone perceived themselves as being defied is absolute rubbish. Has anyone particularly the complainant bothered to look at the time stamps about what has been brought to attention and when that activity stopped. Or is the real question or an additional question at hand that the complainant is perceiving that he is being defied by my holding to the opinion expressed on my TP that if WP intends to have articles of lasting value then the words and expressions used have to accurately describe the subject. The use of colloquialism and inaccurate words are not of long lasting value. People are using the word corner as a colloquialism for the word intersection. One is no more than the other. They are not interchangeable especially when used as a description in a legal proceeding. Oh, well this is not a legal proceeding but if it were correct it certainly could be otherwise it is inaccurate. Plain and simple. What do we know today that can be provided so that later it does not become an issue? What is there today will not always be there tomorrow and who is here to day will not always be around for tomorrow so what fault is there on insisting that if WP wants to include information that can be found out today of long lasting value then what purpose does a colloquialism serve or even a misapplied word.

    As for the use of ewns? All that was said was that it should not be used; not that if it were applicable in some manner that there was a way for it be integrated into WP articles but essentially that it was irrelevant. In what way is it irrelevant in an attempt to clarify and make proper those words and phases already in use? Again, a corner is not an intersection and an intersection is not a corner. That is not a different interpretation but a mistake.

    As for those edit summaries concerning spelling, did anyone bother to point out at the time that there was an inconsistency? Or was it someone's perception that someone was being defiant? If that is the case then that is something on which the complainant has to work because someone has jumped to an inaccurate perception? First I am told to leave things be because longevity is sufficient for consensus. Absolutely no one at WP is going to acknowledge that a mistake will ever be accepted as consensus.

    If someone characterizes my response as a rant then I have absolutely nothing more to discuss with that person because they have come to a conclusion that seeks to achieve absolutely no understanding that I believe is suppose to be part of the WP experience. The rant characterization is similar to the reaction of a dog that turns its back on you. That is the indication of a dog that you do not exist. If I do not exist then there is no reason to respond.GinAndChronically (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Whether you use cuss words or not is irrelevant ... WP:CONSENSUS is the primary law that you agreed to on Wikipedia, yet you state you don't follow it. WP:EDITSUMMARY - something else you agreed to, but you don't seem to like it much either. You don't necessarily have a "right" to do anything - you have the ability to post sourced changes on an article talkpage, and see if you get consensus. You're also making sweeping generalizations about the concept of a "corner" that will not bear fruition according to the laws of many jurisdictions - but that's a content issue you'll have to take up on articles the panda ₯’ 19:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits like this give the impression that you don't review your edits for accuracy before saving them. That's unhelpful. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope this is not to develop into a tit-for-tat? With the logic of Mackensen then presenting an example where an edit was made and then revert by myself would conceal the issue of reviewing edits? Impressions are not the best way by which to make decisions because they can be what persists in one's mind influenced by their weltanschauung.

    At least DangerousPanda suggested that my opinion of "corner" is not universal but did not rule out that it was non-existent because "many" is not "most" that could be a majority and then there is "all" which would be universal. He then goes on to support this with the intended use of the article talk page. I never said that ALL uses of corner were instead of intersection. I said that people are using corner for intersection. Yes there is a concept of "corner"; there is also the place name of "corner". If "Jackson's Corner" was the subject then it might sound rather repetitive to say that it is at the corner of X and Y Streets unless it was on all or most corners at X and Y Streets.

    But what I see coming about is not my opinion about the use of corner instead of intersection but whether I am challenging WP authority. I repeat, has any one reviewed the stamp times of when I was notified and when it stopped? If what is being pursued is the perception of challenging authority; of so then someone is barking up the wrong tree.

    I will also say that I will persist in my opinion that longevity is not a sufficient bases by which to establish consensus since every thing regularly in every article is not reviewed for accuracy.GinAndChronically (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Would anyone be able to take action on this, as there is no reason that this needs to continue on longer than it already is. Gin, we are not challenging your challenge of authority as you think you are doing here. What we are challenging is the fact that you are introducing confusing information into an article in a style which has not been used before, and would require an RFC to implement. I have no problem challenging authority, but the way in which you are doing it clearly shows that you are unable to listen to others when we ask politely for you to stop. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 13:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    Given the poor-quality edit shown by Mackensen above, but also based on the entirety of the conversation herein, I am of the belief that GinAndChronically does not care about the quality of their work, but rather the quantity. Seeing as how the most recent batch of mass changes by this user included such egregiously awful edits as this and this, I'm further convinced of this. A statement made by this editor on their talk page is particularly telling: "So, no time lost; no effort gone unrewarded." Actually, plenty of time has been lost in cleaning up after GinAndChronically; every series of mass edits ultimately seems to result in some cleanup that must be undertaken by other editors. This is a clear case of failing to get the point, and thus I am blocking GinAndChronically indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing and WP:CIR, at least until a time that we as a community can be sufficiently convinced that future edits will not be similarly disruptive. --Kinu t/c 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And, to wit, this edit summary appears to sum up this editor's attitude toward editing in a collegial environment. --Kinu t/c 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by ip:175.138.232.130

    Disruptive static IP blocked for a week. Bishonen | talk 09:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

    175.138.232.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been constantly removing a section of the GeForce article,[8][9] and being rude and un-cooperative about it.[10][11] I have tried to get him/her to discuss the issue at Talk:GeForce#Nouveau driver, but had no success. There have also been numerous warnings on his/her talk page. Lonaowna (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for a week for persistent disruptive editing. Thank you for reporting, Lonaowna. Bishonen | talk 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sockpuppet

    Now there is a similar ip (175.138.235.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) making the exact same edit.[12] Lonaowna (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Range 175.138.232.0/22 blocked for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins needed for editor Achinoam

    I was first alerted to this editors fringe POV on the Jewish Bolshevism article, with this edit. Using the IHR for a source for anything is a red flag, but most especially in an article concerning Jewish people. Then looking at the editors other contribs, it is painfully obvious they are here to disrupt the project and insert antisemitism into articles. Revert as vandalism and block, imo. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't notice it was a fringe website, ran a search on Wikipedia and saw it was quoted 49 times and wrongly assumed it was a good source. And to the admins, I will make slower edits and will research the validity of internet sources more in depth. Achinoam (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed a word from this section title: let us not jump to conclusions. I see some edits on David Duke that may be valid, and some that may not be--I'm interested in the opinion of Dougweller. For me, this is not an open and shut case, not yet, not without more diffs that clearly indicate an agenda of sorts. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I am sure that is the case. Like your addition of Socialist who embrace pedophilia, or your creation of a page about a unknown Rabbi who was supposedly a pedo. Or your 'first edits' here removing negative info from Stormfront and David Duke articles, and putting in negative information into BLP articles of Jewish people. Or removing positive info about them. I am sure you are correct, you are just a new user who didn't know the IHR was an antisemitic organization. In any case, perhaps I've jumped the gun, or perhaps not. In any case, there is little doubt to me that you are here from Stormfront to disrupt the project. But I won't comment here anymore and let others decide. Dave Dial (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I think his deleted contributions are telling. I deleted the page as an attack page, but given the presence of sources I was not sure how to proceed. It looked like it may have been based on a real incident but it was so badly written and made such serious accusations I G10'd it.

    There does seem to be a theme going on here. I do think it is soap boxing and disruptive. Chillum 16:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't make accusations. He's been sentenced to 24 years in prison. As can be seen in at least one of the sources. G10 wasn't a valid deletion criteria. Achinoam (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps. There is always WP:DRV. It was poorly written and given the content if it does need an article it needs to be well written, so I deleted it. Chillum 16:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, I'm not the best writer. I don't mind the article deletion. But that's very different from inserting libel in the article, which I didn't if you actually looked at the sources. And is the subject of this inquisition tribunal. Achinoam (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You beat me to this Drmies, thanks for asking. I'm concerned. As Drmies suggests, a couple of his edits at David Duke are dubious, specifically the removal of 'anti-Semitic'[13] evidently on the basis that the document had been shown to be incorrect on a different issue, and after I reinstated it, removing it again with an edit summary "I removed it because the source published incorrect information on the subject. By WP:RSUW, "For sources of very low reliability, due weight may be no mention at all." This edit[14] removed a description (white supremacist) on the basis that it wasn't on the page of the National Alliance (United States) - fair enough, but like other edits at David Duke directional, removing critical material - why not replace the description with something actually in the article (which I did)? He's edited quite a few articles an American rabbis - to be specific, articles in Category:American Conservative rabbis basically removing material for various reasons which at first sight seem legitimate. One entry in this category is Shaye J. D. Cohen whom he prod'd:"= Articles relies solely on primary sources. Can't find anything about subject on Google Scholar other than self-published articles". Take a look at the article. Cohen is "Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of Harvard University." with various other prestigious visiting lectureships, etc. Yes, I imagine Google will find a lot of material he published, but in reliable academic sources. I cannot view this as a good faith prod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually de-PRODded that one. A named professorship (at Harvard no less) is a clean pass of WP:ACADEMIC.--Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I also dePRODded David G. Dalin, which had been kept at an earlier AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dave, their edit to the Stormfront article was valid--what they removed was vague and unsourced. Chillum, good point: that was one distasteful little article. The edit to Cultural Marxism was total crap. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Was my addition to cultural Marxism really that bad? My text: "Many cultural Marxist concepts became dominant; others, such as pedophile liberation, have fallen out of favor." Compare to the source blogs.telegraph.co.uk: "Although many of these ideas died from their own absurdity (paedophile liberation is not too popular these days) many have come to be influential or even dominant." The source blogs.telegraph.co.uk is quoted over 250 times in Wikipedia and the Telegraph is a mainstream newspaper. WP:USERG says "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I think the source I provided meets this definition. Achinoam (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes it was pretty bad. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources, particularly for controversial claims. Saying that the source is used elsewhere does not make it valid. Your edits are showing a clear point of view that you are trying to represent on Wikipedia, we are not a place for soap boxing. Chillum 17:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A point of view about what exactly? That's like the only article about marxism that I edited. And it's not just a blog, but a blog for the Telegrapher which is a BIG newspaper. WP:USERG "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Maybe you don't agree but at least I made an effort to research the source's validity. Achinoam (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a bit more to it. It's not really the blogginess--it's that a. the information you added (or reinserted) to the article) is very poorly written and b. it's an editorial, not an actual "factual" article that you're citing. But worse, what's being uttered as an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment is inserted into our article as if it were really a news item that Marxism doesn't support the sexual abuse of children. Drmies (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, you source was referring to "The ideas of Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse," while your edit refers to these ideas as "cultural Marxist concepts." While possibly Gramsci and Marcuse held these views, it is wrong to consider them as concepts of cultural Marxism unless cultural Marxists generally held them. See also "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is clearly an opinion piece, not a news story. Note the title, "Criticising Cultural Marxism doesn't make you Anders Breivik". It's not like he was reporting statements Gramsci and Marcuse had just made. I cannot find any mention of this in reliable sources.
    It seems that this editor is looking for bad things to add to articles about Jews and the Left, while trying to remove bad things in articles about the far right, and has no concern about policy. I notice he has quoted policy and guidelines often right from his first edit where he or she referred to "WP:PEACOCK" as a reason to remove a word.[15] I do not predict any improvement and therefore support an indefinite block.
    TFD (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you asked it appears to me that your POV is pro anti-semitic organisations and you seem to be focused on pointing out a connection between being jewish and being a pedophile. Do you really have to ask me what your point of view is? It seems clear to me and it is fringe.

    I am going to leave this for another admin to decide on. Chillum 18:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure what to make of it myself. It might be that he is really trying to just edit and simply can't edit without showing his biases, seemingly anti-jewish, anti-left. The problem is, our policies on neutrality and competency don't differentiate between intentional and unintentional, only the result matters. I've looked, but I don't have a simple answer. The only thing that is certain is that we can't have these kinds of edits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether intentional or not, the editor shows a strong tendency towards POV editing and edits a narrow range of articles. My inclination is that the pattern is no accident. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also interesting to note that Achinoam displays a surprising familiarity with WP processes despite having such a new account - the first edit under this name was in June. Their first two edits cite a policy in the edit summary, and many more use common shorthand like 'OR', which is not the sort of behaviour one usually sees from an editor less than two months into their career. Are we certain that this isn't an experienced editor with a second account? Euchrid (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And a couple of links I'm not familiar with after all these years. So yes, it seems likely he is. Topic ban? Dougweller (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind a topic ban. I disagree that I have a PoV, however I can understand that my edits gave that impression. Look at my history: I have changed my topics since I was notified of this. I can cooperate.Achinoam (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:94.196.246.0

    Resolved
    IP blocked by Acroterion talk page access revoked. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 18:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP 94.196.246.0 got blocked and now trolling on talk page since someone left that possibility to troll. --84.248.189.125 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably needs Rev-del looking at the edit before he blanked his own stupidity. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if I did something wrong but I just wanted to hide those harassment texts. P.S. What does "Rev-dev" mean? --84.248.189.125 (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x3) Just don't harass and personally attack other editors again, no one feels like dealing with that crap all the time. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Eeh... so did I something wrong when I posted here? --84.248.189.125 (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I was letting him do it for a while since it stops him doing anything worse. Admins can see the IP's deleted edits, and those made earlier by Never the twain shall meet (talk · contribs) and Arounddance (talk · contribs).  —SMALLJIM  18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Talkpage access removed and offending edits deleted, since they appear to have stopped for the time being. I've also hard-blocked the IP (prevented logged-in editors from editing from that IP) to flush out any other named accounts, or at least to prevent their editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting closure

    Can an uninvolved editor close this, please? Thanks. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to have done that by itself. There is no need to wrap a stifle box around every discussion, only the ones that drag on interminably. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been plenty of shorter discussions that have been archived/closed with {{archive top/bottom}} no matter the topic. Just take a look at the archives. I guess it's just personal style. Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 06:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that the archive box was picked up by the archive bot so that rather than waiting for a set period it would archive on the next run. Although I may be remembering the functionality in Miszabot before that was stopped. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:JajaDSeries (again)

    The user keeps defying their block by removing the block notice at their talk page and posting there much the same information they have been blocked for ([16], [17]). I've notified the blocking admin but they may not be available to respond.--Jetstreamer Talk 10:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And then also User:121.54.54.226 edits to User talk:JajaDSeries and other pages with the same edits. IP is one of several in same netblock with same behavior pattern over at least a week. I've given that IP 1 week block, bumped the user account to indef for evasion, and semi-protected it user-account's talkpage. Don't have time now to work on rangeblock. DMacks (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Septate breaking his newly imposed editing restrictions

    Septate (talk · contribs) is under a Community imposed editing restriction[18] placed indefinitely for all edits which are related to religion:

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

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

    Despite this he continues to revert at various articles dealing with the subject of Wahhabism. Eg [19], [20] (and in this case the article is also a religious one, Mawlid, a religious celebration) and [21]. Perhaps the topic ban would have been a better idea. Dougweller (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That was so quick. I knew that he will break those restrictions, I agree that topic ban is probably going to help. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dougweller. You are seriously wrong and mistaken. Regarding [22], I made that edit after a simple discussion. See User talk:Vanamonde93#Thanks!. The problem was regarding the reliability of Apologetics.com, which was resolved when I provided BBC source. Although I am obliged to open the discussion on talk page per imposed ban on me, I don't find it useful because the dispute was resolved. When it comes to [23], I don't know why you mentioned it here. It is completely irrelevant. I have made no reverts neither another user has reverted my edits calling them vandalism or something else. Interestingly the dispute was not between me but two other users. My edits just came in the middle of there reverts of each others edits. See edit history of Mawlid. The same goes with [24]. I have made a simple edit. If some one reverts my edit then I am obliged to open a discussion talk page. Seriously, this is complete wastage of time.Septate (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, if I break the rule, I would prefer to get blocked for 2 day or week instead of topic banned.Septate (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Septate: WTF? On Mawlid you reverted this edit by another user by making this edit. That's a revert of the change from Wahhabist to Salafist. Your restriction is crystal clear: "Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion." Also, on Al-Qaeda it is completely irrelevant that "Although I am obliged to open the discussion on talk page per imposed ban on me, I don't find it useful because the dispute was resolved". It's not you that gets to choose whether it's "useful" in any particular instance. On the ISIS article, I am puzzled by what Doug says there. Perhaps he could elaborate. But leaving that aside there are two clear breaches just a couple of days into the restriction - with justifications like you "didn't find it useful". It's definitely time for a topic ban. DeCausa (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I don't see how a discussion on a user talk page with an editor other than the one you reverted matters here. Furthermore, the discussion was about reliability of sourcing, yet User:Gazkthul's edit summary clearly indicated an objection based on POV issues NOT RS issues. If you had reverted User:Vanamonde93, based on the agreement to the edit, I can see us not acting to enforce the letter of the restriction, but that isn't who you reverted. There is no discussion on the article talk page, and you unambiguously reverted another editor. How is that not a violation of your editing restrictions? Monty845 14:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dougweller: While I agree with you on the first article, with regard to Mawlid, is there a clear edit that was reverted? Given the restriction was specifically on reverts, if something was only added to an article, in the absence of a recent removal for it to be reverting, I don't think it is obvious that the addition counts as a revert. Monty845 15:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Monty845: as I pointed out above, on Mawlid an editor changed Wahhabist to Salafist and two hours later Septate changed it back. That's a revert and he should have gone to the talk page and waited 6 hours before he did the revert. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow now, I listed the wrong article in my above comment, but now clearly see the violations on both articles. Monty845 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for not making clear the problem at ISIS. P123ct1 "Removed "Wahhabist" - reliable sources do not say ISIS is Wahhabist (see Talk page discussion)"[25] 2 days ago. Septate restored it today, ie reverted the revert.[26]. As with the others, no discussion on the talk page first. His comment that following his restrictions is a waste of time suggests we aren't getting very far with this attempt at leniency. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'm in agreement on both cases then. Afaik, we would need a new discussion to topic ban, so I think that just leaves a block, perhaps with an offer of a topic ban as an unblock condition? Monty845 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that he broke his edit restriction. [[27] this edit by Septate] was a clear revert of this edit by Gazkthul. When the edit restriction was proposed, I explained to him at User talk:Septate#July 2014 that "If you broke the restriction you could be blocked for a week for breaking the restriction. And if you kept on breaking it, the blocks might get bigger. (e.g. 1st time 1 week, 2nd time 1 month, etc.)" I think that he should have a 1 week block, and be told that if he breaks the restriction again after the block, then he will get a 1 month block.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

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

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

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

    • Support. It's not only the rapid and blatant breach but also the bare-faced claims that he hasn't breached the restriction. He has a history of deceptive edit summaries to cover up his edits - which he's previously got a 48 hour block. His attitude here is consistent with that. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I was considering just blocking for a month, and offering a topic ban as an unblock condition, but this is the cleaner way to do it. Not the standard construction of a topic ban, we usually go to a permanent ban, with the option to request it be removed in 6 months, but it may be interesting to see how this version works. Monty845 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I agree this seems cleaner and going straight into a breach shows that the restrictions weren't sufficient. I'm pessimistic about it working though. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot, we should let User:Callanecc know as he was the one who closed the earlier discussion and notified Septate about the editing restrictions. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Against . Everyone here is just trying to find 'loopholes' to get me topic banned. User:DeCausa read this this edit again. Are you blind or just acting? I just made Wahhabis an alternative name for Salafis! Does this constitute revert? I have not removed Salafis at all. Interestingly I changed the word Salafites to Salafis. I have wasted a lot of time here. I was informed on previous ANI that if I break the the ban in future, I shall be blocked for one week instead of being topic banned. You can't go against it! I am going on a wiki break for one month. This should be enough for me.Septate (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Septate: Drop the pretence. Rameshnta909 took out the word Wahhabis. You reinstated the word Wahhabis. Just because you added other things as well doesn't stop it being a revert. I don't think for one minute that you think that either - you just thought you could get away with it. You also thought that if you get caught you could get off with a block for a few days. that's why you thought it was worth trying it. Well, no. DeCausa (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Septate, you joined wikipedia in Feb 2014, you have over 1700 edits but you have never contributed even 100 words to any article because all you do is flip and switch words in religion articles. How you managed it? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, given how incorrigible Septate appears to be, I'm doubting the wisdom of the Tban just expiring at the 6 month point. Maybe the "traditional" approach is better. DeCausa (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence anyone stating anything to the contrary, I think the existing restrictions would remain in force indefinitely, so in the off chance the ban isn't violated, we go back to the current restrictions in 6 months. Monty845 16:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Septate is going to separate from wikipedia? No issue. Little mistake and last chance? You said that dougweller is wasting time when it was proven that you are breaking editing restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Septate, if you think that's a "loop-hole" there's no hope of getting you to comply with the restriction. DeCausa (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Septate:, when a proposal calling for a topic ban is started you have already lost all room for negotiation. When any editor is sanctioned, there will be many eyes watching. Recalcitrance is punished quickly, acquiescence to the will of the community results in relaxation of sanctions in time. You were sanctioned, you violated the sanctions thus your restrictions will be escalated. I proposed 6 months in the hope that at the end of it you can return to editing in that area after some reflection. You're a relatively new user and I've got enough AGF left after reading through this thread and the previous one that I didn't go for the indefinite topic ban. You should see this as a wake up call. If you go on one month now, then I would propose an amendment to to the topic ban proposal to come into force upon your return. Blackmane (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The rapid breach of the restrictions shows that a topic ban from all articles related to religion is needed. I share Dougwellers pessimistic outlook. JimRenge (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've never seen this editor before, but the above evidence is unacceptable behaviour. Indeed, lest they get some idea of DIVA'ing, if they perform any additional reverts between now and when this discussion is closed, I'll block the panda ₯’ 16:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Given the continued disruptive nature of the edits within the subject area. A topic ban seems more than warranted, especially given the flaunting of earlier restrictions placed. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 17:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -The violations of the ban are obvious and the Wikilawyering is clear. BMK (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Every case is different, but the usual response to violating a topic ban is accelerating blocks. If there are multiple incidents, especially after being warned, then a lengthy block is in order, not just a broadened topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs It was proposed that Septate should be topic banned hardly 1 week ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive848#Proposal for a topic ban on Septate. It was not fixed that he should be blocked or topic banned for violating restrictions, it could be any. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Per BMK and Solarra. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Septate, you had De Causa's and my support for restrictions at the previous ANI despite all indications that you'd been interacting in bad faith. Given that you've violated the terms in such blatant manner within days of agreeing to them, a six month block is warranted. As I've recommended to you personally, and per my recommendation at the last ANI, this is a good opportunity for you to work on articles you don't have an emotional attachment to, thus giving you a chance to understand policies and guidelines and learn to be a constructive contributor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - he should get a 1 week block. Septate was told when the edit restriction was proposed that if he broke the restriction, he would get a 1 week block first time, and probably a 1 month block second time, etc.[28] As this is the first time, he should get a 1 week block. This is only fair. It will also teach him to respect the restriction. This will be more effective than a topic ban. It will encourage good behaviours by Septate, and will not encourage bad behaviors.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, Toddy1, that was a statement made by you alone on his talk page. It wasn't part of the community view as expressed at the ANI thread. I can understand that, as a result, you personally might feel constrained as to how you would !vote in this thread, but it can't have a broader effect. Nevertheless, I agree that what you said would be the "normal" way to proceed. However, the speed of Septate's breach and his attitude to complying with the restriction as shown in this thread takes him out of "normal", IMO. More generally, having seen how he operates over the last few months, I suspect that him believing that there was a limited "first offence" sanction led him to think that it was worth "trying his luck" (2 days in!) to see what wriggle room there is in the restriction. I think rewarding that behaviour with a limited sanction will not be good for WP or Septate. The best hope for him to become a long-term useful editor (which I actually think he could easily be) is for him to understand that it's not worth his while trying to pull these stunts - he will be caught out. DeCausa (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. And give someone a one week block who says he's taking a month off of Wikipedia? Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Insult and threat by TheAirplaneGuy

    Please see [29]

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

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

    (Non-administrator comment) @CorrectKissinTime: I see that the "A380 milestones" section TheAirplaneGuy re-added with their reversion has no sources at all. Apart from that, I cannot find the insult you refer to.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Only warning: Vandalism on Malaysia Airlines. in the edit log and similar text on my talk page. Is calling another person a vandal not considered insulting? CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problem is anyway that he tries to enforce his revert through threatening with me getting blocked instead of starting a discussion. CorrectKissinTime (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) @CorrectKissinTime: S(he) has not openly insulted you, but I'm afraid WP:ATWV applies and {{Uw-vandalism4im}} has been used inappropriately.--Jetstreamer Talk 13:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see zero attempts to try and discuss this "incident" with TheAirplaneGuy before coming here to ANI. Templates are "warnings" not "threats", calling something vandalism that isn't is uncivil...and those two things belong in the realm of user-to-user discussion as neither are blockable. Yes, I agree that 4im was improperly used in this case, but that's guidance and education not administrative blocks the panda ₯’ 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of the void reverting of 6 edits and improperly threatening to get me blocked is not a punishable offence? I really have to scale down on the civility I've learned in real life - in the "user-to-user discussion" you want me to have with this guy I might not be much more friendly to him then he is to me (history has proven that Appeasement does not work). CorrectKissinTime (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the Panda says. No discussion--and, on the other hand, the warning was inappropriate. The edits themselves are a content matter that should be discussed on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Maybe the behaviour does not warrant admin action, but it is not the first time TheAirplaneGuy mislabelled edits as vandalism. See User talk:John.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we've already noted that ... Airplane hasn't edited since this was filed ... I look forward to their reply the panda ₯’ 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass tagging

    User:99.238.74.216 (a/k/a User:99.247.1.157 a/k/a User:99.238.74.216) is continuing to mass add linkrot tags after being repeatedly warned and blocked. Also they claim to be a Master Editor, so there may be possible sockpuppetry at play as well. Could this be addressed as appropriate? Thank you. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked this IP series before on the basis of their contemptuous responses to editors who are wondering why the IP is tagging every instance they can find of a bare URL with a linkrot template. The tagging is not inherently blockable, but their attitude toward those who wonder why there is no corresponding effort to actually fix the issue (the tool to do so is embedded in the template) is. Drive-by tagging with no effort to improve references exhibits an attitude of leaving it to others to actually fix the issue, and tagging single instances of bare urls in an otherwise well-referenced article seems unhelpful. As an aside, they seem to completely misunderstand the service award system and are using that as a basis for ignoring those they feel aren't worthy of notice. It's also possible that they once had a named account from about 2006, based on their claim. Overall, there appears to be a competency issue. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a classic case of drive by editing with no thought of improving any of the articles. However, editors have also been subject to insulting remarks from these unregistered IP addresses. I believe that, like Acroterion's remarks above, there is a competency issue here. It really is time for this issue to be addressed in a positive manner in order to protect the encylopedia. David J Johnson (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, is there a tool to easily check for linkrot? If not, are we even sure that any of the links are rotten? With no helpful edit summary, or even a talk page comment indicating at least one or two of the links that are bad, it is rather difficult to be sure. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 23:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. I misunderstood the purpose of the 'linkrot' tag. I actually went back and fixed a few of the articles. Several had only 1 bare reference. Easy to fix with Reflinks. Including, you know, the user who is tagging them. They do appear to be doing other editting and toning down on the drive-by tagging. Here's hoping. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 00:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    They've scaled back the testiness to occasional jabs, and I haven't noticed a recurrence of the "I'm a master editor so I outrank you" business. It would be nice if they fixed as much as they tagged, but maybe there's a little progress. Acroterion (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning sockpuppet harassing another editor

    User blocked by Monty845 as a vandalism only account ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 20:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Radek Sobkowski (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

    The above user has placed this very abusive message three times on the talk page of User:Michał Sobkowski today. This is almost certainly a sock of the indefinitely blocked user Pacynka Sobkowskiego who has been harassing Michał Sobkowski via multiple socks for the last two years or more. For background see [30], [31], [32]. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked it as a Vandalism Only Account, as the talk page messages were clearly intended to be disruption. Given that the target is an admin on another wiki, I'm don't know if there is sufficient evidence to conclusively link this new account to the old one, it could just be another person coming here with the same intent. Either way though, they are blocked. Monty845 16:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of user

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

    Resolved
     – Forum Shopping, WP:STICK close [[33]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like an administrator to evaluate the conduct of Scalhotrod in the last week. Specifically, from this point [34] through today. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    To help narrow it down, I'm talking about his participation in this AN discussion (including subsections), his edits at: users' talk pages (including his and mine), which are obviously related to the AN discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I agree that we don't need to be discussing this at ANI right now. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    116.251.187.6

    (non-admin closure) Dealt with.--Auric talk 15:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    116.251.187.6 is vandalising random articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.251.187.6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 19:59, July 28, 2014‎ (UTC)

    Moved issue to Administrator intervention against vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 20:52, July 28, 2014 (UTC)

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

    Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

    Firstly, there is clearly no one qualified to close this discussion because I think the only people who arn't in some way involved or connected to this are gnoming in some far corner of the encyclopedia and have idea idea that other people edit this project.

    This discussion has reached it's epoch. A block has happened, an unblock has happened, a reblock won't happen and no other admin actions are available anymore unless Panda is willing to revert himself or some other admin is willing to war over it. Either way, neither of those can be solved at ANI. I'm fairly certain nothing else can come out of this discussion. Surely, like in all the discussions in the past, no consensus will emerge to block Eric permenantly.

    The discussion isn't leading anywhere, will not lead anywhere, and there is no component of it that can end constructively. If there were any part of it that was capable of resolution, I would leave it be. But there isn't a single side-discussion or otherwise which has the potential to come to any sort of result at all.

    Let the matter be handled in more appropriate places like on Panda's talk page where folks are discussing him reverting himself. That, at the moment, is the only place where progress can be made

    With regard to the future, the issue of what makes a personal attack needs to happen at the NPA policy. The issue of blocks and unblocks and involveness could perhaps be issues for Arbcom.

    I've never seem an issue as divisive as Eric - and I don't even think Eric wants to be a divisive issue. I've seen lines drawn on this project between people who are normally on the same wavelength and I've seen wikilawyering of epic porportions. Let's just give it a rest for now. We've exploded all over ANI and no one's head is in the right spot to work this out constructively.--v/r - TP 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At a nearly settle 3RR discussion between Eric Corbett and Bloodofox, admin Scottywong shows up to stir the shit pot and an old rivelry with Eric. The edit warring had ended a couple hours before, so there was no immediate issue when Scotty begins tailing Eric's comments, trying to provoke a response. Please note that Scotty has indef blocked Eric before [35] and this indef block was soon reverted to one month by another admin.

    Scotty continued to add to the discussion, knowing full well that he was antagonizing a situation that was already under control, fortunately no one really took the bait. In this exchange, Scotty taunted Cassianto as being a new "pawn" of Eric's. He also made a personal attack against me with the comment "The corruption of your character is alarming sometimes, as is your lack of impartiality and sense of fairness." although I was there merely as a commenter. It is easier to just read the report. [36] I requested that he retract it. [37] and he declined. [38]

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

    Dennis, perhaps you need to start taking some of your own advice. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely correct, and I said as much at AN3 before this section was started. Throwing out personal attacks against other editors purely due to ancient grudges is absolutely not acceptable from any editor, let alone an administrator; I am even more disturbed that Scottywong appears from his responses to Dennis at AN3 and his talk page to believe that this behaviour is completely acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I will accept any punishment that the community decides is necessary for the unimaginable atrocities I have committed today. I would like to point out, however, that Dennis was actually the first to inject personal attacks into the discussion. He kindly let me know that my lack of empathy is alarming to him, and I appreciated his honesty so much that I thought I would return the favor and let him know my honest thoughts about him. I considered his empathy comments deeply offensive, and since he didn't document them with diffs (which is apparently the rule now), I ask that any punishment applied to me also be applied to Dennis equally. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 23:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "block anyone that crosses 3RR without regard to why", that does lack empathy. The problem is you pushing Eric around like a bully, as you have the admin bit (and have blocked him before), trying to get him to go off on you so you could block again. You have ZERO interest in that case, you came to cause problems only. Then making personal attacks against someone who called you on it, questioning my character, when you were the one bullying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but unfortunately that makes no sense. If I blocked Eric for anything, I would be immediately hauled off to Arbcom by 3 dozen editors for taking administrative action in violation of WP:INVOLVED. And Eric is well aware of that. So, your claims that I'm trying to be a bully, and I'm trying to bait Eric into doing something so that I can block him are completely farcical. And I don't believe that strict enforcement of clearly-defined rules equates to a lack of empathy. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as what is more empathetic or not is perfectly fine for a separate discussion, there is logic on both sides, but that isn't the big issue. It is at last arguable that blind block is unempathetic, even if you say you can present evidence to the contrary. As for "if you blocked Eric", I'll be honest Scotty, I don't know if you would block him, or ask someone else to block him, or just wait for it to happen, but you knew (or should have known) that pushing his buttons could have caused more disruption and caused him to tell you to piss off, etc. Look at your own comments Scotty, it looks exactly like you came in looking for a fight with Eric. NO good could ever come of you talking to him when it isn't needed. Yes, it looked like bullying because YOU have the power of the admin bit and buddies on IRC, and he has nothing except a reputation that makes him easy to block.
    As for questioning my character, that is a separate issue. I didn't close the AN3, I haven't hid the fact that Eric and I get along on articles, I suggested closing by saying that neither had edited in two hours, and anyone that knows me knows I don't like to block two editors for EW if they aren't editing, that seems punitive. Eric or not. I'm NOT known to block on 4RR, I'm the guy that usually full protects the article. So yes, calling my character corrupt was way over the line. The fact that Eric and I get along is exactly why I WOULDN'T HAVE closed that discussion, even though WP:INVOLVED only covers negative interaction, not positive. It was an attack, and not the same as a merely blunt assessment. Regardless, your activity towards Eric was so massively over the line, it makes ALL admin look bad. THAT is a problem. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? Buddies on IRC? You are making one assumption of bad faith after another. I had no intention of blocking Eric, asking someone else to block him, or logging in to IRC (which I never use) to start a conspiracy against Eric. I was merely commenting that I thought this 3RR offense should result in a block, just as you were commenting that you thought it shouldn't result in a block. All the rest of your assumptions about me and my intentions should have been checked at the door, and they were probably a result of your aforementioned positive INVOLVEments with Eric. You really get overly emotional when it comes to defending him; perhaps you should refrain from commenting on complaint threads about him. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 01:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)It's okay because the other party shot first? Two wrongs don't make a right (although three rights do make a left). Calling another editor corrupt is pretty uncool no matter what the circumstances are. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My empathy comment was directly in response to his, there was no diff. This is a weak attempt to deflect attention from everything he said on the page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, if you re-read the discussion, you'd see that your first comment to me was to characterize my (rather civil and level-headed) comments as soapboxing and drama-mongering. You then go on to tell me that my lack of empathy is alarming to me. Only then did I decide to return the favor by giving you some honest criticism. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The easiest thing is to close this, close the EW page, hat them and move on. Discussion is ongoing on the kelpie talk page and folks can just ignore the ad hominems and move on. I'd hat both these myself right now but have been peripherally involved at editing the kelpie page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure there is some wisdom in that Casliber, but this is pretty far over the line, and ignoring sends the message that it is ok for an admin to torment editors you've blocked before, and then insult someone who stands up to them. This isn't exactly the first time we've seen this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so let me get this straight. There is an editor who you perceive to be uncivil, who is casting insults and attacks, being inflammatory and argumentative, and you see this as a long term pattern of behavior. Hmm. Who else can you think of who fits that bill, and why are you so enraged by one instance of this behavior and so forgiving of another? ‑Scottywong| babble _ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't the first time we've seen admin torment editors. We can't just do nothing every time we see it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, ok. Well, I'm sorry for "tormenting" Eric about reverting the same page 4 times in a day. I'll be sure to ignore such trivial policies in the future. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok you 2, what the feck is going on here. Two Wikipedia editors that I appreciate suddenly squaring off on ANI...fan-fricking-tastic. Scotty, considering your history with Eric, you had no fricking business on the AN3 report - you were simply inflaming something that would have been better off being cooled off. Well-fricking-done - THAT was the part that was really conduct unbecoming. The job of an admin is NOT to pour gasoline on a freicking fire. Dennis was indeed right to call you on it. That never should have HAD TO EVER HAPPEN. What the feck were you thinking? the panda ₯’ 23:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Panda, I believe I have a right to express my opinion at AN3. My intention wasn't to inflame anything, it was to express my opinion that clear violations of 3RR should result in a block. It was not until my opinion was derided as "soapboxing" and "drama-mongering" by Dennis, and it was not until I was told I have an alarming lack of empathy by Dennis that I decided to let Dennis know what I thought of his comments. I am fully aware that I am WP:INVOLVED with Eric in just about everything, and had no intention of acting as an administrator with respect to this AN3 complaint. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 00:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, other than the fact that we have no "rights" to speak of, we always have to temper whatever right we have with common sense. You personally know that your post there would take on a life of it's own ... and look, it did. You know better than that for crying out loud. This is absolutely disappointing and disgraceful the panda ₯’ 00:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then if you know you are INVOLVED, why bother to speak out there at all, except to get in a few shots against Eric? You couldn't have actioned it according to your own methodology, right? Was it just to opine how all editors that break 4RR should be blocked? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, actually, all I was doing was putting forth my opinion as an editor. I don't believe being INVOLVED with an editor prohibits you from expressing your opinion of how a complaint about their behavior should be handled, does it? Just because I've had arguments with Eric in the past (and who hasn't?) doesn't mean that my comments are automatically soapboxing or drama-mongering, and I do not appreciate your comments at the AN3 thread to that effect. In fact, I believe it was your comments that inflamed the discussion in the first place. If you had put away your assumptions of bad faith and treated my comments respectfully, we wouldn't be here right now. Perhaps you should refrain from vehemently defending Eric to prevent him from being blocked, if you can't do it without immediately deriding anyone who disagrees with you. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 00:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bullshit. Your first comment was "I think we can all assume that Eric has been around long enough to know about 3RR; complaining that he didn't get a formal warning is quite tenuous." and you could plainly see that Eric didn't make any such complaint. You went directly after Eric, like a laser beam. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am sorry that you misunderstood my first comment, which was actually directed at the editors that were saying Eric shouldn't be blocked because he wasn't properly warned, not at Eric himself (which I made clear in subsequent comments). ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 01:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • That stretches credibility Scotty, particularly since that last half of that post included " Since Eric clearly violated 3RR, I believe he should receive a 24-hour block, like any other normal editor would. Of course, we all know that won't happen, because of Eric's privileged status on this site. And therefore, we will perpetuate Eric's belief that he is exempt from most rules (even the ones that are clear-cut and strictly defined)" . They are all there, I can keep using your own words to show you were focused on harassing Eric, but it seems pretty obvious why you were there. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see any evidence of harassment. I believe that everything I said in that statement is arguably accurate. And honestly, that statement is less directed at Eric than it is at the editors, yourself included, who enable Eric's behavior. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 01:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And the fact that you don't see any problem with how you acted, how you treated others is exactly why we are here. It is conduct unbecoming of an admin. It is harassment and personal attacks. The community has the choice of either saying this is acceptable behavior, or saying it is not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Well, I believe that your conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. And if you think the community gives a shit about your whinging here, you are mistaken. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 01:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    I probably was a little defensive after his first comment, which was a snide remark that started the badgering. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by a user that couldn't give a flaming toss, but just happened to stumble across this - I would like to ask what you all hope to achieve with this? Drama like this (in my experience at least) has two possible outcomes: You keep arguing on and on until words are said that causes users to rage quit the site or see most users involved in such a dispute face some sort of consequence, usually both sides of the debate. The second outcome involves apologizing to each other (even if you think you are in the right) and moving on. Walking away from this, you can't change anything that happened. All you are doing is bringing up stuff that has already happened and trying to gain some sort of moral highground, which is a pretty lame tactic in my opinion. ~Frosty (Talk page) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh FFS- Dennis, there is nothing wrong with saying an editor breaking 3RR should be blocked for it. Scotty, you are becoming ultra-defensive and belligerent. Both of you, knock it off and go edit the encyclopedia. This is too stupid for words. Reyk YO! 01:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it Panda and Blackkite see it so differently? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably because anything involving Eric gets all kinds of opinions on both sides. I think I'm practically unique in that I am a 9 year veteran with lots of edits, who nevertheless has had nothing much to do with Eric at all, and I have no opinion regarding this particular 3RR dispute. But I do recognize that Scotty can legitimately think someone should be blocked for breaking 3RR, even when that person is Eric. Reyk YO! 01:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I completely agree that is a valid point of view. That isn't the issue. It was calling other editors pawn, the attack, claims, etc. Given their history, `it looks a lot like badgering to me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Yes, but it would not be even remotely worth the time and effort required to do so. So, I decline your request. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 02:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a "yes", it's "no", but understandably so in your case. Eric Corbett 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The question was whether I am able to substantiate my claims, and the answer to that question is yes. The answer to the question of whether I will substantiate my claims is no. Anyone with any knowledge of your history would not argue that you frequently push the boundaries of the rules (to be generous), and that you are simultaneously the recipient of immunity from consequences from some and hypersensitivity to your transgressions from others. Both of these polarizing effects are natural reactions to each other; asking which one came first is like asking whether the chicken or the egg came first. But, it is undeniable that both of these extremes exist as reactions to your behavior, and providing evidence of either would not be difficult. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 05:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While I'm not taking sides, I do think that the close should -- even if no action is taken (which seems likely from the above) -- touch on the issues of: a) was there a violation of wp:admin here in terms of a personal attack, and b) does the fact that a sysop has blocked an editor mean that he should not comment at AN3 in the manner we see here. The one point that I will make is that it would appear that an apology would have prevented this entire drama. But apparently the thought is that the asserted violations of wp:admin are baseless, so no apology is in order, and if that is (or is not) the case I guess we should clarify it. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Corbett blocked for personal attack

    It may or may not be relevant to this discussion that I have just blocked Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) for 72 hours for an apparently unrelated personal attack via edit summary [39]. The substantive comment made was uncivil, but the edit summary was a direct personal attack.

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

    This is going to go smoothly. Anyone for popcorn? Doc talk 11:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmm popcorn. I think I may have seen this show before. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-admin unclose) You can't just close this at "Eric blocked, nothing more allowed to be said" — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does an edit summary of "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" justify a 72-hour block? Let the mob decide, and let the games begin... — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For my part, the question and answer were...
    • Q: " So, it's your contention that in the course of a conversation, which includes a female, that the deliberate use of the word cunt is not a personal attack because it was not really directed at her?" - @Saffron Blaze:
    • A: "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?" - @Eric Corbett:
    Anyone see anything other than a stupid question and a bleedin-obvious answer there? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Larks' tongues. Otters' noses. Ocelot spleens." Doc talk 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Down in front, Bignose! I can't hear a thing!" Doc talk 12:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Got any nuts?"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • I see a slight problem as BHG seems to have been WP:INVOLVED having started the conversation at UT:Jimbo. I am also struggling to see any sort of warning towards Eric. I would encourage any uninvolved admin to reverse this block and I encourage User:BrownHairedGirl to explain her actions here, and to consider handing in her admin permissions if she is unable to use them properly, as seems on first glance to be the case. --John (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • John, I did not start the conversation. If you are unwilling to take a second glace before you falsely accuse another admin, then your admin permissions are the ones which should go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • John, I take no position as to the propriety of the block itself and whether an administrator should reverse it as being placed outside the boundaries of administrator discretion or community consensus. With that said, I do not believe that BHG has violated the Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins policy in this situation. NW (Talk) 13:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) Clarify at 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC): The reason I believe this is that BHG's statements on that talk page were all a reflection of how she believed that Wikipedia's code of conduct should be enforced, which I believe falls into the emphasized portion of the policy highlighted: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." NW (Talk) 13:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, NW. For the record, I am not aware of having had any prior involvement with Eric Corbett. nor any prior involvement in the disagreement between those editors. The sole grounds for John's accusation appear to be that I had posted on the same page[40] to advocate foundation-level involvement in upholding policy.
          I hope that John will take time to either withdraw his allegation, or to clarify why he thinks that a post to a discussion about policy disqualifies an admin from upholding that policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • User NW, thank you for that. User BHG, you were in a heated argument with another user and you then blocked them without a warning. True, or false? --John (talk) 13:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • False, John. As previously requested, please look at the page history rather than making false allegations on the basis of a first glance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And none of this has anything to do with the fact that this started with Scotty stumbling into AN3, looking to piss off Eric and set him off, the purpose of this filing. The clear lesson here is that it is ok for an admin to badger an editor as long as that editor is unpopular. And sorry, BHG, but I also disagree with the block as I see nothing incivil in his comment, just an obvious answer, and granted, a rude summary. We shouldn't block for singular instances like that. So far, all the discussion about sexism at Wikipedia has done has divided us, even though we all agree in principle that sexism is a bad thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, Dennis, it's all my fault, I think we should unblock Eric and block me instead. So, just to clarify: me telling you that I believe your character has become corrupted is a personal attack of the highest order, necessitating an ANI thread and my immediate desysopping. Then, a few hours later, Eric asks someone if they were hiding behind the door when God gave out brains, and that's just salty old Eric up to his old games again, no harm no foul, right? As an admin, I believe that you need to strive to be fairer in your judgments of peoples' actions, regardless of whether or not you happen to like or dislike the person whose actions you are judging. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 14:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dennis, are you really sure that you see nothing uncivil about a complaint relating to misogynist language getting a response which gratuitously challenges an editor's rationality, even when accompanied by an extraordinarily abusive edit summary which makes it unambiguously clear that it was intended as a pure personal attack on that editor?
        Even when that editor has a long record of blocks and warnings for personal attacks? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're still arguing from your opinion that any use of the word is misogynist, something that you've just accused me of on Jimbo's talk page, and now you're conflating that issue with Eric's somewhat rude edit summary in an attempt to justify your block. Black Kite (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Black Kite, I did not Eric block because of the misogynist language. I blocked Eric because his response to a complaint about it it consisted of an accusation of irrationality, reinforced by a blatant the personal attack in the edit summary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see him say "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?". Are we assuming that since he was replying to a woman, it was meant differently than if he were saying it to a male? He seems to be saying that it matters exactly the same, male or female. I'm lost, is "rational editor" an insult to a woman but not a man? I think you are reading too much into it. Eric has lots of history with rudeness, but none with sexism. He is an equal opportunity offender, so I don't see any lines to read between here. I don't doubt you meant well, but I do think the block was a knee jerk reaction. There is a lot of tension right now about sexism floating about, but Eric probably has more collaboration with women than any other editor I know. I personally think you misread him. I'm not going to go revert myself, but I wish you would reflect on this and consider it. The summery was rude, but I've done worse, I bet you have, too. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • He's also driven away more women than any other editor I know. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with Dennnis on all counts - any admin got the courage to unblock (as I would, and have done in the past)? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS: There is no such thing as misogynist language outside of context and intent, and if you, BHG, think there is, then you should not be the one to administer admin sanctions on such issues. You have acted based on your own subjective response, and I would say that's a bad admin action - I would reject calls for your recall, but I think you should revert your block and wait for community consensus — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • PPS: Considering BHG's expressed personal feelings, she is absolutely not the right person to be issuing a block here - but there is time to put things right before a request for admin sanctions is needed. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No it hasn't got anything to do with the AN3 thread. Cuntgate kicked off quite separately from threads at AN (and multiple other venues) about sexism, harrassment etc. BHG tacked this thread on to an existing one about EC, but actually no connection, other than EC being the common factor. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non involved opinion) This is a great example of the problem we have here over the past few years. An editor that has an obvious history with maturity and basic respect problems is blocked and admins fight over it on a technicality. What has happened is Admins have lost their ability to preform minor blocks to even the worst kind of editor because of backlashes that may happen. The community at large should be the focus - not saving ones ass from scrutiny because an editor like this is clearly a detriment to the project. Our admin system is failing the average editor. -- Moxy (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're going to be blocking Scottywong for his behavior also? I found that sort of baiting/badgering to be more offensive than anything I've ever seen Eric do ... (and for the record, I don't subscribe to the "worst kind of editor" description for Eric ... nor do I believe he's "clearly a detriment to the project". I'd call those PAs but... I'm not an admin so I guess I'm not allowed to say things like that about others) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Scottywong has a history of low-level passive-aggressive incivility, and one of my biggest regrets is that I supported his RfA — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And you know he is laughing his ass off over all this distraction, and has already moved on. Eric seems to the be the shiny thing that distracts the community as a whole. Meanwhile, this kind of admin aggression will continue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And people wonder why confidence in admins is low and why there are so many calls for reform. Pathetic. Intothatdarkness 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full support for the block. A clear personal attack from a user with a long block log. Gamaliel (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stupid block, misuse of admin tools to advance a personal campaign. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "personal campaign"? Could you elaborate? Gamaliel (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is BULLSHIT. As there is no god. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stupid block! - IMHO Eric's known for being outspoken but at the end of the day he's a great editor and unless he's is wound up -He usually hushes up and gets on with it, I don't condone his language but IMHO Eric's never going to change and we either lose him or put up with it and I'm certainly with the latter! ... You wonder why we lose so many great editors here.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it backwards - we loose way more editors over all because of people like this. Best we loose editors like this over loosing many many other editors that can edit just as well. We loos ediotrs becaus so many are not willing to follow basic conduct expectations - not the other way around. -- Moxy (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Davey2010: So writing content means people can be as rude as they like and get away with it? In that case, I'll go write a few articles and then drop some well chosen insults wherever I please. What price the n-word? </sarcasm>
    But seriously, if a user contributes to an atmosphere of incivility, that drives other productive editors away. In any case, it's stupid to excuse any editor from the requirement of decency. BethNaught (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah there's pros and cons to my statement, I don't believe anyone should be rude simply because they're a great editor, But as I said Eric won't change and blocking him achieves nothing IMHO –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So the community should do nothing because he wont change. Again all backwards if he not willing to follow basic conduct norms that are found in normal society then the community should step up..not let him run wild because he wont change. If his not willing to conform to normal everyday social norms then its time he goes. -- Moxy (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What it achieves is to demonstrate that incivility is unacceptable and to remove a cause of an unpleasant atmosphere here. By your argument people can exempt themselves from all need for respectable behaviour by being sufficiently obstinate. BethNaught (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In as much as his enablers like to point out the difference between UK and US slang as a defence, I have very little doubt that Eric so frequently chooses to refer to people as "cunts" (directly or in general) specifically because it pisses people off. He's basically trolling, and got all the drama he desired. Resolute 13:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No more than all the others have got the drama they desire, by allowing themselves to get riled up by it. It's a choice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did he call someone a cunt recently? I found 13 hits for "cunt" on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, but none of these occurrences were posted by Eric. If I understood correctly, he was blocked for writing "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" in an edit summary. Maybe I missed something, in which case I'd like to see a diff. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The entire thread on Jimbo's talk page centres around Eric's continuing usage of the term to bait people, and the comment he was blocked for was meant to act in defence of this. Resolute 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, the entire thread is about a singular recent use that was aimed at no one. And the block was because he said usage that isn't directed at someone isn't a personal attack, and left a rude summary in the mix. That is the nut of it. All the hubbub is more disruptive than the singular use of a very ugly word. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, and Eric does not have an extremely long history of incivility and personal attacks, and we should not consider that history whatsoever when looking at this single, isolated incident. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 14:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jimbo has intervened at Panda's talk page, which renders the closing of this section inappropriate — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh - I'm no fan of Eric's, or incivility in general, but a block for this edit summary is way over-the-top! GiantSnowman 18:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The block was within discretion - the comment appears to be a personal attack - and appears to be consistent with prior used manner of personally focused commenting. The admin was uninvolved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    See I would see this post as BHG taking a position on this. Had I made a statement and taken a position like that, I would not have blocked an editor involved in the debate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not an involved position on NPA and "you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, bad unblock - BHG has it right, and I agree with everything she has said and her action taken. The unblock is deeply flawed and deserves community scrutiny. As for the subject of this latest drama-festival, he will continue his offensive insults until the community shows him the door. The only question is how much longer that will take. Jusdafax 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, bad unblock BHG is right. The block should NOT have been reversed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, bad unblock - The discussion was closed prematurely and there was no consensus to unblock. Blocks are supposed to deter undesirable conduct, but how can they if they are undone so quickly? The fact that this type of conduct from Eric Corbett has occurred so many times before would seem to support harsher sanctions, not this recurrent "catch and release" program.- MrX 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, bad unblock Dennis is normally pretty level headed, but seems to have a blind-spot when it comes to EC's constant and repeated disruptive conduct. Given the fact that Dennis has repeated defended EC's conduct, he should be seen as WP:INVOLVED and should not have made the unblock. Dennis, can you please self-revert? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dennis did not make the unblock. Please do at least minimal homework before posting here. --John (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, bad unblock This has nothing to do with Dennis. I think Eric deserved this 3RR block. I saw it pop up, I looked and the report was valid. Eric is about the last editor to be "roped into a revert" he knew very well what he was doing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good block, bad unblock Eric violated 3RR. Block is deserved. That Eric refuses to alter his behavior, as obliquely noted by Jimbo Wales, makes an indef the best option. Dennis and DP should hand in their tools, given they are neither prepared to nor have demonstrated the ability to act in the best interest of the community where Eric is concerned, allowing him and his apologists to create a hostile environment for other editors, and to create a sexually hostile for women in particular. I don't care how much content Eric, Giano and their cronies create. It comes at too high a cost to other editors. --Drmargi (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    1. Reversal of DangerousPanda's unblocking of Eric Corbett

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

    2. Review of Dennis Brown's comments

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

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

    3. Re-consider the establishement of a cvility board

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

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

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

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

    • If anyone reblocked Eric now, they would be wheel warring and almost certainly loose their admin tools. I think the whole case needs to go to Arbcom, both the civility / NPA disagreement which has been well documented elsewhere, and the disagreement over enforcement of WP:3RR which also seems to have arisen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you, and with most of what A1candidate wrote. This does need to go to ArbCom. One editor and a few enabling admins should not be permitted to cause this much disruption, so many times.- MrX 17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, Arbcom has already and repeatedly chosen to bury its head in the sand. There will be no solution coming from the body ostensibly designated to solve such problems. Resolute 20:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    As one of those tangentially mentioned above, I had to guffaw when I saw EC post the following, "You are quite obviously entirely bereft of any insight into your own behaviour, a not uncommon condition here."[41] I assumed it was meant ironically, but now I'm not sure. --Pete (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    @Dr. Blofeld - It is a childish and immature case of name calling ("sunshine"). -A1candidate (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sunshine" is a term of racial abuse. I declined to be offended, even if it was meant as such. --Pete (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No it isn't in any way whatsoever in England. I'm guessing you're both American. It's pretty common in speech from older guys in England when speaking to younger ones, particularly in the north to use "sunshine" or "sunny Jim" when addressing somebody, usually a younger person in a slightly heated way. Scottish Fat Bastard used it in Austin Powers, "Look 'ere sunny Jim, I ate a baby". It's as mild as mild can be. If that's a personal attack then everything could be interpreted as a personal attack. That Eric would have even thought about racially abusing somebody is preposterous. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's a patronising put-down but it's got nothing to do with racial abuse. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd always assumed they were embellishments of "son", along with "sonny" and "sonny boy" and as you say, used by older guys speaking to younger ones. NebY (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We might seek clarification from EC on what exactly he meant. I doubt it was positive. As I say, I took no offence. It is part of a pattern of behaviour we see far too often. Disagree with someone and instead of addressing the substance, attack the person: by abusing them, demeaning them, threatening them, whaever it takes to get them out of the way. And then deny what is quite obvious to their targets, Is a lack of self knowledge a requirement to be a productive editor on every other subject? It sometimes seems that way. --Pete (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The personal attack is here[42]. The other diffs show that this was not an isolated incident but was part of a pattern of incivility. Chillum 17:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • The premise of this "proposal" is completely faulty. The diffs to my talk page are not evidence of anything--they are responses to a. someone I blocked before who came by to troll and b. some other one I blocked before who, in my opinion, was stirring the shit pot and, I see, still is. Mr.X--"enablers"? That's something I've heard before: it's a personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's okay to throw personal attacks at blocked editors? And it's okay to respond to trolls by trolling them back? -A1candidate (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being intentionally offensive is a violation of WP:NPA and is disruptive. I doubt I'm alone in preferring Wikipedia be a more polite place than it is now. When we see editors persistently abuse others, they should be directed towards a more community-minded attitude. Saying "Oh, he's always been like that! It's just his way." just makes it worse. IMHO. --Pete (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really Drmies? Who exactly was I personally attacking? Perhaps the reason that you've heard it before is because there are several editors who believe it to be true.- MrX 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The premises of A1candidate's second point "After Scottywong responded to the 3RR report, which is what I expect administrators to do, DB responded with vulgarities by telling SW that "we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log"" are respectively misguided and a serious misreading or misrepresentation. First, we do not expect all the 602 active admins to respond to a 3RR report and four had already responded when SW joined in. Second, DB did not tell SW "we are going to fucking spank you"; he wrote "When you take a hardass approach to problems, you just reinforce the idea that they don't matter, they are nothing but little text generators, and if they punch up the wrong column too many times, we are going to fucking spank you and document that spanking in your spank block log. No thanks."[43] A1candidate, please could you strike your statement and reconsider the arguments and proposals you have based on it? NebY (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because there is no rule that prohibits an admin from responding to a 3RR report, but WP:VULGAR and WP:NPA do prohibit provocative comments (even if not directed at SW explicitly) such as "we are going to fucking spank you", regardless of whether DB is an average editor or an all-powerful administrator. -A1candidate (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realise DB was saying to SW that "we are going to fucking spank you" is not a constructive attitude? NebY (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and how is that not a violation of WP:VULGAR? The expletive and "spanking" did not come from SW, but DB. He could have made his point nicely without resorting to uncivil language. -A1candidate (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes more than avoiding words like "fuck" or "spank" to make one's point nicely - otherwise "I am shocked, appalled, and absolutely disgusted", "I strongly recommend the following actions to be taken: ... Review of Dennis Brown's comments" and "I think he may have simply lost the plot" would seem persuasive, not aggressive and punitive. NebY (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think A1candidate's point is that Dennis didn't have to make his point in such a crass manner. The "we are going to fucking spank you" in quotes is a kind of impersonation of me (or, at least, of Dennis' perception of me). In other words, Dennis is saying that he believes that I derive happiness from punishing users for various things. He imagines that I troll around Wikipedia looking for people who are doing something wrong, and threatening that "I'm going to fucking spank you" and add them to my "spank list", like a big game hunter hanging animal heads on his wall as trophies. I could care less about the vulgarity; the comment itself is insulting enough. Especially coming from someone who has blocked 1,730 users (compared to my 109 blocks, despite Dennis and I becoming admins at practically the same time). ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The problem is that you assumed there was consensus, but there was none. -A1candidate (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There was none. Was BHG consulted, as is required? (And now you mention it, it does sound sexist.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverse the unblock. Block Dennis Brown. Create an RfC/U on DangerousPanda. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverse the unblock. Leave Dennis alone.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reverse the unblock. Dennis and DP should hand in their tools, as unable or unwilling to follow WP:ADMIN or face desysopping. They are fostering a climate hostile to editors in general, and to women in particular. --Drmargi (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimbo

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

    Should not those questions, in the first instance, be directed to the god-king in question?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view Jimbo is absolutely within bounds to comment, and to request a reblock, on Dangerous Panda's talk page. And wow, I think that Wehwalt's characterization of him is way out of line in this discussion, and ramps up the drama needlessly. This is an admin page, for crying out loud! I call on an admin to use the powers granted to them by the community and take preventive action. At some point this vituperation needs to be stopped. And if not now, when? Jusdafax 19:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense, it's a common phrase used around here with reference to him, and he's made reference to that or similar appellations in his paid speeches. And your comments do nothing to diminish any drama. It sounds like you're about to break into "first they came for the rollbackers ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jimmy has as much say as anyone else here. In my experience when he says something was a mistake, it is most often the case. Chillum 19:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling it "personally intimidating" is silly. He is jusy saying the unblock was mistaken and that he hopes it will be reversed. No intimidation there. Jimbo should pressure admins to reverse bad decisions, so should admins and regular editors. Chillum 19:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that User:Jimbo_Wales must be allowed to voice his opinion to the exact same degree as everyone else, and that voice should be heard by the merits and strength of its reason alone. I personally disagree with his opinion here, but I don't see his expressing it as intimidation, and I hope Dangerous Panda doesn't either. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who precisely is User:Jimbo_Wales? I don't believe I'm familiar with his work on Wikipedia; whereas Eric Corbett's work seems to be scattered over thousands of content pages. It really is distracting when these newbies jump in with their uniformed opinions. Giano (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're not joking about not knowing who he is, he credits himself to be one of the founders of Wikipedia. (Though it's a complicated thing, go read his article at Jimmy_Wales#Wikipedia to better understand the conflict of only 'one of the founders') . Tutelary (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Giano is asking how his work on content compares with Eric's.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Giano knows exactly who Jimbo is. He's just trolling. Resolute 20:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a personal attack? Oh wait, it can't be. No naughty words. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Resolute's insult towards User:Giano is every bit as bad as the comment leading to the block that is being discussed. Does anyone think he/she should be blocked? --John (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of consistency, yes, I do think he should be blocked. Eric Corbett 21:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, ffs, and consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative, or the hobgoblin of little minds, and so forth. It is bad for the encyclopedia, in my opinion, to block regular content contributors such as Eric, or Giano, or Resolute (and, Resolute, it is also unimaginative and bad for the encyclopedia to call them trolls or a net negative). Just about every work environment I've experienced had its share of unkindness, profanity, and mean spirits. There are other ways to smooth the waves and reconciliate. The block-button is a stupid way. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If he has a recent history of throwing verbal abuse, then yes he should be blocked per WP:Civility. -A1candidate (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this was pretty rude too. --John (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, I am a "prolific content contributor". The only suggestion could be made in this case as it relates to "the sake of consistency" is no action whatsoever. Resolute 21:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And now we have "sophistry" to go with "troll" and "enabler". Resolute, do you like being an admin on this site? --John (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I add "histrionics" too? Because unless you are prepared to begin blocking Eric and Giano for civility violations as mild as those I have allegedly made, I would appreciate it if you would spare me them. Also, prolific content contributor immunity. Sorry. Resolute 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Prolific content contributor" applies only to Eric, not anyone else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you guys (Resolute and Hawkeye) believe you are examples of the civility to which you claim the rest of the community should aspire, I counsel you to take a long hard look at yourselves. --John (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing anything by User:Jimbo Wales which rises to the level of actionable abuse. He just stated his opinion, as is his right, he didn't wheel-war. Carrite (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I suggest you go there and listen to it then. An overpowering preoccupation with civility shows a lack of intellect and genuine interests in one's life. Giano (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sluzzelin Please do not compare Resolute to Giano or Eric Corbett.Giano and Eric Corbett has repeatedly been blocked, most commonly for edit warring ,Personal attacks and incivility over a prolonged period.There is a diverse opinion on how far a lot of article creation by an editor should be allowed to influence decisions on other matters concerning that editor. There are many who come close to thinking that a "good content creator" should never be excluded, no matter how grossly he has abused their position in other respects. At the other end of the spectrum there are Many who think that it should make no difference at all: a given offence should be treated exactly the same, no matter who committed it.

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

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

    More!

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

    • Reopen - Highly dubious close of an active discussion, and it should be noted that six consecutive editors !voted Good block, bad unblock in just a few hours at the time of the closure, which gives the appearance, rightly or wrongly, of an attempt to stifle an emerging consensus, as well as an active discussion on Jimmy Wales' commentary on Dangerous Panda's talk page. This ANI closure itself becomes a further part of this snarled mess, and the admin responsible deserves scrutiny by the admin and editing community. Deeply wrong action. Jusdafax 00:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reopen - I would like to add myself to the group of six editors who voted Good block, bad unblock, because personal attacks such as "were you hiding behind the door when God handed out brains?" cannot be tolerated. Make that seven consecutive votes. -A1candidate (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seven who think that "you're stupid" is some intolerable insult? Damn! Well, I'm nobody, and I've heard far worse in this very discussion. What do you think of "you're a corrupt admin"? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that's an insult, and it becomes an intolerable insult when hurled repeatedly at various individuals, after multiple warning and blocks, and scores of pages of discussion. "You're a corrupt admin" is also an intolerable insult, unless of course there is evidence that the admin is actually corrupt.- MrX 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reopen. This is exactly why we can't have nice things. It is impossible to address systemic issues when we handle them in this manner, where initial discussion is loudly disrupted by a few drama mongers, then the discussion is relatively quickly closed under the rationale that there's "too much drama", so thoughtful editors are unable to steer the discussion in a productive direction because it was closed before they even noticed it. Gamaliel (talk) 03:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I've opened a formal close review near the bottom of this page, for anyone interested.- MrX 03:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits to Chris Kelly

    The subject of the article is a British politician, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Dudley South. His page has long been edited by anonymous IP addresses from the Houses of Parliament who oppose the inclusion of the facts that he once appealed to fellow MP's to give his sister a job and that he was a paid non-executive of his father's company. These deletions occurred again on 26 July by User:Natasha millward [44] and again on 28 July by User: Gareth Kegg [45], both were the first edits for those respective users. The use of these user names is malicious as there is a Natasha Milward who is Kelly's Labour opponent at the next general election, and Gareth Kegg, is of course too similar to my own name. I would like the page protected and the respective users warned over their names. I believe of course that the first editor is NOT the actual Natasha Milward as it would seem such bizarre behaviour. Forgive me if this is the wrong place for this query, I hardly ever edit outside of articles. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have blocked both editors per BLP/harassment, revision-deleted their names from the history of the article, and semi-protected it for a month. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much. Could my edits to their respective talk pages informing them of this discussion be revision deleted as well? The uniqueness of my name is now so apparent, I need a hatnote for them! Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted both talkpages, there was nothing else on them anyway. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    India Against Corruption yet again

    Yep, with apologies, again. India Against Corruption has featured here on several occasions and also at noticeboards such as WP:DRN. Examples include this ANI report, this one, this and this.

    The gist is that there was a populist movement in India during 2011-2012 that the media etc termed "India Against Corruption" and that there also exists a rather secretive pressure group bearing the same name that dubiously claims to have existed for 50 years or more but that has had problems regarding our notability policy. A whole heap of accounts were blocked, for reasons that varied from obvious socks to meats and, in at least one instance, an open proxy. All of those accounts were attempting to twist the IAC article (about the populist movement) into one about the pressure group.

    Mansjelly (talk · contribs) has recently turned up and is making carefully-worded chilling statements in a similar manner to the previously blocked accounts, a primary example of which was HRA1924 (talk · contribs). The most recent example is this. They are also arguing exactly the same points as were made during the previous ANI etc reports, using what appear to be the same "retractions" (not really retractions because they conflate the movement with the group), and using the same idiosyncratic style as can be seen by anyone who is bold enough to compare their contributions with, say, 2001:4DD0:FF00:8A8B:0:0:0:5747 (talk · contribs).

    It is late here, I'm tired and am unlikely to be taking this any further for 12+ hours because, amazingly, I've also got some paid work going on. As happened originally, the article has ended up being full-protected and there remains uncertainty regarding whether this is socking or meatpuppetry. What is pretty certain to me is that there is an unusual commonality and that Mansjelly has displayed a remarkable familiarity with technical matters such as SPI and CU (one of several examples is here, where they also allude to what I strongly suspect are the same news sources that were mentioned in previous discussions earlier this year). Can anyone spare some time to look into this? Sagas drive me daft and this is a saga, so I quite understand if no-one can rise to it. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what to respond to in this rant since I am neither a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet (and Sitush should take this to the appropriate forum with his evidence for it).
    The article India Against Corruption which is almost 90% exclusively authored by Sitush has serious content policy violations which are readily apparent to any Indian who has experienced those events. I have reviewed the records and IPs Sitush has specified. This article after having gone through every Wikipedia Dispute resolution process finally ended up at Mediation. When the IAC organisation provided a set of over 60 reliable secondary news sources which establish that they have taken back control of the IAC movement which is the subject of the present article AND that Mr. Anna Hazare was not part of their organisation, at that point Sitush backed out from mediation and refused to rejoin it.
    Since there is no Dispute Resolution forum higher than Mediation, the IAC repeatedly complained to WM Foundation asking for the "libellous" content against them authored by Sitush to be removed from the article, and for the article to be "stubbed". See [46]. Finally IAC has filed a complaint asking for both Wikipemedia's Indian Domain names to be scrapped for distributing child pornography on a massively organised scale [47]. The Govt of India has instituted a high-power-committee to go into the allegations headed by the Vigilance Director of the Ministry of Information Technology. Over 5,000 pornographic images from Wikimedia Commons have been filed on record. Notice has been issued to both WM Foundation and Sitush by the Govt of India to defend the allegations that they have uploaded these child pornography images on an organised and systematic scale. Both have chosen not to appear.
    I have nothing to do with all of the above. I am neither a sock puppet nor a meat puppet. Everything I have said above can be located using Google, as I have done. I have 600 edits as an IP editor. I opened my account about 4 months back because my corporate IP address was compromised and couldn't be used to edit, then we got a new IP address and I didn't need to use that account. Our IP is being misused again so I am using this account. Mansjelly (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously not a useful editor, blatantly violating the spirit of WP:LEGAL and generally being a disruptive pain. Indeffed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Mansjelly is now blocked is the one month of full protection of the article still needed?--67.68.162.111 (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jesus! I've been accused of distributing child porn by the Indian government? That's news to me and would be a completely false allegation. How much lower can these people go? - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. "I opened my account about 4 months back because my corporate IP address was compromised and couldn't be used to edit" — would that be "compromised and couldn't be used to edit" as in "blocked"? That's what normally causes IP and other addresses to not be useable for editing. So Manjelly was block evading (who'd have guessed). And repeating those allegations against Sitush here, even if by some extreme unlikeliness they were actually made by the Indian government (and I'd like you to savour the unlikeliness of that for a moment), is pure scandal. But it doesn't look like they were, as I can't find anything about it on Google, despite Mansjelly's claim that "Everything I have said above can be located using Google, as I have done". No it can't. Don't worry, Sitush, you're a cunt.[48] Bishonen | talk 07:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen, you have obviously searched only in the English language Google. The full text of the IAC complaint made to the Prime Minister of India about Wikimedia's pornography is available in GUJARATI language along with all Wikimedia's child pornographic images sub-titled in the our PM's native language. Sitush is named at 11 places in the complaint. This is not my IP address, it is a shared cyber-cafe in Ahmedabad (Gujarat).
    (Redacted) block evasion 120.61.48.205 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I've never uploaded any picture of a child, pornographic or otherwise, to Commons or Wikipedia, any complaint is bullshit. - Sitush (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) block evasion 122.170.18.204 (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has contacted me, and I'm eminently contactable. As a matter of natural justice, someone should be providing me with details of the charges and the evidence that supports them. But since there is no evidence, I guess that won't happen. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) block evasion Akp987 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the kind word, Bish. I feel better already. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, when I come across people who are active against corruption, I tend to expect them to be honest and upstanding sorts. But then their supporters use unfounded accusations and despicable lies about people to try to get their way? If that's the people trying to clean up corruption, it's scary thinking about what the actual corrupt ones must be like. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) block evasion 120.61.48.205 (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot wrong with Commons in my opinion, but I have nothing to do with it and am powerless to change it. But it wasn't Commons I was talking of anyway, it was the despicable liars accusing Sitush personally of being involved in child pornography. Now, I don't know it it was you and you are Manjelly evading your block, or you're someone else in Mumbai - but if you support such despicable tactics that makes you every bit as as bad as the corrupt people you claim you're opposing. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Redacted) Akp987 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Any passing admin care to do the necessary here? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    The necessary has been done. Cute how they think they've got some genius formula for evading blocks, like we haven't seen and dealt with this sort of thing a thousand times before. Yunshui 雲水 10:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Hello passing admin :-) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just an open couple of questions to the IAC supporters here. 1) If you claim to be against corruption, don't you think you should be behaving honorably and honestly here rather than making outrageously false accusations against individuals of being involved in child pornography? I have absolutely nothing against your organization, but I'd say your tactics are far more likely to bring your organization into disrepute in the minds of readers than to advance your cause. 2) Do you honestly think tactics of intimidation will scare hard-working editors like Sitush and others away and leave you in control? I can assure you it will not. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    <block-evading sock removed and blocked> Bishonen | talk 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    I'm sorry, but a forum discussion is *not* evidence. If you want to provide evidence that Sitush and I are perverts, give us the links to our actual uploads and to the actual things we have allegedly done. The thing is you can't, because the evidence does not exist - and all your continuing dishonourable behaviour is doing is painting IAC supporters in an even worse light. Look, as a neutral observer (and one who has spent time in India and would love to see corruption tackled) I'm sympathetic to your cause - but you are really not helping yourself with this approach. Try answering my questions - do you really think you are presenting yourselves in an honourable light and do you really think you can win by intimidation? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird. First time I clicked on those links I saw forum discussions, now when I click I see Commons images - but those images were not uploaded by Sitush or I, so they do nothing whatsoever to support your accusations. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't get why we're leaving Mansjelly's block-evading socks all over this thread. I removed one, but was discouraged when I saw the others being replied to. Alan, to talk with the blocked sockmaster, you should go to his talkpage. Better to remove, ignore and WP:DENY here, surely. Bishonen | talk 11:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
      Yeah, I guess you're right - but in case other IAC supporters are watching (and I'm sure they are), I really just wanted to try to make them think about what a dreadful public image they're creating for themselves by their approach. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed more, if anyone wants to see what the responses are to they can look at the history. GB fan 12:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Sorry I didn't catch Mansjelly before it got to this BS. Obviously neither editor has uploade porn to Commons, all you have to do is look at their Global contributions. Such allegations seem only to show the depths to which these people will go. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed an open tab with an edit conflict - I've lowered the protection to semi. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No child pornography is mentioned in the link. The phrase "highly obscene" is used, but nothing more. --Auric talk 14:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @SITUSH This is a long running content dispute between you and the AIC organisation which could endanger the Wikipedia project. On reading the AIC page and its footnotes there is real controversy regarding the IAC 'organization' and the 2011 IAC 'movement' which the current page focuses on. In August 2012 the IAC openly split over the demand for Lokpal Act. Anna Hazare's faction (Team Anna) which was running IAC 'movement' for a Lokpal exited from IAC to form Aam Aadmi Party (political wing for Lokpal) and then further into Jan Tantra Morcha (non-political wing for Lokpal), whereas the rest of IAC remained with Sarbajit Roy and Veeresh Malik who have been running the IAC since 2007 and have always opposed Lokpal. For you/Sitush to deny that IAC is with Roy or Malik and that it was their IAC's name/ banners which were used by the IAC 'movement' is not borne out by the facts or by the numerous reliable sources. You have not been able to produce a single source which proves that Anna Hazare was ever a part of India Against Corruption, and Hazare himself has never claimed to be a part of IAC organisation, or IAC movement after he was warned not to use IAC name.2400:8900:0:0:F03C:91FF:FE73:667D (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is a simple content dispute and ANI is being repeatedly invoked by Sitush to prevent open discussion on the content related issues, let us only read the first line of the article "India Against Corruption (IAC), along with Team Anna, was a populist anti-corruption movement in India.". This is an incorrect conflation because 'India Against Corruption' *IS* an anti-corruption movement in India, AND 'Team Anna' *WAS* a populist anti-corruption movement in India. All the reliable sources had already been produced at the Mediation after which Sitush refused to to participate or formally discuss these sources in a controlled structured manner where 3 Admins were present during that Mediation. Sitush now repeatedly invokes ANI which is a mobocracy which acts to prevent discourse.2400:8900:0:0:F03C:91FF:FE73:667D (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Joan Juliet Buck

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

    Maybe this is a misunderstanding? Look at this diff, where he explains why, because it's in the subcat, so no need to list it again. Also, he left a note at your talk explaining as well.(talk) 00:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) From the edit history on that page, it appears that the user respected your objections and merely retagged it a different way that wouldn't be offensive to you. I don't see an issue here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 01:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The box at the top of Category:American women journalists says it is a "non-diffusing subcategory of Category:American journalists". That means the latter is not removed when the former is added. Except there is an "out" which is claimed to mean that women should be shunted to their own category because of another category. There have been previous disputes regarding gender wars, and I would welcome a decision somewhere that no "women" categories should exist unless a corresponding "men" category is created, with both categories being populated in the same manner (actually, I would welcome a decision to delete all "women" categories like this). Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    People aren't actually doing it enough, I grant you — but ideally, all American journalists are supposed to be subcatted by the particular type of journalism they did (radio vs. TV vs. newspaper vs. magazine; reporters and correspondents vs. columnists vs. news anchors; fashion vs. sports vs. political; etc.), and Category:American journalists itself is supposed to be empty of individual articles. In addition, I see that 27 US states have their own subcategories of Category:American journalists by state, while the other 23 don't yet — but if that scheme were complete, it would also diffuse all journalists out of the undifferentiated "American journalists" category. Then Category:American women journalists wouldn't be causing a problem, because it wouldn't be pulling women out of any other category that they should be in.
    As long as the parent category isn't actually getting diffused, however, I understand that this looks like a problem — but the point is that Category:American journalists can be fully diffused on grounds independent of gender. It isn't the final base category that any journalist, male or female, is supposed to be sitting in — the journalists are actually all supposed to be diffused into more specific subcategories, and are sitting directly in the parent category only because of simple editor laziness rather than because the category itself is nondiffusable in principle.
    The ghettoization rule was always meant to preclude gendering categories that couldn't otherwise be diffused on non-gender grounds, which isn't actually the situation here. I realize that the current "gendered subcategories aren't diffusing of the parent, while nongendered location or specific-type subcategories still are" situation is causing a lot of confusion about how we are or aren't supposed to be handling gendered categories — but the only "violation" happening in this case is that people aren't actually doing the work of cleaning Category:American journalists up properly. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The underlying problem here is the promotion of the flawed concept of "non-diffusing subcategories". The default rule (WP:SUBCAT) is that an article should not usually be in both a category and its sub-category, and diffusion of categories is routinely done on that basis. The existence of a few rare exceptions to the general rule turns the process of diffusion into a minefield for any editor, who is now expected to check the contents page of every single category before diffusing. This massively increases the amount of work involved, because what would previously have been a simple exercise of using WP:HOTCAT now requires loading up a raft of new tabs.
      The idea of "non-diffusing subcategories" has been promoted in good faith as a solution to the ghettoisation problem (in particular by Obiwankenobi), but it ignores the practical reality of the means by which categories are populated and diffused. It is theoretical solution which doesn't work in practice, a point which I made repeatedly in this discussion and which Bearcat has made in a more recent discussion.
      Bearcat and I do not often agree, but we appear to take the same view in this case: that if a sub-cat can exist only by being labelled as non-diffusing, then it shouldn't exist at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody, male or female, is actually supposed to be filed directly in Category:American journalists; they're supposed to be filtered down into more specific subcategories for the specific type of journalism they did (fashion, sports, politics, etc.), the specific platform in which they did journalism (radio, TV, newspaper, etc.), the specific journalistic role they held (reporter, columnist, anchor, etc.), and on and so forth. The fact that people aren't actually doing the work, and are instead leaving thousands of journalists directly in the main parent category, speaks to editor laziness more than anything else — Category:American journalists isn't the end category that any journalist is actually meant to be sitting in. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This again? You'll never fix the category "system" without a fundamental rethink. You don't do it by creating every category you can think of as an answer to every question everyone might ever have. You certainly don't do it by having inconsistencies like "non-diffusing", then trying to use them willy-nilly as band aids to hide the gaping wounds in the "system". You do it by storing attributes then querying them.
    Don't create a category "Fluffy pink bunnies living in France with white cars and 6 children", then put Foofoo the bunny in it, only to later move her to "Fluffy pink bunnies living in France with blue cars and 8 children". That's madness.
    Give Foofoo the attributes: Texture=fluffy, colour=pink, species=rabbit, children=6, car owner=true, car colour=white, residence=France - etc - for anything you care about. Then categories are simply queries of attributes (which you can cache/provide links for).
    Yes, it's a huge task, and a whole new system, and should have been addressed years ago - but the task won't get smaller, and what exists as a category "system" now is fundamentally useless in many cases, and utterly unscaleable. Honestly, if all the time that went into arguing about it was diverted into designing an attribute/query system that worked, you might be surprised how much progress could be made. Perhaps this was intended to be the point of WikiData, or one of them, but regardless, it's the only sane alternative. Begoon talk 10:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes too much sense. I've often wondered why we stick with unwieldy categories when attributes would be more flexible and allow for much more powerful searches. --NeilN talk to me 13:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually been proposed many times by many editors over the years. You're absolutely correct that it's probably a better way than our current system, because it would indeed be more flexible and more powerful — we do occasionally have users who have legitimate and genuine reasons to want to see groupings that are either are either too overgeneralized (e.g. "all women" or "all American people") or too overgranular (e.g. "feminist organizations based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania" or "people in a particular occupation born in a particular year") for us to permit under the current method. (And as someone who devotes far more time than I'd wish to category cleanup, I can attest that we also have quite a few editors who do seem to think categories already work that way — I come across entirely too many articles where instead of adding the intersected Category:American science fiction writers, an editor has applied "American", "science fiction" and "writers" as three distinct standalone category declarations.)
    Under a tag-based system, we could apply each individual attribute on its own as a standalone tag, and the user could generate the specific grouping he or she wanted to see by generating an on-the-fly intersection of tags X, Y and Z, instead of requiring us to actively curate that intersection as an actual category. As well, it would vastly reduce how much time we would need to waste on tasks such as arguing at CFD about categories, or monitoring categories such as Category:Writers or Category:Politicians for entries that have been directly added there instead of to appropriate subcategories. And I also believe that there could be ways to make such a system directly watchlistable, so that inappropriate or unsourced categories (e.g. the frequent use of "LGBT people" categories as a form of vandalism or attack editing against people who aren't LGBT) can be caught more promptly.
    But despite the many times moving to a tag-based system has been proposed in the past, we're still working with the current flawed system. I don't know if the development team have tried in the past and found it to be unworkable for technical/programming reasons, or if they just haven't ever really acted on the proposals at all for some reason (e.g. as often as I've seen it bruited about among editors as a wishlist item, maybe nobody's ever actually approached the developers with a real suggestion for them to actually act upon?) Maybe one of the developers could speak to the situation, because I don't really know whether there's a specific reason why things haven't moved in that direction or not. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, BEG...we've certainly had our disagreements over the years, I won't deny that. But we've had many times where we've agreed too, don't forget that. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aichik, for the record, this isn't actually a problem. As I explained above, Category:American journalists is supposed to be fully diffused on non-gendered grounds, such as the subject of their journalism (fashion, sports, politics, etc.) or the platform in which they did journalism (radio, TV, magazine, newspaper, etc.). So she's not getting removed from that category on the basis of her inclusion in Category:American women journalists, but on the basis of her inclusion in Category:American fashion journalists. The "women" subcat may be marked as non-diffusing — but that's actually a moot point, because the by-subject and by-platform categories are diffusing and so Category:American journalists is actually meant to be empty of individual articles — the fact that people aren't actually doing the work is a different matter entirely. So JPL's edit here was actually exactly correct. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Gonna take me awhile to figure all this out. Thanks for your patience;)--Aichik (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. It's not your fault you're finding this confusing — the current situation results from a lot of conflicting imperatives that have collided without coherent resolution, and is absolutely a dog's breakfast. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew the way I was doing the diffusion was bound to be confusing, at least if people just read the individual edits, but it was clearly in line with the guidelines. For an example of why Category:American journalists is not going to get dispersed anytime soon look at Anya Kamenetz. I guess I should have put her in a more specific sub-cat. Is there Category:American magazine writers?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number 1 program with categories is they are not effectively watchable with a watchlist. You have to periodically go to categories you want to watch to see what is there, and this means that if they have over 1000 entries, it is hard to know what is going on. On the other hand, Anya Kamenetz may show the draw-back to our current system. She is now in 4 sub-cats of Category:American journalists, and if we fully disperse that category, I would expect us to average even more, since she is not in a category based on the genre of journalism she does, just the medium. To make things worse, I would expect significant over-lap between magazines and newspapers. The journalists by state may also be a less than helpful way to break them down, since many journalists have moved between several television stations or newspapers, and thus been journalists in nearly half a dozen states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another question that we may want to consider, should categories for people at a specific newspaper be sub-cats of the by nationality categories, or not? I would say not, because a person can be a Los Angeles Times or any other newspaper correspondent without every actually setting foot in the US, let alone being a national of the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ongoing disruptive editing by fluctuating IP.

    On Laura Mersini-Houghton, a fluctuating IP has been adding grammatically incorrect, likely POV, original research into the lede of the article. He has been assisted by Holybeef who may be a sock or meatpuppet, or it may be a random convergence of interests. Holybeef has been warned for disruptive editing on this article before, and is fresh off a block for edit warring on Alan Guth. The IP is now getting quite uncivil (see the response starting "My man" in this diff, and has provocatively engaged at the edit war on Alan Guth, explicitly stating that he was reverting the consensus version of the article for "no reason" with the message "you want nasty, I show you nasty" (both in the edit summary) - diff here.

    I have already left notices requesting more eyes at Wikiproject Biography, Wikiproject Physics, Wikiproject Women Scientists and on the original research noticeboard, hoping that some neutral editors might be able to build a consensus there that they would respect, but this latest behavior from the shifting IPs has convinced me that this is unlikely.

    I recommend that both pages be temporarily semi-protected and if possible that the fluctuating IP user be blocked for disruptive editing. Assuming that Holybeef and the fluctuating IP are not sockpuppet accounts of one another, I see no need for administrative sanctions at this time (though it would be nice if he were restricted to 0RR on these pages).

    Suspected IP addresses:

    Potentially also (IP editors showing up during the Mersini-Houghton deletion debate):


    Pages:

    I'll notify the fluctuating IP user at their most recent IP address used in the Laura Mersini-Houghton talk page, and on the Laura Mersini-Houghton talk page itself, so they will be likely to see it. I will also notify Holybeef, even though he's not the focus of this report. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 00:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) There seems to be a huge content dispute on both of these pages, and while that is not a subject delved into by this noticeboard (see WP:DRN), the edit warring, personal attacks, and disruption caused by a whole host of IPs and users on both of these articles is. I recommend protection of this until the folks can play nice on the talk page and work within established dispute resolution processes. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 01:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, to clarify my position here - this is separate from the content dispute on these pages, which I'm hoping we can deal with by getting more eyes on the actual page to clearly establish consensus (though, honestly, it's a fairly cut-and-dry case of original research being pushed by Holybeef and the IP editor, to the consternation of nearly everyone else involved). I think it is primarily behavioral issues which are causing the ongoing problems, however. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 02:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that the editing pattern described above is operating in parallel with aggressive talk page discussions, in which the editors involved cite Wikipedia rules but are generally not following any easily-recognizable version. I know you've heard many times before that you musn't protect the WP:Wrong version, but in order to save time and effort it will probably help for someone to carefully review the entire situation and act based on an overall plan that will work. Simply protecting the pages and telling everyone to talk, in my judgment, is likely to prolong the dispute without productivity. I think Holybeef's comment below pretty much makes my point for me, though. -- SCZenz (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's you and your Masonic bros who invade pages like grasshoppers to massacre those pages beyond belief and totally against the rules (ironically: while excessively quoting rules but only general ones, never bullet-by-bullet.) So knock the bs, time to call a spade a spade: you're just a gang of manipulators who at any cost try to portray Guth as originator of inflation though its clear he stole it, portray Mersini as notable despite many editors noting she's not, being just an average researcher, and so on. In doing so, you disregard previous consensuses, proclaim "forbidden references", "banned words", remove neutrality from intro and overall, report me falsely to admins, etc. Holybeef (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is this edit by Holybeef mentioned above? It shows the classic WP:SYNTH of adding (to the lead, of course), "Some of the above references credit Mersini-Houghton... However that is incorrect since... [sources not mentioning Mersini-Houghton]". The above statement by Holybeef shows the problem pretty clearly, and examining Special:Contributions/Holybeef shows the editor has not yet had the opportunity to edit outside a very narrow field in the four months they have been contributing. Perhaps a topic ban would assist their gaining experience in other areas. Johnuniq (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this would be ideal, though it's a bit tangential to this report, which I would say was more focused on the fluctuating IP editor. If Holybeef is the fluctuating IP editor, then there's some sockpuppetry going on and a general block is appropriate. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 14:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Es715

    Es715 has made a variety of peculiar edits, the bulk of which comprise either test additions and reversions (A/B, C/D, E/F, G/H) and the majority of these seem to be test edits with page protection templates: [49][50][51][52]. I've previous attempted to explain why these edits are unhelpful and distracting, but apparently to no avail. I haven't found any particularly constructive additions from the user, and some things, like their various deleted vanity articles, and this article, or this edit, seem to suggest they're not quite ready for editing in the wild. Another example: In this request for page protection, they insert their request in the body of the article as though it were a Talk page, and the article hadn't even seen obvious disruption since June 29. And at List of Sam & Cat episodes, (where they again make their request visible in the article body) we haven't seen any obvious vandalism for about four days, and it was quickly handled. Requesting some admin input. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also editing as 68.108.23.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per this edit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Markdabner

    Here's the back story: I reported this user for violating the 3RR on List of people who have run across Australia a few weeks ago and nothing came from it because a few days as past. The content dispute stems from the additions of Sarah Mycroft. Apparently there's some issue on if she really ran. That's where De Williams comes in. If Mycroft didn't run that means De Williams is the first woman. I started a discussion on the talk page and started off on the lack of verifiable sources on the fact Mycroft didn't run. I explained to him on his talk page that from my google search that I couldn't find any real source and that if he has some add it to the discussion. He continues to refuse to discuss the issue sees this as 'punishing De Williams'. It's clear he is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and refuses to post any verifiable source, believe me I have tried to find them. It's becoming disruptive and I have had enough of going in circles trying to ask him to discuss it properly, telling him how to, and he continue adding of the content dispute back into the article. He seems to think this is a war and has not listened to a word I said. I think a topic ban is in order. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A side note, I no longer want any contact with this user. He has openly and continually ignored what I said. I have told him now 5 times that he needs verifiable sources and went into detail on explain what that is and all his responses are rants on my talk page. I'll leave it to someone else to deal with this user as I've had enough.-- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Users comments directed to me when I asked not to be contacted by him "I dont know what your problem is, but whatever is making you behave this way, please don't direct it at me. You know behind the counter at McDonalds, the little 15yo who's a Manager and treats everyone like crap, I feel like you are behaving in that manner, and its simply not cool when I've been trying to resolve this with you calmly and genuinely wanted your help. I wont be messaging you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdabner (talk • contribs) 06:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)"
    He has been attacking me for last couple of posts and doesn't seem to want my help. Everytime I tell him something he said rants about something else. -- Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Talker36912

    I request that this account is blocked indefinitely because it was created with the sole purpose of making vandalism. Here I show some evidence of what I say:

    I think he's account is a puppet of User talk:173.172.189.197. Anyway, this user must have or will commit vandalism.--Damián (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism is reported at WP:AIV. Sockpuppets are reported at WP:SPI - you know this already. Oh, and saying "...will commit..." is not actionable. It's also not a good idea to "suggest the punishment" here - you lay out the specific issue, and let admins/the community decide the panda ₯’

    Page move problem

    Palestinian land laws was a stable article for a number of years. Recently an editor did not agree with the name and unilaterally moved it three times to three different names in one day finally settling on Land ownership in the State of Palestine. [53] [54] [55] My position is that editor should have at least initiated a discussion before moving the article. Moving the article back to the stable version requires administrator tools. My request is that the article should be moved back to the stable name so that any proposed page moves should be conducted properly following proper procedure of WP:RM. Thanks.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    First comment - he was informed of discretionary sanctions in this area on the 20th of June by User:Mendaliv.[56] after receiving an ARBPIA 1RR block by User:EdJohnston. I'm not sure what to do about the move. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Controversial move. Should be undone and a RM opened by Wickey-nl. Not sure whether a sanction is merited. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moves reverted, article now back at previous title Palestinian land laws. On the face of it, the actions of Wickey-nl don't seem to egregious and I don't think any sort of sanction would be merited. Unless I'm missing something this thread can probably be closed. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry for already blocked editor using peacock language on Nas.

    75.176.16.52 has been blocked for edit-warring and reinstating overly effusive adjectives in the article on Nas. Several editors reverted, but the IP kept at it until blocked. Immediately thereafter, User_talk:200.35.147.154, User_talk:Plyons91, and User_talk:103.25.58.72 all surfaced from nowhere and began reverting and reinstating the exact same language. I put an escalated warning on each of those talk pages because to me this seemed like clearly the work of the same individual. They are still at it. The past two days of Nas's edit history is nothing but me, User:Dan56, User:Jim1138, and ClueBot reverting their vandalism. JesseRafe (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semiprotcted the article for 10 days. The only account involved, User:Plyons91 might have just ended up in the middle of it, as their edit was substantially different from what the IP editors were doing, and was created several weeks ago. That the IP editors decided to include Plyon's edits when continuing to revert doesn't seem enough to be sure the account is being used in conjunction with the IPs. Monty845 15:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing and conduct by Holybeef

    Background: Statement by User:0x0077BE

    This is a report about Holybeef:

    The incidents occurred on several pages, but are primarily centered around these pages:

    Holybeef is a user who has been aggressively editing two BLPs, Alan Guth and Laura Mersini-Houghton to add (or re-add) original research about scientific priority claims. Numerous outside parties (myself included) have now been dragged into conflict with him, and now with a fluctuating IP editor who has recently taking to incivility and vandalism (addressed in a separate incident report). Unfortunately, numerous editors are finding that it is not possible to have a real discussion of the issues with Holybeef, and as we try to explain why what he's doing is original research, the talk pages are filling up rather rapidly, putting a pretty high barrier to entry on new editors. This is also creating a false sense of imbalance - on both articles, neutral third parties and long-term editors strongly agree that Holybeef (and the fluctuating IP editor)'s edits are low quality and in violation of Wikipedia policy, but he uses aggressive tactics to take ownership of the article and create the impression that there is a legitimate content dispute.

    As you can see from Holybeef's talk page, he has been warned numerous times by various editors that he is misusing or misunderstanding Wikipedia policies. He was recently blocked for edit warring and for intransigently characterizing good faith edits (which multiple neutral parties clarified as being good faith edits) as vandalism. The archive link is here, where Bbb23 explicitly mentions that a 3RR violation indeed occurred and that a block would have been appropriate even if that were not true. Even so, Holybeef makes the demonstrably false claim that he "never made more than 3 edits in 24h" in his immediate request for unblocking - clearly demonstrating no understanding of why the block occurred and not even addressing the facts of the case. His mischaracterization of all attempts to remove or reword his addition of WP:OR to Alan Guth's page as vandalism continue in his tradition of completely mischaracterizing anyone he disagrees with - in the AfD for Laura Mersini-Houghton, he characterized 3 editors' votes as "bogus" diff.

    On the talk page for Alan Guth's article, you can see that he also consistently misrepresents consensus. In numerous points in the article, he refers to versions of the article with his contributions as the "consensus" version, citing the discussion in the recantation of inflation theory section as evidence that he had a consensus to make his additions. It's a bit hard to parse, but you'll note that no editors joined in his view, they merely got tired of arguing with him. Drbogdan, CSmallw, MGBirdsall, SCZenz and Yandex5 all oppose his additions, with only himself in favor of the changes. He persists in reverting anyone who makes changes, however, and so the edits have been on the main page for over a month, which he seems to believe gives him consensus. Whenever it is suggested that he does not have consensus, he cites WP:NOTDEMOCRACY as a justification that he does not need consensus, because he has "a reliable secondary source" (also a disputed claim, but irrelevant, since consensus is required either way) here is a diff of him making a comment representative of one he makes in several places here.

    Finally, he has recently changed his tactics somewhat and moved onto making personal attacks and accusations of conspiracy against other editors, and even against the subjects of the articles themselves. He starts with accusations of some sort of fraud and some kind of participation in freemasonry here. After I attempted to place notices about issues related to the fluctuating IP editor disrupting Laura Mersini-Houghton, he copy-pasted substantially the same general accusations of conspiracy charges against me and the other editors on the page in each of the venues, diffs for each venue are: AN/I, NORB, Mersini-Houghton talk page, his own talk page.

    Note: This report is related to this earlier report of a fluctuating IP (historical link), covering an overlapping set of behaviors and articles from a different user.

    Proposal

    There are two major issues. One is that Holybeef clearly is either a single purpose account or has some sort of POV related to either these two scientists or, more likely, cosmologists in general and claims of scientific priority (as can be seen by the limited scope of his contribution history. The other is his unwillingness or inability to understand Wikipedia policies or to attempt to reach any sort of consensus, and his aggressive editing style. To remedy the first problem, I suggest a minimum 6 month topic ban from editing in either the article or talk namespace of articles on any articles relating to cosmology, biographies of scientists, or anything related to claims of scientific priority - a topic ban was also suggested by Johnuniq here. Regarding the second issue, I would say that he should be put on notice for these behaviors, and, given his propensity for edit warring, that he be officially sanctioned with 0RR (or possibly 1RR) for at least 1 month.0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would strongly support an indefinite block. This editor's BLP violations are outrageous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Originally I was going to propose a cosmology topic ban as I felt that the user might still be possibly mentored towards a more active involvement in the community, but after looking at his contribs it is clear to me that this is a single purpose account and frankly the nature of the egregious BLP violations concerns me. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 17:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sanctions up to and including an indefinite block; clear BLP violations are present in his contributions, and he seems to have no contriteness or even acknowledgement of these violations. That, along with the WP:SPA-nature of his edits, makes me believe that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, and instead simply to push his POV. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support sanctions as above. Not only are the BLP/SPA/OR issues problematic, the user has serious issues with being civil in a discussion, even when the other user is trying to smooth things over. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block per Newyorkbrad.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    Again you with your conspiracy theories. The reason why I had only covered 2 articles that interest me so far is that I joined recently, and unlike you I'm not a professional 24/7 editor (but still made a significant contribution to those few at least.) But I did warn you about your resorting to conspiracy theories as you did in Alan Guth Talk page. You're just making a fool of yourself and misleading/jeopardizing other editors. Holybeef (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What conspiracy theories? The only conspiracy theories I'm seeing are coming from you. Such as where you said "I'd bet money that he's a member of Freemasonry lodge at MIT (world's Masonic stronghold) and that most of you "groupies" are his bros". Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked

    Based on my own evaluation of the BLP violations and bizarre conspiracy allegations, and supported by the consensus above, I have blocked Holybeef indefinitely. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    FreeRangeFrog

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Resolved
    User blocked for block evasion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 17:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This user was usualy beaing a disruptive admin, performing unexpected edits and actions.

    Would someone block the above admin? 206.19.188.252 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    McDoobAU93

    This has been discussed to death. Editor has done nothing wrong, just enforcing consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user keeps removing an RfC from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis
    The idea of the RfC is to seek outside opinions from editiors without entrenched ideas instead of the purely North American editors which dominate the article and rule with an iron fist.
    See these diffs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998558&oldid=618998361
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618998091&oldid=618997586
    77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Watch out for the boomerang when it hits you back. This grandstanding RFC has been reverted by three independent editors, myself being the third. Yes I have undone it twice, which would actually make my second revert, but also would be 77.97's fourth in 24 hours. There is no consensus in the community for this, and the editor has no stake in the change other than his perception of nationalistic bias (despite significant evidence of editors on both sides supporting positions their supposed national identity would oppose). Editor is not here to build the article, which has gone from one of the lamest edit wars to FA-status with editors who were willing to set aside their differences and improve the project. This nonsense needs to end. --McDoobAU93 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This IP address keeps arguing the same nonsense for awhile now, usually with rants insulting Americans such as [57] and [58]. Those two edits alone should be enough to convince you this person is a problem. Since the same issue was brought up dozens of times already, with large numbers of participates, no need to keep doing it yet again because someone didn't get the results they wanted. Dream Focus 17:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC is not to look for consensus within the community as the community is a Majority of North American editors with a North American viewpoint, the RfC is to look for opinions from outside uninvolved editors but you keep censoring it and never give it a chance, we are aware of your views... it is not your views we seek, please stop vandalizing the talk page by removing the RfC 77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ritchie333

    This user keeps removing an RfC from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis
    The idea of the RfC is to seek outside opinions from editiors without entrenched ideas instead of the purely North American editors which dominate the article and rule with an iron fist.
    See these diffs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=618992113&oldid=618991855
    77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    could a friendly admin...

    ...please provide the last (or last proper if there is vandalism etc) content of List of Bank Identification Numbers and post it on my talk page.

    217.43.5.168 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Pages created by Hola2000

    Hola2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    For the past week or so, this user has created multiple pages (10 as of the time this report was written) that have little or no content on them. These pages have been tagged under various criteria, including G2, A1, A3, and A7 and all have been deleted except for one that someone else added real content to and one that was only just tagged. They've also been warned numerous times (including a final warning for removing CSD tags from their articles), yet continued to remove the tags. This seems to me to be a classic WP:CIR/WP:BULLINCHINA case, so I'd suggest a block until they can demonstrate understanding of their mistakes. --Jakob (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be either a WP:CIR problem here, or a deliberate attempt to disrupt. I've seem this pattern before and it turned out to be a sock of a banned user. Unfortunately, I don't remember who. In any case, admin intervention is needed to prevent further disruption.- MrX 19:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have temporarily blocked the user. Hopefully they will begin discussing the concerns on their user talk page. Alternately, I have no issue with another admin unblocking the user so that they can respond to this thread, provided the other admin feels the user is serious about engaging in discussion to resolve concerns. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hola2000 is a confirmed sock of Mauricio80 (as is Sweet231), so I've switched the block to indef.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Barek and Ponyo.- MrX 21:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    75.156.178.30

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Additionally some of the text he has attempted to add is not really understandable nor supported by the references in question such as here [59]. I have concerns about their ability to contribute to Wikipedia productively. As they use a bunch of IPs they may be difficult to address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I use an e-mail address the first time I write on a talk page. That's an exceptional degree of identifiability, so raising issues of any kind with me is not a problem. Avoiding me, and trying to do anything about my excercises in understanding the lack of philosophy in your favourite medical editorial is a problem. Do you want me to make it your problem? If you will complain about Jimmy Wales principle that anybody can edit wikipedia, then you should complain to him. Doctor Heilman is strongly in favour of deleting material that he does not understand, whether it is sourced or not.
    I am an artist. He is an applied scientist. We are bound to clash. Assume that all of these accusations are essentially true from either standpoint. Are any of them serious enough to warrant an investigation? If so, then keep your mind open; not at both ends, though! Follow the links, and understand the issues on Talk:Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor#Avoiding_Discussion_of_Causation_with_Evasion. If you want to contribute, then the more the merrier. A backlog of questions is there for me to answer. Bohgosity BumaskiL 75.156.178.30 (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    user acroterion

    I have posted several reliable sources and my opinion here. Acroterion reverted that edits by writing "david duke". But why? Did I mention jews people? No. I have not added all of them in the article yet. Instead to add there, I wrote them on the talk page, which all user should do it. So how did he dare to revert it on the talk page, just like this articel. There were even some discussion like here, which were't removed from anyone. So why he removed my one. Only because he is an admin? He also warned me by writing "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Zionism, you may be blocked from editing." How can she write me it just for undid his revesion once, and was my edit disprutive?No. This is injustice. Lastly he wrote "not a forum", but why? I did not write anything strange that is usually written in a forum. His edit should be reverted. Thanks 109.154.0.64 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The trolling was obvious, the sources weren't notable, and the subject matter was probably offensive to a lot of people. I'm not sure what you're hoping to find here other than a boomerang. 165.214.12.79 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I endorse Acroterion's action. Your posting was anti-Semitic and loathesome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I was notified of this discussion or anything, but the complainant's posting was obvious anti-semitic trolling of Talk:Zionism using the opinions of David Duke, among others. He was reverted twice and warned against further disruption. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What Brad said. Mackensen (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat by Csisscrs

    This is related to this edit by Csisscrs (talk · contribs); which appears to reference the notices the user was placing into their edit summaries on Edmonton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

    According to the edit summaries, the user claims to be a "Canadian Security Intelligence Service Officer"", and in their legal threat they claim that by using that edit summary was a "warning to those who changed it" that reverting those edits could open the person up to prosecution.

    Requesting help in reviewing the user's edits to the Edmonton article, to ensure no WP:DOLT issues exist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has been blocked for the legal threats. I endorse the indefinite block on the different ground that the user's contributions consist of introducing hoax content and false information. The pseudo legal threats are just part of the silliness. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Legal threats over weather information. That belongs in the Lame Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the more recent edits prior to the block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It takes all kinds. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This ban feels kinda hasty, guys. The Canadaian Secret Police are pretty serious about accurate weather information, and recent court rulings have indicated that unsubstantiated claims in Wikipedia edit summaries are an acceptable form of police identification, so I'm afraid this guy might be on the level. I'm just crossing my fingers that this doesn't get Wikipedia banned in America and Canada. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 01:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's funny. Tell us another one. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarity aside... Terrificastatistics (talk · contribs) and 199.119.235.164 (talk · contribs) are suspected socks of the supposed CSIS administrator. We should keep an eye out.
    Support the block. The editor accused me of giving false info when it was the editor replacing factual info with false info. Why would CSIS be interested in providing false info regarding population, annexation, climate, etc.? Seems just like an editor naïvely trying to intimidate those whom (s)he thinks are naïve. We have been significantly underestimated! Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are kind of old, but the IP geolocates to Vancouver, which might be a clue of what to watch out for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Various epithets

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

    No. Get a sense of humour. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not constructive and it's not sensetive to the gender gap. There are better ways for Hell in a Bucket to explain his viewpoint.--v/r - TP 00:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely it was an ill advised comment. We could argue over whether it violates NPA, or justifies some type of sanction on civility grounds. But Sitush is right about the question asked. The comment does not violate that particular principle in that case. There is no indication that the comment was made based on any of the protected characteristics. Monty845 00:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What gender gap? This is all BS promoted by, mostly, a vociferous group of people who, if they chose to apply the anonymity that they are entitled to, could just get on with doing what we're supposed to be here to do. I see as many "gutter" words about men as women in that message. Take you social consciences elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that an edit made by an actual contributor to this project? Dear me. Mackensen (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes for almost 4.5 years, the ironic part is the part about AN and ANI and here we are. I'd also like to show [[60]] and [[61]]. I'm glad someone actually caught on I was liberal about the targets because no one is totally blamesless here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I'm thinking userpage desecration! And Baseball bugs if a person is that superficial and surface oriented it's better to not have that person around, you will never get to below the surface because all they can see is the surface. what a sad place to be stuck on the surface always knowing more is there but never able to get there...Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot wiped out your entry in an edit conflict. Just as well, since your comment really doesn't make sense. But whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    iF YOU CAN'T SEE BELOW THE SURFACE THEN YES IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER BUT IF YOU LOOK BEYOND JUST THE SURFACE YOU MIGHT BE SURPRISED HOW MUCH IS THERE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that ugliness is only skin-deep? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If I base my answer on your sweeping generalization above sure does. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Foul mouth = foul mind. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to comment about being unable to see past the surface, reread then let sink in and then reread again just so it sticks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to foul mouth = foul mind and then reread again just so it sticks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Big feet = big meat. Wait, what was that about womenfolk? --NE2 02:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    It could be worse. There are several entries on George Carlin's word list that the editor forgot to include in that funny rant. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's clear that I was mocking you replying to your thinly veiled attempt at an insult. I like how you are pretending to be a victim and trying to twist it though, keep trying something might stick. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying you can dish out insults, but can't take them? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No but when they are petty i reserve the right to mock you, care to give it a try Bugs? I'm not complaining at all, notice I didn't start the thread, I haven't misrepresented what happened, I think this is a whole big WP:COATRACK thread. If yuo want to see the whole picture look, if you can't well that's up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, your vulgarity-laden rant, highlighted above, definitely qualifies as "petty". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your vastly enlightening surface analysis, I'm sure we are all enriched having been privileged with it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to be of service, George. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Close review: Conduct unbecoming of an administrator

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

    Support - Reopen
    1. As nom. Let the people speak. - MrX 03:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. This is exactly why we can't have nice things. It is impossible to address systemic issues when we handle them in this manner, where initial discussion is loudly disrupted by a few drama mongers, then the discussion is relatively quickly closed under the rationale that there's "too much drama", so thoughtful editors are unable to steer the discussion in a productive direction because it was closed before they even noticed it. (Also, it was very inappropriate for an involved admin to re-close the discussion. If there's anywhere you can find an uninvolved admin, it's here, so there is absolutely no reason not to leave it to one of them.) Gamaliel (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Support as stated. It's clear some users want to continue the conversation. Whether or not we continue it here shouldn't be subject to a majority vote. There are clearly some longstanding issues at hand and these need to be dealt with. If we sweep this under the carpet, again, no problem will be solved. The conversation should continue as long as several users are contributing. This is also unfair to users who did not contribute in the first 36 hours, particularly as this issue is likely to surface again and again and this conversation will be used as precedent in some future date. The users who are not interested shouldn't have the right to gag the users who want to continue participating. 101.116.116.59 (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    Oppose - Remain closed
    1. As I believed when I closed it the first time, nothing productive is going to come from the discussion. Editors are just getting more and more worked up, and its very unlikely enough consensus to do anything will arise. (One of the points was that there was movement towards consensus on the block/unblock question, but they are supporting a block for a reason other than the one that triggered the block, which just doesn't make sense in a block review) Rather than continue to get madder at each other, this should remain closed, and we should just wait for someone to take it to WP:ARBCOM. Monty845 03:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Oppose, because this is supposed to be an online encyclopaedia, and this endless exercise in drama-mongering has nothing to do with improving article content... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Oppose- the entire thing was an unproductive dramalanche, never had the remotest possibility of solving any actual problem, and should remain closed. Reyk YO! 03:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Oppose. I'm watching (on TV) a bunch of Nubian ibexes fight. It's the mating season in the desert, you know. If they lose a fight, they may never mate. We're not Nubian ibexes. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Leave it closed. It was much ado about nothing. Chillum 03:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Oppose— Those who are interested can have a far more productive conversation at arbcom. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    block user Easycalculation

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

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

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

    User:Easycalculation has only made 25 edits, all on the 25th or 26th of February this year, none of which are in article space. While there is a vague claim concerning Easycalculation.com on Easycalculation's user page ("Easycalculation name is based off my site Easycalculation.com It is a math site that was started 2007"), I see nothing that could be considered remotely harmful to the reputation of the website - and I doubt anyone would take the claim seriously, given the grammatical errors etc. Why is this a problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=619074337"