Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Gryffindor

Could someone please have a quiet word with the administrator User:Gryffindor who is currently stalking my edits and trolling by adding info boxes (full of errors) against consensus (even on a well known FA Buckingham palace) and generally being tiresome by making small meaningless edits and comments to other pages which I have heavily edited or begun and am known to be heavily involved with. It would be good if this could be nipped in the bud before it get's out of hand. Thank you.  Giano  09:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Giano, perhaps you should provide some diffs to support your complaint? And have you made any other attempts at dispute resolution before coming to ANI? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't the time or inclination to go digging about and copy pasting diffs where trolls are concerned. They are easy enough to see in his contributions. If admins won't monitor their own kind here, then I am more than capable of dealing with the matter myself. I just thought it was procedure to flag up problem editors here first. My mistake obviously - it won't happen again.  Giano  17:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close. Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss does not constitute whatever User:Giano is complaining about. Gryffindor (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - User:Gryffindor, do you think it's appropriate to ask that an ANI against you be immediately closed before it's be discussed and the issues evaluated? - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I see 2RR apiece from Gryffindor ([1], [2]) and Giano ([3], [4]). Leaving messages on talk pages and asking to discuss is okay, but not if it's accompanied with a blind revert to the right version lacking an edit summary. Trouts all round. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am also referring to his stalking of pages which I have edited just to make irritating edits Vorontsov Palace, Buckingham Palace, Talk:Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain, Halton House and Marble Arch. Al in the space of 12 hours. He does not edit in the historical architectural field at all, so what is he doing there if not trolling. I'm in the middle of writing pages I don't want to have to spare time on his meaningless stalking and trolling.  Giano  10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If it makes you feel better Giano, there's an infobox at Rainthorpe Hall that you can remove, and you have my word I will not edit war over its re-addition (although if you'd like to improve it to, say, B class, while you're there, that would be nice....). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

That is very horrible indeed. I'll expand that later when I'm back from the Crimea, unless our new architectural expert transforms it into a GA first.  Giano  10:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look through both Giano's and Gryffindor's contribs for the last few days, and I can't find any smoking gun that points towards stalking or harassment. It does seem unlikely for Gryffindor to have been editing the same articles as Giano by chance, but then checking another user's contributions is not outlawed unless there is other inappropriate behaviour. From WP:HARASS: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons." I don't see anything particularly offensive here, and I haven't seen any evidence of repetition of this before this week. And Gryffindor has also been editing a lot of architectural articles, so there is nothing that unusual about seeing him editing in the general topic area. Giano: what makes you think that Gryffindor is "stalking [your] edits and trolling" rather than simply trying to improve the articles in question? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that he is suddenly editing architectural articles....now. Stalking me and wandering in off the street onto pages where he's never been seen before and adding infoboxes against consensus and then edit warring with them seems, to me, inappropriate behavior for an admin - especially when he has filled those infoboxes with erroneous facts. To me, the adding of erroneous facts is the worst possible behavior - he either does it deliberately to annoy or he just adds boxes without bothering to read the page - either way, it's pretty poor behavior for an admin. Furthermore, at the same time as he's arguing with me about infoboxes elsewhere, he suddenly makes four completely pointless edits here [5]. Anyhow don't bother too much, I always regard this page as a futile, but necessary stepping stone to taking the matter into one's own hands, which is always more effective.  Giano  08:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have a few more questions: first, is there a past history between you and Gryffindor? Some links to past discussions would help a lot in investigating whether this is a one-time thing or not. Second, could you point us to some of the claims that Gryffindor has inserted into articles that you think are erroneous? And third, are there any discussions where you have asked Gryffindor about any of these specific claims? I couldn't find any when I looked around, but it's possible I may have missed them. And finally, what do you mean by "taking matters into one's own hands"? That sounds vaguely threatening and has me worried, so I would appreciate some clarification. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: I just tried searching the ANI archives for any past discussions involving both Giano and Gryffindor, but I drew a blank. If there is any past history here, it is not obvious. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr. Stradivarius. I suggest you address the questions to Gryffindor and ask him to explain his extraordinary behavior; he cannot be unaware that infoboxes are a controversial subject and that's when added without errors and with talk page consensus. I had previously never heard of him, and looking at his previous edits, there is no reason why I should have heard of him - I expect he was fulfilling some other person's agenda. Anyway, he seems to have learnt the error of his ways. Regarding "taking matters into one's own hands", well that is often the best method. Admins are hardly renowned for sorting each other out - are they?  Giano  12:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
• Template:Comment from uninvolved editor @Mr. Stradivarius:, perhaps you should try wikistalk instead. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked your diff [6], snd I fail to see four pointless edits. I see some reduction in thumbnail sizes. His first entry seems to be an attempt to make the infobox shorter and more concise. The first edit also is removing an opinion (you can't really say for what reason motivated Shah of Persia to say that statement, you should only relay the statement itself). The second entry adds a description of what the picture is, an advert, and doesn't grossly change it. The third entry is slightly incorrect in that it states all those events occured in 1929 when actually they only finished in 1929 and had begun earlier. Sure you can dispute that. But why not limit that to the article's talk page? Seems an awful lot to be escalating and accusing of stalking. LilOwens (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• And where exactly did you spring from? This was your third edit since July... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh that's a well known Canadian sock - we all know who that is!  Giano  14:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm someone that just read the information he posted. Being somewhat of a lurker, who has read the rules back and forth, trying to get a handle on how things go here. I just thought someone without any attachments, to anyone or anything, could provide fresh eyes on the evidence presented. I'd like to know what Sock I am apparently supposed to be. I assure you I am someone who just wanted to become a contributor. Also, Luke I found this posted on your user page.Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. LilOwens (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

How I wish I was such a fast learner.  Giano  08:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics

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

---

HiLo48 is engaged in an incivil behavior at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics#The most expensive games in history. They may have a point, but instead of discussing it in a civil manner they resorted to personal attacks, talking about my and other editor's English skills and making up some phantasies about my political views. Whereas I am prepared to discuss the issue, I am not prepared to discuss it in this manner. Note also edit summaries like WTF. I vaguely remember having some problems with the civility of this user in the past, but frankly not a single detail. I posted yesterday morning ate the Editor Assistance requests, this unfortunately did not attract any interest.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I have two comments to make. Firstly, I draw everyone's attention to my use of the word "almost" right at the end of this post. I do this because Ymblanter then posted as if I hadn't used the word (after extensively refactoring my comments), and ignored my pointing out that I had used it, and has continued to post attacks on me as if I hadn't used the word, right up to this very time. Secondly, I have been and am still confused by several of the posts made by some editors in that thread. As I politely suggested, this may be at least partly because they are being made by editors who are not expert at using English. I explicitly said "That's not a criticism on its own", but [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter}} described it as a personal attack. I'm sorry, but at this point I give up. Am to be condemned for being ignored and confused? HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks by Hilo, and Ymblanter brought up Putin first anyway. I also had trouble following some of the conversation due to the broken English. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? Did I write that I have "a rampart desire to prove evilness of Putin"?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you write it then? Can you prove that I have such desire? Am I may be a POV editor of other articles? Do I regularly express anti-Putin views on other talk pages? Why did it happen right after I requested you to remain civil? Is this your understanding of civility?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to revisit your own definition of civility and compare it to ours ... just sayin'. I mean, if you're complaining about an edit summary of "WTF" ... you just might want to rethink your approach, AND look carefully at your intent ES&L 12:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is my hobby. I am a pretty succesful person in my professional life, and I have no interest to somehow prove anything by my Wikipedia activity. Obviously in my capacity as administrator I have to deal with problematic editors, and I realized that before running an RfA. But in my capacity as an editor I just do not see why I should deal with problematic editors. I avoid editing in problematic topics. But here an editor comes to a talk page of an article which is in my watchlist for a long time and where I have a dozen of edits, and makes a suggestion. I politely disagree, providing my argument, and then they start the next reply with WTF and suggest that we discuss the topic accurately and constructively. Subsequently they attribute me some political opinions, and when another editor disagrees with them as well, complains about our bad English. And now I am recommended to continue the discussion and not to pay attention. WTF, is this the editing atmosphere we are aiming at? I have plenty of topics where I am pretty sure I would be the only non-bot editor for the next ten years.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you are way out of line here. HiLo has not done or said anything in the discussion on the nominated talk page that warrants any sort of administrative sanction. I very strongly recommend you review your own words on that page, which have been far from flawless. Your post immediately above this is almost entirely non-sequitur to this AN/I thread - it is full of self praise, but says little gremain to the point. With all due respect, if you have difficulty understanding and using everyday English as seems to be the case here, then perhaps you should reconsider whether you really do want to edit the English Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 13:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was closed by me up to this point, I now reopened it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that HiLo's behaviour in the thread was appropriate and am posting some remarks on his talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, HiLo made some comments that were unnecessary, but nothing blockable. For Ymb, it is unfortunate that what seems to be a minor language barrier led to this. Both these editors could've handled this better, and ANI should not have been needed. But the result is ludicrous... instead finding a resolution, all ESL and Nick Thorne seemed to have accomplished is to chase away a valuable editor - an admin with 0 block history and ≈32,000 edits in 2 years, 85% of which are article. This should've gone thru some of the other WP:DR resources available here. I certainly hope that Ymblanter does not leave the project. - ^theWOLFchild 20:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Not planning at the moment, but I unwatched the page. For the record, I did not request a block, and I am pretty fine with what Diannaa did (assuming this is going to be learned).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is calling me a "fool" also fine? Or may be my English skills are so bad that I misunderstand the meaning? Or may be this is not about me, and I am unable to comprehend?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well.... What part of "No further edits should be made to this discussion." do you people not understand. (I apologise for failing to follow that instruction just this once myself, but surely it means something?) HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo. --Calton | Talk 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"I'm sorry, did Jimbo die and leave you in charge? I must have missed the memo." - @Calton:

- And this comment is helpful... how? - ^theWOLFchild 11:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The whole notice is "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." It refers to the hatted discussion above. It may (and sometimes does) continue below the hatted block. Nobody has as yet modified the above discussion. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree HiLo has been out of order. I'm surprised no one has taken it seriously. His comments have been rude and unconstructive. Malick78 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Why would you be surprised that certain people in the community are all too willing to give a pass on certain behaviour to a certain class of user?I'd say it's par for the course here. The comments were entirely out of line, and his reaction to furthering discussion here illustrates that even further.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This might provide some interesting, but likely to be ignored context:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#HiLo48_civility
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal_Attacks_by_HiLo48_against_Collingwood26 with a great quote 'HiLo acts like this because he pretty much always gets away with it.'
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:HiLo48
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#Trayvon_Martin_Poll
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48 which has a really detailed list of past issues up to the point of filing that and seems to only have been closed because the user was blocked. Draw the conclusions that you will but it's pretty obvious what's going on here--211.215.156.184 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

We address HiLo's rather minor comments as not serious because we presume that we're all adults here who can handle vigorous debate. This whole attempt to grab some isolated edit and turn it into a federal case is just stupid. Maybe you should grow some fucking skin. And I think HiLo will be the first to point out that we don't see eye to eye... but I really hate this "got ya" mentality. This thread in particular is especially dumb... there's nothing a problem here. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"...because we presume that we're all adults here who can handle vigorous debate." - Unfortunately... No. - ^theWOLFchild 19:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not see how civility is a non-issue. Especially since HiLo has already demonstrated that their language problems are in fact stronger than my alleged problems - they clearly have difficulties understanding native English speakers.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Uh, {{cn}}? That's not a cool thing to say, Ymblanter. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

At their talk page, as a consequence of this thread, they run into difficulties with a number of editors in good standing who tried to ask them to remain civil. I am still waiting for the answer to my question whether it is a perfectly acceptable thing to call me a "fool". Writ Keeper, what is your answer to this question?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a question: do two wrongs make a right? Or another: as admins, isn't it our job to take the high road, even in the face of what we perceive to be abuse? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, as you see from this thread, I shut up and did not make any statements on the issue since November 30. Even though I found unfounded speculations that I do not understand English highly offensive. However, today I got one more comment, now saying that I started a "dumb thread", and that we should forget about civility. Fine, I am unwatching ANI, frankly I have other things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes calling anyone anything is not good, but the community has, again and again, shown itself unable or unwilling to deal with long-term editors who engage in un-civil behavior - for shame, I say. GiantSnowman 20:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - @Ymblanter: - As you are the one that 'closed' this discussion, might I suggest you 'un-close' it, as it is clearly not finished yet. - ^theWOLFchild 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Has a discussion about me been (re-)opened at AN/I? Is anyone going to officially tell me about it? Exactly what is the issue? Does anyone here actually care about policy? And can we get consensus to fully define civility in a way that doesn't simply involve what some people think are naughty words? HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And can someone close down this nonsense forever please? HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here; may I ask what admin action is being requested since the thread has been reopened?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing, as far as I can tell; I would re-close teh thread had I not contributed to it above (which I now regret, since I see that it was pointless). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

user Zyzzzzzy

This user has been making vast amount of edits without any sort of discussion. He also does not appear to have grasp of Armenian language, which are in any case not common usage. Many of his edits are not align with WP:COMMONNAME, which is also used for foreign languages. He has made so many edits that its going to be hard to revert all of them. I suggest a block. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please notify this user that their name has come up at ANI. Also, for reviewers: Zyzzzzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Proudbolsahye: Instead of a block, how about mass rollback? Epicgenius (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Okay, I think that's a better option. It's going to be a real pain doing this. Also, the mentioned user knows about the ANI report due to a message on my talk page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry; for editors with rollback enabled it would be easy to revert the edits. I have just rollbacked Zyzzzzzy's past 10 article space edits. Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh my! Thanks so much! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Do you want any more of Zyzzzzzy's edits to be reverted? Additionally, consider applying for the rollback permission so that you can do this yourself next time it happens. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained previously, there are few exeptions in the Armenian language regarding some consonants following the letter Ր (R). Hence:

• Գ after Ր pronounced K and not G. (example: SARKIS/ՍԱՐԳԻՍ and not Sargis, GEVORK and not Gevorg)
• Դ after Ր pronounced T and not D. (example: VARTAN/ՎԱՐԴԱՆ and not Vardan)
• Բ after Ր pronounced P and not B. (example: SURP/ՍՈՒՐԲ and not Surb)

It is a matter of linguistics in the Eastern Armenian language (Հայերեն Լեզվի Հնչյունաբանություն). Please check ou this link Ուղղախոսություն և ուղղագրություն:

• 7.ա) Ր ձայնորդից հետո լսվող ք հնչյունը գրվում է գ տառով հետևյալ բառերում. երգ, թարգման, կարգ, մարգագետին, մարգարե, մարգարիտ, միրգ, պարգև, Մարգար, Սարգիս:

Thanks.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This editor seems to also have issues with marking all edits as minor; I left them a note on their talk page but they haven't fixed it yet. VQuakr (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Bata, Equatorial Guinea

On 15 October 2012 an anonymous user inserted in the article Bata, Equatorial Guinea a statement that the full name of that city is "City of Božić Bata" (dif). This was completely unsourced, and is an obvious joke, since "Božić Bata" is Serbo-Croatian name for Santa Claus. This was later changet to "Ville de Bozhich Bata" in the article, and it stood like that for more than a year until I noticed it and removed it as vandalism (dif). Now, an anonymous IP editor User:2A00:C440:20:27E:4EB:C0E:6939:58BD is constantly reverting my edit. He reverted my edit today (dif) and wrote in the edit summary that the removed text abot Božić Bata "was approved and justified". I wrote him on his talk page to explain me where and when it was "approved and justified" since I don't see any discussion about that. I also reverted his edit, as it is obvious joke. Than, he reverted my edit again (dif). I aks administrators to do something, as this "Božić Bata" thing is really pure nonsense. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You protected the page after it was vandalized again, so I reverted the vandalism. It was different IP now, but probably the same person as before. Maybe those IPs should be blocked? There is a lot of vandalism from the User:129.240.83.175 (see:[7], [8], [9], [10], and so on, all his contributions are exclusively vandalism). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If an editor is dedicated to vandalism and hoaxes, is there any good reason not to block? bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave a final warning, no edits since then from that IP but there's one from 2A00:C440:20:27E:4C08:27ED:4934:2F71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - most edits from IPs starting with 2A00:C440:20:27E appear to be the same vandal. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

After you gave the final warning to 129.240.83.175 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), he made a vandalism at the Franjo Tuđman article (dif). After that, he wrote a comment at Talk:Bata, Equatorial Guinea#Bozhich (dif). This comment is in Serbian, my native language. In the comment, he calls me "semi-literate shepherd" (polupismeni čobane). Please, stop this user from further insulting me. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sinosceptic userboxes

Can someone deal with this please. Formerip (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I allowed myself one BOLD revert, on the grounds that this user is not being very community-minded by making a good portion of that page be about "sinoscepticism." Also, you should tell the user that their name has come up here, as is required. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 03:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I found two user boxes related to this: Template:HK Sinosceptic and Template:Hard-core Sinosceptic. I've marked the second one as WP:CSD#G10 because it mentioned annihilating a culture and a state. If I was incorrect in assuming it fits G10, I apologize.--Rockfang (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The image he was using has been zapped from Commons (by myself) because COM:PS (project scope) clearly states that "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack" are outside of out of Commons' scope. Fifteen templates and the uploader's userpage link to the (now missing) image. There was a 16th, but it got CSD G10'ed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether File:UpsideDown-China Flag.png should also be deleted as out of project scope, considering it's only being used for criticism of the PRC. But that's probably a bit more a border case. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had second thoughts about creating that inflammatory and 'CSD G10-ed' template and I'm glad that it's been deleted before I've requested so. Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk) 13:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

69.14.97.53 learned nothing from his six months ban

User:69.14.97.53 came back, displaying the same behavior which got him a six months ban, see evidence of the ban at [11]. Objections to his behavior: he attacks other editors, calling them fascists for believing in historical criticism and does not understand the difference between subjective religious views and objective facts, as shown at [12] where he mentions that people will bow their knee to Jesus as if it were an objective fact and should therefore supersede Wikipedia's editorial standards. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was ever intended for him to learn anything. If he were an account, he would be blocked indefinitely. Since his IP appears to be quite stable, I put a 2 year block on him. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of ban, merely a block. Elizium23 (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Script Error in Templates

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Script Error in Templates

Extended content

I was not sure where to post this, so I think the ANI is the best place. I noticed that Template:M1 year in topic suddenly has a script error. Judging by the templates it includes, the error seems, based on timing, to be the result of edits on Template:Navbar and Module:Navbar by Edokter (linked so she/he is aware, not because the report is about them). The Navbar pages are fully protected so I cannot edit them myself to see if they are indeed the source of the error. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC) One of the greatest weaknesses of Lua modules, and something that Wikidata has to deal with all the time in its project namespace, is that if you have too many lua modules on one page, they stop loading after a while and you get that message. That might be what it is, but as I don't understand templates very well, it might be something else entirely. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC) @EvergreenFir: This should be at WP:VPT. If you have scripting enabled in your browser (JavaScript, nothing to do with modules), when a "script error" occurs, you can click the red error message to see a popup box with details. You can select that text and copy it, to be pasted into a report at WP:VPT. @Sven Manguard: Ouch, I try to follow WP:VPT and have not seen any mention of a problem with modules (apart from the total runtime of 10 seconds per page, which is plenty). Is there a discussion about that somewhere? Has Anomie commented? Johnuniq (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC) OK, I should have clicked the first link above (Template:M1 year in topic). I had assumed that it was the usage of that template somewhere that had a problem, but it is actually on the template page. The error text is: Lua error: Cannot pass circular reference to PHP. Backtrace: (none) A little digging shows the problem occurs when "{{#invoke:Year in other calendars|main}}" is previewed in a sandbox. Mr. Stradivarius may be able to throw some light on the matter, which is possibly in Module:Year in other calendars or one of the modules it calls. This section should be closed, with further discussion elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

94.189.150.5

User:94.189.150.5‎, previously User:94.189.148.237‎ and User:94.189.140.186‎ keeps adding incorrect information about cover versions of songs, for example here and here, but also on other pages. I warned the user once before, and again a couple of days ago, and I also noticed there are multiple warnings from other editors on the user's talk pages. --V111P (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

user Sopher99

Resolved

User Sopher99broke the rule 1RR here:Template: Syrian civil war detailed map

evidence broke the rule 1RR:

1. [13] (13:45, 4 December)
2. [14] (13:47, 4 December) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.134.193.238 (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I only see one revert of each edit here. 1 revert of 2 different edits doesn't violate the 1RR --Mdann52talk to me! 15:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes, it does - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." 1RR just replaces "three reverts" with "one revert". —Darkwind (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of changes and you'll see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

1. 13:45, 4 December 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (164,690 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 584500129 by Ariskar (talk) I gave sources for both. Their failure to update the damascus offensive article is your problem)
2. 13:47, 4 December 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (164,690 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Undid revision 584446097 by HCPUNXKID

And this is a two revert. 95.134.193.238 (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Administrator note This has already been handled at WP:ANEW. —Darkwind (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by new user

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

Wikitout has been editing disruptively since he first started editing on 30 November. Attempts to engage this editor in discussion on his talk page or article talk pages have been fruitless. He first started editing at Stockton Beach, adding a considerable amount of original research, removing cited content in the process.[15]After I reverted that he restored the changes, adding even more OR in the process.[16] A second reversion had little effect. He made a series of edits adding even more OR.[17] As attempts to engage him in discussion proved pointless. I requested page protection but this was denied as the admin assumed it was edit-warring and discussion on the admin's talk page wasn't helpful. About the only suggestion to come out of that was to revert the user again,[18] which I was loathe to do.[19] I had been tagging the OR but eventually I did revert, explaining each change for the benefit of Wikitout,[20] and only after I had explained why I was going to revert.[21] During this time, Wikitout had made inappropriate edits at another article. This one, with the edit summary "Look out the window dopey" was clearly wrong. I drove past the 70 m (230 ft) high, 600kW wind turbine yesterday and it was still generating power. He has since made other inappropriate edits, such as this, but he seems insistent on removing content supported by citations at Stockton Beach. He seems to think of himself as a history expert of some sort,[22] and his excuse for not involving himself in discussion is that he doesn't know how to,[23] but he clearly knows how to edit and post edit summaries, so I have more than a little trouble believing this. Based on his summaries and the content he is removing he seems unable to follow citations, or doesn't want to, even though I have explained this to him.[24] As a result of the numerous warnings that I've had to place on his talk page, his persistent disruptive edits and unwillingness to engage in talk page discussions I reported him to AIV but the report was rejected with the reason "This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to WP:AN/I".[25] I resisted but the four edits that Wikitout has made since then makes it clear that some action is needed. Wikitout simply doesn't seem to want to learn how to edit, or to abide by our policies and guidelines and he's just going to persistently be disruptive at Stockton Beach until some action is taken. Wikitout has now started editing as an IP, making the same edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And the edit summaries have devolved into outright trolling. Perhaps the user will want to learn more about hitting the "edit" button on his talk page if that's the only page he can access ... --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've given him the choice between discussion or a block. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether to revert this or not. The edit summary is more than ironic "The answer is obvious madmaxmovies.com. Are going to disagree with mad max fans from around the world". Madmaxmovies.com is a fan owned site and therefore non-RS. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

no matter, somebody else did. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Despite Dougweller's warning, he seems to have no interest in discussing anything. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And blocked with a clear statement of the conditions required for being unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Clavdia chauchat

This user is incapable of civil behaviour. Accusing other users of being "drones", "we need far fewer of you guys" and showing "overt bigotry". Earlier in the same "discussion", the accusation was that WP:FOOTY is a circle jerk. The insults wash off a duck's back, but I will not stand for being accused of being an "overt bigot". That is unacceptable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up, that was not the first "circle jerk" accusation - another one was made here. When asked not to make such offensive comments, her response was that it wasn't a personal attack because WikiProject members are not a single person (clearly not in line with WP:NPA#WHATIS) and that the requests to be more civil from myself and another editor were "hectoring bilge" and "creepy". Can someone please have a word, as whilst she's a productive editor, there do appear to be problems with playing nicely with others. Number 57 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

She seems to have a serious issue with that particular WikiProject (which all three of us who have commented so far, including myself, are active members of) and her constant yet unfounded accusations of anti-female bias within the Project hinder co-operative and collaborative editing. GiantSnowman 13:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated page history

The closet thing I could find to this was a histmerge, but it is more of a selective deletion, so I figured ANI was kind of a catch-all for this request. The page Christine Fox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was originally about a local radio DJ who failed WP:N in 2006 so the article was redirect to a radio station. A different Christine Fox now has notability as the acting Deputy Secretary of Defense and inspiration for a character in a movie. Her article was created over the redirect, so the article contains history of a different (non-notable) person in 2006. I am requesting an admin delete the non-sequitur history from 2006. Rgrds. --64.85.214.140 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand the point of hiding those edits. It's interesting to note in the history that the article was created from a redirect, and indeed why that redirect was created in the first place. Graham87 08:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Impersonator account

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

---

Jrpr1966 (talk · contribs) is an impersonator account of Jprg1966 (talk · contribs) and is causing mischief. MRSC (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User Eric Corbett

Re: [26]. Is it time to retire either WP:CIVIL or Eric Corbett, because there just doesn't seem space for both of them on WP.

In particular, are other editors in general now permitted to use similar "non-parliamentary language" when referring to other editors in disputes? Or when referring reciprocally to Eric? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Either WP:CIVIL or Eric Corbett -- a false dichotomy. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like more baiting of Eric again, this thread. At least that's how it's probably going to get spun. Doc talk 09:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Baiting or not, most editors would be admonished or blocked for using such terms (and rightly so, that's how we're constituted). Why does Eric get a free pass?

As a separate, although related, issue if anyone is baiting Eric (I haven't read the details, but I know how common this is) then that deserves a response too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an ill-judged drama switch. That language is but a symptom and in isolation represents a flea bite compared with the wider problems associated with the behaviour of various editors who are drawn to Eric's talk page as soon as certain trigger words appear in the edit summary. No Admin. is going to deal with this matter and all this serves to do is create a bigger audience to draw up their seats and munch on their popcorn Leaky Caldron 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC).

You can still get anaemia from enough fleas. WP:CIVIL is what keeps this place from turning into Usenet and I resent Eric's erosion of that. Not because I care about him using such terms towards me, and I have little enough to deal with him anyway, but because WP:CIVIL is worth keeping (see Usenet). If we establish that referring to other editors in such a way is acceptable, then we move closer to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You and I have had some strong disagreements in the past, Andy, but I fully agree with you on this. — Scott • talk 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you are failing to deal with the matter honestly. This has nothing to do with Eric referring to some group of un-named people as stupid cunts. Leaky Caldron 09:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"How many of you stupid cunts are there?" The "un-named" part, along with the "you"? Heh! Perhaps you are not seeing it in an "honest" manner, and rather making excuses. But this really, really is a waste of time. Doc talk 10:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, this is about Eric's use of language, nothing more. That is an issue that has gone on for longer than today, involving many more editors. If you would like a thread about Eric being baited (I haven't read that background, but I can easily credit that it has been happening), then I would suggest starting a separate thread. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is naïve to believe that any action will be taken on the narrow subject of Eric's use of particular words. Leaky Caldron 10:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer "hopelessly optimistic", but I wouldn't disagree with your overall point. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"I think it's naïve to believe that anyone would think that anything you have to say is worth a shite." It's a pretty good imitation, you gotta admit... ;> Doc talk 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My closing of an unblock request with "no unblock" from Eric last July caused a serious backlash from many of his supporters. Having observed the issue for several months, it is my belief that the community is unwilling to resolve this issue. One other example, a few days back, Eric speculated that an administrator was getting "aroused" from using the block button [27], he reverted the arbitrator who redacted that statement [28], and called the second arbitrator who redacted it "a complete arse" [29]. The diff in the OP is a clear personal attack. Yet lots of editors here, including several well-respected administrators, think all this behavior is perfectly appropriate reaction to "baiting"; they are acting with the best of intentions because they rightly value the encyclopedic contributions of Eric, but in truth I think they are enabling rather than helping. It is clear that the community is unable to resolve this, and the hostile environment is costing us. We just lost Khazar2 who grew fed up with it. I strongly suggest taking this back to ArbCom, Eric was previously admonished for "repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct", and if that has any meaning, ArbCom should review if Eric has heeded that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Eric speculated that an administrator was getting "aroused" from using the block button " As with so many issues, I find myself in total agreement with Eric (I'm just surprised Commons doesn't yet have galleries of such). However I remember that I'm not allowed to write that here, so I don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

These are invalid arguments. First about "aroused". My American Heritage Dictionary says: "1. To awaken from as if from sleep. 2. To stir up; excite; aroused her curiosity." And that's it. (Are you implying a sexual connotation? I don't see it in my dictionary. On the otherhand, a notorious troll told me once that he expected I was "giving [myself] a hard-on right now [...]" and when I complained to an ADMINISTRATOR about the sex-laden insult, I was told that the comment needn't be interpreted in a sexual context, yada yada yada. [Are you shocked if I see some measure of inconsistency and special application in all of this??]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I do remember the discussion I had with you on my talkpage some time back regarding use of the word "anal" (it may or may not be the one you are referring to). I think this is in a different league, mostly because the sheer amount and frequency of invective is much greater in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The "hard-on" comment didn't involve you. (It occurred on Talk:List of Internet chess servers.) Back to American Heritage Dictionary: "Anus: 1. Of or near the anus. 2. Relating to the second state of psychosexual development in psychoanalytic theory." (However are either of those defs not a personal attack against Toccata quarta??) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is some logic in bringing this back to the ArbCom again since he’s previously been admonished for incivility and there have been multiple blocks/ANI reports against EC related to incivility complaints since then . It might be helpful for the community to see ArbCom’s evaluation of what has happened and their thinking about a way forward. I am not sure if it’s within in mandate of the ArbCom, but a possible solution might be a kind of civility restriction on Eric Corbett with all complaints going directly to the Arbitratration Enforcements board. People who filed frivolous complaints would in such cases risk a boomerang. ANI doesn’t seem to be able to handle this; neither do administrators, since they themselves are hugely divided over the issue. Regards,Iselilja (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, but with the ongoing election, this might not be the best time to start a massive ArbCom case. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block. This is not just about the use of certain words, this is about the use of these words directed at particular editors. Eric Corbett has used this language repeatedly, and it constitutes a clear and unrepentant breach of WP:CIVIL. StAnselm (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Indef block Call me naïve then, Leaky, but while I have a sneaking admiration for some of the stuff this guy says, I also agree with Andy that the insult goes over the line, in my view as gratuitously and distastefully sexist. Women especially find this term used as a pejorative highly offensive. We are trying to make Wikipedia female-friendly, and as Andy points out, we cannot allow this to be established as OK terminology. Additionally, I just looked at the block log, shaking my head. WP:CIVIL is a tricky policy, but given the history on the current and the previous account, this is pretty clear cut. Indef him to prevent further damage. Admins are elected to make tough calls... anyone home? Jusdafax 10:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Eric's been warned in the past not to use this specific term, and lame excuses were made that the "c" word means something different in his culture. Clearly it is a hugely offensive term, and he continues to toss it around whenever he wants to. It's actually quite embarrassing to the project that an editor of his stature cannot be more restrained with his potty mouth. Doc talk 10:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Clearly it is a hugely offensive term. Wrong. (*Terms* are in themselves neither offensive or defensive. [Let alone "hugely".] All depends on the intent behind the term usage. [Sorry, but to me this is basic education.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  If you claim to not understand that addressing another editor as a "cunt" is extremely offensive, then you are demonstrating some serious naïvety. Doc talk 11:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't doubt that it is offensive to many. I was pointing out that the OP bringing a narrow case based on offensive language is unlikely to provoke anything more than further drama (which it already has). If an Admin. acted upon it, knowing the background, it would be swiftly reversed. A recommendation to take action via RFC/U is likely all that will come from Arbcom. Leaky Caldron 11:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You saw my first post in the thread, right? We agree with each other in the futility of another AN/I block/unblock show. If he keeps calling editors the "c" word, shit's gonna take care of it for him, trust me. Politics... Doc talk 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The time is now: enough is enough. Indef block and start a ban discussion with strict instructions not to unblock. This cannot and will not go on. Jusdafax 11:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  It can, and it will, go on. This thread will achieve nothing, as countless threads before have achieved nothing. Again, it's politics. Doc talk 11:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. Is it technically feasible to make Eric Corbett's user and associated talk page unwatchable? Other than that, resolution of this interminable issue requires the creation of an actual structure of governance in WP. This focus on one individual, rather than underlying structural deficiencies, offers no workable solutions and is, in fact, a major part of the problem. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not feasible to do that. The structure of governance is already in place, yet not in place. Now fuck off ;> Doc talk 12:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sigh, what happened to Eric retiring? GiantSnowman 12:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Indef block. This is pretty straightforward, considering the block log of this editor, and the fact that incivility seems to be the preferred form of communication for them. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Aren't blocks meant to be preventative? Has anybody ever been forced to come to my talk page and insult me, or forced to put my talk page on their watch list? Eric Corbett 13:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The argument that you are baited into incivility on your talk page is tired, unfounded, and actually a bit sad . You call people "cunts" in other venues besides your talk page, now don't you? Or is it only there, and only after people come there to harass you? What a crock. Clean up your mouth and you'll avoid these problems. Doc talk 13:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  There is ample evidence that Eric's page is frequented by baiters and trolls. There is also ample evidence that his page is frequented by, as Eric would put it, sycophants. I'm sure Eric would like to be rid of them too. So as a first step, fully protect his talk page. Leaky Caldron 13:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What's "tired, unfounded, and actually a bit sad" is this notion that WP:CIV is anything other than a weapon to beat others over the head with, and that it never applies to you. Eric Corbett 14:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  It applies to everyone, everywhere. You'll whine on about the legendary "sycophant" block and yet feel justified in dismissing others in far worse terms. Why? Stop being a name-caller when you get angry. You're better than that, don't you know? If you think you're going to get free license to call other editors the "c" word, I suggest you re-think it. Doc talk 14:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The historical evidence does not support your assertion and I don't see any Admins (them what can actually take action rather than just talking about it) rushing to do as you and several others suggest. Alternatives need to be found. Start with preventing access to Eric's page and then, as he says, he'll not have to contend with people coming to his talk page and insulting him. Leaky Caldron 14:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? He doesn't want his talk page protected, Leaky. And: we don't protect talk pages from only those that disagree with us. It's really not feasible. Anyway, the vast majority of his talk page frequenters are not those that disagree with him, but rather the opposite. I've never said I wanted him blocked at all. I want him to stop acting like a name-calling jerk. Doc talk 14:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't give a toss what he wants. It solves the problem that Eric has identified - trolls abusing him on his talk page. It will also prevent the numerous sycophants who are attracted there like a magnet, thus reinforcing the cycle. You don't seriously think that because you want him to stop acting in a particular way that he's going to do as you say do you? Leaky Caldron 14:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  The problem is not trolls abusing Eric on his talk page. Were that the case, this probably wouldn't be here for the ten gazillionth time. Doc talk 14:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• While wish I understood why Eric thinks it's a good idea to call people cunts and/or stupid regardless of whether or not they are, and while I frankly furiously wish that he'd stop doing it (while I don't want to rule out the possibility, the likelyhood that once I understand why he thinks it is a good idea, I will at that point agree with it is slim to none) I don't think it's a good idea to block over it either. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me directness, as you are the first Admin. to turn up here, but that just sounds like you're covering all possible bases while intent on doing nothing. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

He needs to choose his terminology a lot more carefully. He's better off sticking with "idiot" - or really not using any name at all. This isn't about antiquated Victorian-era sensibilities. It's a serious "no-no" term in our politically correct world, and if you and he don't believe me, just keep throwing it about. Doc talk 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of us realize the truth of the matter. Eric is categorically incapable of behaving like a mature adult, but his editing record is such that enough people are willing to make any excuse under the sun to justify his continued presence here. The community is hamstrung by his enablers while Arbcom prefers to bury its collective head in the sand so there really is nothing that can be done. Simply put, he goes out of his way to be as offensive as possible because he knows anybody willing to toss him out on his ass will get overrun by his cadre of hangers-on. Resolute 15:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Damn. Maybe you should be de-sysopped for such a statement. For going against the grain, of course. Doc talk 15:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - This is AWESOME. Thanks to all, especially Eric. Really, this is a wonderful dose of perspective. - ^theWOLFchild 14:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are we really at ANI again over Eric using the phrase "stupid cunts" on his own talk page? Doesn't anyone have anything better to do? Someone should close this topic as nothing will be accomplished.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• The reason this has become a constant problem is because so many people have chosen to ignore it. Now that Eric is driving off a heavily active contributor in Khazar2, don't you think maybe it's time to acknowledge the problem? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block There's no excuse of this. Block can be lifted if EC agrees to abide by WP:CIVIL. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Deal with it. The point of our incivility policy is not to protect everyone's feelings, nor is it to protect users from being sworn at. The incivility policy exists to prevent incivil behavior from having a chilling effect on participation in a dispute. It's not to be used as a weapon to escalate a dispute, even an intractably stalled dispute, to forcibly silence an opposing party. The chilling effect that would result from such application, especially in light of the fact that the conduct that led to the action under the incivility policy itself had no chilling effect to be curtailed, is unacceptable. This is not an endorsement of EC's conduct. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  It's the "civility" policy, not the "incivility" policy. At least that's what it's called for now. I've thought about falling on my sword and calling editors names to see what would happen, but then I realize it's just not necessary. But I do reserve the right to call any of you a cunt in the future, and I will link this discussion as my justification should I be blocked for it. Doc talk 15:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Not responsive to my point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Eric's approach to someone who disagrees with him is often to attack that person's intelligence, call them nasty names and accuse them of being dishonest. How is that not creating a chilling effect? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Referring to this specific incident, his use of swearing caused an escalation to ANI. That's almost by definition the absence of a chilling effect on the other party. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  This specific incident is not the only problem. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Start a RfC/U or take it to arbitration. ANI is an inappropriate venue for something that complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Yep. So we'll continue to use the incivility policy as a weapon to escalate disputes in order to forcibly silence opposing parties. Sounds great. Doc talk 15:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Frankly, I see that behavior itself as violative of WP:CIVIL, and far more meriting of administrator intervention than swearing at another editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Alrighty then. Perhaps an immediate block of me to prevent... dissenting viewpoints in the discussion? I'm not going to call you any names, though. Doc talk 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinite block This clear personal attack is an obvious example of how Eric lashes out against anyone trying to criticize him, then hastily retreats under the guise of "baiting". It's time for Eric to face the music, the community is tired of his constant disruption, blatant disregard of our pillars and abuse of policy. No excuses. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  You're living in dream land. You have never seen me hastily retreating under any guise, and you never will. Eric Corbett 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think something needs to be done here. Letting issues like this carry on for years has the effect of making editors disillusioned with our community processes, something which I see plenty of evidence of above. If we want our community to function effectively we need disputes to be resolved, rather than perpetuated. Ideally we would resolve this particular dispute by helping Khazar2 and Eric see eye-to-eye, and also by helping them both to follow our behavioural policies. Unfortunately, Eric's history makes me worried that this won't be effective. If I have been following this correctly (and Eric, please correct me if I am wrong), Eric has ruled out the possibility that he will change his behaviour if similar things happen in the future. If Eric isn't willing to change his behaviour, then the only way I can think of to resolve the long-term issues here is by a block or a ban. Although if anyone can think of a way to avoid this situation being perpetuated that doesn't involve a block or a ban, then I'm all ears. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This recent ANI discussion [30] was closed when a sitting Arbitrator User:Worm That Turned said they would work on an RFC/U with Admin User:Fram. Result - No action. Leaky Caldron 15:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Can those supporting an indef block (that will probably last ca. 24 hours) please sort out a subpage or something defining the words/phrases that they consider must never be written (except when quoting a source). Would someone be blocked, for example, for calling another a cupid stunt? If not, why not? - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

  Most people, besides Eric, would probably be blocked for the remark that led to this thread. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 15:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:No such user reported by Cognoscerapo.

Once again I have to bring this user here for a blatant abuse but this time I want to see action, a block from editing. He has misued rollback and this isn't his first time[31]. And here. He needs to learn that it is for blatant vandalism ony and not for edits you don't approve of, even if they are NPOV. I lived out a block but now it is his turn. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If he has abused rollback, the proper thing is for an admin to consider whether to remove his rollbacker userright. Have you approached an uninvolved admin?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The relevant threads are Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Sock_of_just-blocked_editor and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#No_Such_User, particularly the latter. In sum, either Cognoscerapo is just trolling us (which is far more likely, since they seem quite intelligent: knows about WP:RS in his 10th edit, using citation template in his 12th, and is familiar with policies about proxying for banned users and rollback in ~30th), or is completely unable to grasp that his edits are blatant pov-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, therefore practically indistinguishable from plain vandalism. In either case, he was given an ARBMAC warning, then blocked for 7 days, and still continues to restore pretty blatant pro-Albanian POV like this [32]. Certainly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. No such user (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

FkpCascais

Proxing for banned user User:Evlekis. [33] and other examples. Deserves block and topic ban thereafter. Cognoscerapo (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

That diff is unremarkable as it does seem to properly remove peacock words. Is there something further?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting bobrayner en masse is a good tip-off that it's (on behalf of) Evlekis.  Looks like a duck to me --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Blackberry Sorbet

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

---

Abusive language. Initial attacked as per this diff - [34] Followed up with deliberate emphasis - [35] - Bhtpbank (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

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

IP removing content with no consensus nor discussion

Diffs of the same content being removed by 205.131.188.5 multiple times in the last few days:

• [36], 29 Nov
• [37], 3 Dec
• [38], 3 Dec
• [39], 3 Dec
• [40], 3 Dec
• [41], 3 Dec
• [42], 4 Dec

On 3 Dec the IP violated 3RR. The IP was warned not to remove content anymore without consensus prior to their last removal. A discussion was opened by another editor to which they never contributed. A block would be appropriate at this point I believe. Gaba ^(talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked the IP 72 hours for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violations by an offsite party

When reviewing an external link to an article I was working on earlier this week, I discovered that the link in question contained text that I had written for the article earlier this year verbatim. When I posed my problem earlier in the week on the #wp-en IRC channel I was advised to send something off to Wikimedia Legal but the WMF's attorney informed me that they did not protect projects' copyrights. This is the second time I've had content that I've worked on to some extent taken wholesale by another website (I've done my best to contact the first one) but I am more wary about this second instance because it isn't some shitty fansite stealing text word-for-word but a multi-million dollar corporation. I am at a loss as to what to do.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Start with the process outlined at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Non-compliance_process, and use the Standard CC-BY-SA violation letter to initiate contact with the website. Unfortunately I think I'm right in saying that you're responsible for defending your own copyright (which kinda sucks, but there you go), so you're rather on your own - as the copyright holder, only you can give them the telling-off they deserve. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where to find the contact information for the website in question. They only have a support queue. I will attempt to send a message to support@their domain name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind sharing the link in question? Maybe others can find the relevant contact details. De728631 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)